Re: [802.3_GEPOF] FTTH Council market study
Merek, I think you missed Eugene’s simile on units of measure, he wasn’t saying units of measure were relevant.
All, I agree with Merek that there are differences in parts of the US. These differences are mostly in style of house and that is reflected in exterior walls. Brick exterior walls are common in various parts of the country. Wood siding is common in other parts (e.g. the Northeast). In California, stucco is very common for exterior walls. Interior walls though are likely to be wood stud in most parts of the country with the space between the typical 2”x4” studs mostly empty (horizontal fire stops may be required). The cost of lathe and plaster has driven much of the interior wall surface to move to wall board (typically 1/2” thick gypsum covered with heavy paper).
Some construction commonality and/or requirements might also be regional. California has requirements for additional strength in the stud walls and anchoring of the stud walls to the foundation (we have more earthquakes that does Nebraska), just as Florida would be more concerned about the previously mentioned hurricane concerns. California might require tile or other non-combustible roofing, and Colorado has to worry more about snow load on the roof, but I don’t think roofs are relevant to network cable installation (though attic access would be). None of this regional differences though affects how common conduit is in interior walls, or the fact that Wi-Fi signals are likely to be able to penetrate US interior wall construction.
It is important for us to reinforce to the working group that IEEE 802.3 is a global standard, and we have a responsibility to ensure that global needs are effectively addressed by Ethernet media options (not just justifying everything based on the US market)!
—Bob
On Sep 22, 2014, at 4:01 PM, 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
>
> =