Re: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
We took that slide back out of the CFI because the study was completed before there was any socialization of the notion of EPoC (and DOCSIS-EOC) along with an updated market impact study. Unfortunately, this is also true of any of the 2010 documents, the EPoC notion just wasn't socialized in 2010.
It is pretty clear how the Chinese industry was thinking in 2010 and into 2011. In 2011, the Chinese spirited the notion of standardizing EPoC in the IEEE; e.g. extending the success of the cable industry's use of EPON over fiber, to EPON over cable networks.
As mentioned then in the CFI discussion, both a new study is needed that includes current consideration of EPoC along with the other approaches in the Chinese market for 2012 and beyond. We also need some future looking statements out of the Chinese cable industry as contributions.
-----Original Message-----
From: Liu, Alex [mailto:alexliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:06 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
Ed,
First, let's consult the primary sources. Please reference 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. 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. We will plan on a presentation detailing more about why this is so.
Happy holidays,
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed (Edward) Boyd [mailto:ed.boyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:53 AM
To: Liu, Alex
Cc: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
Alex,
I'm not sure that I agree with your statements on TDD systems and the market requirements in China. We have spent a lot of time working with SARFT and cable operators in China. The market is split between many different EOC types. None of them have taken a strong lead because of unsatisfactory performance. I have never heard a preference for TDD solutions. SARFT is currently standardizing the C-DOCSIS as an additional EOC solution. It is clearly not TDD. In my experience, the operators are unhappy with the TDD solutions so they are looking to C-DOCSIS and other solutions like EPOC for a better answer. Based on my direct interaction with operators in China, I believe that a FDD EPOC solution could be very successful.
I'm sure that there are people at SARFT that agree with you but I would prefer to hear it directly from them. In 802.3, we represent ourselves and sometimes our companies.;) I would love to hear the opinions of SARFT but it needs to come from someone at SARFT. I look forward to a presentation that describes the benefits of this solution and why it is the best way to help the operator in China.
Thanks,
Ed....
________________________________________________________________________
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