Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: cognos!geovision!gd@dciem.uucp (Gord Deinstadt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines
Message-ID: <12893@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 30 Sep 90 07:23:34 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario
Lines: 19
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 703, Message 2 of 15


hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes:

>CCITT Study Group XV is currently leading a study (along with Study
>Groups VIII and XVII) on compression of fax and modem traffic on
>digital trunks.  It would involve demodulation of the signal,
>transmission of the original bits, and remodulation when the signal
>reaches the other end.  This way, instead of wasting an entire 64kHz
>DS0, the network can use only 2.4KHz for a V.22bis connection, 9.6KHz
>for V.32, etc -- and pack them into DS0s to save bandwidth.

We already *have* a system that does this; in Canada it's called
Datapac.  But instead of developing it into something worthwhile it's
been allowed to rot.  I wish someone would explain why they haven't
added public-dial fax ports to Datapac.  Or revised the tariffs so it
was actually competitive with high-speed modems at LD rates.


Gord Deinstadt  gdeinstadt@geovision.UUCP