Re: [EFM] EFM Requirements
Thank you, Frank,
will try our best, as usual.
Vladimir.
Frank Miller wrote:
> Vladimir, that you for your comments.
>
> Belive me, your grasp of English exceeds my poor grasp of the Latin that
> I attempted to learn years ago ;}.
>
> The issue, to me, is to design a set of engineering requirements, and then
> review technical solutions that meet the requirements. Solutions with
> 'technology first' is putting the proverbial cart before the horse.
>
> I am asking for those of you whom will define the 802.3 / EFM standards to
> think outside of the box ... Mr. Shannon can be followed.
>
> We really need to hear from other providers to get an idea of the urban and
> rural
> futures across diverse markets.
>
> Take care,
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Oksman [mailto:oksman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 6:54 PM
> To: Frank Miller
> Cc: 'Hugh Barrass'; Lough, Andy; Sherman Ackley; Stds-802-3-Efm (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [EFM] EFM Requirements
>
> Thank you, Frank,
>
> despite I dig deeply into my dictionary to understand word "howdy"
> (as a
> non English-speaking person).
>
> Anyway, seems I understand your point - fiber plus a copper mile
> requires too big investment and may not justify the business case. Could be.
> But
> what is the alternative? Wireless or relay connection? Cable connection?
> Dedicated copper cable binders? My point is that when we talk about "reach
> improvement" in a modern DSL that means 5-10 %. It is probably impossible to
> make ADSL working over 15 kft with any decent bit rate, as well as it is not
> possible to make VDSL working over 5 kft (I am talking 26AWG). So, we
> probably
> need to take a look on business cases which doesn't require to disturb Mr.
> Shannon.
>
> Vladimir
>
> Frank Miller wrote:
>
> > Howdy Vladimir,
> >
> > My experience is from the US telephony industry as a CIO for a large
> > tri-state ISP.
> >
> > If the target market for the technology is the provider (ILEC, CLEC, ISP),
> > why not start
> > with a set of engineering requirements that provide a reasonable business
> > model. I do not
> > see the capital and market for any large fiber build out with copper for
> the
> > last mile only, nor
> > with a EFM solution that only hits 4.5KFt.
> >
> > First, the valuation of fiber has drastically reduced (in proportion to
> > increase in bandwidth capacity). Companies whom have banked on building
> > fiber WAN/MAN networks are not where I'd
> > bank my investment capital. Second, companies with current traditional
> xDSL
> > technologies (Northpoint, etc) have not been able to build a working
> > business model with current engineering requirements.
> >
> > The only companies that will be left standing to provision DSL will be the
> > ILEC's, but their business
> > is tightly controlled by various federal and state regulatory agencies.
> In
> > the state of Oregon, the ILEC required $70M of state capital infusion in
> > order to even justify DSLAM's in rural communities.
> >
> > In this financial market, it makes business sense to start with a set of
> > engineering requirements
> > that reflect the reality of the current and future telecommunication
> market.
> > I need a technology that
> > I can stay profitable with .. I need reach.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Vladimir Oksman [mailto:oksman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 1:00 PM
> > > To: Frank Miller
> > > Cc: 'Hugh Barrass'; Lough, Andy; Sherman Ackley;
> > > Stds-802-3-Efm (E-mail)
> > > Subject: Re: [EFM] EFM Requirements
> > >
> > >
> > > Frank,
> > >
> > > I would like to remind that EFM = Ethernet in the First
> > > Mile, but not in
> > > first 10 miles. To cover 10 miles it is probably assumed a
> > > fiber for the first
> > > 9.5 miles and some copper tail after. That's why PON is the
> > > major topic in EFM
> > > group as well.
> > >
> > > Vladimir.
> > >
> > >
> > >