Re: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
Sanjeev,
Firstly, I would strongly recommend that you should not mention real (or even
realistic looking) dollar numbers in this forum. It's the rule!
Secondly, rather than looking at an absolute value, why don't you keep it as a
percentage?
In that case the equation might be:
If the SP can get n revenue from their EPON, the improved efficiency could could
allow up to 1.012*n revenue. Unfortunately this is a little simplistic.
It is more likely that only a small proportion of the installations will be working
at maximum load. In which case the increase in revenue may be less than 0.36%.
Furthermore, it is also likely that the installations will only reach saturation as
the technology nears the end of it's (useful) life. If we assume that we continue
to increase the performance at ~ 10x every 4 years then we should expect 10G-EPON
in about 4 years. If our implementation is 1.2% less efficient then we must hope
that the 10G-EPON arrives about 2 weeks earlier than otherwise.
Must get our skates on and deliver that 10G version!
Hugh.
Sanjeev Mahalawat wrote:
> At 02:51 PM 12/5/2002 -0800, Ariel Maislos wrote:
>
> >The only questions remaining for the service providers to answer is can
> >they make more money from the network with the extra 1.2% of bandwidth?
>
> SP should do the calculation. But it is tempting to see the money
> difference, so just that.
> This 1.2% translates to about 11.616 Mbps, around 7.5 1.54Mbps DSL connections.
> Assuming $50 per DSL it is around $377/PON/month. Assume one 32-port OLT
> serving
> 1024 customers (assuming 1:32 ratio) it would be $12064/month.
> Does this SP lost revenue breaks their neck, they would know?
>
> Thanks,
> Sanjeev
>
> >Regards,
> > Ariel
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Mccammon, Kent G.
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 17:45
> > > To: 'Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
> > > Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx; wdiab@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom,
> > > Since I have a conflict with the call tomorrow and I am
> > > interested in this decision, here are some questions.
> > >
> > > 1)Do any of the options for PON timing impact the delivery of
> > > services such as toll quality voice, a T1, or multicast
> > > video? We had this concern previously and the answer
> > > previously was claimed to be only an efficiency hit for loose
> > > timing. Are the modeling assumptions to compare efficiency
> > > valid for TDM services or is that not a consideration in this
> > > debate to date? 2)The negotiation of timing parameters rather
> > > than a tight specification have any impact on future
> > > interoperability testing? If we ever decide to test
> > > interoperability of EPON OLT and ONT, can a lab testing
> > > system be reasonably built to test compliance to a
> > > specification for OLT/ONT timing for the various options
> > > under debate?
> > > 3)Do operating temperature swings have an impact on timing
> > > options. Is their reason to add extra margin or extra
> > > negotiation time of timing parameters due to temperature
> > > variations? What about cold start in cold temperatures, that
> > > was an issue for power levels, does it also impact the
> > > electronics of the PMD?
> > >
> > > Comment: As an advocate of PON technologies I echo my earlier
> > > comments about striving for common PON PMD to get the volume
> > > started in today's economy. I am optimistic a compromise can
> > > be found in January. Thanks, -Kent
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:12 AM
> > > > To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com
> > > > Subject: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello Again,
> > > >
> > > > Attacted two possible approaches to this discussion forming
> > > > two decision trees. Glen and I worked on these I I did not
> > > > have a chance to co-ordinate with him and refine to one
> > > > slide. The first slide is mine and I would like to start
> > > > here as it allows us to generate values without having to
> > > > make decisions. When the values are agreed upon, we can work
> > > > towards the decision and perhaps this is simpler with the
> > > > values we have.
> > > >
> > > > If this does not work, we can try the seconf slide, Glen's
> > > > approach, which is a more top-down attack.
> > > >
> > > > Talk to you tomorrow
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > <<PON Timing Decision Tree.ppt>>
> > > >
> > > > Hello All,
> > > >
> > > > Items to Be Covered
> > > >
> > > > 1) Determine the exact meaning of the terms "Fixed Value"
> > > > and 'Upper Bound" in terms
> > > > of their use for PMD timing parameters.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Try assign placeholder values for all of the options
> > > >
> > > > 3) Are these values fixed or bounded for the different options.
> > > >
> > > > 4) Other items
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >