[802.3_EPOC] FW: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
Hi Alex,
Sorry but I'm not sure that we are connecting. I think that we agree on the following points. The China market certainly uses DOCSIS and uses PON+EOC. The current 2010 specification has HomePlug AV and HINOC. They are adding DOCSIS EoC as an additional PON+EOC now. They will have a TDD and FDD EOC in the approved specification at that point. PON+EOC will be successful in the China market. The market will decide on the best EOC to go with PON.
I question the value of a half-duplex(TDD) option or frequency sharing (with backwards compatibility). I also question that statement that it should be TDD for use in China. I would like to better understand the value for the operator that would make it a requirement. I think that there is value in a single standard with fewer major options. It allows for easier interoperability and lower cost. Obviously, the CFI was focused on the PHY so a new MAC is a major issue. I also have concerns about the delay impacts to a high speed system with half-duplex (TDD). I don't understand how you handle MDUs with AMPs in the half-duplex case.
EPOC should provide a more advanced solution that allows the operators to compete directly with FTTH without pulling fiber. It should allow EPON bandwidth and performance to the home. EPOC will eventually have all services: DATA, Voice, and Video over it. These services and higher bandwidth require lower delays. I think that the requirements for data only EOC in China today are different than the requirements for an EPOC system. I'm very interested to understand the issues that full-duplex (FDD) would face versus half-duplex (TDD).
I would also like to understand why the reflector doesn't like our discussion and keeps bouncing messages. I deleted the earlier posts in the chain to try to avoid this issue.
Have a great holiday,
Ed....
-----Original Message-----
From: Liu, Alex [mailto:alexliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 4:57 PM
To: Ed (Edward) Boyd
Cc: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
Ed,
First, let's consult the primary sources. <复件 有线电视网络三网融合试点业务指导和总体技 术要求1026_广发86附件.pdf> is the 2010 document from SARFT recommending EPON + EoC as one access method, and DOCSIS as the other. Within EoC, the document recommends HomePlug AV as the low-frequency standard, and HINOC as the high-frequency variant. One can argue that three standard recommendations is akin to having none at all, but this situation is certainly better than having six or more competing technologies.
Secondly, the market in China has spoken, and it is in favor of EoC -- specifically the HomePlug AV variant of it. Of the twelve trial cities in the NGB effort, ten have standardized on HomePlug AV EoC, while two have chosen DOCSIS. HINOC is not yet a contender because commercial silicon is still being developed. This situation was corroborated by a third-party CFI supporter in the attached analysis (pg. 13 of v7 of the CFI deck).
The past is only prologue and there is no saying that an FDD EPoC solution can't be massively successful in China. All I am suggesting is that we not ignore the success factors of EoC so far in the China cable market. I believe TDD operation is one of those factors.
Happy holidays,
Alex
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1