4 ms·
> I understand the decision to enforce P2P deployments and give smaller ISPs a fair chance but it's definitely going to hinder the speed of new deployments. W
by ftth_finland 5y ago
> I understand the decision to enforce P2P deployments and give smaller ISPs a fair chance but it's definitely going to hinder the speed of new deployments.
Why would P2P slow down deployment?
You have the same exact amount of cables in a P2P and a P2MP topology, the only difference is the amount of fiber in the cables. There is a (small) cost savings, but that's about it.
- hocuspocus 5y agoYou're absolutely right but in practice, P2MP allowed Swisscom to connect new apartment buildings in suburban municipalities that otherwise don't have FTTH generally available. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe P2P topologies would be inefficient (i.e. too expensive) for sparsely connected areas. Conversely, the kind of hardware needed to operate XGS-PON is prohibitively expensive to small ISPs, and they're all deploying P2P topologies, and only that.
- ftth_finland 5y agoThe cost of fiber is so low it doesn't make much difference between P2P or P2MP, be it urban or rural. All the real cost is in having somewhere to put the fiber. XGS-PON isn't that expensive. You can buy disaggregated XGS-PON modules in a SPF+ form factor for $1500. CPEs are $120 each. I don't really get why Swisscom wouldn't be able to deploy P2P in low or medium density areas if they wanted to.