RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-P2MP] 10G EPONs (it was MPCP: Report message)
illegal copying of material could be said to be better with a high speed
uplink
perhaps this is a good reason _not_ to provide one.
I wouldn't know, I didn't even nabstar
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Didi Ivancovsky [mailto:didi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 13 February 2002 13:35
To: cribeiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: David Levi; owner-stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@majordomo.ieee.org;
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org;
vincent.bemmel@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-P2MP] 10G EPONs (it was MPCP: Report
message)
Carlos
1. There is still a big way between symmetrical SMS transfer and the
need to support 3 HDTV. I still can not see the need for an home user
to have 50-100 Mbps in the upstream. Symmetrical IP traffic in the
backbone is not a relevant comparison. Even a current
upstream/downstream ratio in the broadband access is irrelevant when you
had video services, which are asymmetrical.
2. I did not understand your last comment with the optics. could you
elaborate ?
Best regards
Didi Ivancovsky
e: didi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.broadlight.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Ribeiro [mailto:cribeiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:25 PM
To: Didi Ivancovsky; carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: David Levi; owner-stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@majordomo.ieee.org;
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org;
vincent.bemmel@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: [EFM-P2MP] 10G EPONs (it was MPCP: Report
message)
Didi,
> Assuming we agree with you with the amount of bandwidth that is needed
> in the downstream. For this 2.5 Gbps are good enough. In that case why
> we need to pay for expansive optic in the upstream. Home users will
> still need the same small amount of bandwidth. 622 will be enough. I
> guess asymmetric rates are making a lot of sense for FTTH application.
> B.t.w - The FSAN ILEC's are very consistent with their asymmetric
rates
> requirements.
Assymetric rates are an artifact from the common perception that users
want
high speed content fed upon them. It's also related to the fear that
MSOs
will dominate the access network, so ILECs need a way to counteract and
to
provide CATV-equivalent services. However, this is not a consensus, even
inside the biggest ILECS.
There has been considerable debate whether assymetric rates are the best
way
to deploy a broadband network. I have actual experience on this, because
I'm
responsible for the supporting IP backbone at CTBC Telecom; there we are
seeing a growing trend towards symetric usage, even from otherwise
normal
websurfers. It was very common to have ratios such as 4:1
upstream/downstream; now, it's getting close to 2.5:1. What is more
interesting - the difference is smaller with DSL and cable modem users,
around 2:1 (or even less!).
Some lessons we've learnt:
- Content is not king. People want to communicate. WAP was a flop, but
SMS is
a winner. The screen size and the keyboard are the same, but one is
'central
content', the other one is 'one-to-one communication'.
- People like to share content. Legal problems aside, that's the fact.
- Hosting content is not hard. In fact, it will only become increasingly
easier.
Another reason *not* to use lower speed optics on the upstream for EFM
P2MP:
even if the optics are the same, the system is already assymetric. Using
lower speed optics at the upstream will only make things worse.
Carlos Ribeiro
CTBC Telecom
Carlos Ribeiro
CTBC Telecom