Re: [802.3_GEPOF] FTTH Council market study
Marek:
It is true that sell POF for home networking to folks from US is not an easy job, considering we still use pound and mile while the rest of world use kg and km for years. However you do bring a good point that we need to address both advantages and disadvantages.
Thanks,
Eugene
________________________________________
From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 5:19 PM
To: Dai, Eugene (CCI-Atlanta); STDS-802-3-GEPOF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_GEPOF] FTTH Council market study
Eugene, et al.,
Note that a good share of newly built houses come already equipped with at
least Cat5e cabling (in some cases, even Cat6). Perhaps it varies state by
state, but I believe house developers started already noticing the advantage
of having a house pre-wired and the extra value it brings to the house on
the competitive market.
You seem to consider GPOF as a replacement for twisted pair and I do not
believe there is a strong advantage there. First, with twisted pair we can
do (and we use it today) PoE for WiFi APs distributed around the house. WiFi
AP does not draw too much power and it is an ideal application for PoE
today. Second, GPOF will require active wall sockets, where fiber is
terminated and converted into regular RJ45 for twisted pair. Much as we
might dislike it, customer equipment comes with twisted pair ports, and not
fiber ports. Using backpower solution is rarely viable today and requires a
brand new class of devices that can source PoE towards the wall socket.
Hardly a backward compatible solution. Furthermore, active wall sockets
require power feed lines, which put additional requirement for circuits
inside of the house. I had a chance to talk to a few local developers and
this was the major sticking point. When power had to be run to the wall
sockets for active POF/twisted pair converters, the whole advantage of
having fiber-based distribution network inside of the house goes away.
I am not saying we should not consider home application got POF, but I
believe building the case based on home application is a hard sell, at least
as far as US is concerned. Europe might be a different story altogether, but
then it is fair to spell it out explicitly in the project documentation. The
best that a project can do at this stage is being fair in its assessment of
the potential market space and its evaluation of other technologies it is
competing against.
Regards
Marek
-----Original Message-----
From: Dai, Eugene (CCI-Atlanta) [mailto:Eugene.Dai@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 10:00 AM
To: STDS-802-3-GEPOF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_GEPOF] FTTH Council market study
Hi Serizawa: Thanks for the comments. If we talk about office and /or
business applications we certainly have to deal with the comparison of POF
with CAT5 cables. However, CAT 5 cable is not really used home networking
although we all have short CAT 5 cables here and there at home. The majority
of home networking use either coax or Wifi today. With G.hn products roll
out, twisted pair phone line may be used for home networking. If successful
in home networking, POF could be extended to office/business applications.
All that time the points you brought out have to be addressed. If GEPOF PHY
is lower in cost than 1000BASET PHY, than it could compete with CAT5 for
that market.
This remind me that if we that if we want to bring out the office
application for POF, we had a brief discussions at Ottawa meeting, we may
have to deal with POF and CAT5 comparison as you suggested.
Regards,
Eugene
________________________________________
From: naoshi.serizawa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <naoshi.serizawa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 1:18 AM
To: STDS-802-3-GEPOF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_GEPOF] FTTH Council market study
Hello Carlos & Eugene,
Thank you for sending information for the FTTH. Also, I looked a material
that Eugene presented at Ottawa.
Those information themselves are very good to explain about use cases of
GEPOF. However it can be substituted for CAT 5/6 cables to those
applications and it seems to be that they are not explaining about the
necessity of GEPOF. In order to convince opponents, we should show them
strong impacts and advantages of GEPOF technology. Otherwise, we can't
answer if they ask us about it.
We should clarify the advantages / cons. against to CAT5/6 cables (cost,
weight, relatability, supply chain, max length, workability, etc).
I am pleased you to take in to account the above situations.
Kind regards,
N Serizawa
-----Original Message-----
From: Hayato Yuki [mailto:hayato-yuuki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 8:23 AM
To: STDS-802-3-GEPOF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_GEPOF] FTTH Council market study
Hello Carlos-san, Cc Menbers,
I understand that the European home network market has been growing more and
more.
However, we should explain that the POF-cable network is superior to the
category-cable network for home networking.
Thanks,
Yuki@Sumitomo
>Dear all,
>
>please find in this public link:
>http://www.ftthcouncil.eu/documents/Webinars/2014/Webinar_27May2014.pdf
>the latest information of the European FTTH-Council on FTTH deployment.
>
>The FTTH deployment can be used as an indicator of the TAM for the
>gigabit Home Networking market.
>The FTTH deployment speed in Europe is around 5 Million houses per year.
>
>In parallel with this values, we may add TAM values from ADSL/VDSL
>deployment, and new/refurbish homes.
>
>Best Regards
>
>Carlos