Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 05:30:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby <kris@catonic.net> To: "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@peorth.iteration.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: American / English Telco (Was: Re: DVD Players, and Not in a PC) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012010518230.8436-100000@spaz.huntsvilleal.com> In-Reply-To: <20001130214244.D28757@peorth.iteration.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Michael C . Wu wrote: > No, Americans cannot seem to grasp that the earth does not contain > onlyh America. They have to use PCS instead of GSM, "imperial" > units instead of SI units, T1's instead of E1's, and so forth. 8_) Hmm. <sarcasm> I've seen GSM widely availible at all the places I would normally go to get mobile / wireless (I'm *really* tired of that term) phones. </sarcasm> We can only get what's locally availible to us. Blame the telco cartels. Personally, I'd rather see 2.048 Mbit/s E1s as opposed to T1s; the math is easier and it's another couple of bits of bandwidth. I do not like the idea of having to bring in a PRI and get thirty DS0s as opposed to twenty-four. My point is granularity; a series of T1s expands as 24/48/72/96, whereas the E1 is 30/60/90/120. I'd like to see it broken further, in the manner of "burstable" T1s as it were: A full T1 that is sold on a per-line basis. A more affordable alterative to a full T1. Yeah, right. I've never understood why a 1.544MBit/s link (over two / four wires) *needs* to be channellized. Seems like a waste of D channels. ----- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR | TGIFreeBSD... 'Nuff said. <kris@nospam.catonic.net> | ------------------------------------------------------- "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0012010518230.8436-100000>