In my opinion, if a city is installing a fiber network for other providers to use, they need to plan on active-e only. Let it be up to the providers back at the head end to either plug the individual strands into a switch for active-e or into a splitter for a PON type setup. Thank you Travis Garrison -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tgarrison=netviscom.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:00 AM To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections) On Fri, 4 Jun 2021, Masataka Ohta wrote:
As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided, which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of subscribers, single star does not cost so much.
Then, PON, needing large closures for splitters and lengthy drop cables from the closures, costs a lot cancelling small cost of using dedicated cores of single star.
On the other hand, if PON is assumed and the number of cores in a cable is small, core cost for single star will be large and only one PON operator with the largest share (shortest drop cable from closures to, e.g. 8 customers) can survive, resulting in monopoly.
My experience is that people can prove either active-e or pon is the cheapest by changing the in-parameters of the calculation. There are valid concerns/advantages with both and there is no one-size-fits-all. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se