Masataka, Using the UK as a model for US and Canadian deployments is a fallacy. The population density there is 673 per square mile, much closer to Japan's (873 per sq mile) than either the US (89 per sq mile) or Canada (10 per sq mile). The UK also has a legal monopoly for telephone infrastructure and very different regulatory system. Using the UK for anything in this discussion is simply wrong.
You may be a brilliant conversationalist in Japanese, but you're not making a convincing argument in English and simply railing that your position is correct without regard to countering information isn't going to convince anyone. Keep on this track and you're just going to be ignored by most people on the list. On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Scott Helms wrote: > > >>> Numbers? Examples? > > >> Greenfield SS and PON deployment costs in Japan was already shown. > > > Japan has one of the highest population densities of major economies in > the > > The examples are in rural area and I already stated population > density in English. > > >> No, the only reason to insist on PON is to make L1 unbundling > >> not feasible. > > > I don't know what conspiracy theory you're ascribing to here, but this is > > incorrect. > > PON being more expensive than SS, that is the only explanation. > > >> No, SS is cheaper than PON without exception. > > > Prove it. > > See above or below. > > >> If the initial density of subscribers is high, SS is fine. > >> > >> If it is not, initially, most electric equipment, OE port, > >> fibers, splitters and a large closures containing the splitters > >> of PON can not be shared by two or more subscribers, which means > >> PON incurs much more material and labor cost for each initial > >> subscriber than SS. > > Masataka Ohta > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
