On Aug 5, 2014, at 10:56, Eugeniu Patrascu <eugen@imacandi.net> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
This one is a bad idea cause you have lots of people pushing fiber through pipes with active fiber in them... and their incentives not to screw up other people's glass are... unclear? :-)
Not really, if one company starts making mistakes, the other will also mistake their cables. It's like a working mexican standoff :)
In reality, Mexican standoffs are often fatal.
If you blink.
Oh, wait: the conduit installer isn't a contractor, they're a monopoly? The people pushing fiber through the conduits are contractors. There are a handful of companies licensed to operate this.
May be workable, but seems more expensive than operating cross connects in a serving wire center with little or no plausible benefit.
So how is blowing microfibre in some tubes more expensive? You pay a one off installation fee and then a small monthly rate for the circuit (payable yearly).
And then when you switch providers, you pay all of that again instead of a quick move of a cross connect inside a building.
The really nice and geeky part is that you can actually choose how your fiber will run, so if you want diverse paths to a location you can achieve that with certainty.
Not particularly important to 99.999+% of residential users.
No, that's even worse.
It's not perfect, but it works.
People say that about windows. I don't use it, either.
:) It works because it's very cheap to get high speed internet into all kinds of areas, especially residential ones.
So is what I am proposing. In fact, I'm pretty sure my proposal is cheaper, especially in the long run.