<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/27/21 19:54, Mike Hammett wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1010876011.1315.1611770038247.JavaMail.mhammett@Thunderfuck2">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css">p { margin: 0; }</style>
<div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:
10pt; color: #000000">I believe strand counts were small because
the power needed for that many amplifiers was too much to bear
for budgets.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Also because the amount of capacity we are talking about nowadays,
driven by the content folk, is something telco's could only (and
still) dream of.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1010876011.1315.1611770038247.JavaMail.mhammett@Thunderfuck2">
<div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:
10pt; color: #000000"><br>
I suspect it's a combination of more power efficient amplifiers
and a greater willingness to bear the extra costs to get the
capacity that hyperscalers need.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Have many of those higher strand count cables been proposed
that have any distance to them that don't have a variety of
hyperscalers in the anchor tenants?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You guessed it... it's not traditional telco's pushing cable builds
anymore.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1010876011.1315.1611770038247.JavaMail.mhammett@Thunderfuck2">
<div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:
10pt; color: #000000">
<div> It's a lot cheaper to power a 300 km cable than a 3,000 km
cable.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It's not uncommon to have multiple fibre pairs on shorter spans and
fewer on longer/express ones. But yes, longer systems cost a lot
more money; for everything, not just power.<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>