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

["O'Mahony, Barry" <barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxx>]

Which opens up another can of worms -- what about linesharing with the
various flavors of ISDN U-interfaces?  Unimportant in the USA, but may be
important in other countries.

By expanding the scope of EFM-Copper from ~2500 ft. FTTC applications to the
12+ kft. realm of ADSL, you run into all the same issues that ADSL did in
its development, such as this one.

BTW,
"Lifeline Service", as defined by the FCC, is a government-run subsidy
program  that provide funding to ILECs in order to allow them to offer
low-cost, measured-usage POTS service to low income subscribers.  I assume
instead the reference is to POTS backup for CPE power failure(?)  Things can
get real confusing when you're talking to regulators and use the "lifeline"
term for this type of thing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barry O'Mahony
Intel Labs
Hillsboro, OR, USA
tel: +1 (503) 264-8579
barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxx
barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxxxxx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


-----Original Message-----
From: Stanley, Patrick [mailto:pstanley@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:39 AM
To: 'Jack Andresen'; Stanley, Patrick
Cc: 'daun@xxxxxxxx'; Behrooz Rezvani; 'Frank Miller'; 'Vladimir Oksman';
'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 +



Jack,

I should have said required to _lineshare_ with POTS.  Having the ability to
run on the same line as POTS increases the market by not requiring a
dedicated line. If the average number of installed lines per subscriber is
1.5, as I have heard from some service providers, then the inability to
lineshare with POTS means that some subscribers will be ineligible for EFM
over copper, if the service providers wishes to provide lifeline service
with POTS.

Regards,
Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Andresen [mailto:jandresen@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:33 PM
To: Stanley, Patrick
Cc: 'daun@xxxxxxxx'; Behrooz Rezvani; 'Frank Miller'; 'Vladimir Oksman';
'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 +


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.
> >