RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
- To: "Vladimir Oksman" <oksman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <daun@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
- From: "Josko" <josude@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:21:56 -0000
- Cc: "Stanley, Patrick" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Behrooz Rezvani" <email@example.com>, "'Frank Miller'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Copper'" <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>
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <3BE2EE32.71FF6DAD@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-To: <josude@xxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Well Germany anyway.... some other countries have relatively high ISDN
penetration but Germany is the key one for BR ISDN.
[mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
Sent: 02 November 2001 19:04
Cc: Stanley, Patrick; Behrooz Rezvani; 'Frank Miller'; 'Copper';
firstname.lastname@example.org; 'Hugh Barrass'; 'Howard Frazier'; Frank Van der
Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
What about BR-ISDN?
Many office buildings are equipped with ISDN phones. In Europe ISDN phones
the main in several countries. I wouldn't drop these cases from EFM
Daun Langston wrote:
> Ok, I give up. I don't see any real usefulness of the POTs band. I see
> 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';
> email@example.com; '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
> business-oriented deployments where phone, as all other services, are
> via T1 using HDSL, for instance. The question is how big is this market
> 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'; 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
> > 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)