RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
How do folks want to handle POTs in this case? Do we want to make POTS
support not required, therefore no inline filters required, as the norm.
I see no issues with this requirements list as it is now forming. I also
know of a design where this is not a theoretical exercise.
I would support a submission advocating such if POTs support was not
mandatory. I want to get rid of mandatory POTs support to reduce
truck-rolls, therefore cost. I have no objection to optional POTS support.
Metanoia +1 530-639-0311 (v)
[mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Behrooz Rezvani
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:56 PM
To: 'Frank Miller'; 'Vladimir Oksman'
Cc: Behrooz Rezvani; 'Copper'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'; 'Hugh Barrass';
Subject: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
Frank, Vladimir, Patrick,
I did not think I am going to agree with you all, but I do.
Here is my proposal, and I want to thank you guys to put the thought in my
To get maximum customers:
choose maximum reach - 24 kft AWG-24
To get lowest cost installation, lowest CPE cost and configurability and
ease of use:
choose a CPE that can be configured to an ADSL CPE modem, very large volume,
cheap ASP ~ $50
To satisfy ILEC, using DLCs
Use the method proposed by Howard/Hugh/etc
To satisfy the need of data hungry business in MxU:
maximum data rate of 100 Mbits symmetric (LRFE)
And by the way, this is not a theoretical exercise. I know at least one
company that does it all.
Thanks very much
From: Frank Miller [mailto:frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:27 PM
To: 'Vladimir Oksman'; Frank Miller
Cc: 'Behrooz Rezvani'; 'Copper'; 'Hugh Barrass'; 'Howard Frazier'
Subject: RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft
I fully agree with your conclusions below in that "if we can reach cheap
basic deployments involving many customers it will give a good basis for
business". The more distance (6000m) means more customers. Multiple-pair
solutions would also, as you state, raise the cost of the service at least
$20/mo/pair dependient upon tarrifs and would not
be my preference.
I appreciate the work, as a service provider, the efforts of all in the
802.3 EFM study group / task force.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Oksman [mailto:oksman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:36 PM
> To: Frank Miller
> Cc: 'Behrooz Rezvani'; 'Copper'; 'Hugh Barrass'; 'Howard Frazier'
> Subject: Re: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft
> actually my experience is saying "the number of potential
> customers and low
> deployment cost" are the main parameters for success - here I
> tend to agree
> with Patrick. If we can reach cheap basic deployments
> involving many customers
> it will give a good basis for business. Further, if upgrades
> to higher speeds
> and more sophisticated services are available for medium and
> short reach
> customers - still better.
> However, I would like to point out that my proposal to
> expend maximum reach
> up to 6000m (~ 20 kft) has not got almost any support in LA.
> Here I concluded
> that maybe 12 kft is really more interesting for the business
> cases people
> consider. Also, using multiple-pair deployments raise the
> cost for the customer
> (about $20 per pair, right?)