RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
As well for service providers there is the concern of number of pairs in the local loop, as Daun pointed out, I believe, in LAX. If there was no POTS support with dedicated pairs for EFM, marketability would be greatly diminished. Per one ILEC there is to be no additional copper infrastructure work done outside of rehabs. To place them in a position of needing more pairs would be self-defeating, no?
From: Frank Miller [mailto:frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:06 PM
To: 'Stanley, Patrick'; 'daun@xxxxxxxx'; '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 +
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'; firstname.lastname@example.org; '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)