Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +

Ok, I give up.  I don't see any real usefulness of the POTs band.  I see no
reason why we could not support POTs with splitters.  It really does not
affect the pump if the lower frequencies are preserved.  It is really a
deployment issue.

Let's allow POTs support as part of the recommendation.


-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Oksman [mailto:oksman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 10:31 AM
To: Stanley, Patrick
Cc: 'daun@xxxxxxxx'; Behrooz Rezvani; 'Frank Miller'; 'Copper';; 'Hugh Barrass'; 'Howard Frazier'; Frank Van der
Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +


     I think so too for residential deployments, however it maybe some cases
business-oriented deployments where phone, as all other services, are
via T1 using HDSL, for instance. The question is how big is this market and
should EFM address it.


"Stanley, Patrick" wrote:

> Daun,
> I believe that requiring POTs support is key to addressing the widest
> possible market, especially the residential market.
> Regards,
> Patrick
> -----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';; '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
> Daun
> Metanoia +1 530-639-0311 (v)