Re: [EFM] OAM functionals
Fletcher,
I tend to agree with you about the applicability of my proposals being more
toward the emerging "fiber" market. My problem is that there is a need for
a common OAM functionality and application. At present, the only way that
most of the business market can be supported over "data" infrastructure is
with ATM encapsulation. )In spite of what the "ATM" people might otherwise
say, the use of ATM provides the ability to support a "Private Line" type
of service for businesses.) This is very expensive in capital and
operations support overhead, and one of the reasons that business DSL is
having a hard time. If there is a way to simplify the copper OAM to be
able to support the services that customers are actually purchasing from
service providers, then that is what needs to be done. Method 1 in my
presentation is a variant of existing T1 framing. Can it work for Ethernet
over copper local loop? Perhaps; but only if people give it some thought.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 08:41 AM 9/26/01 -0400, Fletcher E Kittredge wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:42:51 -0400 Fletcher E Kittredge wrote:
> > The DOCSIS 2.0 30mb/sec standardization process is well
> > underway and due to be complete in the next few months. It claims to
> > be backward compatiable with all the DOCSIS 1.0 (and 1.1??) modems out
> > there. Please feel free to piss on the DOCSIS standards. However,
> > the cable companies have kicked PSTN carrier's pasty white butts and it
> > is just getting worse. We need to recognise reality.
>
>I apologize for the intemperate tone of the above. I hope I did not
>offend anyone.
>
>I am particularly sorry that I choose to make these remarks in
>response to a message from Roy. It is a topic on which I feel
>passionate and these remarks happened to slip out in this particular
>reply. It is not a reflection on Roy or his positions. I actually
>agree with most of what Roy says, with the simple caveat that I think
>his work is more applicable to the emerging fiber networks, not the
>legacy copper network. Sorry Roy!
>
>What I wish I had said instead of the paragraph quoted above is:
>
>In North America, copper EFM only has a window of opportunity for
>deployment. That window is rapidly closing. The copper in question
>is part of the legacy PSTN which competes for data traffic with the
>hybrid fiber-coax CATV network. 10 years ago, the CATV network had
>very little data traffic. Today, very significant amounts of data
>traffic flow over the CATV network at the expense of the legacy PSTN.
>
>Because it is fiber-coax, and because the cable companies have pushed
>fiber deeper into the network than the telcos, the CATV network has
>significantly better data transmission charactistics than the legacy
>PSTN. Further, the cable companies moved more rapidly to develop good
>standards for IP over their network. The telcos just held on to their
>legacy xDSL standards, which were designed for a different purpose.
>The result of the above factors is that the CATV network has a 70%
>market share for broadband subscribers.
>
>For these reasons, if copper EFM is not deployed soon, it is unlikely
>to be widely deployed. The CATV network is better for data and has a
>large market share lead.
>
>Lack of market share in copper EFM may mean that the legacy telcos
>have difficulty gaining market share in the fiber network; they will
>lack cash flow for funding, brand recognition and customer base and be
>selling against an entrenched competitor.
>
>Thank you for your patience.
>
>sincere regards,
>fletcher
EFM Method For Adding OCS.PDF