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

Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal



Dear David, 
Thank Yout for the answer. 
We have one vote in favour of the APD price reduction after the beginning of the 10GEPON deployment. In Your opinion, the price difference can be as low/high as 210 - 220% (APD vs. PIN). Are there any other cost components which need to ba taken into account when considering APD based ONU ? 
Regards


Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
NOKIA SIEMENS Networks S.A., Portugal - R
Rua Irmãos Siemens, 1
Ed. 1, Piso 1
Alfragide
2720-093 Amadora
Portugal
* Marek.Hajduczenia@siemens.com
http://www.marekhajduczenia.info/index.php
(+351.21.416.7472  4+351.21.424.2082
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg." - Bjarne Stroustrup 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Li [mailto:dli@LIGENTPHOTONICS.COM] 
Sent: terça-feira, 4 de Setembro de 2007 17:14
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal

Marek,

In the past, the APD/TIA price is about 5X to 10X of the PIN/TIA price for
the 1.25G and 2.5G  applications.

With the fast deployment of the GPON systems, the price of the APD/TIA price
has dropped to about 2X of the PIN/TIA now at 2.5Gbps. I think the 10G
APD/TIA will follow the same trend.

As the circuit complexity you mentioned in your eralier email, the charge
pump for the APD/TIA is about 15% to 30% of the 2.5G PIN/TIA price depending
on the implementing approaches (maybe only about 5% of the 10G PIN/TIA). The
price of the charge pump will not be changed with the data rate.

Best regards,

David

David Li, Ph.D.
Ligent Photonics, Inc.
2701 Dukane Dr., Suite 102
St. Charles, IL 60174
Phone 630-513-7226 ext 15
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hajduczenia, Marek" <marek.hajduczenia@SIEMENS.COM>
To: <STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal


> Dear Justin,
> Thank You for the feedback.
> The question then remains: how trustworthy are the cost evolution curves,
which claim APD ~ PIN cost with sufficient production volumes? I must say
that we (I mean people who do not opt for any particular solution as for the
moment) are subject to conflicting confirmation - the APD proponents say the
cost will come down rapidly and each PIN levels, the opponents say it is not
possible. In the end of the day, I have to rely on someone's data since I do
not have first-hand information on this particular issue. In this situation
I do not know how to chose which camp to support and how to cast a vote if
there happens to be any motion on the floor.
> I hope we can clarify the issue during the September meeting - we will
have some time for discussion on power budget.
> Best wishes
>
> Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
> NOKIA SIEMENS Networks S.A., Portugal - R
> Rua Irmãos Siemens, 1
> Ed. 1, Piso 1
> Alfragide
> 2720-093 Amadora
> Portugal
> * Marek.Hajduczenia@siemens.com
> http://www.marekhajduczenia.info/index.php
> (+351.21.416.7472  4+351.21.424.2082
> "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but
when you do, it blows away your whole leg." - Bjarne Stroustrup
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Abbott [mailto:jabbott@gennum.com]
> Sent: terça-feira, 4 de Setembro de 2007 16:30
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org; Hajduczenia, Marek
> Subject: RE: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
>
> Good Day Marek,
>
> It is quite correct that the 1G standard was based on APD's in the ONU,
> however, before deciding to follow suit I think it's very important that
we
> consider the cost issues that also plague the 1G module makers.
>
> I think everyone can agree that an APD OUN leads to a relatively expensive
> ONU, and in the 1G case, although APD cost have come down with volume, so
> have ONU prices.  Thus, even with APD cost reductions, module makers
> continue to struggle with the high cost of an APD ONU.
>
>
> _______________________________________
> Justin Abbott
> Product Manager
> Gennum Corporation
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
> Ph   (613) 270-0458 x2783
> Cell (613) 697-2066
> _______________________________________
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hajduczenia, Marek [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@siemens.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 4:59 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
>
> Dear Hao,
> I would tend to agree with Your point of view. The only disadvantage of
APD
> based ONU that still holds at the moment is the related cost. However, if
I
> recall right, the previous 1G standard was also based on sensitivity
figures
> for APDs rather than PINs in ONUs (OLTs still use APDs?) and I was
wondering
> whether we cannot go the same way. The PIN sensitivity increase (as You
> described in the previous email - thank You for that, it was very
elaborate)
> and the technological developments You mentioned may eventually allow for
> replacement of the APDs with PINs. However, one thing is sure - if the
> prices are going to go down along with the ramp up in the production
volume,
> what are the other viable arguments of not having APD based ONUs? From
what
> I recall the launch powers are much lower, OLT transmitters probably do
not
> need cooling (except for PR30) making them more robust. The downside is
the
> more complicated electronics for ONU Rx but that was quoted as minor cost
> factor, wi!
>  th existing solutions and board designs which can be reused.
> Can anybody from the PIN-team comment on that ?
> Thank You
>
> Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
> NOKIA SIEMENS Networks S.A., Portugal - R
> Rua Irmãos Siemens, 1
> Ed. 1, Piso 1
> Alfragide
> 2720-093 Amadora
> Portugal
> * Marek.Hajduczenia@siemens.com
> http://www.marekhajduczenia.info/index.php
> (+351.21.416.7472  4+351.21.424.2082
> "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but
> when you do, it blows away your whole leg." - Bjarne Stroustrup
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hao Feng [mailto:h.feng@EUDYNA.COM]
> Sent: segunda-feira, 3 de Setembro de 2007 23:39
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
>
> Hotta san
>   I mean mostly the high launch power related issues when PIN is used in
> ONU. At end of budget meeting in SF, we re-listed the technical issues for
> both EDFA/PIN and EML/APD solutions. The APD solution left only one issue
on
> cost for ONU. But PIN/EDFA solution has still several issues not to be
> clear. My point is we should move one solution forward, which solution has
> the less technical risk. The cost issue should be left for future. The
cost
> problem may be solved when the volume to go up as GPON case. Certainly, if
> some evolution on "low cost Rx" happens in future, it could replace the
> higher cost part without any problems.
>
>
> Best regards
> Hao
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoshifumi Hotta [mailto:Hotta.Yoshifumi@eb.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp]
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 12:49 AM
> To: Hao Feng
> Cc: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
>
> Dear Mr. Feng
>
> I'm sorry but I cannot fully understand what is your questions are.
> Basically, I think Suzuki and his supporters had answered each problem
which
> is pointed out in the meeting. If you think there is " many remained
> thchnical concerns ", we are are very appreaciated to discuss in the next
> Seoul meeting.
>
>  From our point of view, all technical concerns for PIN based ONU are
solved
> by experimental data and technical study. Also, There is no doubt for cost
> advantage of PIN based ONU's.
>
> It seems for me some APD supporter are opposing PIN based ONU for reason
> that "PIN supporters proposal is doubtful". I think this kind of arguments
> takes us nowhere.
>
> Sencerely,
> --
> Yoshifumi Hotta
> Mitsubishi Electric R&D center
>
> > Hotta san
> >  There are a lot of information in the attached material to have been
> > presented on SF conference (3av_0707_suzuki_1.pdf).  The
> > 3av_0707_hamano_2.pdf has answered your concerns on SF conference,
> > such as high power EML issues. Could you focus on answering the many
> > remained technical concerns caused by high launch power? The
> > 3av_0707_hamano_2.pdf has answered all of questions about using APD
> solution.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Hao Feng
> > Eudyna Devices USA
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yoshifumi Hotta
> > [mailto:Hotta.Yoshifumi@EB.MITSUBISHIELECTRIC.CO.JP]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:32 AM
> > To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
> >
> > All,
> >
> > In the last meeting, Suzuki had presentaion for PIN@ONU.
> > In discussion, because OLT max launch power is such high as +13dBm, we
> > had some questions about eye-safety from the floor.
> >
> > In the attached presentation, we clarify safety requirements which we
> > should support, and propose new power budget. We believe this one
> > could support both eye-safety and B++ with PIN-PD in the downstream
> direction.
> >
> > Having discussions on the reflector is appreciated, also if you would
> > like to support this presentation, please let me know.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > --
> > Yoshifumi Hotta
> > Mitsubishi Electric R&D center