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

RE: [EFM] Standards assumptions - was PMD considerations


Thanks for your comments.  I would like to make one clarification with
regards to your concerns over single vendor technology being rubber stamped.

100BaseCU Multi-Mode is NOT a single vendor solution.  It is in fact a
multi-vendor technology which utilizes the strengths of both TDD and FDD
multiplexing in an attempt to provide the best possible solution to address
the broadest possible market for the service provider.

This hybrid technology will require collaborative efforts on the part of the
vendor community to realize the best possible standard and subsequent
products.  After all, without the success of the service provider, it's all
an academic exercise.

As far as interoperability goes, it is to everyone's to make this happen,
where possible, however, it should not be done to the exclusion of improving
the art and giving you better tools with which to generate revenue.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bradford Martin [mailto:bmartin@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 2:39 PM
To: Hugh Barrass; fkittred@xxxxxxx
Cc: stds-802-3-efm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [EFM] Standards assumptions - was PMD considerations


I do not think any of us service providers expect or want the standards body
to simply "rubber stamp" EoVDSL, 100Base-Cu, or 10Base-T4. I would hope the
IEEE will define a standard that incorporates the best features of all, not
a standard that is convenient just because it happens to be identical to
somebody's existing model.

I think we are also all intelligent enough to realize that each vendor
(whether they have a "bridge" logo or a swooshy "e" logo) will be looking
out for their own best interest.

I would agree with your statement that we service providers are taking a
risk by implementing "non-standard" or "pre-standard" technology in a
real-world environment. Nonetheless, as an equipment vendor I am sure that
you have a certain appreciation for those of us who are willing to take that
risk -- whether it be a particular flavor of EFM technology or the yet-to-be
solidified MPLS standard (Which certain vendors are already "guaranteeing"
will be fully compatible with the resultant standard).

We service providers fully realize that not all technologies succeed,
however, if we wish to remain competitive, we must take "calculated risks"
and look to new technologies that not only appear to be promising but also
appear likely to succeed. We all took a risk when PCM modem technology was
first introduced - including the equipment vendors. Then the service
providers cursed the equipment vendors while the battle dragged on between
X2 and K-Flex. We all breathed a sigh of relief when V.90 was decided upon.
Fortunately for us all, the ITU had the good sense to dictate that there
should be some degree of backward compatibility between the new V.90
standard and the existing "pre-standard" technologies.

I think the V.90 experience has a great deal of relevance to the current EFM
over copper situation. A standard needs to be defined ASAP because there is
already a great deal of equipment in the field that is similar in concept
and functionality, but is not compatible. Furthermore the IEEE should show
the same good sense as the ITU in dictating that the eventual EFM standard
should provide some sort of backward compatibility for the interim period
until all equipment is upgraded to the new standard.

I think Fletcher's points are equally valid whether he purchases
pre-standard equipment from vendor E or from vendor C.  I don't think it is
all that unreasonable of Fletcher to expect that his pre-standard equipment
will in some fashion be compatible with the new standard. Whether I buy from
vendor E or vendor C, I would expect them to either fit their equipment to
the new standard, or buy back my old equipment, or lose my business to
vendor XYZ.

If we look back a few years, there were a lot of ISP's and consumers who
were already using K-Flex modems and a lot who were already using X2 modems.
Nobody seemed to think back then that it was OK to tell all those consumers
with "pre-standard/non-standard" equipment that they were just SOL when the
standard was defined.

I do not mean to imply that the standards process should be driven by what
any ISP, CLEC, or ILEC is already doing in their network, but we cannot
escape the fact that there are a lot of ISP's and consumers who are already
using "pre-standard" equipment and that the longer it takes the IEEE to
define a standard, the more "pre-standard" equipment there will be out there
to contend with.

Best regards,

Bradford Martin
Ace Communications Group