You are seriously saying I should hire a translator to tell me what your document says? That is hilarious. How about you point out a reference written in a language common to North America, since this IS NANOG.
Anyone here doing or know someone doing 4-1 or 8-1 splits, in a typical American town? I believe most people were talking about areas <50000 population. Our main cost is labor. Fiber, fdh, splitters, etc... are marginal. On Feb 9, 2013 5:42 AM, "Masataka Ohta" <mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > >> Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON. > > > > Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or 32? > > That is because additional 4:1 concentration is usually at CO, > which does not contribute to reduce the number of fibers in a > trunk cable. > > > 16 is a safe number. > > Do you mean a splitter in field should be shared by 16 > subscribers? > > Then, with the otherwise same assumptions of my previous mail, > total extra drop cable length for PON will be 204km, four times > more than the trunk cable length. > > Thus, it is so obvious that SS is better than PON. > > OTOH, if concentration is 2:1 or less, it is, again, obvious that > SS is better than PON, because of extra complexity of PON. > > So, 4:1 is the safe number to obfuscate lack of merit of PON. > > If you can read Japanese or FTTH is serious business of you > worth hiring a translator of your own, you can find average > number of subscribers sharing a splitter in field is 3.68, > a little less than 4, from: > > http://itpro.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/COLUMN/20080619/308665/ > > Masataka Ohta > >
