Re: [EFM] EFM Requirements [really Elastic Etherloop...]
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:32:19 +0100 "Lough, Andy" wrote:
> So by making it a standard with the relevant reassurances to the IEEE
> by Elastic regarding access etc. then we could be close to an answer?
I don't think that Elastic non-technical management is smart enough to
give "the relevant reassurances". I would love it if Patrick was to
tell me I am wrong. If they are not willing to give the relevant
reassurances, then I view Elastic's Etherloop and Etherloop2 as an
evolutionary dead-end which DOCSIS and IEEE copper EFM will bypass.
My interest in the Elastic technology is that it seems to prove
several common assumptions about DSL technology wrong. If Etherloop
works as specified, it seems that copper EFM can reach farther, tolerate
worse line quality and achieve higher speeds than more static forms of
DSL.
My goal would be that any copper solution we come up with should be as
least as good as Etherloop. This is making the major assumption that
Elastic does not hold patents that cover all possible ways of doing
so. If that is the case, I think we can say so long to the legacy
telco copper network. My guess is that cable will almost completely
dominate data until a fiber network is built to challenge them.
regards,
fletcher