From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 30 21:31:23 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from server1.huntsvilleal.com (server1.huntsvilleal.com [63.147.8.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C7A37B400 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:31:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from Spaz.HuntsvilleAL.COM (spaz.huntsvilleal.com [63.147.8.31]) by server1.huntsvilleal.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21904; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:59:24 -0500 Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by Spaz.HuntsvilleAL.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA08733; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 05:30:44 GMT (envelope-from kris@catonic.net) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 05:30:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby X-Sender: kris@spaz.huntsvilleal.com To: "Michael C . Wu" Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: American / English Telco (Was: Re: DVD Players, and Not in a PC) In-Reply-To: <20001130214244.D28757@peorth.iteration.net> Message-ID: X-Tech-Support-Email: bofh@catonic.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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. 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. 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. | ------------------------------------------------------- "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