Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next step concern

Hi Mike,

We are pretty close to full circle now. :)
 
Assuming we make the decision that we want to stick with the "standard" model at 100m to keep those customers we would lose by adding cost, does the IEEE standardize a 150m solution or do we let the market solve that problem on its own?
 
This is not a rhetorical question, although it might appear to be.
 
Can someone provide any insight on the sensitivity of the market to an additional cost of 20% for every 100m link to satisfy the additional reach?
 
If the market is insensitive to cost (on this scale) then perhaps the additional reach is justified. If the market is going to be sensitive to that differential cost, then the question falls back to whether the IEEE wants to do a 150m spec or leave it to a market-defned solution.
 
Dan

From: Mike Dudek [mailto:Mike.Dudek@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:22 PM
To: Dove, Daniel; STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next step concern

Hi Dan

 

Of course if we don’t increase the cost of the basic Grade A model and have a Grade B version of the same part for extra reach with the Grade B version being loaded with any additional costs of handling two product codes and any additional testing, then we shouldn’t lose any customers.   

 

Regards

Mike Dudek

PMTS Standards & Technology

JDS Uniphase

1480 Arthur Ave.

Louisville

CO 80027

Tel  303 530 3189 x7533.

mike.dudek@xxxxxxxx

 

 

From: Dove, Daniel [mailto:dan.dove@xxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:23 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next step concern

 

Let me re-state one word of that message.

 

From: Dove, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:00 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next step concern

Hi Steve,

 

Yes that helped a lot. I hope the others on the list are not irritated by my request for repetition of the data.

 

Given the data, it truly is a challenging issue. I see a 20% premium for a 17% increase in coverage.

 

This means the confidence in the numbers is exceptionally important and assuming they are accurate, a judgement call by the committee on whether or not a 17% increase in port coverage justifies the 20% increase in cost.

 

This is important because if you increase the  *COST*  of a solution by 20%, you may decrease the number of customers who are willing to buy it by more than 20%. Thus, in the overall mix, it might turn out to satisfy less customers overall.

 

Its a pretty challenging judgement call IMHO.

 

Thanks for providing the data.

 

Dan