re: Alloptic Scores $35M> Ethernet has been known for the last > 30+ years, yet only few years back > there was enough interest from various > carriers for IEEE to form "Ethernet in > the First Mile" task force.
Sorry - but your facts sound like there were derived from the Iraqi information minister.
Ethernet has not been around for 30 years. 10Mbps Ethernet was created in a defacto standard first in 1980. The first IEEE standard for 10Base5 came out in 1983. 2003 - 1983 is only 20 years.
Now "Ethernet Technology" is a pretty loose term here too. That was CSMA/CD based technology. Switched ethernet networks and the EFM work are very different than those original systems. Switched Ethernet technology is probably only about a decade old.
Finally - the EFM group was created by and is pushed by equipment vendors, not service providers. The service providers push the ITU group.
All that being said - the Ethernet name has A LOT of marketing clout, and it just might be able to roll over the competition based purely on that name recognition.
re: Alloptic Scores $35MQuestion for APON and EPON advocates: If I am building a muncipal FTTx system using a passive optical network architecture, why should I care whether I'm using an Ethernet PON or an ATM PON?
re: Alloptic Scores $35MThanks for the opinion, seven -- that tends to be my opinion, too, but I was curious to hear what the "religous fanatics" as you put it would say. I'm still learning and I wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking.
(Later, I may ask the more general question about PONs versus actives, but for now I'm just trying to make sure I'm not overlooking anything about pros and cons of different PON technologies)
re: Alloptic Scores $35Mhttp://iec.org/online/tutorial... Here is a decent tutorial on ATM PON, there are a number of good technology tutorials on their site
re: Alloptic Scores $35Mhttp://www.iec.org/online/tuto... and here is one on EPON I could explain how both APON & EPON both are superior to DSL and HFC but the main reasoning for APON over EPON would be itGÇÖs backed by the ITU which is more provider backed then IEEE which is more vendor backed. ATM is also newer than Ethernet, could we of made advancements in the last 20 years since Ethernet came about?
You got it nailed on the head. The folks bandying about Ethernet and its heritage forget this is a whole new PHY. Those two articles posted earlier are more marketing than informative (and a bit old). I wonder how many folks realize that many edge switches have cell-based fabrics? How many understand that even EPON architectures do TDM? How many actually show what their PHY really does? Do we really care (http://www.lightreading.com/bo...
The EPON/APON debate is a useless debate. Like you said, "what you care about are the services, features and costs of the system." The fanatics are the ones invested with a company that has taken a marketing side.
Congrats to Alloptic in scoring some more VC. For a company that advertised on its website for money not all that long ago, they've done OK. I predict the real "winner" will be the one that lands a large partner of some sort who can make hundreds of thousands of widgets (like cable set-top boxes or NIDs) cheaply with resources devoted to doing so.
re: Alloptic Scores $35MOne wonders if history will treat these attempts of APON/EPON as it did Edison's attempts to use "safe" DC for electrical power transmission. And maybe our society values freedom that comes with communications abundance over the oppression that comes with any misguided safety concerns?
Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity. Nikola Tesla
re: Alloptic Scores $35MA third option is the GPON work currently running in ITU-T SG15. I 've heard it actually carries Ethernet traffic more efficently than EPON since it doesn't include the 8/10 line code overhead of Ethernet PHY.
Also heard it can do a mixed service offering that includes native ATM, TDM and Ethernet in the same pipe.
> 30+ years, yet only few years back
> there was enough interest from various
> carriers for IEEE to form "Ethernet in
> the First Mile" task force.
Sorry - but your facts sound like there were
derived from the Iraqi information minister.
Ethernet has not been around for 30 years.
10Mbps Ethernet was created in a defacto standard
first in 1980. The first IEEE standard for 10Base5 came out in 1983. 2003 - 1983 is only 20 years.
Now "Ethernet Technology" is a pretty loose term here too. That was CSMA/CD based technology. Switched ethernet networks and the EFM work are very different than those original systems. Switched Ethernet technology is probably only about a decade old.
Finally - the EFM group was created by and is pushed by equipment vendors, not service providers. The service providers push the ITU group.
All that being said - the Ethernet name has A LOT of marketing clout, and it just might be able to roll over the competition based purely on that name recognition.