Most rural GPON deployments I see today are homerun back to the CO or a hut
-- there's few that have passive splitters in a cabinet. They also want
their GPON to be future-proofed.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 12:58 P
In a message written on Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:37:24PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
> their future is very uncertain. Can you promise that fiber has a
> *feasible* lifetime of 20-50 years? Maybe in 5-10 years all consumer
> data will be transferred via wireless, and investment in municipal wired
> d
Nick Hilliard wrote:
> most of the expense of laying fibre is associated with ducting + wayleave.
Another important expense of FTTH is at the last yards of
dropping cables fro the laed fiber, where SS needs simple
closures and shorter dropping cables than PON.
- Original Message -
From:
To: "Michael Painter"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
That's the national definition of "broadband" that we're stuck with. To show
how totally cooked the books are, consider
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:37:24 -0700, JC Dill said:
> *feasible* lifetime of 20-50 years? Maybe in 5-10 years all consumer
> data will be transferred via wireless
And that would be using what spectrum and what technology? Consider what the
release of one Apple product did to the associated carrie
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> wiring center you enable all technologies. GPON today, direct GigE
>> or 10GE where necessary, and all future technologies.
>
> yep, agreed - much more sensible, much more resilient to failure and only
> marginally more expensive.
You should suspect cost figures provided
On 25/03/12 8:56 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:47:58AM -0400, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
Well, for my part, /most of the poiny/ of muni is The Public Good; if /actual/
bond financed muni fiber is skipping the Hard Parts, it deserves to lose.
It doesn't mat
In a message written on Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 07:15:47PM +0100, Nick Hilliard
wrote:
> It'll never be done though. Too much to lose by creating a topology which
> allows you to unbundle the tail.
Only if it is your capital building the tail.
Today's Internet companies are still trying to achive
> wiring center you enable all technologies. GPON today, direct GigE
> or 10GE where necessary, and all future technologies.
yep, agreed - much more sensible, much more resilient to failure and only
marginally more expensive.
It'll never be done though. Too much to lose by creating a topology w
Hmm even most urban environments aren't worth deploying in or are probably
marginal profit. So I would expect 30-45% of population of the US to not be
worth or marginally worth deploying. I am assuming most urban less than 250k
and probably spread out. Not to mention to provide transit without s
In a message written on Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 05:29:04PM +0100, Nick Hilliard
wrote:
> most of the expense of laying fibre is associated with ducting + wayleave.
> Once you have that in place, blowing new fibre is relatively inexpensive.
> So rather than amortising the cost according to the lifet
That is why I believe that the L1 buildout should be done by or under contract
to the local authority (whether that be a municipality, county, special
district, or whatever) and then leased to L2+ service providers on an equal
cost per subscriber basis.
Now it doesn't matter which subscribers c
On 25/03/2012 16:56, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> Fiber has a 20-50 year life.
most of the expense of laying fibre is associated with ducting + wayleave.
Once you have that in place, blowing new fibre is relatively inexpensive.
So rather than amortising the cost according to the lifetime of the fibre,
In a message written on Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:47:58AM -0400, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
> Well, for my part, /most of the poiny/ of muni is The Public Good; if
> /actual/ bond financed muni fiber is skipping the Hard Parts, it deserves to
> lose.
I agree.
If a commercial company goes in to serve fo
Well, for my part, /most of the poiny/ of muni is The Public Good; if /actual/
bond financed muni fiber is skipping the Hard Parts, it deserves to lose.
Time to assemble some stats, I guess.
-- jra
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Owen DeLong wrote:
Who c
Who cares?
It's time to stop letting rural deployments stand in the way of municipal
deployments.
It's a natural part of living outside of a population center that it costs more
to bring utility services to you. I'm not entirely opposed (though somewhat) to
subsidizing that to some extent, but
16 matches
Mail list logo
