Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: asuvax!mothra!bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AMI on T1 Lines
Message-ID: <12632@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 25 Sep 90 15:48:01 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: gte
Lines: 22
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 681, Message 6 of 11


In article <12512@accuvax.nwu.edu>, oleary@noc.sura.net (dave o'leary)
writes:

> However, not all phone company equipment does B8ZS, although this
> seems to be getting a lot better.  I guess this is why they say that

It should gradually become more widespread.  B8ZS is the preferred
long-term method of providing Clear Channel.

> B8ZS is preferable.  Our C&P sales guy told us that B8ZS costs more
> and that we need to run ESF to use it (which I didn't understand...if
> anyone can explain that one I'd appreciate it).

Of course B8ZS will cost more, because it requires special equipment
to handle it.  There is no particular reason why B8ZS can not be used
in an SF format T1.  If they only support B8ZS on ESF, it is due to
limitations particular to the equipment they are using, or due to
their own (marketing?) restrictions.


JB