Re: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +

[Jack Andresen <jandresen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Petrick,

How does "required" POTS support the widest possible market? Requiring
anything always reduces the potential.

Jack Andresen
_____________________________________

"Stanley, Patrick" wrote:
> 
> Daun,
> 
> I believe that requiring POTs support is key to addressing the widest
> possible market, especially the residential market.
> 
> Regards,
> Patrick
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daun Langston [mailto:daun@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:51 AM
> To: Behrooz Rezvani; 'Frank Miller'; 'Vladimir Oksman'
> Cc: 'Copper'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; 'Hugh Barrass'; 'Howard Frazier';
> Frank Van der Putten
> Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
> 
> How do folks want to handle POTs in this case?  Do we want to make POTS
> support not required, therefore no inline filters required, as the norm.
> 
> I see no issues with this requirements list as it is now forming.  I also
> know of a design where this is not a theoretical exercise.
> 
> I would support a submission advocating such if POTs support was not
> mandatory.  I want to get rid of mandatory POTs support to reduce
> truck-rolls, therefore cost.  I have no objection to optional POTS support.
> 
> Daun
> Metanoia +1 530-639-0311 (v)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Behrooz Rezvani
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:56 PM
> To: 'Frank Miller'; 'Vladimir Oksman'
> Cc: Behrooz Rezvani; 'Copper'; 'stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org'; 'Hugh Barrass';
> 'Howard Frazier'
> Subject: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
> 
> Frank, Vladimir, Patrick,
> 
> I did not think I am going to agree with you all, but I do.
> Here is my proposal, and I want to thank you guys to put the thought in my
> head:
> 
> To get maximum customers:
> choose maximum reach - 24 kft AWG-24
> 
> To get lowest cost installation, lowest CPE cost and configurability and
> ease of use:
> choose a CPE that can be configured to an ADSL CPE modem, very large volume,
> cheap ASP ~ $50
> 
> To satisfy ILEC, using DLCs
> Use the method proposed by Howard/Hugh/etc
> 
> To satisfy the need of data hungry business in MxU:
> maximum data rate of 100 Mbits symmetric (LRFE)
> 
> And by the way, this is not a theoretical exercise. I know at least one
> company that does it all.
> 
> Thanks very much
> Behrooz
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Miller [mailto:frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:27 PM
> To: 'Vladimir Oksman'; Frank Miller
> Cc: 'Behrooz Rezvani'; 'Copper'; 'Hugh Barrass'; 'Howard Frazier'
> Subject: RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft
> 
> Vladimir,
> 
> I fully agree with your conclusions below in that "if we can reach cheap
> basic deployments involving many customers it will give a good basis for
> business".  The more distance (6000m) means more customers.  Multiple-pair
> solutions would also, as you state, raise the cost of the service at least
> $20/mo/pair dependient upon tarrifs and would not
> be my preference.
> 
> I appreciate the work, as a service provider, the efforts of all in the
> 802.3 EFM study group / task force.
> 
> Frank
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vladimir Oksman [mailto:oksman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:36 PM
> > To: Frank Miller
> > Cc: 'Behrooz Rezvani'; 'Copper'; 'Hugh Barrass'; 'Howard Frazier'
> > Subject: Re: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft
> >
> >
> > Frank,
> >
> >    actually my experience is saying "the number of potential
> > customers and low
> > deployment cost" are the main parameters for success - here I
> > tend to agree
> > with Patrick. If we can reach cheap basic deployments
> > involving many customers
> > it will give a good basis for business. Further, if upgrades
> > to higher speeds
> > and more sophisticated services are available for medium and
> > short reach
> > customers - still better.
> >
> >     However, I would like to point out that my proposal to
> > expend maximum reach
> > up to 6000m (~ 20 kft) has not got almost any support in LA.
> > Here I concluded
> > that maybe 12 kft is really more interesting for the business
> > cases people
> > consider. Also, using multiple-pair deployments raise the
> > cost for the customer
> > (about $20 per pair, right?)
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >