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

Re: [802.3BA] Longer OM3 Reach Objective


It is simply a matter of cost for us.  If the cost of 1310 nm 
transceivers were closer to the 850 nm transceivers, we would use SMF 
everywhere.  Our communications facilities group installs it in all of 
our new locations.  I think in the ISP case you mention, they were able 
to justify the cost by the reduction in effort to track, stock and 
install the different types of transceivers and fiber (high volume). In 
our case, the enterprise with a tight budget, we have to consider each 
installation and give our scientists what they need for the absolute 
lowest cost.  Every dollar spent on the network is a dollar not spent on 
research, (our product) so we really need to minimize this cost.  If 
that means using MMF, then we'll use it.



Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Petar Pepeljugoski wrote:
>> We have seen this happen with copper - lengths are shrinking, and MMF 
>> is filling the void for ever shorter links. The same will inevitably 
>> happen to MMF on the longer side of the links. where SMF will be more 
>> competitive.
> I am very curious as to why someone would do new deployments of MMF 
> today. I know quite a few in the ISP business who has decided to go 
> solely to SMF to try to cut down on number of spare parts and types of 
> cables. Cost of cables and installation seems very similar.
> Is there really an end user cost benefit with MMF today? Also, 
> theoretically, will MMF survive the next leap in speed again, isn't it 
> just a matter of time before everybody has to switch to SMF anyway?

Michael J. Bennett
LBLnet Services Group
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Tel. 510.486.7913