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

["Vladimir Oksman" <oksman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Barry,

     I think we can accomodate U-ISDN: it is a standard for VDSL and ADSL in
ETSI/ITU. The reach will suffer, of course. It is mostly for short loops. But in
Europe loops are indeed shorter than in US. So, open the can and let's go
fishing :-).

Vladimir.

"O'Mahony, Barry" wrote:

> 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.
> > >