[GTE data submitted to T1E1 committee]
Hi James,
Your problem about not being close to your CO is one that really drives home the issue of modem perfromance.
I have a document at my ftp site that draws on data submitted to the T1E1 committee by GTE and Paradyne (the CAP designers). The document compares GTE's "real" measured data on an Amati OV8 to Paradyne's T1E1.4/96-294 contribution which details the performance of an infinite-complexity CAP system base on theoretical bound (i.e. you can think about it, but its impossible to build). I think this information should clear up some of the misinformation lately on this thread about performance (bandwidth at a distance) and how real (different loop lengths i.e. attenuation, wire gauge, noise, etc.) DMT systems compare to theoretical projections and PR. Remember, the data is based on T1E1 contributions from GTE and Paradyne just to avoid anyone from blowing it off as, well you know, the H word. It will be intresting to see what Amati's new DMT CAT II modems will do on long loops. Somehow I don't think Globespan would be stupid enough to ever let their engineers release truthful information like this again. I guess the Ad-Hoc Committee doesn't plan on getting bogged down on these types of embarrassing details.
The advantages of DMT are well understood within the T1E1 Committee which is why CAP doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell with them.
DMT will work beyond 18,000ft. The question is, what will your Upsteam/Downstream bandwith be?
Ans. More than a CAP system.
Anyone is welcome to retrive the postscript document from my ftp site:
ftp.netcom.com user anonymous, password anonymous
go to the pub/ma/macica directory and download the only file there.
Later |
