[EFM] Forwarded on behalf of SG
Every once in a while, our $pam and administrivia filters
get in our way. The message below bounced to me because
the sender used a reserved keyword in the body of the message.
I have altered the spelling of the word to let it pass
through. Hint: $ub$cribe is what we hope everyone will
do to EFM, but if you replace "$" with "s", it won't make
it through the filter.
If the split ratio becomes lesser and lesser due to the
bandwidth assumptions in PON then don't you think it would
be a little difficult from the service providers point to
justify the PON delivery?
Furthermore, increasing the PON bandwith and the split
ratio are too tight and that becomes the bigger issue. For
PON's to be effective model of business the bandwidth
flexibility and split flexibility needs to be a driving
factor in the design. It is very obvious that for next gen
VOD and high bandwidth services the drop at the individual
customers end will be higher. At this point it is not
necessarily the issue of whether the scheduling algorithms
will scale or not. The issue is whether the physical
transmission media can handle higher bandwidth delivery.
Also, it would be important to understand the price point
for acceptable business sustainance. If we really believe
thta VOD will become the killer driver for such high
bandwidth delivery then a 3 Mbps per stream from
Blockbusters/Hollywood Video will happen in the next couple
of years and it would not be unreasanable to state that
customers would like to $ub$cribe anywhere from 1 to 10
Mbps. Also, video conferencing and multi-media format
communication mechanisms will become popular. If we are not
in the position to address such high bandwidth demands then
the existing Cables and DSL's are already present.
If the Bell's are actualling involved in laying out Fibre
at most of the places they service and want to be the
primary media then we should expect these innovative
service providers will come to lease a hugh bandwidth to
service the neighbourhood customers.