Re: (ASCEND) Am I the only one ??

To: Neale Banks <neale@idesign.com.au>
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) Am I the only one ??
From: Phillip Vandry <vandry@mlink.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:06:37 -0400 (EDT)
cc: ascend-users <ascend-users@bungi.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:02:23 EDT." <Pine.HPP.4.05.9809271857420.16775-100000@gandalf.idesign.com.au>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

> You're definitely not the only one - we see up to 28.8k too.  My
> understanding is that that's the limit of the back-channel, as spec'd.
> 
> What I would _really_ like to know is how we (with A-law codecs and 64k
> clear-channels) got short-changed into a 56k limit (which seems
> appropriate for the USA, but somewhat of an artificial limit for the rest
> of the world).

The loop is part analog, and the conversion cannot be perfect, so of
course your're going to lose some in the conversion. As far as I know,
no one's about to connect 56K (or 53K or 54K or whatever the top
speed is) if they're connecting to an ISP with CT1's which have only
56K channels. Only if the ISP has 64K lines (ISDN) can you expect to
reach such speeds.

So I don't think you're being penalized at all: IMHO good 56K modem
performance *already* implies 64K clear channels on the ISP side.

Now as for the linecoding, I could be that there's something about
that which I don't know and which makes a difference...

-Phil
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

References:

Re: (ASCEND) Am I the only one ??

From: Neale Banks <neale@idesign.com.au>

Prev by Date: Re: (ASCEND) Imm. Modem
Next by Date: (ASCEND) Pipeline Connection
Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) Am I the only one ??
Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) Am I the only one ??
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread