RE: [EFM] Moving forward on extended temperature range optics
I sincerely hope that this discussion will be finished in short time. I
have no intention to defend unnecessary features, and I don't pretend to
reinvent the wheel. But there is something special about the temperature
range and the way optical components work that makes for a unique
situation. In short, temperature range is *not* comparable to supply
- Several people, myself included, have pointed out that the basic problem
with lefting temperature out of the discussion is that it may lead to a
situation where the standard is (in some way or other) economically biased
towards 'restricted range' (to oppose with 'extended range') components.
- EFM gear is supposed to be not only inexpensive, but also fully
interoperable. Anything that may cause variations will be cause of concern
- there are so many combinations of components and temperature ranges at
both sides of the link that most carriers will likely want to keep
everything simple. Leaving such important stuff out of the standard will
only add confusion.
- Most optical components will *not* be installed in shelters or COs, but
will be installed in devices located at the customer premises, in the form
of inexpensive routers and gateways, or as outside-mounted ONU/ONT's. This
market is not only cost sensitive: it is also the place where it is more
difficult to control temperature.
This discussion would not be needed if temperature had a lesser effect
over optical components. But it has important effects, to the point where
it can affect cost or interoperability. If this is not enough reason, then
I don't know what could be.