[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Standards for last mile performance
- Subject: Standards for last mile performance
- From: josh at kyneticwifi.com (Josh Reynolds)
- Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 10:02:01 -0500
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <CAC6=tfaPaYn4zoVUHwire6OmmgtxkOqC=X_K_PShEAT9kSYOzg@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAC6=tfb+YKzU9ZXCNtgWZxpqxXoobw8X6s9gnhAKWcSmuG2VcA@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]>
Disagreeing is okay. It wouldn't make you any less wrong though :P
On May 1, 2016 3:58 AM, "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>