| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
All, We have to make sure that the assumption of the use of FEC is explicit. Although we might argue not to count the cost of the FEC encoder/decoder itself, we do need to understand the impact on cost that the use
or lack of use of FEC poses. It is good thus to make analysis of the impact on cost of designs presuming the use of FEC versus designs presumed NOT to use FEC. I see the potential lack of need of FEC as one of the technical advantages of parallel single
mode as well as market-acceptance advantages. Jeff From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx]
Hi, As previously announced, there is an SMF Ad Hoc meeting starting at 8:00 am Pacific today Tuesday 18 December. I have currently received two requests for presentations, so the draft agenda is: ·
IEEE patent policy reminder
o
http://www.ieee802.org/3/patent.html ·
Approval of the draft minutes from 4 December call ·
Presentation
o
PSM4 Technology & Relative Cost Analysis Update Jon Anderson, Oclaro
o
Basic Study on Receiver Bandwidth Requirement for Discrete Multi-tone Modulation Masato Nishihara, Fujitsu
·
Discussion ·
Future meetings (next opportunity - 8 Jan) I hope to post both presentations on the SMF Ad Hoc
web page just prior to the meeting. Peter Anslow from Ciena has invited you to join a meeting on the Web, using WebEx. Please join the meeting 5-10 minutes early so we may begin on time.
+44-203-4333547 (United Kingdom) 4438636577 (United States)
Regards, Pete Anslow |
Senior Standards Advisor |