This is true. The connectivity on PTCL Analog lines on Cu wire with Digital Switching will connect to Modems on PRI as a Async connection and if the medium is ISDN on Cu than no modulation takes place and one 64K Channel on the Access Server from the 1 PRI is blocked for running the traffic on it. And the connectivity is Synchronous.
As we all know there are 30 64K channels on one PRI. As well as the MODEM stands for Modulation and De-Modulation.
The DXX connectivity on Cu wire and the ISDN also on Cu wire are Synchronous connectivity but the how you make this connection between point A & point B the technique is different.
Regards,
Imran Akhtar Shah
COO-WorldTel Meca
At 10:55 PM 6/28/01 +0500, A.R. Nasir Qureshi wrote:
Can some one having more technical knowledge than me confirm this ??
I beleive that since ISDN BRI and ISDN PRI are both digital mediums, as
opposed to a normal telephone line, which is analog, so a connection from
an analog device is Async, and a connection between two digital devices
is Sync.
Regards,
Nasir.
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, saif rahman wrote:
> Dear Nasir,
>
> Dial-up connections are Async connections and BRI is a dial-up connection as
> well.
>
> Regards,
>
> Saif Rahman
> Chief Executive
> eWorld (Pvt) Ltd.
> 506 Progressive Plaza,
> Beaumont Rd., Civil Lines,
> Karachi 75530
> 111-246-246/voice
> 92-21-5219318/fax
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A.R. Nasir Qureshi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "saif rahman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: 28 June, 2001 4:07 PM
> Subject: Re: ISPAK: Re: Please make it fine to send to PTA
>
>
> >
> > I beleive that a customer using his BRI and dialing into your PRI is
> > using a Sync connection.
> >
> > This is what I have been insisting all the way, that there is no way an
> > EIS license cannot provide service on a DXX. There is absolutely no logic
> > to it.
> >
> > All we have to do is to tell these people at PTA that we can provide
> > service on DXX on an EIS license, and they cannot stop it, and they will
> > give another letter, like they have been giving in the past, and we all be
> > happy.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Nasir.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, saif rahman wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Nasir,
> > >
> > > I believe it is the Async vs. Sync connection that is carrying the
> > > distinction. For references and publication, I agree we should have
> > > something from GOP.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Saif Rahman
> > > Chief Executive
> > > eWorld (Pvt) Ltd.
> > > 506 Progressive Plaza,
> > > Beaumont Rd., Civil Lines,
> > > Karachi 75530
> > > 111-246-246/voice
> > > 92-21-5219318/fax
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "A.R. Nasir Qureshi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "saif rahman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: 28 June, 2001 2:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: ISPAK: Re: Please make it fine to send to PTA
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Saif Sahib,
> > > >
> > > > Do you have any reference in ITU, PTA, PTCL or GOP publications /
> > > > standards, about this serial connectivity ?? Can you pls provide them
> to
> > > > me ??
> > > >
> > > > What would you consider a modem, ISDN PRI Interface, or ISDN BRI
> Interface
> > > > ??? Serial or not ????
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Nasir.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, saif rahman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear all,
> > > > >
> > > > > If you provide connectivity thru a serial interface then you are
> > > required to
> > > > > have a DNOP license. This is one distinction b/w the EIS and the
> DNOP
> > > > > license.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Saif Rahman
> > > > > Chief Executive
> > > > > eWorld (Pvt) Ltd.
> > > > > 506 Progressive Plaza,
> > > > > Beaumont Rd., Civil Lines,
> > > > > Karachi 75530
> > > > > 111-246-246/voice
> > > > > 92-21-5219318/fax
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "A.R. Nasir Qureshi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > To: "sbhutta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Cc: "Aly Ramzan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ateeq.M.Khan"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Sent: 27 June, 2001 8:16 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: ISPAK: Re: Please make it fine to send to PTA
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The similar case was discussed and was decided in PTA. The case
> was
> > > IBM
> > > > > > > ( Mr.Sana Zaidi) As DNOP provided bandwidth to Lahore Chamber
> but
> > > PTA
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > complaint of PTCL ordered to disconnect this circuit . PTA was
> > > in-view
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > only PTCL can provide bandwidth, at that time we got approval
> from
> > > PTA
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > DNOP can provides bandwidth to ISP and ISP can not provide
> bandwidth
> > > to
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PTCL does not want us to do any thing. Any we do is illegal to
> them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We worked to agree PTA that DNOP can sell, so now we should fight
> to
> > > say
> > > > > > that ISP can also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again PTCL charged that DNOP will pay US$47000/- for 2MB to sale
> > > > > bandwidth,
> > > > > > > Now again we won this battle and rates for DNOP and ISP declared
> > > same.
> > > > > SITA
> > > > > > > is paying US$.47000/- 2MB still. Where you live.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So we will win again, Inshallah. But first we will have to put up
> a
> > > case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nasir.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Bhutta,
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "A.R. Nasir Qureshi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > To: "Aly Ramzan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > Cc: "Ateeq.M.Khan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "sbhutta"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:40 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: ISPAK: Re: Please make it fine to send to PTA
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am amazed to hear that, PTCL refused to provide a service to
> > > you.
> > > > > PTA is
> > > > > > > > the regulator not PTCL. We should take up this matter with PTA
> > > > > > > > immediatelly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We got our license to sell Internet, and DXX is one way of
> > > providing
> > > > > > > > Internet to customers, who require 24 hours service.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would request Bhutta sahib, to take up this matter
> immediately
> > > with
> > > > > PTA,
> > > > > > > > so you can provide service to your customer, and we can, to
> our
> > > future
> > > > > > > > customers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I fail to understand why only having the license is not
> enough,
> > > and we
> > > > > > > > have to provide letters from PTA for everyting.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nasir.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Aly Ramzan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nasir Bhai I wish you were right. Recently we tried to get a
> DXX
> > > > > circuit
> > > > > > > > > within Karachi for a corporate client and were refused by
> PTCL
> > > as
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > interpret our license differently. This reply we got after
> we
> > > > > applied
> > > > > > > > > officially through ISPAK.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So if someone has any proof or letter from PTA then we can
> > > proceed
> > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > with PTCL otherwise the client gets connected through Radio.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please advice.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Aly Ramzan
> > > > > > > > > CubeXS
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "A.R. Nasir Qureshi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > To: "Aly Ramzan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > Cc: "Ateeq.M.Khan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "sbhutta"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:15 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: ISPAK: Re: Please make it fine to send to PTA
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Aly Ramzan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think Ateeq Bhai's idea has merit. He is talking about
> > > > > providing
> > > > > > > > > circuits
> > > > > > > > > > > to companies within City without incurring unnecessary
> > > expense
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > paying
> > > > > > > > > > > extra 500,000. When there is a province or nationwide
> need
> > > the
> > > > > > > license
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > always we upgraded.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What circuits are you talking about ?? Data connectivity
> > > between
> > > > > > > offices,
> > > > > > > > > > or Internet circuits. Because within city, most companies
> > > purchase
> > > > > > > radios,
> > > > > > > > > > and will not get a service for that, and regarding
> Internet
> > > > > Circuits,
> > > > > > > I do
> > > > > > > > > > not beleive that EIS cannot provide Internet to any one.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think it is a great idea and should be approved and
> > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > > away. Otherwise ISP's will just be limited to selling
> dialup
> > > > > > > accounts,
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > really is not a good business model.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Aly Ramzan
> > > > > > > > > > > CubeXS
> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: "A.R. Nasir Qureshi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: "Ateeq.M.Khan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: "sbhutta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:43 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: ISPAK: Re: Please make it fine to send to
> PTA
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > DNOP provides service of Data Communication between
> > > customers.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > > business is between customers of different cities,
> because
> > > > > people
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > city can use several other things like Radio etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So DNOP for one city only, or even a province does not
> > > makes
> > > > > sense
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nasir.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Ateeq.M.Khan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhutta Sahib
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not amend the schedule of fees for DNOP on the
> basis
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > National,
> > > > > > > > > > > Provincial and City wise level ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Like :
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nation wide : Rs 1,000,000 inclusive of EIS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Province wide : Rs 600,000 inclusive of EIS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Big City wide : Rs 500,000 inclusive of EIS
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is logical to divide DNOP also because if
> you
> > > > > > > providing
> > > > > > > > > > > service only in a big city then why would you like to
> pay
> > > extra
> > > > > fees
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > PTA
> > > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please give your feed back. It is high time we get
> as
> > > much
> > > > > > > benefit
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ateeq Khan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > CEO
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Gem Net
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------
> ISPAK --------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > ISPAK Discussion List. Members are limited to
> officials
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > ISPs and ESPs of Pakistan and select media
> > > representatives.
> > > > > > > > > > > > --------------
> http://ispak.net.pk -----------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------- ISPAK --------------------------
> > > > > > > ISPAK Discussion List. Members are limited to officials of
> > > > > > > ISPs and ESPs of Pakistan and select media representatives.
> > > > > > > -------------- http://ispak.net.pk -----------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------- ISPAK --------------------------
> > > > > > ISPAK Discussion List. Members are limited to officials of
> > > > > > ISPs and ESPs of Pakistan and select media representatives.
> > > > > > -------------- http://ispak.net.pk -----------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
------------------------- ISPAK --------------------------
ISPAK Discussion List. Members are limited to officials of
ISPs and ESPs of Pakistan and select media representatives.
-------------- http://ispak.net.pk -----------------------
