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
All I'm going to say is at $5/foot for fiber, even if it's 864 count, you
are royally overpaying for material!
Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 3:42 AM Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2021
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 2:53 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> 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
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> 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.
Indeed, there are people who insist cost of PON were
Baldur,
Dude you are just so wrong. You really need to stop guessing at things.
>A 192 core cable is approximately twice the price of a 96 core cable
192 doesn't even really exist in the mass market. The cost of 144 is not
double that of 72. 288 is not double the cost of 144. This is
Garrison
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:00 AM
To: Masataka Ohta
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
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:41 PM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> 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
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.
Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG wrote:
I'll let Mikael confirm, but last time I checked, Stokab was mostly
(if not all) Active-E.
Sweden is mostly Active-e. There is some PON nowadays though.
Stokab typically only rents out dark fiber, so they don't have any of it.
As cabling cost is mostly
Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
From: "Harry McGregor"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 2:55:20 PM
Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband
connections)
Hi,
Glass and Copper (an
WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Richey Goldberg"
To: "Mike Hammett" , "Harry McGregor"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 7:41:27 AM
Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband
connections)
The incumbent
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:44 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Jim Troutman wrote:
>
> Private fiber operators are strongly motivated to deploy PON
> because PON is designed to make competitions impossible even
> if regulators forces the operators to do so, which is
Jim Troutman wrote:
However, with PON, only the provider with the largest share can
win the initial competition, after which there is monopoly.
No. Most of the municipal proposals I see are open access, even with
a PON design.
Private fiber operators are strongly motivated to deploy PON
On 6/3/21 09:28, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Sweden is mostly Active-e. There is some PON nowadays though.
Stokab typically only rents out dark fiber, so they don't have any of it.
Yes, this is how I remember it some 4 or so years ago...
Thanks for the clarification.
Mark.
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, Mark Tinka wrote:
I'll let Mikael confirm, but last time I checked, Stokab was mostly (if
not all) Active-E.
Sweden is mostly Active-e. There is some PON nowadays though.
Stokab typically only rents out dark fiber, so they don't have any of it.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Mark Tinka wrote:
Which is the Stokab model.
Does it use single star?
The city should provide base infrastructure, lease it to operators atthe
same price, and get out of the way. End of.
With single star topology, that's fine.
On 6/3/21 09:15, Mark Tinka wrote:
In South Africa (we don't have city-owned/operated fibre access)...
That's actually untrue - I just remembered that the City of Cape Town
actually does build fibre. It's not very clear to me to what extent they
operate it, particularly beyond
On 6/3/21 09:07, Jim Troutman wrote:
No. Most of the municipal proposals I see are open access, even with
a PON design.
In South Africa (we don't have city-owned/operated fibre access), all
the major fibre operators run a GPON network. They all provide open
access to the ISP's they
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 1:37 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> > The city should provide base infrastructure, lease it to operators at
> > the same price, and get out of the way. End of.
>
> With single star topology, that's fine.
>
> However, with PON, only the
On 6/3/21 07:36, Masataka Ohta wrote:
With single star topology, that's fine.
However, with PON, only the provider with the largest share can win
the initial competition, after which there is monopoly.
I'll let Mikael confirm, but last time I checked, Stokab was mostly (if
not all)
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 04:02:02PM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
[...]
> Getting the incumbents on-board certainly isn't a requirement. The
> post I was replying to favored a future where all providers converged
> on one infrastructure. I was saying that wasn't likely to happen.
If there's any
Mark Tinka wrote:
> Which is the Stokab model.
Does it use single star?
The city should provide base infrastructure, lease it to operators at
the same price, and get out of the way. End of.
With single star topology, that's fine.
However, with PON, only the provider with the largest share
On 6/2/21 18:12, William Herrin wrote:
If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather
than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if
municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every
structure but didn't provide any services on those
Once upon a time, William Herrin said:
> A comparable Internet setup would be where the municipality implements
> a local network distribution service and then you buy from the
> Internet provider of your choice.
That's sort of how it works where I live. The city-owned non-profit
utility
t"
Cc: "Harry McGregor" , "nanog list"
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 3:46:16 PM
Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband
connections)
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:11 PM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote:
The g
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:11 PM Mike Hammett wrote:
> The government entities that I've known of building middle or last-mile
> fiber infrastructure have reported that none of the incumbent operators
> wanted anything to do with it. Not during planning, construction,
> post-construction, etc.
>
>
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Harry McGregor"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 2:55:20 PM
Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband
connections)
Hi,
Glass
Hi,
Glass and Copper (and aluminum) infrastructure is a natural monopoly,
similar to water service.
It was purely by chance IMHO that we ended up with Cable Co and Tel Co
internet competing with each other in many locations in the US.
That was aided by the following:
* Technology for TV
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:46 AM Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
> > Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but the most important one is:
> >
> > Competition. Municipal broadband eliminates it. If it's not obvious
> > why, feel free to Google how competition and monopolization impact
> > product quality.
> On Jun 2, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote:
Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day.
>>> Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband
>>> suck?
>>>
>>> Personally I
>> On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote:
>>> Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day.
>> Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband
>> suck?
>>
>> Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like
>> the
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:28 AM Jared Brown wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote:
> > Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day.
> Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband
> suck?
>
> Personally I wouldn't mind more
On 6/2/21 14:27, Jared Brown wrote:
Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband
suck?
Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like
the dry copper pairs of yesterday.
Same here.
Municipal broadband promotes the ability
On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote:
> Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day.
Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband
suck?
Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like
the dry copper pairs
34 matches
Mail list logo
