RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
- To: "'Stanley, Patrick'" <pstanley@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'daun@xxxxxxxx'" <daun@xxxxxxxx>, "'Behrooz Rezvani'" <behrooz@xxxxxxxxxx>, Frank Miller <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Vladimir Oksman'" <oksman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
- From: Frank Miller <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 09:06:29 -0800
- Cc: "'Copper'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Hugh Barrass'" <email@example.com>, "'Howard Frazier'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Frank Van der Putten'" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
POTs allows for 'single line service', which renders DSL provisioning more
palatable to residential customers that do not desire a dedicated line for
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daun Langston [mailto:daun@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:51 AM
> To: Behrooz Rezvani; 'Frank Miller'; 'Vladimir Oksman'
> Cc: 'Copper'; email@example.com; 'Hugh Barrass';
> 'Howard Frazier';
> Frank Van der Putten
> Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
> How do folks want to handle POTs in this case? Do we want to
> make POTS
> support not required, therefore no inline filters required,
> as the norm.
> I see no issues with this requirements list as it is now
> forming. I also
> know of a design where this is not a theoretical exercise.
> I would support a submission advocating such if POTs support was not
> mandatory. I want to get rid of mandatory POTs support to reduce
> truck-rolls, therefore cost. I have no objection to optional
> POTS support.
> Metanoia +1 530-639-0311 (v)