Re: [EFM] What was the intent of Jackie Chow's motion made during the closi ng 802.3ah Plenary?
I would like to add a note, being formerly from a CLEC. The SHDSL PHY may
be preferred by the ILECs, but the deployment may get resistance from CLECs
in the FCC because of some of the reasons that you have stated. If this
does happen, it will have a very detrimental effect on 809.3ah being able
to meet the broad market requirement in the five criteria. This is the
reason that I believe that both the ADSL and SHDSL PHYs must be included.
With the industry downsizing the people that are able to attend and vote at
the meetings, it would be well to be cautious about listening to comments
from CLEC representatives when you can. At least one ILEC is still very
active in 802.3ah which may skew the view that the members have.
At 12:33 AM 1/21/2003 -0800, Behrooz Rezvani wrote:
>I have been trying very hard not to get into this debate. However with a
>short note at least I would like to state my opinion. This e-mail is not
>intended to be pointing to any particular person or group
>Even I said earlier to a number of people that I think making a decision for
>Copper PHY is a positive step, I hope the working group pays attention to
>what was said and what was not said, and hopefully remedy this to an even
>I must say the selection process in this past meeting was poor and these
>are my reasons :
>1. There were a number of claims and counter claims in both presentations.
>Nobody spent time to clearly to examine each side's claim. There were
>sufficient discrepancies that one could not escape the fact that they are
>either talking about two separate things or one side is stretching the truth
>2. The meeting was dragged late near 8:00 PM and everybody impatiently was
>trying to leave. If there is a belief that copper is critical, then why not
>give it enough time and put a systematic process into play.
>3. The presentation that I was proposing, should have been considered at the
>same time as the other 2 papers and not separately. It was written with the
>context of both papers in mind.
>4. What concerned me was that there was absolutely no question or discussion
>about verifiable size of each market. I attempted to at least bring some FCC
>data to the presentation on both symmetrical and asymmetrical cases, but
>unfortunately there was not enough time to discuss it or present it.
>5. I don't think the SHDSL business model was fully analyzed in case when
>SHDSL-PHY becomes widely successful (I highly doubt SHDSL becomes a big
>play, and that is why I think tRBOCS have analyzed this) then in fact they
>have could have a major mess on their hand because that potentially could
>harm their ADSL market. (I wonder for example how CEO of an ILEC would react
>when he finds out their ADSL rate/reach and therefore market is reduced if
>some IXCs or CLECS decides to mass deploy SHDSL or worst yet SHDSL+ in the
>same bundle as their ADSL market to service the residential market)
>Now the working group is faced to decide whether they should agree with the
>decision of task force or not.
>I guess if people are satisfied that in fact all the key questions in their
>mind were adequately answered then they will vote one way or another
>according to their point of view. For those who are not sure about how to
>move with this, I think you need to ask for clarifications and get your
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "O'Mahony, Barry" <barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: "John M. Cioffi" <cioffi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <John.Egan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 3:05 PM
>Subject: RE: [EFM] What was the intent of Jackie Chan's motion made during
>the closi ng 802.3ah Plenary?
> > John & Johnb,
> > Just a note on the characterization that Behrooz was "not allowed" to
> > speak, as some on this thread may have implied. Behrooz' presentation
> > was indeed on the meeting agenda, for the Copper sub-Task Force. Was it
> > presented? No. I have to blame this on a new Copper sub-Task Force
> > Chair (yours truly), and the stumblings that sometimes occur when a
> > transition occurs between old and new Chairs. In this case I wasn't
> > completely familiar with the agenda, which had been drawn up by the old
> > Chair.
> > Procedurally, please note that, prior to the closing of the Copper
> > sub-Task Force meeting, I did ask if there was any further business to
> > cover. No one mentioned anything. Strictly speaking, I should have
> > explicitly asked Behrooz if he wished to present his presentation,
> > although if anyone wished at that point to bring up the fact that his
> > presentation had not been presented, they did indeed have the
> > opportunity. I've not known Behrooz to be particularly shy and I'm sure
> > he would have asked to present if he felt it was still necessary.
> > --Barry
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John M. Cioffi [mailto:cioffi@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 1:07 PM
> > To: John.Egan@infineon.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Cc: jacky@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [EFM] What was the intent of Jackie Chan's motion made
> > during the closi ng 802.3ah Plenary?
> > All,
> > I did a little research as on the heated note below, which appears to
> > confuse a few things:
> > First, Jackie Chan is a martial-arts movie star who may give
> > a few black-eyes here and there on film (not sure if those
> > alleged below have black eyes or not or are movie stars)
> > However, after some investigation and guessing I found
> > the person who made the motion is Dr. Jacky S. Chow of
> > Astri in Hong Kong (not the movie starr Jackie Chan).
> > Dr. Chow is apparently not on the exploder, so
> > did not know of discussions and requests.
> > He told me he was simply interesting in seeing the presentation --
> > he was not sure why old Behrooz was so intimidating that he could not
> > be allowed to speak. I've known Jacky for 15 years and never
> > seen him give anyone a black eye, but he does do outstanding
> > work with exceptional diligence.
> > I hope that clears the questions/confusion raised.
> > John Cioffi
> > At 10:04 PM 1/10/2003 -0800, John.Egan@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >I am still perplexed after hearing so many explanations...
> > >What was the intent of Jackie Chan's motion presented during the
> > closing
> > >minutes of Thursday's 802.3ah TF Plenary? Was it really to present the
> > >fact that Behrooz's presentation pitching both SHDSL and ADSL as only
> > able
> > >to meet the Long Reach Objective as a pair was not presented? I thought
> > >the two PHYs were presented as they should have been... standing by
> > >themselves and decided upon as standalone efforts. Otherwise, they
> > should
> > >neither have been selected, as they did not meet criteria.
> > >
> > >I have been told the intent of the motion was to get entered into the
> > >minutes the fact that Behrooz's presentation was not given and by doing
> > so
> > >this was a sort of black eye for Howard Frazier and Barry O'Mahony as
> > >apparently every presentation submitted should be given a chance to be
> > >presented, unless time considerations come into play. Is this a fact?
> > Is
> > >this "entering into the minutes" some sort of revenge or something by
> > one
> > >side? Will we then have the presentation, with accompanying motion
> > >efforts, in March? I thought the Plenary had agreed that no new work
> > would
> > >be entertained. Are we going to continue fighting over what we already
> > >decided on? I hope not.
> > >
> > >By the way... there are many presentations that have been rejected and
> > not
> > >given over these past two years of EFM. I have I submitted from last
> > March
> > >(among many that were rejected) that proposed QAM VDSL to solve the
> > Short
> > >Reach PHY matter... but the presentation was shelved for good reason as
> > >was too early in the process. Should I claim this "foul" as well and
> > have
> > >the whole effort bog down in foolish claims and non-productive
> > fighting? I
> > >will not and would respect those that feel the same and let us move
> > ahead.
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >John
> > John M. Cioffi
> > Hitachi America Professor of Electrical Engineering
> > 363 Packard Electrical Engineering Bldg.
> > 350 Serra Mall
> > Stanford, CA 94305-9515
> > +1-650-723-2150 Fax: +1-650-724-3652
> > cioffi@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www-isl.stanford.edu/~cioffi/
> > http://www-isl.stanford.edu/~cioffi/dsm/