Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >> 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. > > You're confusing fiber architecture with what gets laid on top of it. > Where the splitters go is entirely irrelevant.
If you ignore so lengthy drop cables. > Rule of thumb in the US is that 80% of the costs of a fiber build are > in engineering, planning, RoW acquisition, lawyers, etc. That's obviously because of your madogiwazoku quality of engineering. > Of the > remaining 20%, more of it is labor than materials. Price per fiber > strand in the bundle is noise in the larger equation. Drop cables increase the length of the bundle and labor for it. >> http://itpro.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/COLUMN/20080619/308665/ > > Having actually been involved in building a business plan surrounding > this, As a person who have been involved in building a business plan surrounding this several times, it is obvious to me that you have no or little experience on FTTH. > I don't need to read Japanese to be able to tell you that the > outside plant engineering was clearly assigned to the madogiwazoku if > they're only getting a 4:1 split on average. Of course, anyone who try to use PON for FTTH is madogiwazoku like you. Masataka Ohta
