* Pearson Technologies elaborates on fiber cost model
Last week, I pointed readers to a cost model that compared fiber optics to copper wiring, and the originator of the model was kind enough to respond.
I had indicated that a cost model prepared by people with a vested interest in fiber optics might lean a certain way, but Eric Pearson – president of Pearson Technologies, the firm that prepared the model – says that isn’t so.
“In developing this model, we tried, and succeeded, in avoiding a bias towards fiber,” he wrote in e-mail. “In fact, the built in bias is against fiber, as we have included the cost of a telecommunication room on each floor, when in fact, such a room is not required for a [fiber-to-the-desktop] network. One of our goals was to avoid a pro fiber bias, which would encourage the [unshielded twisted pair wiring] crowd to discount and ignore the model completely on the basis of a single point of bias.”
I also mentioned that the copper wiring used for the cost model had been upgraded to more expensive Category-5E and Category-6 wiring.
Pearson elaborates:
“While the upgrade in UTP favors FTTD slightly, it does not, by itself, change the conclusion of the model: that is, in many scenarios, fiber to the desk has a lower initial installed cost than does a UTP network. In fact, if we ran the model with Cat-5e prices, the cost impact is approx. $22.50/node. This change would result in one of the 12 scenarios shifting from fiber to UTP. However, this cost change makes fiber more expensive by $2.67 per node. In this case, a network manager who expects to upgrade in the future would avoid this upgrade cost by paying a small premium of $2.67/node.”
Pearson also relayed his thoughts on how the model might change soon:
“In the near future, I expect [the Fiber Optic LAN Section of the TIA] to issue a minor revision. The revision will simplify use of the model, by separating major cost factors from minor cost factors. This separation will enable network designers to assess the impact of their major cost factors without having to input their minor cost factors. If the major cost factors suggest that one or the other is not favored highly, then the designer can input the minor cost factors to fine-tune the analysis. I will be submitting this change to the FOLS for approval in late February. If approved, the revision should be available in April or May (this is my projection, not a commitment from the FOLS).”
Thanks to Eric Pearson for his comments. Again, let me know if the model is useful to you.
