Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

[Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>]

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Masataka Ohta <
mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote:

> Scott Helms wrote:
>
> > > Is it more expensive to home-run every home than to put splitters in the
> > > neighborhood? Yes. Is it enough more expensive that the tradeoffs
> cannot be
> > > overcome? I remain unconvinced.
>
> > This completely depends on the area and the goals of the network.  In
> most
> > cases for muni networks back hauling everything is more expensive.
>
> Bot of you are wrong.
>
> There is no reason fiber is more expensive than copper, which means SS
> is cheap, as cheap as copper.

Copper isn't cheap, its just there already.  What is SS?


> As most of the cost is cable laying, which is little sensitive to the
> number of twisted pairs or fibers in the cable, PON, with splitters
> and lengthy drop cables (if you want a fiber shared by many
> subscribers, you need a lengthy drop cables from a splitter),
> can not be less expensive than SS.


No, most of the cost isn't in running the cabling.  Today most of the cost
is in lighting the fiber, though that varies on where you're running the
cabling and what gear you're using to light it.



> PON, which is expensive, is preferred by some carriers merely because it
> makes competition impossible.

PON is preferred by carriers because it works in their existing equipment
and often with their existing fiber plant.  Planning for a carrier network
is very different (different requirements) than for a greenfield muni
system.


>                                                 Masataka Ohta


-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------