re: Optical Vendors Face PIC ChallengesFor metro reach transponders the ratio is about 1:4 up to 1:5 for plain transponder cost. But you have to consider that typically 4 x 2.5G transponders require more slots in a shelf, more power and obviously 4 times the optical spectrum then 1 x 10G. So the overall ratio for 10G is better then 1:4 but certainly not as good as 1:2,5. Besides that you can run 10GbE on one 10G lambda and you can mux 9xGE in a 10G lambda, but only 8xGE in 4x2,5G lambdas.
In long haul I guess most lambdas are at 10G anyhow because of the reasons mentioned above. No carrier wants to waste the investment in the optical line (filters, roadms and amplifiers) with 2.5G lambdas. Any vendor still offering 2.5G long haul tranponders in a recent optical long haul system?
re: Optical Vendors Face PIC Challengesservice providers are asking optical vendors for 40 Gbit/s transponders at 2.5 times the current cost of 10 Gbit/s transponders. However, optical vendors have been unable to meet these demands, with 40 Gbit/s transponders typically at five to six times the 10 Gbit/s price.
What's the present ratio of 10 Gb/s transponders to 2.5 Gb/s?
re: Optical Vendors Face PIC ChallengesJDSU,ALU NT etc just don't have the brain trust to do what has taken 7 years to develop at INFN. The 4 year lead will not only increase but others simply can't put together a technical team that was and still is the perfect storm at INFN. INFN has just begun to touch the tip of the iceberg. There level of traction in this space is hugh. Tier 1 carriers will be jumping on this or will simply not be able to handle the speeds and capacities needed by there backbones. It not an "if" it's a "when".
re: Optical Vendors Face PIC ChallengesPIC is great technology. INFN seems to have a great product where customers seem to be rewarding them with revenues. However, every technology has tradeoffs. Just because INFN has found a great market in DWDM for PIC does not necessarily mean that PIC is the solution for every problem.
Fact 1: INFN is a systems company first. - Systems companies are addressing a larger market and therefore have access to larger rounds of funding from VCs - Systems companies are profitable as a space. Please check which optical component manufacturers are profitable
Fact 2: INFN uses PIC technology for DWDM lambdas - Look at INFN boxes on their product pages, they are using modules for client side - Interoperability at the DWDM wavelength physical interface is not a firm requirement for systems - Interoperability at the client side interface is a must have - Interoperability of a multi-lambda PIC technology is much more difficult to specify and build - INFN uses some form of electronic dispersion compensation to clean up the performance of PIC to PIC and insure interoperability. This would be difficult to extend in a multi-vendor interop environment
Fact 3: INFN DWDM technology is currently limited to 200GHz channel spacing. - Large existing operators primarily have networks based upon either 50GHz or 100GHz DWDM channel spacing - Most competing transport solutions offer 100GHz or 50GHz based systems (Systems makers in the boom times were researching <10GHz spaced channels) - Moving toward broader channel spacing reduces the number of wavelengths per fiber and therefore reduces the revenue per fiber - Other system vendors are focused on offering ROADM technology to provide flexibility - ROADM technology is more valuable in a higher channel count network which is why non-INFN DWDM systems makers are offering this technology
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. Abraham Maslow"
re: Optical Vendors Face PIC ChallengesWhy was Santur overlooked on the list of PIC suppliers? Haven't they proved their capability in that every one of the tens of thousands of tunable laser array chips they have shipped is a PIC?
re: Optical Vendors Face PIC ChallengesYield is low. Partnerships will be needed for some time (and all the disorganization associated with it).
Nobody wants to pay PhDs to run a production line that still tosses out PICS left and right.
Economy of scale doesn't solve this problem of production yield for the next 10+ years (not 5). By then, other analog devices will challenge the "low cost" OEO PIC on InP substrate.
re: Optical Vendors Face PIC Challengeshello rationator,
i think you have not really understood realities of dwdm market. i quote you comment and put my reply:
>>- Look at INFN boxes on their product pages, they are using modules for client side
yes, is true. but client side optic will be single lambda, gray optic. not a pic application.
>>- Interoperability at the DWDM wavelength physical interface is not a firm requirement for systems
line side interop is not a requirement at all, period. line side optic will have fec, and all fec are proprietary. nobody use itu fec. nobody interoperate on line side optic.
>>- Interoperability at the client side interface is a must have
agree, and what is your point? why is this different for pic and non-pic?
- Interoperability of a multi-lambda PIC technology is much more difficult to specify and build
not true for two reason:
1. nobody else make pic except infinera. so anyone who use pic in system must buy pic from infinera (but they dont sell i know). so interoperability would be assured because both line interface are truely made by infinera not matter whos badge on box.
2. but this oem will not happen i think. so if nobody interoperate on line side no matter tthey use pic or not, why you say is <more difficult=""> to use pic for interoperability?
>>- INFN uses some form of electronic dispersion compensation to clean up the performance of PIC to PIC and insure interoperability. This would be difficult to extend in a multi-vendor interop environment
ok, several people use edc. nobody interoperates on line side. so why would infinera edc make it <more difficult=""> than anubody else?
sorry to say but i think you look for excuse to critic pic approach. </more></more>
re: Optical Vendors Face PIC ChallengesSo the overall ratio for 10G is better then 1:4 but certainly not as good as 1:2,5.
So the folks asking for 40G to be 2.5x the price of 10G are asking for a better ratio than the current 10G:2.5G price ratio?
Or put another way: Service providers are asking optical vendors for a better price ratio for cutting edge technology than for commoditized technology?
In what universe is that realistic?
In truth, it sounds like another throwback to the unrealistic thinking of the bubble.
re: Optical Vendors Face PIC ChallengesStevery, The 10G market took off at 2.5x the price of 2.5G - meaning 4x the bandwidth at 2.5x the price. The operators we've interviewed are asking for similar pricing to justify the move from 10G to 40G. So, they are not asking for a better ratio, they are asking for the same.
Vendors are devising clever arguments for why 5x or 6x the price is justified for 40G, but I don't believe operators will listen.
re: Optical Vendors Face PIC Challenges"The metric that correlates best to carrier needs is bits per chip". Good marketing mr. Singh! The reality is that customers only care about bits per dollar... So, apart from quoting Mr. Singh's gospel, why doesn't the article provide the relevant numbers to support the PICs superiority? Yes, those that one can believe in without necessarily having the faith in PICs... bummer!!! it's all about dollars, remember? Just buy the report...
In long haul I guess most lambdas are at 10G anyhow because of the reasons mentioned above. No carrier wants to waste the investment in the optical line (filters, roadms and amplifiers) with 2.5G lambdas. Any vendor still offering 2.5G long haul tranponders in a recent optical long haul system?