Re: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
Roy,
Good point!
Even my version (designed to add a little levity in the discussion) is sailing a
bit close to the wind. We have to be wary of discussions which stray onto those
subjects.
I would have been better saying that the net "utility" of installations may only be
improved by less than 1/3 of 1% and that the "useful life" would be effectively
reduced by 2 weeks.
However you look at it, we need to get on with delivering 10G-EPON half a month
earlier....
Hugh.
Roy Bynum wrote:
> Hugh,
>
> I have been told that the word "revenue" could not be used. I had a
> presentation of my "pulled" because I used that word.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> At 08:17 PM 12/5/2002 -0800, Hugh Barrass wrote:
>
> >Sanjeev,
> >
> >Firstly, I would strongly recommend that you should not mention real (or even
> >realistic looking) dollar numbers in this forum. It's the rule!
> >
> >Secondly, rather than looking at an absolute value, why don't you keep it as a
> >percentage?
> >
> >In that case the equation might be:
> >
> >If the SP can get n revenue from their EPON, the improved efficiency could
> >could
> >allow up to 1.012*n revenue. Unfortunately this is a little simplistic.
> >
> >It is more likely that only a small proportion of the installations will
> >be working
> >at maximum load. In which case the increase in revenue may be less than 0.36%.
> >
> >Furthermore, it is also likely that the installations will only reach
> >saturation as
> >the technology nears the end of it's (useful) life. If we assume that we
> >continue
> >to increase the performance at ~ 10x every 4 years then we should expect
> >10G-EPON
> >in about 4 years. If our implementation is 1.2% less efficient then we
> >must hope
> >that the 10G-EPON arrives about 2 weeks earlier than otherwise.
> >
> >Must get our skates on and deliver that 10G version!
> >
> >Hugh.
> >
> >Sanjeev Mahalawat wrote:
> >
> > > At 02:51 PM 12/5/2002 -0800, Ariel Maislos wrote:
> > >
> > > >The only questions remaining for the service providers to answer is can
> > > >they make more money from the network with the extra 1.2% of bandwidth?
> > >
> > > SP should do the calculation. But it is tempting to see the money
> > > difference, so just that.
> > > This 1.2% translates to about 11.616 Mbps, around 7.5 1.54Mbps DSL
> > connections.
> > > Assuming $50 per DSL it is around $377/PON/month. Assume one 32-port OLT
> > > serving
> > > 1024 customers (assuming 1:32 ratio) it would be $12064/month.
> > > Does this SP lost revenue breaks their neck, they would know?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sanjeev
> > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > > Ariel
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > > Mccammon, Kent G.
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 17:45
> > > > > To: 'Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
> > > > > Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx; wdiab@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom,
> > > > > Since I have a conflict with the call tomorrow and I am
> > > > > interested in this decision, here are some questions.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1)Do any of the options for PON timing impact the delivery of
> > > > > services such as toll quality voice, a T1, or multicast
> > > > > video? We had this concern previously and the answer
> > > > > previously was claimed to be only an efficiency hit for loose
> > > > > timing. Are the modeling assumptions to compare efficiency
> > > > > valid for TDM services or is that not a consideration in this
> > > > > debate to date? 2)The negotiation of timing parameters rather
> > > > > than a tight specification have any impact on future
> > > > > interoperability testing? If we ever decide to test
> > > > > interoperability of EPON OLT and ONT, can a lab testing
> > > > > system be reasonably built to test compliance to a
> > > > > specification for OLT/ONT timing for the various options
> > > > > under debate?
> > > > > 3)Do operating temperature swings have an impact on timing
> > > > > options. Is their reason to add extra margin or extra
> > > > > negotiation time of timing parameters due to temperature
> > > > > variations? What about cold start in cold temperatures, that
> > > > > was an issue for power levels, does it also impact the
> > > > > electronics of the PMD?
> > > > >
> > > > > Comment: As an advocate of PON technologies I echo my earlier
> > > > > comments about striving for common PON PMD to get the volume
> > > > > started in today's economy. I am optimistic a compromise can
> > > > > be found in January. Thanks, -Kent
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:12 AM
> > > > > > To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com
> > > > > > Subject: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Again,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Attacted two possible approaches to this discussion forming
> > > > > > two decision trees. Glen and I worked on these I I did not
> > > > > > have a chance to co-ordinate with him and refine to one
> > > > > > slide. The first slide is mine and I would like to start
> > > > > > here as it allows us to generate values without having to
> > > > > > make decisions. When the values are agreed upon, we can work
> > > > > > towards the decision and perhaps this is simpler with the
> > > > > > values we have.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this does not work, we can try the seconf slide, Glen's
> > > > > > approach, which is a more top-down attack.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Talk to you tomorrow
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <<PON Timing Decision Tree.ppt>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Items to Be Covered
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Determine the exact meaning of the terms "Fixed Value"
> > > > > > and 'Upper Bound" in terms
> > > > > > of their use for PMD timing parameters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Try assign placeholder values for all of the options
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Are these values fixed or bounded for the different options.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4) Other items
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >