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.
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