RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast
Bob,
The problem that I have with Ingvar's e-mail was that he described
functionality that exists on systems that cost much more than Ethernet
systems do, starting at about 10X per megabit. There are fully loaded
SONET ADMS that cost less per megabit than those systems do. I do not
believe that the EFM TF would consider that to be cost effective or have
the "broad market potential" that is part of the 802.3 requirements.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 02:33 PM 11/21/2001 +0000, Bob Barrett wrote:
>I think a lot of this depends on how the relative cost of CWDM optics
>develops over the next two-three years. It would be far simpler technically
>to put b'cast TV (and / or user selected TV channels) on a separate lambda
>(may be not using an 802 protocol). I thought that was why we are proposing
>to leave some of the lambda bands vacant.
>
>I thought that the email from Ingvar was very informative.
>
>'Broadcasting' only the channels selected by users (probably from a
>selection system at the POP, not at the CO) is a change of system
>architecture from the traditional cable T.V. model. It also requires powered
>POPs. Powered POPs map well into the star / fan-out p2p systems (which maps
>into my positioning well, so I am in favour of it).
>
>Best regards
>
>Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
>carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: 20 November 2001 19:55
>To: John Pickens
>Cc: Norman Finn; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org
>Subject: [EFM] Re: [EFM-P2MP] Point-to-Point plus Shared Media
>
>
>
>
>Two comments:
>
>1) John Pickens said:
>
> > I know there is a contingent within the working group that does not
> > consider it a requirement to access the single-copy-broadcast attribute
>of
> > the media, so probably we should poll this question at some point.
>
>Although I'm the first to acknowledge that my opinion is *not*
>representative of all carriers (far from it :-), I can say that the
>single-copy-broadcast is one of the *great* potential advantages of using
>Ethernet PON in the access network. Of course, it all depends on whether
>will we be able to provide broadcast-based services such as digital video.
>
>I believe that many carriers will be of the same opinion.
>
>So my vote is already cast - single-copy-broadcasts are a requirement.
>
>2) Norman Finn's idea is really neat from a technical *and* political
>standpoint, as it sounds as a reasonable compromise between the two fields;
>however, I'm not sure that it's actually feasible in practice due to
>administrative reasons, as John pointed out. It is highly probable that
>most carriers will end up using only one of the modes.
>
>[For instance, this already happened with DSL; almost nobody uses the two
>transmission modes of DMT modems (interleaved and fast). Although it is
>technically possible to use the two at the same time, almost everybody uses
>only the interleaved one, mainly because of the complexity, and also
>because of potential compatibility issues]
>
>Anyway, just to explore the alternatives, we could deploy completely
>separate IP networks, each over a separate MAC address (of course this
>assume that we are going to run IP over Ethernet, but who bets otherwise?).
>Each IP network could 'opt' for some particular mode of operation.
>
>p.s. There are also some security issues that we should analyze in this
>case; the two kinds of traffic would be received at every node, and this is
>could pose a different security problem. Not sure about it, just wondering.
>
>
>Carlos Ribeiro
>CTBC Telecom