Well I am not saying it isn't possible ( cdroms, etc) but Fibre channel is more of a storage interface implemented over a networking scheme. Serial ATA would be more of a catch all I believe that could integrate these devices better. Without any concrete hardware based on serial ata it is hard to compare. Most likely Cost is a factor.
Below is a few quotes from storage review:
Fibre:
You probably know that parallel SCSI is a high-end hard disk interface that is an alternative to the ubiquitous IDE/ATA. However, you may not realize that regular SCSI itself has a "big brother" of sorts. This interface is called Fibre Channel. The name comes from the fact that it was originally designed to operate over fiber-optic physical channels; copper wiring is now also supported. (The correct spelling is also "Fibre", not "Fiber"; this reflects the standard's European origins.) Like IEEE-1394, Fibre Channel is actually defined as part of the SCSI-3 family of standards, so it really is sort of a "sibling" to conventional SCSI. Sort of.
Like regular SCSI, Fibre Channel is a collection of protocols and options, and it would take some time for me to explain them all in detail, which I'm not going to do at present. The current implementation that is in use is a subset of Fibre Channel called Fibre Channel Arbitrated Loop or FC-AL. FC-AL allows many servers and storage devices to be connected into what is essentially a "storage network". This configuration offers flexibility, performance and reliability advantages to high-end systems.
Despite being a serial interface, FC-AL allows for throughput of up to 4 Gbits/s, with future versions likely to increase this. One of the primary benefits of Fibre Channel is that when using fiber optic connections, devices can be separated by up to 10 kilometers--yes, 10,000 meters. Even with copper connections, 30 meters is the limit, which is pretty good compared to other interfaces.
So if Fibre Channel is so great, why isn't it used by PCs? The main reasons are cost, and the lack of necessity. FC-AL is currently used almost exclusively on servers--and groups of servers working together. It's a high-end interface that you aren't likely to run into in your personal system, at least for now. I did want to mention it, however, so you know it is out there.
Serial ATA:
The current IDE/ATA standard is a parallel interface; this means that multiple bits of data are transmitted at one time. In the case of ATA, 16 bits are moved across the interface simultaneously during each transfer. The advantage of a parallel interface is that it allows for high throughput; the problem with it is that as the frequency of the interface is increased, signaling problems and interference between signals become common. To combat this, techniques such as CRC and special 80-conductor cables are used in higher-speed transfer modes such as Ultra DMA. These are really "kludges" that are used to work around problems with the interface as it moves to higher speeds. A different approach, however, is to abandon the parallel concept in favor of a serial interface, where only one bit is transferred at a time. This is what the Serial ATA proposal is all about: creating a serial version of ATA for attaching IDE/ATA hard disks.
Obviously, in going from 16 bits to 1 bit, the speed of the interface must be increased by a factor of 16 just to "break even". The idea is that the simplicity of the serial interface will enable much higher speeds than would be possible from a parallel implementation, because the signaling problems are largely eliminated. In fact, this is the same reasoning that led to the creation of other high-speed serial interfaces, such as IEEE-1394. Serial ATA is still in development at the time that I write this page, but indications are that it will support maximum throughput of somewhere between 150 and 300 MB/s.
As enticing as the higher speed of the interface is its promise of improvements to some of the well-known (and well-hated) weaknesses of IDE/ATA. Since Serial ATA is a point-to-point serial protocol, each device communicates directly with the host system over a flexible, thin cable that can be made a reasonable length. This means no more master/slave jumpering hassles, elimination of the difficult-to-deal-with ribbon cables, and more flexibility in the placement of devices within the PC. It's also possible that hot-swapping will be supported when Serial ATA is implemented, which would be a welcome feature as far as I am concerned!
We'll have to see what happens regarding Serial ATA. I am a little skeptical about both its likelihood of being successfully implemented, and in fact with whether it is even needed. Proponents of serial hard disk interfaces have been saying "the end is nigh" regarding parallel interfaces for many years; I remember hearing about the "end of the road" when parallel IDE/ATA was at 16.6 MB/s, and parallel SCSI was at 40 MB/s, but these interfaces continue to get faster and faster. However, if they can really make Serial ATA work, especially at such high speeds, it may be a welcome improvement on what has really become a rather outdated design.
It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
<b><font color=blue>The Cisco Kid</font color=blue></b> 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram