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