RE: Optical Connectors
Sorry for my inappropriate use of wording. I get the message.
I will, hence forth, use "I"'s instead of "we"'s.
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 5:41 PM
To: Chris Simoneaux
Cc: stds-802-3-hssg; twettach@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Optical Connectors
This is not a forum to compare the implementations of vendors. If you are
speaking for your company (i.e. the "we" below) then this is the wrong
forum. You are supposed to be representing yourself as a technical expert
All, please confine the discussions to developing a STANDARD, not to
comparing or discussing vendor's past, present or contemplated
Geoff Thompson, Chair, IEEE 802.3
At 05:19 PM 7/27/00 -0600, Chris Simoneaux wrote:
>First of all, I'm not trying to sell Lucent. We (Picolight) are an optical
>transceiver manufacturer. We are an unbiased implementer of receptacles
>that go on our modules. We look at all the options, choose what we think
>are the best connector solutions and use them.
>Below, I'm talking about a connector comparison, not an application. The
>only application issue that applies here is the fact that it's singlemode.
>At the connector level, it doesn't matter between say Lucent's application
>vs a start-up's application. Insertion loss, mechanical alignment,
>durability, gorilla testing, thermals, etc... are the items that matter
>here. I guess I don't understand why Lucent's field experience does not
>apply here. Actually, you'll find that field experience is THE most
>important criteria in the standards process.
>Regarding other OEM's use of the LC. I would disagree. There are quite a
>few OEM's that are testing (or have tested) products with LC connectors.
>say that only Lucent and a few startups are using LC is not true.
>Please don't lead this thread to an application issue. It's a connector
>issue....and we think the connector of choice is the LC. Whether it's from
>Lucent or Radio Shack.