Wow, Geoff, in just a handful of words you solved what was for me the nt/qtera/lu/wdm conundrum.
a) i was sure there was more to qtera's solitonic ideas than 2400 mi. sans regeneration, as important as that is, and now you've made clear it is a big step up in dwdm expertise.
b) i wondered why lu boasts "1,022-channel transmitter ... at the rate of 37 Mbp/s for a ... system capacity ... more than 37 Gbp/s. The researchers believe (it) can be scaled up to *OC-48* (my emphasis) (to) several Tbp/s."
why, i asked lu, all this work towards OC-48, when the customer wants and can get OC-192? their response: "Lucent will move into OC-192" - i.e.: no answer.
you've answered it: < Works fine at OC-48 but at 10 Gbp/s the NRZ signal is ... susceptible to dispersion ...>
lu deals with channel spacing thus: "Conventionally, DWDM signals are separated by 50 GHz frequency spacing, but the 1,022-channel system operates at a record high density of 10 GHz channel spacing. Each channel occupies only 10 GHz of frequency bandwidth, making this an ultra-dense WDM transmitter."
they sniff that "soliton technology is not as reliable as photonic and considerably more expensive".
Geoff, do you have a view on the reliability of solitons?
i did not think nt's greater expertise in OC-192 was a technological advantage in DWDM advances, rather a business
advantage that the customer migrates to the guy that's delivering 10 Gbp/s product now. he just did it for 27 other guys, he's gone through all the real world issues of actually making it work.
do solitons force a trade-off of reliability vs less susceptibility to dispersion? perhaps that was what nt meant when(i think)they said something to the effect that the merger is subject to certain goal achievments. or was lu kidding me about reliability? they are subject to rumors about kidding around with financial statements.
there was an impressionist who used to do Lyndon Johnson: "Mah fellow Amuhricans, ah never lied to ya ... I might of kidded ya a little." |
