Re: [802.3_GEPOF] FTTH Council market study
Folks-
I have read through this discussion.
I would like to add an outsiders viewpoint
You need to take the input from Marek and Mr. Grow very seriously.
It is my considered opinion that
IF you take the position that GEPOF is a significant contender for the North American residential market you will run into a brick wall.
The push back that you get on that one issue will, in my opinion dominate the conversation and become a powerful force against the approval of your project.
I started out my work in 802.3 with the first project that was fiber-to-the desk.
At that point we did not have to contend with:
- 10BASE-T
- Adapters on the motherboard (add-in cards were the norm)
We started on an even keel with 10BASE-T and got nowhere in terms of market penetration.
At this point, you have the following handicaps
- All consumer Ethernet equipment has an RJ-45, that connection IS standardized
- There is no fully accepted standard connector for GEPOF
- Twisted pair Ethernet can carry PoE. This enables many applications
- Pre-wire with Cat5 has been a given in the NA residential construction market for over 15 years
- (Like it or not) The majority of the audience has a North American point-of view
- 10/100/1000BASE-T transceivers are fully integrated with port silicon, a highly challenging cost situation
(Effectively that means your cost target for the optics of a POF transceiver is the twisted pair port magnetics)
- The owners of the twisted pair market will not give over a big chunk of it easily.
- The 100 meter reach aspect of TP Ethernet is entrenched into the design community and building architecture
- Taking the current Ethernet equipment market and splitting products into the RJ-45 market and the POF connected market is not an attractive proposition.
Having said all of that, it is possible that you can make a case for POF to "facilitate" the ubiquity of Ethernet in the following additional or difficult markets
(beyond industrial and automotive)
- Non-North American residential market where
- The incidence of new construction is lower
- Masonry walls are a bigger factor
- Conduit is a bigger factor
- Florida construction where masonry walls are a bigger factor
- Markets where electrical isolation is a factor
(My personal experience is that most applications where this should be considered, it isn't because TP-Ethernet is so pervasive)
- Amateur termination is easier for POF v. UTP and is significant
Your goal in selling your project to 802.3 is to show them how to augment their existing market, not try to convince them you have a better solution for their existing market.
I hope this helps,
Geoff Thompson
On Sep 22, 2014, at 4:01 PMPDT, Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Eugene,
>
> Units of measure have little to do with it. House building in NA is very
> specific, and even within US there are state-by-state differences. I am sure
> the house development practices in Florida are different than in Colorado.
> It is just a fact.
>
> All I ask is that we take an objective look at the potential market and not
> be excessively optimistic (or pessimistic for that matter).
>
> Marek
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dai, Eugene (CCI-Atlanta) [mailto:Eugene.Dai@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 6:52 PM
> To: Marek Hajduczenia; STDS-802-3-GEPOF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [802.3_GEPOF] FTTH Council market study
>
> Marek:
> It is true that sell POF for home networking to folks from US is not an
> easy job, considering we still use pound and mile while the rest of world
> use kg and km for years. However you do bring a good point that we need to
> address both advantages and disadvantages.
>
> Thanks,
> Eugene
> ________________________________________
> From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 5:19 PM
> To: Dai, Eugene (CCI-Atlanta); STDS-802-3-GEPOF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [802.3_GEPOF] FTTH Council market study
>
> Eugene, et al.,
>
> Note that a good share of newly built houses come already equipped with at
> least Cat5e cabling (in some cases, even Cat6). Perhaps it varies state by
> state, but I believe house developers started already noticing the advantage
> of having a house pre-wired and the extra value it brings to the house on
> the competitive market.
>
> You seem to consider GPOF as a replacement for twisted pair and I do not
> believe there is a strong advantage there. First, with twisted pair we can
> do (and we use it today) PoE for WiFi APs distributed around the house. WiFi
> AP does not draw too much power and it is an ideal application for PoE
> today. Second, GPOF will require active wall sockets, where fiber is
> terminated and converted into regular RJ45 for twisted pair. Much as we
> might dislike it, customer equipment comes with twisted pair ports, and not
> fiber ports. Using backpower solution is rarely viable today and requires a
> brand new class of devices that can source PoE towards the wall socket.
> Hardly a backward compatible solution. Furthermore, active wall sockets
> require power feed lines, which put additional requirement for circuits
> inside of the house. I had a chance to talk to a few local developers and
> this was the major sticking point. When power had to be run to the wall
> sockets for active POF/twisted pair converters, the whole advantage of
> having fiber-based distribution network inside of the house goes away.
>
> I am not saying we should not consider home application got POF, but I
> believe building the case based on home application is a hard sell, at least
> as far as US is concerned. Europe might be a different story altogether, but
> then it is fair to spell it out explicitly in the project documentation. The
> best that a project can do at this stage is being fair in its assessment of
> the potential market space and its evaluation of other technologies it is
> competing against.
>
> Regards
>
> Marek
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dai, Eugene (CCI-Atlanta) [mailto:Eugene.Dai@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 10:00 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-GEPOF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [802.3_GEPOF] FTTH Council market study
>
> Hi Serizawa: Thanks for the comments. If we talk about office and /or
> business applications we certainly have to deal with the comparison of POF
> with CAT5 cables. However, CAT 5 cable is not really used home networking
> although we all have short CAT 5 cables here and there at home. The majority
> of home networking use either coax or Wifi today. With G.hn products roll
> out, twisted pair phone line may be used for home networking. If successful
> in home networking, POF could be extended to office/business applications.
> All that time the points you brought out have to be addressed. If GEPOF PHY
> is lower in cost than 1000BASET PHY, than it could compete with CAT5 for
> that market.
>
> This remind me that if we that if we want to bring out the office
> application for POF, we had a brief discussions at Ottawa meeting, we may
> have to deal with POF and CAT5 comparison as you suggested.
>
> Regards,
> Eugene
>
> ________________________________________
> From: naoshi.serizawa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <naoshi.serizawa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 1:18 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-GEPOF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [802.3_GEPOF] FTTH Council market study
>
> Hello Carlos & Eugene,
>
> Thank you for sending information for the FTTH. Also, I looked a material
> that Eugene presented at Ottawa.
> Those information themselves are very good to explain about use cases of
> GEPOF. However it can be substituted for CAT 5/6 cables to those
> applications and it seems to be that they are not explaining about the
> necessity of GEPOF. In order to convince opponents, we should show them
> strong impacts and advantages of GEPOF technology. Otherwise, we can't
> answer if they ask us about it.
> We should clarify the advantages / cons. against to CAT5/6 cables (cost,
> weight, relatability, supply chain, max length, workability, etc).
>
> I am pleased you to take in to account the above situations.
>
> Kind regards,
> N Serizawa
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hayato Yuki [mailto:hayato-yuuki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 8:23 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-GEPOF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [802.3_GEPOF] FTTH Council market study
>
> Hello Carlos-san, Cc Menbers,
>
> I understand that the European home network market has been growing more and
> more.
>
> However, we should explain that the POF-cable network is superior to the
> category-cable network for home networking.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yuki@Sumitomo
>
>
>
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> please find in this public link:
>> http://www.ftthcouncil.eu/documents/Webinars/2014/Webinar_27May2014.pdf
>> the latest information of the European FTTH-Council on FTTH deployment.
>>
>> The FTTH deployment can be used as an indicator of the TAM for the
>> gigabit Home Networking market.
>> The FTTH deployment speed in Europe is around 5 Million houses per year.
>>
>> In parallel with this values, we may add TAM values from ADSL/VDSL
>> deployment, and new/refurbish homes.
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Carlos
>
> =