Hi George,
>So you're one of the DP's of the MLT era...<
Are you referring to the initial management development program, or IMDP? If so, no, I'm afraid.. although I followed a similar path up to a point, but without the title acknowledgements. The liaison status to NY Tel was more or less that of "hammer man," enforcing the time of delivery on new services, and two-hour commitment times on all LD repairs. Real nice position to be in when working side by side with "peers." =:-O
Took quite a bit of egg-shell walking and politicking to survive in that environment. During those six years that I spent in the confines of NY Tel, I worked extensively with Harold Maggi and his group at Data Technical Support (DATEC), troubleshooting and analyzing customer-owned and maintained (then COAM, now CPE) <pre-divestiture> situations. Do you know Harold? "What's Up, Cat?" was his signature, as I recall.
I can vividly recall the endless arguments with vendors (and with central office carrier staffs) when CPE modems could not survive the un-hardened T-1s of the time. "Bell 209's worked, why not my Codex 9600?" Of course, we all knew why, and in time an edict was issued to respect the COAM speeds at and above 2400, and the D1 conditioning specification was issued for all 9600's. This is why I chuckled concerning Steve's remark about rouding off + or - 10 kbps.
It's been a while, George, give me a hand here. MLT? Multi-line testing? or something else? In any event, I never got involved with dial tone until I left the System, oddly enough. The closest I came to voice was in the CCITT # 5 signalling environment, doing international direct distance dialing (IDDD) conversions with SA, Europe and the Middle East.
I worked with Bob Annunziata, now president of TCG, in my earlier stay with AT&T, and still bump into him at TCG and at conferences from time to time. Now, there was a mover, eh? A number of other IMDPs and some of the mavericks of my district (NY Special Services), in fact, wound up working at TCG, as well. Folks from NY Network Radio and TV Control (NR) and Overseas Operations, specifically.
>It would be a lot cheaper to use 25 Mb/s ATM transceivers than VDSL, I bet and would give more two-way options. I don't think you want asymmetry in business applications.<
Keeping in mind that I'm a consultant, and that this is only an academic exercise for me <grin>, I don't see your point, entirely. I may be wrong, but my intuition and a little back of the paper bag tells me that xDSL would be less expensive, both in terms of up front dollar outlays and in terms of ongoing network management, administration and support, or OAM&P. Secondly, the asymmetry issue is an historically valid one, and two years ago I would have agreed with you, entirely. But with recent releases of 8/1.6 and NEC's announced programmable variable rate in each direction (50/10; 45/15; 30/30; etc.), these speeds are more than adequate, despite the asymmetry, IMO, and would make for better pipes for office workers seeking individual access to the Internet (which is innately IP), stock quotes, and even various forms of high-quality video delivery.
ATM or xDSL-supported IP? My sense is that in due time it will be a user-specific selection, programmed by the provider, initially, and then auto-sensed, that will determine whether it is ATM or native IP, or any of the 303-compliant protocols that gets delivered. I think that this option will be available in the DSLAM. Am I far from being correct on this?
Other concerns would center on integrating such a model with existing office/enterprise data administration policies, security issues, and the need for separate firewalls and possibly additional copper desk feeds. That is, of course, unless the feed integrates with the LAN directly. But that would defeat one of the benefits of separate paths, since congestion on the LAN would not in this manner be mitigated. I suppose the question is, then, is it really necessary to pass all internet-related traffic through the LAN server, in the first place? I'd really like to hear some arguments on this one. George? Anyone?
Something along these lines, i.e., in-building deployment of ADSL, is currently being done by Siemens-Nixdorf through the use of an integrator in NY City (I believe it is Pyramid Technologies) for high-rise apartment dwellers under the heading of FreeBeeTV. As far as I know they are using ADSL, and it's advertiser supported. And they are picking off a NYNEX-provided SONET feed in the basement. I'd like to see the return analysis on this one in two or three year's time.
>I wonder what you're going to terminate the OC-192's on, especially at the server end? Long way from 110 volt ballistic tests<
ADM'ed to four floors in a four-strand Bidirectional Line Switched Ring architecture, where each floor would take an OC-48. The floors would be 25 stories apart, allowing for the reduced distances required by VDSL. No end point, in this manner, would be more than 12 or 13 stories away from a DSLAM. IP over SONET and ATM interfaces would be available as required.
At the server end? Probably OC-3 or OC-12 interfaces to the Internet Backbone and to various ISP and cable tv providers. Am I piquing your interest? Shall we continue? <smile>
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
