This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. |
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkshrews ( talk • contribs)
It may be necessary to link Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy somewhere in here... -- Joy [shallot] 10:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Huwr, yes, a see-also section is easy, but it would be better to have it properly integrated :) -- Joy [shallot]
I've looked at this page several times, and thought - damn, this sucks. I wish I had the time to add some data. Then a google search for something unrelated ran across DS1. A DS-1 is basically a T-1, but a search on the Wiki for "T-1" drops you here (where there's very little useful info), while the DS-1 page is much more useful, I think. Looking around, the DS0/DS1/T1/T3/E1/T-carrier section needs work. Inconsistently named, information is fragmented, redirects go to odd places, etc. As a stopgap, I added a link to the DS-1 page; maybe next month (after finals) I'll see about helping straighten this page out some more, if it still needs it. Codayus 08:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to see the E1 page separated out from T1, since E1 is by far the most common worldwide standard (T1 really only seen in US/Canada these days). E1 signalling should refer to R2-MFC channel associated (CAS) tone methods as well as ISDN and SS7 methods. I don't know how to change the page redirection and setup a new page though. Paidup
Agree, but same kinds of out of band signalling (SS7 and ISDN (PRI)) are carried across a T1 carrier here in the US. Both the T1 and E1 articles should refer to signalling methods. Kgrr 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Paidup (and all), There is a key thing missing in this article. T1 is a physical layer specification only. It describes the four-wire point to point circuit that carries the DS1/24*DS0 signals. T1 transmits DS-1 formatted data. On the other hand, the DS-1 specification describes the Digital Signal - synchronization, framing, clocking, timing, encoding... DS-1s can be carried across other media such as fiber.
Also, in this article, I expected more information about the physical interface
etc.
I will try to contribute more to this article when I find the time. Kgrr 01:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a year later, and I have not re-written the article. Clearly, the DS1 information needs to be moved out of this article and this article should concentrate on the physical copper T1 medium, not the DS-1 particulars. They should be in the separate DS-1 article. Kgrr 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[DSX-1}--{ORB]--3kft--[RPTR]--6kt--[RPTR]--...--[NIU]--[CSU]--[DSU]--[CPE]
showing the spacing between the office repeater in the office repeater bay (ORB) and the first line repeater as 3000 feet (3Kft) and spacing between subsequent repeaters as 6Kft.
[D1 bank]--[DSX-1]--X--[DSX-1]--[ORB]--[RPTR]--....--[RPTR]--[ORB]--DSX-1]--X--[DSX-1]--[D1 bank]
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)
The comment about the 8bit frame being appropriated for voice is incorrect and should be removed. An E1 is 32x 8 bit Timeslots (TS), of which the first (TS0) is used for framing and the remaining 31 are available for voice. However it is only in international circuits that full use of the 31 TS are utilised for voice and in the majority of national circuits one is often used for signalling (TS16), leaving 30 for voice. 192.91.191.162 ( talk) 10:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
I put the clarification needed 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)
Yeah, the problem stems from the use of "bandwidth" as synecdoche for either bit rate or channel capacity which arises in turn from computer people misunderstanding communications people twenty years ago. Literal bandwidth is an important factor in determining either of these digital questions, so its word is used to represent both of them. Fixing the situation by specifying bandwidth (signal processing) works well enough in signal processing contexts, which this is not, since alternate mark inversion is a way to increase bit rate, decrease bandwidth, and avoid the complexities of signal processing. Grumble grumble; the whole magillah could be avoided by not mixing the metaphorical use of words with their technical use but the habit seems entrenched, and piercing the resulting symantic fog will require much rework. Jim.henderson ( talk) 16:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
--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)
The article currently says "To accommodate loading coils, cable vault manholes were physically 2000 meter (6,600 ft) apart, and so the optimum bit rate was chosen empirically[.]" What does the distance being 2000 meters have to do with the optimum bit rate being chosen empirically? These seem to be completely unrelated issues. 130.179.29.59 ( talk) 20:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The very short answer is that, as the distance of a wire gets longer, high frequencies degrade much faster than low frequencies. That is the key to that sentence of the article. The T1 signal is 1,544,000 bits each second. Each of those bits can be either a 1 or a 0. You "set" those bits to 1 or to 0 by mixing small amounts of higher frequencies with the T1 signal. Since those higher frequencies degrade (disappear) as the wire gets longer, you lose bits as the line gets longer. Lines longer than 2,000 meters lost too many bits. TheWasScriptGuy ( talk) 16:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That really doesn't address the question. Long lines require lower bit rates, but why does that choice have to be "empirical"? 206.45.170.157 ( talk) 16:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Rough consensus that this article should exist and remain under its current name. Andrewa ( talk) 18:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
T-carrier → T1 Transmission System –
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. |
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkshrews ( talk • contribs)
It may be necessary to link Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy somewhere in here... -- Joy [shallot] 10:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Huwr, yes, a see-also section is easy, but it would be better to have it properly integrated :) -- Joy [shallot]
I've looked at this page several times, and thought - damn, this sucks. I wish I had the time to add some data. Then a google search for something unrelated ran across DS1. A DS-1 is basically a T-1, but a search on the Wiki for "T-1" drops you here (where there's very little useful info), while the DS-1 page is much more useful, I think. Looking around, the DS0/DS1/T1/T3/E1/T-carrier section needs work. Inconsistently named, information is fragmented, redirects go to odd places, etc. As a stopgap, I added a link to the DS-1 page; maybe next month (after finals) I'll see about helping straighten this page out some more, if it still needs it. Codayus 08:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to see the E1 page separated out from T1, since E1 is by far the most common worldwide standard (T1 really only seen in US/Canada these days). E1 signalling should refer to R2-MFC channel associated (CAS) tone methods as well as ISDN and SS7 methods. I don't know how to change the page redirection and setup a new page though. Paidup
Agree, but same kinds of out of band signalling (SS7 and ISDN (PRI)) are carried across a T1 carrier here in the US. Both the T1 and E1 articles should refer to signalling methods. Kgrr 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Paidup (and all), There is a key thing missing in this article. T1 is a physical layer specification only. It describes the four-wire point to point circuit that carries the DS1/24*DS0 signals. T1 transmits DS-1 formatted data. On the other hand, the DS-1 specification describes the Digital Signal - synchronization, framing, clocking, timing, encoding... DS-1s can be carried across other media such as fiber.
Also, in this article, I expected more information about the physical interface
etc.
I will try to contribute more to this article when I find the time. Kgrr 01:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a year later, and I have not re-written the article. Clearly, the DS1 information needs to be moved out of this article and this article should concentrate on the physical copper T1 medium, not the DS-1 particulars. They should be in the separate DS-1 article. Kgrr 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[DSX-1}--{ORB]--3kft--[RPTR]--6kt--[RPTR]--...--[NIU]--[CSU]--[DSU]--[CPE]
showing the spacing between the office repeater in the office repeater bay (ORB) and the first line repeater as 3000 feet (3Kft) and spacing between subsequent repeaters as 6Kft.
[D1 bank]--[DSX-1]--X--[DSX-1]--[ORB]--[RPTR]--....--[RPTR]--[ORB]--DSX-1]--X--[DSX-1]--[D1 bank]
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)
The comment about the 8bit frame being appropriated for voice is incorrect and should be removed. An E1 is 32x 8 bit Timeslots (TS), of which the first (TS0) is used for framing and the remaining 31 are available for voice. However it is only in international circuits that full use of the 31 TS are utilised for voice and in the majority of national circuits one is often used for signalling (TS16), leaving 30 for voice. 192.91.191.162 ( talk) 10:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
I put the clarification needed 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)
Yeah, the problem stems from the use of "bandwidth" as synecdoche for either bit rate or channel capacity which arises in turn from computer people misunderstanding communications people twenty years ago. Literal bandwidth is an important factor in determining either of these digital questions, so its word is used to represent both of them. Fixing the situation by specifying bandwidth (signal processing) works well enough in signal processing contexts, which this is not, since alternate mark inversion is a way to increase bit rate, decrease bandwidth, and avoid the complexities of signal processing. Grumble grumble; the whole magillah could be avoided by not mixing the metaphorical use of words with their technical use but the habit seems entrenched, and piercing the resulting symantic fog will require much rework. Jim.henderson ( talk) 16:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
--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)
The article currently says "To accommodate loading coils, cable vault manholes were physically 2000 meter (6,600 ft) apart, and so the optimum bit rate was chosen empirically[.]" What does the distance being 2000 meters have to do with the optimum bit rate being chosen empirically? These seem to be completely unrelated issues. 130.179.29.59 ( talk) 20:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The very short answer is that, as the distance of a wire gets longer, high frequencies degrade much faster than low frequencies. That is the key to that sentence of the article. The T1 signal is 1,544,000 bits each second. Each of those bits can be either a 1 or a 0. You "set" those bits to 1 or to 0 by mixing small amounts of higher frequencies with the T1 signal. Since those higher frequencies degrade (disappear) as the wire gets longer, you lose bits as the line gets longer. Lines longer than 2,000 meters lost too many bits. TheWasScriptGuy ( talk) 16:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That really doesn't address the question. Long lines require lower bit rates, but why does that choice have to be "empirical"? 206.45.170.157 ( talk) 16:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Rough consensus that this article should exist and remain under its current name. Andrewa ( talk) 18:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
T-carrier → T1 Transmission System –
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)
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)
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)