Talk:T-carrier

message: This article has inadequate references to the industry standards documents that specify the things it is discussing. If the the T1/DS1 originally came from Bell Labs, then there should be a collection of Bellcore or Telcordia references. There should also be references to ANSI and Committee T1 documents. There are a few ANSI docs in in-line foot notes, but the titles are not given, and there are no hyperlinks out to abstracts. Almost everything in this article deserves an in-line reference to a technical specification doc that formally defines the subject matter under discussion. Frames, superframes, timing, signal levels, electrical interfaces, metallic interfaces, etc. There are official documents about all of these subjects and more. Aragorn 00:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specs 

message: It may be necessary to link Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy somewhere in here... --Joy [shallot] 10:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: I was a junior engineer at Bell Labs on the team that developed the T1 system. Many people who heard my story thought it interesting to record this for prosperity.LoopTel 07:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Note on the 193-bit T1 Frame

message: Editor Felix is right.  An outsider who looks at this will never understand why T-carrier exists.  I thought of writing a "Background" section to explain why multiplexing is good and digital multiplexing is better, but then saw there's already a link to carrier system.  That's merely a terse government definition, little more revealing to outsiders than this one, but that's the place to put a small history of telco carrier systems, unless someone can recommend a better location for it.  Jim.henderson 14:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too technical

message: I disambiguated one instance of the word bandwidth to Bandwidth (computing) because it was clearly referring to a bit rate.  However, the following sentence is confusing me:
:"Initially, T1 used Alternate Mark Inversion (AMI) to reduce bandwidth and eliminate the DC component of the signal."
I put the  there because I was guessing this was probably the other sense of bandwidth, namely Bandwidth (signal processing).  However, the context does not make this clear.  It does not make sense that someone would want to lower a bit rate on a data line, but maybe they would want to reduce the range of frequencies used to carry the data.  This is circumstantially corroborated by the mention of reducing the DC (direct current) component of the signal.  However, I think perhaps this should be reworded, because it is confusing to use the word bandwidth to mean different things in the same article.  If my guess is correct, maybe a phrase like range of frequencies would be clearer.  Can an expert confirm and/or reword this?  Thanks!  CosineKitty (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This being an art in which both literal and figurative bandwidth are important, I recommend using "bandwidth" where it is intended literally, and "bit rate" where bit rate is intended.  Jim.henderson (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense.  I changed bandwidth to frequency bandwidth, and linked to Bandwidth (signal processing), to emphasize that they were trying to limit the range of frequencies consumed, not trying to limit the bit rate.  While the context may have been clear to an electrical engineer, someone familiar only with computing concepts reading an article about a digital technology like T-carrier could easily have been confused.  I did some other minor rewording for style. CosineKitty (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bandwidth confusion

message: --except that it's not. Or at least it didn't use to be. It was 3400 Hz:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1142855  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  highest voice frequency which the telephone system transmits is 4,000 Hz, 

message: I would like to submit that most of the content on this page is specific to the T1 Transmission System which is just one of the systems defined by T-carrier.  It feels to me like a better organization would one of two choices.  [1] The content of this "T-carrier" article should be reduced to discussing the copper based transmission system heirarchy of T1, T1C, and T2, without going deeply into the specifics of any of them.  Then separate articles generated and cited for each of the "T1" or "T1 Transmission System", "T1C" or "T1C Transmission System", and "T2" or "T2 Transmission Systems" topics.  Or [2] rename this article to "T-carrier Transmission Systems", and then use 2nd level headings for each of the systems that go into their specific details.
In either case the content should stay specific to the physical transmission systems.  All topics related to "Digital Signal Heirarchy", DS-0's, DS-1, framing, and signalling should be merged to the DS-1 article or to the Digital Signal Heirarchy article.Tballister (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Re-Organization 

message: * Object this clearly needs discussion, since you want to reorganize the article and split off a new article for the same article name "T-carrier" -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I propose to move most of the existing content to be organized under the Article titled "T1 Transmission System" because it is specific to that T1 system, and let the small amount of content that is applicable to the set of transmission systems defined as T-carrier systems remain organinzed under "T-carrier".  Further, I propose to expand the "T-carrier" content to encompass all of the systems that were defined as T-carrier systems (e.g., T1, T1C, T2, T3, T4, ...).  TCBallister (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from speedy

message: this article is not too technical. most technical articles are not understandable to "an outsider", whatever that means. 
the reason this article is a mess is that its written like a 2600 magazine article instead of a technical description. historical information is mixed in with modern specifications. irrelevant tangents are followed out of nowhere. AT&T marketing is "quoted" without any actual source. am I on a early 90's phreaking BBS? seems like it.
move all the information that describes what "was" or "why" something is into a historical section. yes T1 is so nostalgic and dont we all remember red boxes. but none of that crap is appropriate for a technical specification. does someone who needs a modern spec really need to know about the manhole covers distance decades ago? it sure is neat sounding but who cares? its time to let all that stuff go and stick to relevant information. this is not a documentary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.41.198 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  reorganization suggestion 

message: It appears both spellings were used but we use T1 in the lead and throughout in Digital Signal 1 so I've gone with that here too. ~Kvng (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-1 or T1 

message: For what it is worth my Father was part of the. F1 design team and the man in charge of the installation,  operation and maintenance of the first T 1 carrier system in the world, which was located in San Francisco. This would have been in the early sixties. He was a rapidly rising star in the company. He knew every component of every system that came before and after T1. His knowledge and work ethic was noted by the the company and rewarded with a promotion to 2nd line management and non stop hours. He also received recognition from THE top executive for preventing the total destruction of a switching office from a fire. No, he didn't run in with a garden house all bare chested like a Hollywood movie star. He simply told the Fire Chief that the introduction of water would cause an explosion and that the fire should be extinguished with a foam chemical. The chief knew pops was right. For saving the Company , my Dad was given a huge bonus and a letter that I still have. He was now being groomed for a seat at the Big Table. Then I happened. 1968 was the year and my Father gave that up because he wanted to spend time with me.  That's LOVE like no other. He still worked for the Company until 1986. Btw, I have some pretty unique items from the early phone company. I would like to see them preserved. 2601:202:8001:2330:B867:C1A5:9A90:9BBC (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  T1 carrier design team