Re: [EFM] [Forecasts on 1 GE from NW]
> The attached Network World article has pushed me to make a case for
> why we should not waste our time on a 100M PHY effort. I will be the
> first to rail on the point that 1 GE chips in the enterprise
> environment will be severely stressed in the -20 to +85 degree C.
> environment of a residential demarc installation in the USA.
> However, my ex brethren from the semiconductor industry tell me that
> they can now yield PLL chips to work over that temp with a minimum of
> problems and I must trust them until we prove differently. Anybody in
> the Southwest or Canada (or anywhere else for that matter) having
> problems with their Electronically Tuned Radios at extreme temps?
I hope that Network World doesn't become a driving force on
technical direction for this or any standards body. I'm sure anyone
can pick hundreds of articles out of their favorite tech rag that have
had little basis in reality, especially when it comes to
prognostications. Tech rags make entertaining reading, don't get me
wrong, but I've also read the following predictions: (a) ATM will rule
the world, (b) ATM is dead, (c) FR is dead, (d) VoIP ubiquitous by
year 2K, (e) open source is god, (f) open source is dead, (g) Angelina
Jolie has an alien baby, (h) ILECs are as dead as dinosaurs, (i) ILECs
are thriving, (j) dinosaurs found thriving in Texas. I think one or
two of the above might have been from the National Enquirer, but its
sometimes hard to tell.
I'm not sure what the whole radio argument has to do with anything. The
requirements and freqencies of radio operations are drastically
different than what we're talking about here. I also doubt many folk
have shoved their radios in a barely ventilated enclosure on the side
of the road or the side of the house for many years of constant
operation. I'm sure you'd get a bunch of hot air if you did, but
whether that hot air comes from fried radio parts or Rush Limbaugh's
mouth is a different question.
> I still see HDTV at 1080p as the "killer application" for this
> standard as I have recently seen a 38.57M simulated HDTV transmission
> which will be the expectation starting in the sport bars and then
> moving into the home. To me, that means more than 100Mb/s to each
> home within the next five years because many homes will want to watch
> more than 1 channel of HDTV at any one time (see my presentation to
> the 3/01 meeting on the w-site -brand_1_0301.pdf).
Most folks generally reference HDTV @ 22M or so. Where's the 40M
number come from? I think a 100M solution could support the number of
channels (2-3) that has been put forth as a requirement.