Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)
Masataka Ohta
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Fri Jun 4 00:53:14 UTC 2021
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> My experience is that people can prove either active-e or pon is the
> cheapest by changing the in-parameters of the calculation. There are
> valid concerns/advantages with both and there is no one-size-fits-all.
Indeed, there are people who insist cost of PON were small without
valid reasons. See below for an example.
Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>> As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a
>> cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided,
>> which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of
>> subscribers, single star does not cost so much.
> Sorry but that claim is completely wrong. Cabling cost scales linearly with
> the number of cores.
It's *cabling* cost. OK?
> A 192 core cable is approximately twice the price of a
Cabling cost means cost including but not limited to cable cost.
Most of cabling cost is cost to lay cables. Backhoe costs.
Space factor of a fiber cable is negligible if you put a
cable into utility tunnels which is wide, especially when
tunnels were used for copper cables of POTS.
Josh Luthman wrote:
> The cost of 144 is not
> double that of 72. 288 is not double the cost of 144.
Yup. When PON was first conceived several tens of years ago, core
cost a lot. But, today...
Masataka Ohta
More information about the NANOG
mailing list