RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
Ariel,
At 12:23 AM 12/6/2002 -0800, Ariel Maislos wrote:
>Sanjeev,
Sorry I am leaving out your economic and i-bubble content as I seem to be
unable to answer it. :)
>Under these circumstances I would argue that 1% more bandwidth is not
>equal to 1% more bananas from each subscriber, or 1% more subscribers
>for that matter.
One buys x bananas and sells only x-1 and saves 1 for oneself in case one gets
hungry and if one does not get hungry throw away. Thats not increase
that is loss. Now, one starts with only x-1 (low) and pay more that may be
different
choice.
>1% more bandwidth is equal to XX more bananas in transceiver costs as we
>are not allowed to leverage the economies of scale inherent in Gigabit
>Ethernet, a market that has significantly more volume than a future
>ITU-T market.
Agree if one can get x bananas from A (IEEE) in less money than x-1 (from
ITU-T)
and could make same or more money even has to throw 1 or more bananas, it
may make sense to buy cheap to some.
Thanks,
Sanjeev
>Ariel
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> > Sanjeev Mahalawat
> > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 19:34
> > To: ariel.maislos@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: 'Mccammon, Kent G.'; Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com
> > Subject: RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
> >
> >
> >
> > 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@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >