Re: Re-engineering the public switched network

[Dory Ethan Leifer <leifer@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>]

  > I had a discussion with a staff member of an agency looking at the Bell
  > Atlantic tariff filings, and was asked to give some suggestions regarding
  > the types of things the RBOCs should be asked to do, regarding
  > re-engineering the network to manage bandwidth more efficiently. 
  > 
  > I said that we were asking Commissions to require the RBOCs to come back
  > in six to 9 months with estimates of the cost of changing network software
  > to allow users to have a small open connection to a server, like the D
  > channel, with "bandwidth on demand," on a as needed basis. And also, that
  > they could discuss any better alternatives. 
  
  This is an interesting possibilty, one discussed for years but never 
  implemented on major commercial gear. There are a fair number of
  technical issues making the D-channel data very effective for Internet
  traffic. Some other alternatives that should be discussed:
  
  * The use of ISDN BRI as a 128K leased line to a router or frame relay
    switch either in the CO or somewhere in the telco network. This is not
    far from what is offered in Japan so it can be supported by CPE vendors.
    This removes the switch from the picture completely and precludes any
    voice operation.
  
  * The use of channel dropping technique to allow a 64K B-channel to be
    removed from a carrier system before it hits the switch and uses time
    slots. This could be implemented in areas served by digital loop
    concentration - has a similar appearance as above but does allow voice
    services.
  
  
  Dory Leifer
  University of Michigan