Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: MAP@lcs.mit.edu (Michael A. Patton) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Slick 96? Message-ID: <2039@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 11 Dec 89 23:20:07 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 9, Issue 567, message 4 of 6 Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 20:52:59 EST From: Dave Brightbill [In our rural community] we upgraded ... from a 4-party line to a private line. [There was] a lack of available pairs [which was solved] by installing [something] called a "slick-96". I believe it's a SLC-96 (pronounced "slik-96"). It stands for Subscriber Line Carrier, 96 channels. They use T1 (or similar) connections from the box to the CO, this gives them 96 subscriber drops off the box. It comes in various sizes, I have also seen sizes for one or two T1 circuits and for a T3 circuit. The latter was installed in an industrial park where I was working and (except for a short interruption when the installer accidentally cut the wrong wire :-) we couldn't notice the difference. Running one T3 circuit back to the CO was cheaper (or as cheap) than stringing another N-pair cable, and it freed up pairs for use in neighboring residential areas that were also expanding. These units seem to be much better than the ones they try and use to get two lines out of one. You probably lucked out that they didn't just do one of these funny mux things between you and whoever you formally shared the pair with. Maybe the tariffs don't let them use those when they're two seperate residences.