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

["Josko" <josude@xxxxxxxxx>]

Vladimir

Well Germany anyway.... some other countries have relatively high ISDN
penetration but Germany is the key one for BR ISDN.


BR


Justus

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-efm-copper@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm-copper@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Vladimir Oksman
Sent: 02 November 2001 19:04
To: daun@xxxxxxxx
Cc: Stanley, Patrick; Behrooz Rezvani; 'Frank Miller'; 'Copper';
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; 'Hugh Barrass'; 'Howard Frazier'; Frank Van der
Putten
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
are
the main in several countries. I wouldn't drop these cases from EFM
coverage.

Vladimir.

Daun Langston wrote:

> 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.
>
> Daun.
>
> -----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';
> stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; 'Hugh Barrass'; 'Howard Frazier'; Frank Van der
> Putten
> Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
>
> Daun,
>
>      I think so too for residential deployments, however it maybe some
cases
> in
> business-oriented deployments where phone, as all other services, are
> delivered
> via T1 using HDSL, for instance. The question is how big is this market
and
> should EFM address it.
>
> Vladimir.
>
> "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'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.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.
> >
> > Daun
> > Metanoia +1 530-639-0311 (v)
> >
>  >