|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I have some questions for you, as well. There seems to be some misunderstandings occurring here that I hope you folks from the ADSL/DMT side could clear up. These are related to the use of the "generic" term "ADSL." Is not the EFM proposal from Doug based on Annex J and not the whole family of ADSL (the generic ADSL term), as ADSL per se would not meet the Long Reach Objective (generic ADSL is low bandwidth, asymmetric, etc.)? I believe any discussion of ADSL should center not on the family of Annexes but on Annex J itself.
1) If we consider Annex J then many answers to your points immediately become apparent. For example, your item 1, which you partially answer yourself by mentioning the embedded base and investment in ATM ADSL, has a more complete answer when considering the incompatible nature of Annex J and this base. To deploy Annex J and cause service deterioration in the existing base would be foolish for an Operator.
2) As to DSM in item 2... isn't this a "house of cards" theoretical technology that would only work in a fully closed environment where only one DSL technology is deployed from a single carrier? Otherwise, wouldn't this be problematic where the service would be frequently disrupted by new disturbers added by others that are outside the DSM domain? Well, I suppose this discussion is all academic as DSM is not going to be anything more than theoretical for at least 4-5 years.
3) Your item 3 b) appears to use the generic ADSL term instead of Annex J. The incompatibility of Annex J with existing base of ADSL should be made clear. I hope that an open discussion occurs Monday as to the conflicts and incompatibilities of Annex J and not a discussion of ADSL in a generic sense, otherwise we are not doing a real comparison of Long Reach technologies.
4) By the way, what is the official title for Annex J anyway? I believe it is "ADSL for operation above ISDN." If this Annex defines service as this, does this mean we have a technology proposal based on one that would have limited in deployment in NAFTA as well (few BRIs)? To be POTS compatible versus ISDN would mean Annex J must be modified from the existing recommendation to some new DSL definition which in turn makes this a comparison of a well defined and standardized technology (g.SHDSL) and one that is not standardized (Annex J changed for POTS)?
Behrooz, Happy New Year to you. I look forward to the conclusion of this step in Vancouver and the opportunity for the Copper track to make some serious headway. I expect many at EFM would like to see the year plus delaying efforts in Copper stopped and some conclusions reached so that we finally move ahead.