Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
Bill,
We are on the call now. We just started. Here is the number and screen
share URL:
NA Dial-In: 1 (866) 427-3611
International: +1-702-599-4015
Passcode: 833773
Screen Sharing: http://training.comcast.net/comcast833773
Thanks!
Jorge
-----Original Message-----
From: <Powell>, William Powell <bill.powell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:08 AM
To: "Salinger, Jorge" <Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>Did the scheduled TDD/FDD call for today get cancelled? (it just
>disappeared from my calendar)
>
>Thanks,
>Bill
>
>
>On Jul 23, 2012, at 9:01 AM, "Tom Staniec" <staniecjt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Good morning all
>>
>> I want to point to some historical perspective on the topics below.
>>
>> Historically:
>>
>> SUB-SPLIT: defined as a cross over point of 42 MHz where the sub-low
>>return
>> is below 42 MHz with the forward being above.
>>
>> That places an EXTENDED SUB Split at 88 MHz, the start of the FM radio
>>band,
>> where everything below 88 MHz would represent return and everything
>>above 88
>> MHz is the forward.
>>
>> MID-SPLIT defined the cross over point of the diplex filter as 108 MHz
>>where
>> everything below 108 MHz represents the return band. Everything above
>>108
>> MHz represents the forward.
>>
>> HIGH SPLIT is a little more difficult to define. Traditionally the high
>> split was placed above channel 13 top end frequency is 216 MHz where
>> everything below 216 MHz is return and above is forward network.
>>
>> TOP SPLIT is interesting and, again, historically first appeared as a
>>result
>> of TWC FSN (Full Service Network - if my memory is correct) a proof of
>> concept network built in Orlando, Florida but was referred to, in my
>> recollection, as HIGH RETURN. So I think we need to rethink and reflect
>>on
>> how this is described. To Jeff's point, today this reflects a "tri-plex
>> filtering system.
>>
>> Incidentally, HIGH RETURN, at the time was considered not feasible for
>>use
>> for 2 reasons: 1- it placed a top end limit on what cable operators
>>could
>> offer for services and limited channel growth and 2- it required too
>>much
>> power to operate a return in for a communications channel. With
>>everything
>> moving to an IP delivery which frankly could mean unbounded channels the
>> capacity limit in number 1 above may be moot. As for number 2, because
>>power
>> amplifier technology has evolved along with modulation, detection and
>>error
>> correction schemes, this may be more attainable but also may require
>> significant changes in network architecture.
>>
>> I hope this presents some perspective which we may want to follow for
>> consistency at this point.
>>
>> Regards
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:30 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>> Jorge,
>>
>> I included both proposed definitions. Until clarification on the use of
>> top-split is made, I will keep the term in the list tentatively and
>>follow
>> the discussion.
>>
>> Marek
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: 22 July 2012 10:28
>> To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>> Marek,
>>
>> I think I would correct the definitions of Mid- and High-split, as
>>follows:
>>
>> Mid split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>> downstream occurs between 65 and 100 MHz
>>
>> High split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>> downstream occurs above 100 MHz
>>
>> I still have some concern about a conflict between the definitions of
>>High-
>> and Top-split since they could overlap. Maybe we could solve it in one
>>of
>> two ways: 1. add something like "the upstream transmission occupies
>>spectrum
>> below the downstream" for low-, mid- and high-split definitions, or 2.
>>Get
>> rid of the top-split altogether since we won't be considering that
>>option
>> (as we discussed in the meeting in San Diego).
>>
>> I wonder what others, especially my MSO/CL colleagues, think.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 12:14 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>><STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>> Marek,
>>
>> To add to your list, here is a start for the definitions for the various
>> splits, and one additional definition (HFC):
>>
>> HFC: a hybrid fiber-coax cable network, in which fiber is used to
>>transmit
>> analog RF signals (note: this definition excludes the case where we have
>> digital return, but I think that's OK)
>>
>> Low split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>> downstream occurs below 65 MHz
>>
>> Mid split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>> downstream occurs below 100 MHz
>>
>> High split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>> downstream occurs below 200 MHz
>>
>>
>> Top split: an HFC network in which the upstream is placed above the
>> downstream
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
>> Reply-To: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
>> Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:48 PM
>> To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>> Following the discussion in the morning, focused on the preparation
>>>for
>>> September 2012 meeting, I would like to start discussion on
>>>terminology
>>> for EPoC, as attached to this email. What I did so far, was to go
>>> through the contributions discussed so far, to collect the terms which
>>> were used most commonly in presentations and discussions, with the
>>> special focus on terms generating heated discussions (infamous PHY).
>>> The content is colour coded:
>>>
>>> - a term in green indicates that we have already a solid definition in
>>> 802.3, which ought to be reused without changes
>>> - a term in yellow indicates a term which is specific to EPoC, and I
>>> felt sufficiently capable to propose the pass at the definition
>>> - a term in red indicates a wording which I collected from one of
>>> contributions, but it requires either further discussion,
>>>clarification
>>> or confirmation whether it is needed at all.
>>>
>>> In the first pass through the list, please indicate whether any
>>> critical terms are missing or unnecessary. My intent at this time is
>>>to
>>> collect a complete list of terms, before we plunge into producing
>>> missing definitions.
>>> Please keep all discussion on the reflector so that we do not talk
>>>past
>>> each other or repeat proposals. I will try to keep the list updated as
>>> frequently as needed.
>>>
>>> Given that definitions are critical for technical discussions on
>>> individual proposals, I'd suggest we complete the phase of collecting
>>> terms by the 28th of July, at which time I will move to generating
>>> individual missing definitions.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Marek
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> _
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> 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