Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth

[Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>]

In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 08:55:34PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs () seastrom com>
> > There is no reason whatsoever that one can't have centralized
> > splitters in one's PON plant. The additional costs to do so are
> > pretty much just limited to higher fiber counts in the field, which
> > adds, tops, a couple of percent to the price of the build. 
>
> Ok, see, this is what Leo, Owen and I all think, and maybe a couple others.
>
> But Scott just got done telling me it's *so* much more expensive to 
> home-run than ring or GPON-in-pedestals that it's commercially infeasible.

Note, both are right, depending on the starting point and goals.

Historically teclos have installed (relatively) low count fiber
cables, based on a fiber to the pedistal and copper to the prem
strategy.  If you have one of these existing deployments, the cost
of home run fiber (basically starting the fiber build from scratch,
since the count is so low) is more expensive, and much greater cost
than deploying GPON or similar over the existing plant.

However, that GPON equipment will have a lifespan of 7-20 years.

In a greenfield scenario where there is no fiber in the ground the
cost is in digging the trench.  The fiber going into it is only ~5%
of the cost, and going from a 64 count fiber to a 864 count fiber
only moves that to 7-8%.  The fiber has a life of 40-80 years, and
thus adding high count is cheaper than doing low count with GPON.

Existing builds are optimizing to avoid sending out the backhoe and
directional boring machine.  New builds, or extreme forward thinking
builds are trying to send them out once and never again.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

Attachment: _bin
Description: