In a greenfield build, cost difference for plant between PON and active will be negligible for field-based splitters, non-existent for CO-based splitters. If the company already has some fiber in the ground, then depending on where it is might drastically reduce build costs to use field-based splitters and PON. On the CO-side electronics, however... I think it's safe to say that you can do GPON under $100/port. AE is probably going to run close to $300/port. That's a pretty big cost difference, and if it were me I'd be looking pretty hard at a PON deployment for the majority of the customers along with a certain amount of fiber left over for those who need special services. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Masataka Ohta" <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Scott Helms wrote:
Now, in general for greenfield builds I'd agree except for PON, which is in many cases cheaper than an Ethernet build.
As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters to 4 or 8 subscribers, it can not be cheaper than Ethernet, unless subscriber density is very high.
Oh, ghod; we're not gonna go here, again, are we?
Yes, a PON physical build can be somewhat cheaper, because it multiplexes your trunk cabling from 1pr per circuit to as many as 16-32pr per circuit on the trunk, allowing you to spec smaller cables.
It does, however, limit you to being able to run PON capable L1 protocols over it, which may have *system*-cost implications over the life of the plant. But yes, the initial install *may* be a bit cheaper (depending on the tradeoff cost of the splitters vs the larger count fiber and the reduced size of patching facilities, and the relative cost of the access multiplexers, and...
Hey, wait! How did I end up on Scott's side? :-)
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274