[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Standards for last mile performance
- Subject: Standards for last mile performance
- From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)
- Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 10:58:24 +0200
- In-reply-to: <CAC6=tfb+YKzU9ZXCNtgWZxpqxXoobw8X6s9gnhAKWcSmuG2VcA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <CAC6=tfaPaYn4zoVUHwire6OmmgtxkOqC=X_K_PShEAT9kSYOzg@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAC6=tfb+YKzU9ZXCNtgWZxpqxXoobw8X6s9gnhAKWcSmuG2VcA@mail.gmail.com>
On 1/May/16 10:55, Josh Reynolds wrote:
> No. Active has higher initial and ongoing plant costs (cabinet power,
> cabinet wear and tear, more battery banks, chargers, etc). You also
> end up using far, far less fiber strands.
>
I tend to disagree, but this is one of those debates that could go on
forever...
Lord knows I've been having it since 2008.
Mark.