RE: [EFM-P2MP] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast
Rich
I will be delighted when web hdtv is economically compelling, however, I
expect there to be a transition phase when digital broadcast over a lamdba
will be a transition for the incumbents, which in this case are cable TV
companies. Some ILECs also seem quite keen on a quick solution, just to get
them into the market sooner rather than later.
Sorry for this being a bit late on the thread. I started with my email
backlog from the top down.
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Rich
> Taborek
> Sent: 22 November 2001 05:09
> To: stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [EFM-P2MP] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast
>
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> This is a bit of a tangent, but some things you said caught my eye.
>
> I agree that CWDM optics is coming on fairly strong, especially in the
> last year or so and solving problems of higher bandwidth data
> transmission and supporting longer distances.
>
> I'm puzzled by you comment about not using 802 protocol though. 802.3 is
> probably the most cost effective protocol known to humans. EFM is an
> 802.3 effort. I suspect that most TV signals will be digital, which
> means that Ethernet can carry them. I take it that you were thinking
> that some TV channels would be analog? I suspect that this make the
> whole enchilada premium in cost.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rich
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Taborek Sr. Intel Corporation
> XAUI Sherpa Intel Communications Group
> 3101 Jay Street, Suite 110 Optical Group Marketing
> Santa Clara, CA 95054 Santa Clara Design Center
> 408-496-3423 JAY1-101
> Cell: 408-832-3957 mailto:rich.taborek@xxxxxxxxx
> Fax: 408-486-9783 http://www.intel.com
>
> 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