On Thursday 06 December 2001 03:59 pm, William R. Charnock wrote:
> I'm curious why the M5 would be better than an M10? Twice the port density
> at a minimum upgrade cost...
A very valid question. And they even asked about the difference in price
between the M5 and M10. I think the M10 chasis configured the same as the
current M5 spec was an extra 12K. Not *alot* more. But that puts it over 38K
dollars.
For a privately owned cable operator in a town of 8,000 people. I had to make
a pretty good argument for a 25K M5. I agree the port density will allow them
to grow well beyond anything they can think of. However im not quite sure
they will see the benefits vs the extra 12K for an M10. I do plan to make
that a point for them to consider. The higher port density. But I feel even
if they dont decide to do an M10 the M5 should give them plenty of growth.
They only have 2 PIC slots left on a M5, leaving them open for use of the
fiber ring, and whatever other projects they can think of. If it was a bigger
city or they had a much larger market I think the M10 would be easy to
justify. But I honestly believe they will be hard pressed to outgrow this M5
in the next 5 years.At which point I hope to see an M320 :-) Thereby dropping
the price of the M10 to around 27K :-)
I still feel IMHO that a cable provider with a fiber ring in a city of 8,000
is going to be hard pressed to outgrow the M5 anytime soon. And i've thought
of all sorts of weird stuff they might do. VoIP for the city kicking bell
where it hurts, video conferencing for the school district, multicast service
(like anyone hardly knows what that is anymore). Dont get me wrong I'd love
to give Juniper more money for an M10 I just dont see it happening unless
they absolutely want the M10.
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:38 EDT