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

RE: [EFM-P2P] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast


Can you expand on what you mean by advanced signalling please?

> b.2) Voice over TDM emulation, advanced signalling.

e.g. is this

CCS protocol interpretation and conversion to SS7?

Does it include ADPCM?

etc. etc.

When there is fiber end to end isn't it easier, cheaper, and less likely to
'break' if it is simple as in your cases

> a) Voice over TDM (using sideband modulation)


> b.1) Voice over TDM emulation, transparent mode.

If the PBX works with the switch over T1/E1 today, then it will work over a)
and b.1. As soon as the intermediate system starts messing around with
signalling the whole issue of compatibility (and resulting finger pointing)
rears it's ugly head (from in my experience of call routing / re-dialler
arbitrage systems).


Bob Barrett

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of
> carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 23 November 2001 19:04
> To: Ingvar Frroth (ETX)
> Cc: 'Roy Bynum';;;
> '';
> Subject: Re: [EFM-P2P] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast
> Ingvar,
> I've sent a document with our requirements to the group some time ago.
> They're located at:
> At this document, I've tried to outline several options to provide voice,
> video and data services using an EFM approach. Here follow a short resume
> of the main alternatives for voice and video:
> Voice service:
> a) Voice over TDM (using sideband modulation)
> b) Voice over packet, with three options:
> b.1) Voice over TDM emulation, transparent mode.
> b.2) Voice over TDM emulation, advanced signaling.
> b.3) Voice over IP (soft switch approach).
> Video service:
> a) Analog video overlay, using a WDM approach (separate wavelength for
> video).
> b) Digital video over packet. This is the preferred approach.
> That is why I
> believe that single-copy-broadcast is *needed* for EFM.
> For the video delivery, we devised a VLAN-based approach to implement
> channel segregation. At that time, we felt that IGMP snooping would not be
> a good alternative to solve the selective channel distribution problem,
> based on the assumption that the complexity, and thus the price, would be
> too high. By using VLANs, we expected to be able to selectively deliver
> only some channels of video to every customer, and then - from the ONU to
> the settop box, where bandwidth is at a premium - we would use the same
> system to deliver only a single TV channel. Now we see that IGMP snooping
> may scale well enough, but we still count VLAN (with some advanced
> membership protocol, such as GARP) as a viable alternative.
> There are also other comments, and we could discuss this extensively. I
> believe that this is more on the focus of what we are calling 'Ethernet
> Subscriber Access', or ESA for short - the integrated solution to bring
> services to the market, using Ethernet based technology.
> Carlos Ribeiro
> CTBC Telecom