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
