From the requests by Dan and Mikael
it would seem that you have both missed my contribution to the XR teleconference
which included a cost analysis of the sort you request. Here are
the relevant charts. Here the XR optics are presumed to be different
than that of the 100m PMD, and therefore carry a cost premium. That
differential disappears with a statistical spec methodology.
Regards,
Paul Kolesar
CommScope Inc.
Enterprise Solutions
1300 East Lookout Drive
Richardson, TX 75082
Phone: 972.792.3155
Fax: 972.792.3111
eMail: pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Swanson, Steven E"
<SwansonSE@xxxxxxxxxxx>
08/27/2008 01:06 PM
Please respond to
"Swanson, Steven E" <SwansonSE@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
Re: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next
step concern
Dan,
Well, it is all relative - I am
not sure what the cost premium is from an expensive sedan and a luxury
SUV.
Here is what we do know:
We know the costs of SR.
Jack Jewell presented the following
economic feasibility slide in the HSSG tutorial which shows a slight yield
penalty for 12x arrays.
And Jack also presented cost estimates
of an improved transmitter in Munich:
This is the data that I presented
in November of 2006:
Does that help?
From: Dove, Daniel [mailto:dan.dove@xxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:39 AM
To: Swanson, Steven E; STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next step concern
Steve,
I think the issue is one of volumes.
Lacking data, I am getting
the impression that the 100m is actually an expensive sedan and 150m is
a luxury SUV.
Perhaps you can provide a chart
that shows the distribution of lengths and the relative costs associated
with them, and we can use that as the basis for further understanding?
I know that this data has been presented in various presentations, but
a nice succinct chart would be helpful.
Dan
From: Swanson, Steven E [mailto:SwansonSE@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:38 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next step concern
Geoff,
You know me - I like analogies;
I seem to remember using airplanes as an example during the development
of 10GbE, something like comparing 747s to regional jets. I also like automobiles
so let give you my take on where we are at as it relates to 802.3ba.
I agree that the bulk of automobile
product line only has 5 passenger capacity. However, how many cars will
you see this morning on the way to work will have five people in them?
Very few - most will have one and some will have two. Using the 802.3ba
philosophy, we would standardize a two-seater since that is what the majority
of the market needs. We would ignore the typical sedan which gives broader
market coverage at maybe, just maybe a small premium. I view the XR variant
as the typical sedan.
We have an objective for Scooters
- 10m of copper - just get me from here to there at the lowest cost
We have an objective for a Smart
car - 100m of MMF - good enough for most commuters
We have an objective for a Greyhound
bus - 10km of SMF
We have an objective for a turbo-charged
Greyhound bus (or a John Madden luxury liner or a 747) - 40km of SMF)
But we have ignored the family
sedan that provides broader coverage at a reasonable cost. Our argument
is that it is not large enough or doesn't warrant the extra cost. I see
10-20% of a lot of ports as much, much bigger than 100% of hardly any ports
(albeit expensive ones). I don't hear anyone talking about how small the
40km SMF market is.
I still don't get it.
Best regards,
Steve
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:40 PM
To: Swanson, Steven E
Cc: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next step concern
At 06:35 PM 8/25/2008 , Swanson, Steven E wrote:
What should we tell our customers
who have link lengths longer than 100m and want (or require) a standardized
solution?
We should tell them the same thing that we tell our twisted pair customers.
That would be that their market is not large enough to:
- Warrant a separate solution in the standard.
- Burden the 100 meter solution with the extra costs required to
meet their needs
There is nothing terrible or onorous about this. A line has to be drawn
for all volume products. For passenger automobiles, the standard is clearly
5 passengers. Does a car salesman have to make excuses that the bulk of
his product line only has a 5 passenger capacity? Of course not. Do some
car companies think they can make money with larger vehicles? Of course.
