| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Behrooz,
I have
some questions for you, as well. There seems to be some misunderstandings
occurring here that I hope you folks from the ADSL/DMT side could clear up.
These are related to the use of the "generic" term "ADSL." Is not the EFM
proposal from Doug based on Annex J and not the whole family of ADSL (the
generic ADSL term), as ADSL per se would not meet the Long Reach Objective
(generic ADSL is low bandwidth, asymmetric, etc.)? I believe any discussion of
ADSL should center not on the family of Annexes but on Annex J itself.
1) If
we consider Annex J then many answers to your points immediately become
apparent. For example, your item 1, which you partially answer yourself by
mentioning the embedded base and investment in ATM ADSL, has a more complete
answer when considering the incompatible nature of Annex J and this base. To
deploy Annex J and cause service deterioration in the existing base would be
foolish for an Operator.
2) As
to DSM in item 2... isn't this a "house of cards" theoretical technology that
would only work in a fully closed environment where only one DSL technology is
deployed from a single carrier? Otherwise, wouldn't this be problematic where
the service would be frequently disrupted by new disturbers added by others that
are outside the DSM domain? Well, I suppose this discussion is all academic as
DSM is not going to be anything more than theoretical for at least 4-5
years.
3)
Your item 3 b) appears to use the generic ADSL term instead of Annex J.
The incompatibility of Annex J with existing base of ADSL should be made
clear. I hope that an open discussion occurs Monday as to the conflicts and
incompatibilities of Annex J and not a discussion of ADSL in a generic sense,
otherwise we are not doing a real comparison of Long Reach
technologies.
4) By
the way, what is the official title for Annex J anyway? I believe it is "ADSL
for operation above ISDN." If this Annex defines service as this, does this
mean we have a technology proposal based on one that would have limited in
deployment in NAFTA as well (few BRIs)? To be POTS compatible versus ISDN would
mean Annex J must be modified from the existing recommendation to some new DSL
definition which in turn makes this a comparison of a well defined and
standardized technology (g.SHDSL) and one that is not standardized (Annex J
changed for POTS)?
Behrooz, Happy New Year to you. I look forward to the conclusion of this
step in Vancouver and the opportunity for the Copper track to make some serious
headway. I expect many at EFM would like to see the year plus delaying efforts
in Copper stopped and some conclusions reached so that we finally move
ahead.
John
|