RS> Certainly with a decent modern digital exchange at each end,
RS> the signal is digitised at the line card on the end of the
RS> subs line, at the exchange end, and then nothing that happens
RS> at the digital level between the line cards can degrade the
RS> data between the exchanges other than a fault condition.

BG> Exactly, and you might just notice that that's what I've been saying.

RS> So why were you raving on about what happens in FO previously ?

BG> I was simply stating that even though signal levels
BG> should remain constant throughout its entire length, it
BG> is still possible that this may not always be the case.

Its bullshit Bill. The stuff you were raving on about is just what
determines the repeater spacing you need to use so you DONT see any
degradation of the digital data and we WONT ever see any effect on
the digital data because of that effect. You were missing the point
utterly. Raving on about utter irrelevancys when we were discussing
where we can see variations call to call thru the network.

RS> Yes, you have come to realise that once its got into the
RS> FO network, it cant vary call to call, but you were claiming
RS> the opposite at one time with your 'theoretically' type stuff.

BG> No need to put words into my mouth just because
BG> you misunderstood what I was saying about FO.

Bullshit Bill, there is no other valid interpretation of you
'theoretically' bits. THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY you wont
get any degradation of the digital data unless you have a fault
condition, in which case the call wont be using the FO anyway.

BG> Of course the potential problems are mainly theoretical,

They aint even 'problems' just considerations
involved in choosing a repeater spacing.

BG> but it's also important to know that they CAN still occur.

Pity they cant.
@EOT:

---