SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Ciena (CIEN)
CIEN 199.26-1.1%Nov 7 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jghutchison who wrote (9961)12/13/2000 1:58:44 AM
From: jeremic  Read Replies (2) of 12623
 
Jack,

It is a 'fundamental limit' that as you reduce channel spacing bit rate is concomitantly decreased. However, you're confusing overall bandwidth with the capacity to pack bit rates on wavelengths. That is only one way to do it, the other possible solution is to limit bit rate per channel (say 1Gb or even 100MB) and increase channel count - the result is the same: improved bandwidth. I believe network architecture will be much more flexible and adaptable if the latter solution is promoted. The fundamental limits of bandwidth will be encountered much sooner if bit rate is the only concern. You're mention of Ciena's Fiber Bragg gratings does not address the advantages of the combination of Avanex's PowerMux/PowerShaper which uses the combination of improved channel shaping and the Fabry-Perot interferometer to align wavelengths based on frequency interference rather than the tricky (and limited) spatial alignment of Bragg gratings. Your assumptions regarding channel spacing are based on the inherent limitations of gratings and don't include the radical approach developed by Avanex. For someone who follows optics as much as you, I'm surprised you've been so dismissive of AVNX, regardless of Gilder. FWIW jeremic
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext