Re: (PM) AMI vs B8ZS

Ed Schulz (edschulz@lucent.com)
Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:56:31 -0500

Jake Messinger wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Ed Schulz wrote:
>
> :You're right about B8ZS, but I'm still not sure what you're trying to say
> :about being "robbed of bits." Even with AMI line coding for mu law voice,
>
> Okay so there is a bit cost. 8-) I got a bad description regarding B8Zs a
> couple years ago and kept hanging on to that...
>
> So anyway... the ANSWER IS!!! Get B8ZS for your portmaseter 3 and youll get
> better service.

No! I'm trying to be clear yet concise here, but it's not working on
either count. The mu-law codec and digital V.90 modem cannot know and do
not care whether one or more links between them use B8ZS. If your digital
access link uses B8ZS, the digital V.90 modem still cannot use the
all-zeros code. For modem calls, you will not get the slightest additional
amount of information across the T1 link by using B8ZS.

You only need B8ZS to carry 64 kbit/s digital data within a DS-0 (T1 time
slot).

-- 
Ed Schulz
edschulz@lucent.com
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>