Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: SRA@wsmr-simtel20.army.mil (Gene N. Cartier)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: CENTREX/10BaseT Conflict
Message-ID: <14567@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 90 16:25:43 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 25
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 808, Message 6 of 9


We are considering migrating one of our branch offices from an old NBI
word processing system to a state-of-the-art system based on DEC
5000's running Ultrix and using X-Windows Terminals.  The current
environment uses one twisted pair in a six conductor sheath to support
the NBI connection an additional pair is used to provide phone service
via CENTREX from the telco.
 
I have planned to support the new system using 802.3 using 10BaseT
connections.  The penny pinchers want me to use the existing wiring.
This means that the 802.3 and CENTREX conductors will be in the same
sheath.  I remember reading somewhere that this is not a good idea
because CENTREX ringing will poke holes in the data because of voltage
differences.  Even though it is more expensive I have recommended that
we recable.  Am I being an alarmist?
 
Does anyone have any experience in this area and better yet can anyone
provide me with some hard copy references that I can use to defend my
position or ease my concerns.
 
I'll consolidate all responses and post them.
 
Thanks,

Gene Cartier  SRA CORP  SRA@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL   (703) 558-7507