- Previous message: Deepak Jain: "Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE"
- Maybe in reply to: Bora Akyol: "IEEE 40GE & 100GE"
- Next in thread: Robert E. Seastrom: "Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Robert E. Seastrom (no email)
Date: Wed Dec 12 2007 - 15:57:44 EST
Deepak Jain <> writes:
>> I'm on board with that as far as it goes, but has the scenario of
>> adjustable launch powers so that you don't ever need attenuators plus
>> the economy of scale that would come from having *one* type of
>> interface for 1m-10km runs been considered? It seems to me based on
>> what I've seen of the optics market that once you make something a
>> mass-produced commodity the price falls awfully far - suppose the
>> price difference was $250 vs. $375, that's a big difference on a
>> percentage basis but pocket change on an absolute basis.
>>
>
> I'm inclined to agree that when we are talking about unit numbers
> between 10km >> 40km optics, the marginal price change of a few bucks
> per optic (vs the human time to go and fix/groom/find/reduce optical
> losses) is pretty minimal.
>
> For that 1% of customers that finds their total cost significantly
> impacted (vs, say the cost of the equipment these are going into,
> etc).... would force 10% of us to have to engineer bypass
> cross-connect panels with fewer physical connections (and spliced ones
> at that) to get the job done.
>
> Just my guess... but no one has really complained about 10km reach
> optics being so expensive after the first 5 minutes they've been on
> the market.
>
> Personally, I wish this much cost could be cut out of the 80/120km
> optics market... but hey, no one is asking me.
So, the unspoken point of what I was suggesting is "why not two kinds
of optics: medium to short and super-long?? Simplifies sparing.
---Rob
|
|
|