Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>]

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