Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Ethernet Over Assorted Materials

Posted by timothy on Thu Jan 03, 2002 05:38 PM
from the as-long-as-the-bits-are-bits dept.
saridder writes: "Cisco has demonstrated their latest last mile technology, and not only can you now have 10 MB Ethernet over Cat3, Cat2, Cat1, try lamp power cord, battery jumper terminals, barbed wire, etc. This may have solved the last mile problem, and at 10 MB, it blows DSL out of the water."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Ethernet Over Assorted Materials | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 323 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • With @Home and ATT... by Marx_Mrvelous (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:40PM
  • Materials by ZaneMcAuley (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:40PM
    • Re:Materials by Noodleroni (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @07:17PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Ooh by keyne (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:42PM
  • 5000 ft != MILE (Score:5, Insightful)

    by codepunk (167897) on Thursday January 03 2002, @05:42PM (#2781768) Homepage
    I think it is just short of a mile, thus the technology is nothing more than hype. It is the last 20 miles that need to be addressed not the last 5000 ft.

  • Strange for of dyslexia? (Score:3, Funny)

    by corporatemutantninja (533295) on Thursday January 03 2002, @05:43PM (#2781771)
    Is it just me, or did anyone else think "huge bare ass" when they saw "Hugh Barrass" in this article?
  • This solves nothing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BillyGoatThree (324006) on Thursday January 03 2002, @05:43PM (#2781773)
    Nobody has run Cats 3, 2 or 1 to my house, nor have I got a barbed wire connection to my ISP. The last mile problem is not one of technology--there are millions of technologies that can solve the technical issues.

    The problem is money. Nobody wants to spend the dollars necessary to hook us all up with data cable. That's why all the hullabalo about cable ISPs and DSL--they both utilize an existing physical connection.

    In other words, the answer will not come from Cisco, it will come from somebody with deep pockets. And the only pockets deep enough in this case belong to the federal government.

  • hasn't solved s--- outside the office by swschrad (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:43PM
  • barbed wire by magicslax (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:43PM
  • Barbed wire? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ENOENT (25325) on Thursday January 03 2002, @05:43PM (#2781777) Homepage Journal
    Hey, I just went out and bought a spool of barbed wire, only to discover that Cisco hasn't yet developed Ethernet-over-barbed-wire technology.

    I guess I'll just have to reattach the alligator clips for my Ethernet-over-city-sewer connection.
    • Re:Barbed wire? by Klaruz (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:53PM
    • Re:Barbed wire? by jeorgen (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:59PM
    • Re:Barbed wire? by Uberminky (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:10PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Barbed wire? by mrfiddlehead (Score:3) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:21PM
    • Re:Barbed wire? by reflexreaction (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:37PM
    • Re:Barbed wire? (Score:4, Informative)

      by trippd6 (20793) on Thursday January 03 2002, @07:23PM (#2782458) Homepage
      Funny you should mention this.

      I had lunch with a Cisco sales rep, and apparently thier demo for this stuff includes several feet of barb wire. They unhook it, and re hook it up, to prove its working.

      The demo starts out with like 1000 feet of Cat 3, then cat 1, then lamp cable, then the barb wire, then more cable, reavaling each section as they talk about it to wow you. I haven't seen it, the sales guy just told me about it.

      Sounds pretty interesting... it says 10 Mbps at 5000 feet... I assume you get less Mbps the farther you go out... actaully the sales rep was supposed to get me this info, and never did... I'll get on his back about it....

      -Tripp
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Saw the demo (Score:5, Informative)

        by anticypher (48312) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `rehpycitna'> on Thursday January 03 2002, @08:57PM (#2782849) Homepage
        I saw the demo for this last year, its pretty lame. If you can, grab the demo kit from the marketing slime and try it with regular 10bT ethernet and it still works.

        They have built a big wooden frame, about 1.2 metres on a side. Across the front of it they have a number of strips of cloth, held in place with velcro. The spiel starts about putting a signal down cat5 cable, and how expensive that can be. The rep pulls off the top strip of cloth, revealing some cat5 running between two RJ45 plugs, at the top is a connection to a LRE switch, and coming out of the bottom still hidden by 4 or 5 more strips of cloth is another RJ45 going to another LRE switch with a signal light. The rep makes a point to plug and unplug the cat5 to show the signal lights going on and off.

        Then the pitch starts talking about cheaper cable, and then he pulls off the next strip, showing cat3 phone cable. The jumper from the cat5 RJ45 goes into the RJ45 for the cat3, and the jumper on the other side goes down to the next level which is still hidden.

        Soon the pitch talks about pushing signal over anything, and the sales rep pulls off the next cloth, revealing two strips of lamp cord. And finally the bottom strip reveals four strands of barbed wire between 4 insulator posts, with RJ45 connectors at either end. BFD.

        The final result is that the LRE signal is running over a bunch of impedence mismatched wires for a total distance of about 5 metres. If the rep is doing this canned demo in a conference room and there is 10bT available, try running a regular 10bT signal through this frame, it will probably still work.

        They may also have a 200-250 metre spool of twisted pair phone wire with RJ45s at either end. That is impressive, since 10bT will have lots of error at such a distance, but LongReachEthernet will back down to about 2 Mbps and still function.

        And this isn't a direct plug replacement for ethernet, LRE requires both dedicated blades in their switches for distribution, and very expensive receiving units for the far end. They are targetting places with old wiring going to a wiring closet, they can't actually compete with DSL at this time. But there is always a question about using these switches for neighborhood distibution when a telco has a small remote switch serving customers at the end of a fibre loop. The rep will not make any committment to that.

        the AC
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Barbed wire? by breezer (Score:2) Friday January 04 2002, @04:51AM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Barbed wire? by ppanon (Score:1) Friday January 04 2002, @12:38AM
    • really bad idea, anyway? by hawk (Score:2) Friday January 04 2002, @12:47PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • It's distance-limited.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AugstWest (79042) on Thursday January 03 2002, @05:43PM (#2781778)
    "By offering Ethernet-like speeds over regular phone wire, at reaches up to 5,000 feet, and co-existing with phone traffic, LRE brings rich, advanced services such as next generation video-on-demand to places it has not gone before."

    So, once again, 90% of the population is too far from the CO for this to bring broadband into the home.

    The problem isn't the last mile, contrary to the buzzwords... the problem is getting the pipe to run many, many miles to actual end users' homes.
  • the phone company by paranoic (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:43PM
  • Sigh... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Saint Aardvark (159009) on Thursday January 03 2002, @05:43PM (#2781783) Homepage Journal
    Cisco spokesperson "Hugh Barrass"? Yeah, wait for the Ethernet-over-Jell-O(tm) Puddin' Pops protocol called "IP Freely"...
    • Re:Sigh... by Reality Master 101 (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:55PM
    • Re:Sigh... by greenfly (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:23PM
      • Re:Sigh... by Amazing Quantum Man (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @07:40PM
    • Re:Sigh... by mrfiddlehead (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:25PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Still only useful for 5K feet (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Blue Meanie (223473) on Thursday January 03 2002, @05:44PM (#2781792)
    Sure, it's faster than DSL, but it's only good to 5000 feet - the last MILE for sure. Great in buildings, dorms, hospitals, etc. For us poor slobs that are 18,000+ feet of copper away from their CO, we're still stuck with lame alternatives. When are we going to see something that solves the DISTANCE problem, not the SPEED one?
  • MB or Mb by s1r_m1xalot (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:46PM
    • Re:MB or Mb by agallagh42 (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:44PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • We use it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Casca (4032) on Thursday January 03 2002, @05:48PM (#2781819) Journal
    It actually works pretty well. We use it on a large government facility that has some really old wiring in buildings that we don't have fiber runs into.

    Has anyone heard the Cisco story about ethernet over barbed wire? Our salesrep tells a story about a facility in Kuwait (I think) that was having a terrible time keeping a link up between two buildings. The locals kept stealing the cable they were using for the valuable copper. They ended up getting ethernet to run over a piece of barbed wire running between the buildings. The error rate was high, and the sustainable throughput was abismal, but with TCP's error correction they were able to get a useful connection through.

    I don't know how true that really is, might be a Cisco myth told to impress customers or something.
    • Re:We use it by geekoid (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:56PM
      • Re:We use it by Casca (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:02PM
      • Re:We use it by frankmu (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:02PM
    • Re:We use it by spudnic (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @08:12PM
      • Re:We use it by Alsee (Score:1) Friday January 04 2002, @01:38AM
  • Ethernet over barbed-wire by J.D. Hogg (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:50PM
  • Short on details by soundsop (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:50PM
  • Short on Detail? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by syrupMatt (248267) on Thursday January 03 2002, @05:51PM (#2781847) Homepage Journal
    That article seemed mostly a puff piece, and fairly short on technical detail (anyone do any digging?). Not that I doubt Cisco's ability to discover methods of doing this, but it also seems a pr piece for investors maybe?

    Anyway, it seems like a good idea, however, is there another block here that can be achieved by a company (ie the bells last mile influence on dsl)? Broadband to the masses ideas seem to come and go with the wind lately, and most seem never to pan out.
  • by Nonesuch (90847) <nonesuchNO@SPAMmsg.net> on Thursday January 03 2002, @05:52PM (#2781856) Homepage Journal
    Actually, ethernet over barbed wire is nothing new [signalintegrity.com], going back to 1995.

    If you follow the link to Cisco's site, there is a link on the right for the video presentation.

  • I think we're implimenting this soon... by Ikari Gendou (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:52PM
  • Not quite the last mile... by Usquebaugh (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:54PM
  • Barbed wire over ethernet (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rude Turnip (49495) <`rudeturnip' `at' `valdot.org'> on Thursday January 03 2002, @05:54PM (#2781893) Homepage
    ...or BWoE. I suspect there would be a number of spikes in the connection.
  • Irrelevant by Renraku (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:55PM
  • No it does not solve the last mile problem by Papa Legba (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:56PM
  • Barbed wire tapping by alphabet26 (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:56PM
  • Am i missing something? by Gleep (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:56PM
  • by dbarclay10 (70443) on Thursday January 03 2002, @05:57PM (#2781922)
    Okay. So, yeah, we might finally have a reasonable technology to solve the "last mile" problem.

    But where the *hell* is all this bandwidth going to come from? I mean, server bandwidth is expensive. I know a few people who donate Debian mirrors, and it costs them a pretty penny, that's for sure.

    I mean, I'd still want to have this; if for nothing more than great community networks. (Community as in physical locality)

    But this won't solve all our problems, it will probably bring us new ones.

    Not that we still shouldn't do it :)
    • Re:Riiight ... and where will the bandwidth come f by Artemis (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @07:20PM
    • by srvivn21 (410280) on Thursday January 03 2002, @07:56PM (#2782611)
      Where will the bandwidth come from?

      Me.

      If I had a 10MB connection to my house, I'd mirror shit just to mirror it. I'd download kernels and patches, and tell the maintainers to put me on the list of mirrors. And I wouldn't be alone.

      That's one of the reasons that P2P networks work so well. There are so many nodes to get the information from.

      Server bandwidth is expensive because it is a scarce commodity. How much do you pay per month for the 100MB connection between your workstation and your server? If you (conveniently) don't count the cost of the infrastructure, the price is zero. Factor in the cost of the infrastructure, and amortize it over the life of the equipment and that number is still ridiculously low. ($70 for two NICs, $80 for a half-decent switch (optional), say it's only good for a year. That's $12.50 a month!)

      Server bandwidth is expensive because servers are concentrated into little high traffic nodes. Spread the traffic out (ala freenet, gnutella, morpheus, etc.) and costs drop dramatically. Make bandwidth a commodity, and you will start paying commodity prices.
      [ Parent ]
    • Maybe you haven't heard... by Ian Peon (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @09:13PM
  • Hugh Barass = Huge Bare ass? by jafac (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:57PM
  • LRE (Score:5, Informative)

    by doogles (103478) on Thursday January 03 2002, @06:01PM (#2781948)
    I do not believe Cisco does, or ever has, positioned LRE as a "last-mile" technology. LRE is more about leveraging existing cabling infrastucture in a multi-unit facilities such as hotels and hospitals.

    Cisco's LRE product offering requires two pieces:
    1. An LRE-capable switch at the head-end (such as a 2900XL LRE [cisco.com]), which terminates the LRE and has a standard Ethernet handoff to your normal data equipment. In an intergrated voice/data setup (where you're reusing existing voice cabling to carry voice AND data) you would then use their LRE 48 POTS Splitter [cisco.com] at the head-end and hand off to the PBX before bringing everything in to the 2900XL LRE.
    2. Cisco 575 CPE [cisco.com], which uplinks to the head-end and splits off the voice and the data. Very similar to Cisco's 600 series.

    Sound like DSL? It essentially is, just on a smaller scale (3500XL/2900XL LRE costs a whole hell of a lot less then a carrier-class DSLAM). In fact, scanning over the Cisco 575 CPE Overview [cisco.com], Cisco declares the technology to be "based on VDSL".

    Draw your own conclusions, but I have never heard this positioned as a last-mile replacement. The article never seems to hint at it either, but simply reiterate their marketing the product line for multi-tenant facilities.
    • Re:LRE by peno (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:59PM
    • Re:LRE by Zigurd (Score:3) Thursday January 03 2002, @09:59PM
  • True "Thin" ethernet: RG173U by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:06PM
  • So when can I order??? by TheLinuxWarrior (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:17PM
  • Umm this is nothing new by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:19PM
  • As long as... by dbretton (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:21PM
  • So when do we get... by stere0 (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:21PM
  • Huge BareAss? by MoreBeer (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:24PM
  • More info here (Score:3, Informative)

    by bill (12141) on Thursday January 03 2002, @06:25PM (#2782115)
    Actually, this Cisco technology is a the first implementation of a standard that IEEE's 802.3 subcommittee is working on. The link can be found here: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/tech/2001/1210tech.ht ml [nwfusion.com]

    Hats off to Cisco's engineers for putting this into hardware - with the emerging IEEE standard, hopefully there will be others.

  • What about RFI? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Thursday January 03 2002, @06:25PM (#2782116) Homepage
    Subject says it all.

    The nice 10 MHz square waves going over an unshielded wire are going to make a whole lot of harmonics (and products) all up and down the radio spectrum. Depending on the power you'd need to push your signal down a mile of barbed wire (and with a transmitting antenna a mile long), I'm pretty sure you'd run afoul of any number of FCC regs. Plus, it would probably just irritate the cows :-).

    • Re:What about RFI? (Score:5, Informative)

      by rcw-home (122017) on Thursday January 03 2002, @06:56PM (#2782304)
      nice 10 MHz square waves

      If this is really VDSL-based, there will be several modulated sine waves in use.

      Depending on the power you'd need to push your signal down a mile of barbed wire

      Easily determined by the required bitrate, available bandwidth, and noise floor. Millivolts, although they'll probably use a couple volts (like standard 10/100/1000baseT) to make the parts cheaper.

      with a transmitting antenna a mile long

      Properly-designed transmission line does not radiate (much). This is primarily done by either running a balanced signal down two twisted conductors (twisted pair) or running an unbalanced signal inside a grounded shield (coax).

      [ Parent ]
    • Also what about Crosstalk? by billstewart (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @10:50PM
    • EMC by olman (Score:1) Friday January 04 2002, @06:50AM
  • For Sale by NiftyNews (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:26PM
  • If Cisco has sold you ... by Florian Weimer (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:28PM
  • Not as good as... by r_j_prahad (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:32PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Wire to the home is NOT the problem by Tsu-na-mi (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:34PM
  • what happened to other cisco tech? by austad (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:38PM
  • Barbed wire. by Penguinoflight (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:41PM
  • i see it now.. by gnurd (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:42PM
  • Just Cisco's own brand of Home PNA? by PalmKiller (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:44PM
  • Speed and DSL comparison gripes by Paranoid (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:46PM
  • What about DSDN? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JonathanF (532591) on Thursday January 03 2002, @06:52PM (#2782286)

    I hate to sound like I'm marketing it, but what about DSDN? It's true that it doesn't run over existing technologies, but for 10 Mbps Internet access it's considerably cheaper than the current alternatives (such as direct fibre-optic lines) and is supposed to cost about as much for the end user as their cable or DSL ISP already does.

    It's already in use in Denver as well as a section of Utah, and it's supposed to be very fast in practice - not just theory. The Denver ISP has a site at wideopenwest.com [wideopenwest.com] and the company that designed the technology is at switchpoint.com [switchpoint.com]. Switchpoint is the one testing it in Utah as far as I know.

    I also know that Slashdot has mentioned this tech before, but it bears repeating this for others; we'll never get past sub-standard cable and phoneline solutions if people don't demand alternatives.

  • LRE is not vapor, it works quite well (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Falcor (1142) on Thursday January 03 2002, @07:01PM (#2782332)
    We are using LRE technology to connect approximately 50 buildings via cat 1 and cat 3 underground phone cable. LRE requires only a signle pair, and can share a pair with a voice line, just like DSL.

    Out to 3000 feet 15 megabits is normal, between 3000 and 5000 only 5 megabits is typical, but it depends on the quality of the cable.

    This technology is based on VDSL and works using the same principals, but runs at a higher data rate, limiting the distance. Also, LRE transports Ethernet frames directly, without any ATM protocol overhead, unlike most of the other DSL solutions. This greatly reduces costs.

    The Cisco 575 LRE device is much like the low-end Cisco 600 series DSL routers in appearance, but has no active layer 3 capabilities. Basically, the remote 575 port appears to the 2924LRE as if it were a local port, allowing trunking and vlan assignments as supported by the 2900 series switch.

    If you could order a number of "alarm pairs(dry copper)" from your local telco, between a friendly ISP and your houses, and the distance was less than 5000 ft., this would be a pretty economical solution. Otherwise, it's not of much use for the average homeowner.

    -Falcor
  • Uhm, ARCNET? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jailbrekr (73837) <jailbrekr@digitaladdiction.net> on Thursday January 03 2002, @07:02PM (#2782338) Homepage
    It was only 1Mb/s, but it could communicate over ANYTHING. Would not take too much to bump the speed up with todays technology.

    This isn't new or suprising. This technology has been around for years. God, I remember using ARCNET to communicate thru barbed wire back in 1995 (as a test to prove it could).
  • by simetra (155655) on Thursday January 03 2002, @07:12PM (#2782403) Homepage Journal


    Someone needs to convert pound-test to bandwidth, and there you go.
  • Another last mile solution by cr@ckwhore (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @07:17PM
  • Which company? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bender Unit 22 (216955) on Thursday January 03 2002, @07:26PM (#2782472) Journal
    Does anyone know which company they bought to obtain this technology?
  • Ethernet in the {First,Last} Mile by Guy Harris (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @07:34PM
  • Audio cable good coax replacement.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BladeMelbourne (518866) on Thursday January 03 2002, @07:59PM (#2782623)
    I had to get a 10mbps coax cable down a brick wall into the room below, but coax cable was too thick and the metal BNC connectors were too bulky. I ended up using audio cable that would normally link a stereo to it's speakers. Ping times were still 10 ms. I guess provided that the transfer medium has similiar properties of resistivity, etc, many metal replacements and objects used in infrastructure can be used to transmit data.
  • That guy's name.. ouch by drix (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @08:22PM
  • Is this news? by brad3378 (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @08:37PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Um, wireless? by Colin Smith (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @08:39PM
  • My Connection... (Score:3, Funny)

    by suwain_2 (260792) on Thursday January 03 2002, @08:45PM (#2782809) Journal
    "Hey, I just got a cable modem; it's so much faster than anything else I've ever used!"

    "Oh yeah?! I've got a barbed wire Ethernet line!"

    "A what?!"

    "A barbed-wire Ethernet line. Haven't you heard of that?"

    "Umm... No, I can't say I have."

    "Oh... ACME Networks installed it for me last month. It cost a fortune, because there are no barbed wire fences around where I live, so they had to upgrade their entire barbed wire infrastructure; they billed me for like 20 miles of barbed wire fencing."
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • This can be useful by mtnharo (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @09:01PM
  • Uh, isn't the first mile now the offical problem? by Com2Kid (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @09:12PM
  • I'd be really impressed with... by Primer (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @09:15PM
  • This isn't all that impressive by racerx509 (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @09:28PM
  • Blows DSL out of the water? by Prosper_0 (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @09:31PM
  • Apply this to ethernet by sirsnork (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @09:33PM
  • Already seen something similar by karnal (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @09:50PM
  • Mbps?? by Ziviyr (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @09:51PM
  • Recycle the OG Network! by bobbv (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @10:01PM
  • Cheaper by QuickFox (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @10:11PM
  • Bark routers and all that jazz by unovox (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @10:53PM
  • Did anyone read the article? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cramer (69040) on Thursday January 03 2002, @11:05PM (#2783253) Homepage
    Do any of you know what "the last mile" even is?

    Cisco's LRE is a LAN technology. This doesn't have one rat fart to do with any part of the last mile. It works over existing Cat1-3 (phone) premise wiring for distances of up to 5000ft. This is not a replacement for Cable Modems, DSL, or ougie boards. And no, it does not "blow DSL out of the water." If you are within 5000ft of a CO, you can get very good DSL rates over ONE (30AWG) pair (not the 4pairs that comprise CatX cables.)

    This is technology for multi-tenate units like apartment buildings, hotels, offices, malls, etc. The article spells this out in perfectly plain engligh:
    • Owners of multi-unit buildings such as hotels, apartments buildings, business complexes, universities, hospitals, manufacturing floors and government agencies are now able to deliver an unprecedented number and a variety of new, broadband applications to users.
    You will not see this being run through the public telephone grid.

    There actually is an IEEE standards body for "Ethernet in the Last Mile" -- I don't know the number for it off hand. And companies are designing hardware to provide 10M ethernet connections with further reach than SDSL. And this is last mile technology. (I'm too far from the CO in any case.)
  • Electric cord is great and all but.... by DarkHelmet (Score:1) Friday January 04 2002, @04:00AM
  • Wireless Lamp Cording by BiggyP (Score:1) Friday January 04 2002, @07:29AM
  • Barbed Wire by ruvreve (Score:1) Friday January 04 2002, @07:30AM
  • Cisco last mile by jkirby (Score:1) Friday January 04 2002, @06:48PM
  • DS2 lets you up to 45 Mbps thru powerline by paugq (Score:1) Friday January 04 2002, @10:06PM
  • Re:Obviously a Hoax (Score:3, Informative)

    by linzeal (197905) <rakista@gmail.com> on Thursday January 03 2002, @05:45PM (#2781795) Homepage Journal
    A simple google search [google.com] would prove that assumption wrong.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Obviously a Hoax by Suburban nmate (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:51PM
  • Re:Obviously a Hoax by YouAreFatMan (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:53PM
  • ... or not. by tomblackwell (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:54PM
  • Re:Obviously a Hoax by Bonker (Score:2) Thursday January 03 2002, @05:56PM
  • Re:Obviously a Hoax by Afrosheen (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:10PM
  • Re:Obviously a Hoax by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:20PM
  • Re:I used my cat... by saridder (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:23PM
  • Re:Isn't this the same thing as HomePNA? by peno (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @06:45PM
  • Re:Obviously a Hoax by Jestr26 (Score:1) Thursday January 03 2002, @11:57PM
  • Re:Obviously a Hoax by Alan Partridge (Score:1) Friday January 04 2002, @01:18AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:I used my cat... by Destoo (Score:1) Friday January 04 2002, @09:43AM
  • 21 replies beneath your current threshold.
(1) | 2