On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Brian Atkins wrote:
> Actually for the kind of money Brian is talking about ($2500 to wire
> your house for fiber), he must be talking about PONs (passive optical
Why does one need fiber to the home? It's great if you can have it, but
what's wrong with wireless and LoS to the home? A cell can be a few 100 m
wide, and the routers you would of course want to interconnect with fiber
or equivalent. And of course the wireless nodes themselves could route,
thlus eliminating any need for infrastructure. If you have a client
device, you're part of the infrastructure.
Sure broadband is nice, but I'll be very happy if I can send a few packets
of data to any device on Earth surface within few 10 s latency. 10 kBps
~100 ms latency with good QoS is hog heaven.
> networks) where there is no active equipment between the CO and the
> homes... it's sorta like a super-cable-modem where each house only
> gets one wavelength from a shared piece of fiber that runs down the
> neighborhood street. If you actually wanted a "few TBps" to your house
> the equipment required to send and receive all those wavelengths is
> much much more expensive, not to mention that simply wiring each house
> with a totally unique fiber path would cost a lot more in fiber-
> laying expense.
I'm getting 1 MBps, which is sufficient for 99% of my current needs. This
is six orders of magnitude remote from TBps fiber to the home. I do not
anticipate to need more than 100 MBps for the next decade or two.
> moral of story: people often overlook costs of actually lighting up the
Sure, but why on earth insist on fiber if you can have cheaper
-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a>
ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:41 MDT