Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Sorry but that claim is completely wrong. Cabling cost scales linearly with the number of cores.
My apology to Masataka Ohta for my too strong wording by calling you wrong. The moderators put me in place. I wanted to say I disagree with the claim.
I rather thank you for your very strong statements with so obviously wrong reasoning, as it is trivially easy for me and, as you can see, other participants of the list to argue against.
It is true that trenching costs are higher than the cables themselves. But that does not mean the cables are cheap and that it is an insignificant cost. Cables + duct is about 20% of our cost to lay down the network.
"Cables + duct is about 20%"??? Are you saying reduction of 20% of cost of single star by PON matters if duct cost of PON, which is as significant as that of single star, could be ignored? Maybe. it could actually be 20% of cost reduction, if, in addition, cost of complicated closure and unnecessarily lengthy drop cable cost of PON could be ignored. So?
Not having huts with active equipment spread all around is also a huge cost saving that can not be ignored.
Are you saying single star has "huts with active equipment"? The reality is that reach of single star without active relays is a lot longer than that of PON, because single star does not use splitters, which is lossy. With a fiber of 0.2dB/km loss, 9dB loss inherent to 8 way splitter of PON means 45km less reach.
I should point out that I probably buy more cable than most. The exact pricing is of course not public, but lets say a core cost somewhere between 1 to 2 USD cents per meter. Then
When? 50 years ago? Masataka Ohta