Re: [8023-10GEPON] Wavelength plan for PR10/20 downstream
Dear Francois,
Thanks for Your feedback - it is really nice to see people from Canada also taking interest in our proceedings.
As for Your comments, I have some counter-comments (as always I guess).
I argue in favour of compatibility with RF video for two reasons:
1. 1550 nm camp states it will be financially burdening, yet we all heard at the meetings statements from laser source vendors that the laser cost will not be any different than 1490 or 1550 once the demand is there. I would like to understand whether there is issue with laser cost and availability when the standard is ratified or not. So far people actually making them say no. I would trust them - they bet their future on that.
2. the standard is to be world-wide and not Japanese, Chinese, American or Italian - we have to assure compliance with the deployments out there (with RF video) and maintain reasonable wavelength allocation. If You follow FSAN proceedings, RF video is there to stay. It would be more than unwise for us to say we do not care what FSAN (and ITU-T eventually) is doing since their proceedings and decisions are representative for a bunch of companies which may end up using EPON technology. They have invested in RF video for GPON and BPON. I do not think they will be very convinced to change to EPON if we say we do not care about RF video and make them lose ROI or limit their deployment options. If we can stick the bands in such a way that everything ticks and we do not need to cut out compatibility with RF video, why not do it? Do You as a provider care whether You use 1590 or 1550 nm band to deliver data as long as it is fully operational and the cost is the same ? I would risk s!
aying You do not. There are some added benefits of the L band plan, as discussed before.
I fail to see what is so attractive in placing the PR20/10 systems in the 1550 nm band. Lower attenuation ? You gain minor 0.1 - 0.2 dB dB in 20 km links. Is it worth having to have two different ONU Rx designs ? I do not think so.
Time will tell. I believe IMHO L band has more pros than C band plan.
Best wishes and thanks for keeping this topic rolling
Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
NOKIA SIEMENS Networks S.A., Portugal - R
Rua Irmãos Siemens, 1
Ed. 1, Piso 1
Alfragide
2720-093 Amadora
Portugal
* Marek.Hajduczenia@siemens.com
http://www.marekhajduczenia.info/index.php
(+351.21.416.7472 4+351.21.424.2082
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg." - Bjarne Stroustrup
-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Menard [mailto:fmenard@XITTELECOM.COM]
Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Novembro de 2007 12:14
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Wavelength plan for PR10/20 downstream
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Lee, Dongsoo wrote:
> My concern is that, if we decide 1590nm wavelength for PR20/10
of 10G EPON downstream, we will have two solutions for downstream, one is
1590nm and the other is 1577nm. For
Japan market, one of the biggest market for EPON deployment, 1577nm will
be developed and used.
Bang on!
As the only provider of FTTH in Canada at this time, and as a provider who
have chosen to stay with Dual-Play FTTH until we can do IPTV, I would be
saddened to see 10GEPON take a large financial cost penalty, in order to
ensure backward compatibility of 1550 RF Overlay.
If Japan is not going to go for it, we will not benefit from the large
volume that our japanese friends can make happen for the rest of us on the
planet.
I see no benefit in articulating the frequency plan for 10GEPON based on
the requirement for RF Video Overlay.
Those that want to do RF Video Overlay can choose PLAN B.
We want PLAN A, and this one has to be the one which will have some
initial volume to make the price come down quickly.
Thanks!
-=Francois=-
--
Francois D. Menard
Projet manager
Xit telecom inc.
1350 Royale, 8th floor
Trois-Rivieres, QC, G9A 4J4
Canada
fmenard@xittelecom.com
Tel: (819) 601-6633
Fax: (819) 374-0395
Cell: (819) 692-1383