In my opinion, if a city is installing a fiber network for other providers to use, they need to plan on active-e only. Let it be up to the providers back at the head end to either plug the individual strands into a switch for active-e or into a splitter for a PON type setup.
Thank you Travis Garrison -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tgarrison=netviscom....@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:00 AM To: Masataka Ohta <mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections) On Fri, 4 Jun 2021, Masataka Ohta 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. > > Then, PON, needing large closures for splitters and lengthy drop > cables from the closures, costs a lot cancelling small cost of using > dedicated cores of single star. > > On the other hand, if PON is assumed and the number of cores in a > cable is small, core cost for single star will be large and only one > PON operator with the largest share (shortest drop cable from closures > to, e.g. 8 customers) can survive, resulting in monopoly. 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. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
