VDSL Demoed 102
coaxial writes "According to Techweb, STMicroelectronics and Telia Research AB demonstrated VDSL (Very-High-Bit-Rate DSL). Supposedly it will allow 60Mbps and be available by 2001. " I've heard rumours of demonstrations to be down at Comdex in couple weeks. Need to keep my eyes open for that.
Re:AGGH! (Score:1)
I think this would actually be helpful in getting traditional DSL (or other fast access technologies) out to more remote users in that the telcos or cablecos wouldn't have to string fibre to replace the existing copper on the poles. They could just put in a VDSL box every couple of miles and thereby supply the bandwidth to get the users within range of that box hooked up at 512kbs or 640kbs. A single VDSL connection could host 100 such connections simultaneously which probably would allow a 1000 end users.
Re:Don't Make Me Laugh (Score:1)
What makes me sketchy is that last I heard, they were pushing for VDSL over fiber - not over copper. I guess its possible - depending on how old your local telephone backbone is.
Re:Covad has been a nightmare. (Score:1)
Then about a month later a salesman from Covad came along and sold my boss on SDSL (this is for a company), and he signed up right away (our ISDN stinks).
Well nothing happend for two months and then all of a sudden we get a message from Covad saying that they can not get us DSL service, we are too far from the CO. ARRG!!! US West told us that three months ago!
Wish they had just checked with the local loop carrier before even wasting our time getting our hopes up! That, and this business is in a decently large business park, and the fact that we can't get anything faster than 128k ISDN (which is on a good day with the wind at its back) is pretty sad!
Now Covad said they might be able to get us a 144kbps Telebit service thing... We are looking into it, but not with very high hopes. That 384kpbs with option to double DSL was very sweet looking. Too bad it turned out to be another pipedream. Oh well, back to work!- ---------------------------------
------------------------------------------
DSL: Bah, humbug (Score:3)
From the article:
VDSL technology has an aggregate capacity of up to 60 Mbits/second over short distances...
DSL is a pipedream until the distance-sensitivity problem is solved. I also read (I think it was on C|Net) recently that there are a lot of complaints about poor implementations (braindead admins, most likely) and less-than-acceptable throughput.
For what it's worth, SWB just rolled out ADSL in our area (NE Oklahoma) and we're about 2k ft. too far from the C.O. SWB tell me that they will be upgrading to a technology that will allow them to move the service points out closer to the customers some time next year, but I'm not holding my breath. They keep promising cheap, fat pipes, but we're still stuck with $150 a month ISDN (128K) or $1,000+ a month T1 (yes, I know T1 is sym. therefore better) if we want bandwidth.
Is it just me, or are the telcos and telco/cable people (since AT&T swallowed up TCI) just stringing us along so they can squeeze every possible penny out of T1, etc. before they make consumer broadband a reality?
Re:AGGH! (Score:4)
But you can figure out for yourself roughly what the ISP needs to overcommit just to break even on bandwidth. 1.5 Mbps ADSL in Bell Atlantic territory averages about $40/month which means the ISP must overcommit 37.5:1 to break even on bandwidth.
Subtract roughly $5 per customer in tech support costs, 15% profit margin and it comes out to about 40:1 overcommit rate.
Of course that still doesn't include equipment, adminstrative costs, software development costs, management costs, etc.
It also doesn't take into account the 'free' outbound bandwidth which ADSL users can't use which you can use for web hosting and what not in attempt to recoup some money.
--
Hope it follows xDSL (Score:1)
Which, after all, is all that matters, right?
Why? (Score:1)
Re:Bandwidth Constraints and other barriers. (Score:1)
As I understand it the "T" designator refers to an electrical specification (these days B8ZS/ESF) but the actual bandwidth of a T1 (1.544mbps raw, 1.536mbps unchannelized, and 1.344mpbs channellized)* whereas the DS designation refers to the logical ordering of bits. It's simialr to how you can send NRZ data any way you please, but it's only called RS-232 if you're sending them with an electrical spec of +/- x volts, with marks being -ve and spaces +ve.
DS3s aren't sent via any particular method. It coudl be sent via this VDSL, SONET, etc., whereas a T1 is sent via T1. A DS1 could be sent via DSL, T1, SONET (but why?) etc.
* I'm not clear on this -- B8ZS encoding leaves the channels 8-bit clean (as oppose to AMI which doesn't and forces the LSB to a 1 giving you 24 56k channels) -- why is the channelized T1 not 64k * 24 channels, as whichever 8-bit timeslots you're sending in determine which channels you're on?
Anyway -- the other point I wanted to mention was that yes it's only 45mbps, but everyone overcommits the bandwidth. How much I'm not sure (hopefully someone else will post that information) -- It's the same as how your dialups are usually on a 6:1 or 7:1 user:line ratio. Just because you have 300 dialup users doesn't mean you have 300 dialup lines available. You likely have 48 or so. I'm not sure how the overcommit games is played in the 24/7 market, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if they have a 45mbps backbone, they don't have ONLY 28 DS1 ports on it. Probably a hundred or so.
Re:AGGH! (Score:2)
...and my house...
DSL is good stuff, but it is a shame the distance blows large hairy donkeys. Cable would be nice if they didn't overcommit their bandwidth 300:1.
What is a decent overcommit for high-speed users anyway? I've been hearing anywhere from 5:1 to 100:1 but nobody has good solid evidence one way or the next.
Still waiting for BT to sort out ADSL (Score:2)
Bandwidth not so a plenty... (Score:3)
Re:why use dsl... (Score:1)
Because it's probably cheaper than running 10 miles of single-mode fiber, which is what you'd need if you want a 10-mile long ethernet link..
</pedant>
Your Working Boy,
Logarithmic Bandwidth (Score:1)
1992 T-1 1.544 Mbps
1995 T-3 44.736 Mbps
1996 OC-3 155.52 Mbps
1997 OC-12 622.08 Mbps
1999 OC-48 2.488 Gbps
logarithmic prediction:
2000 OC-192 10 Gbps
2002 100 Gbps
2004 1 Tbps
2006 10 Tbps
Thought: 10 Tbps = 1.6 kbps for every person on the planet
AGGH! (Score:3)
How many of you begged and pleaded with your local telco to get DSL? How many of you called up the PUC, or the CLECs in your area? How many of you honestly did the number crunching to see if you could get a frame relay to your house? Probably alot of you.
Great technology.... (bastards). Sorry.. I just get really emotional sometimes (bastards). *sigh*
--
Re:DSL: Bah, humbug (Score:2)
In any case, I think the limit for VSDL-type speed is a few hundred metres - not particularly useful unless the telcos install mini-exchanges on every street.
FWIW, I'd be happy with 1mbit/sec or so, if our local Telcos/cable operators (which are basically one and the same in Oz) weren't charging 35c/MB for it!
IDSL a.k.a DSL-Lite anyone? (Score:1)
Hmph. Instead of getting faster DSL, I may be getting a slower one. Our business is too far from the CO, so they can't install SDSL, even at the lowest speed.
These two ISPs I'm talking to say they might start to support IDSL (or DSL-Lite), which can go longer distances but at a slower bit-rate (140kbps).
Has anyone else had any experience with this?
Re:DSL: Bah, humbug (Score:1)
They also have declined to deploy it in some commercial areas (notably the Westport area, for those of you familiar with St. Louis) that have a high concentration of businesses currently paying for T1 lines.
Of course, the cable companies here either offer nothing at all, or one-way cable modems (which require a dialup connection for the uplink).
Re:Don't Make Me Laugh (Score:1)
On the other hand most ADSL modems work best at a range of 6-9000ft and things dont get too ugly till about 12000ft or so. Past 13000ft and you might as well forget it. An interesting fact about ADSL is that the middle range is actually better then being point blank as all the ADSL modems transmit at a fixed power level, too far from the CO and it degrades, too close and it leaks into other frequencies. This is of course assuming the copper you are on doesnet suck completely.
There are special implmentations such as Nortels 1 meg modem that will deliver 1Mbit+ way out at 20000ft.
Chris
Re:Density Matters (Score:1)
Yes. If they need broadband Internet, let them pay the real cost of getting it.
Otherwise they are screwing me. Nice attitude, huh?
--
Re:Density Matters (Score:1)
Is it "for good for society" to give individuals $300,000 or $2400 of real estate subsidies so that they have the 'freedom' can live in a retirement community far away from anything? (I'm not even including federal water subsidies, and so on.) I'm pretty dubious at that proposition - it defies basic economies of scale and leads to unnatural economic situations.
It's unfortuate that we don't believe in universal telephone service anymore, but I can't see the argument for Internet service. If like you say, "eventually everything will be broadband", it's not going to happen by stringing a wire out to everyone's house in the US's largely unpopulated countryside and sparsely populated outer suburbs. Better hope for a wireless solution.
Elsewhere in this thread, people noted that broadband penetration is high in Canada. There's a reason for that -- Canada has development controls that have lead to a much higher population density in urban areas. Consequently it's cheaper and easier to rollout all services, from mass transit to broadband Internet. Density matters, especially in an unregulated Internet economy.
--
Density Matters (Score:2)
When the telephone system was being created, the thought was that it was such an essential service that the generally more well-off high density cities should subsidize the wiring to the generally depressed rural communities. This system worked wonderfully, providing universal access that was still affordable.
However, like many other rural subsidies (such as the highway programs), the net effect was that millions of Americans found it reasonable to move to areas of very low densities for quality of life reasons.
You have to realize that low density communities and anything that comes in on a wire do not mix well. The cable companies almost drove themselves out of business in the 1980s trying to provide universal service, and you can be damn sure that the DSL companies won't do the same thing.
Considering the short range of DSL, if you live in a community with 1 acre lots, I'd be suprised if you ever got the service. You made a lifestyle choice and you don't deserve it. And if you do get broadband, I hope you are paying the real cost -- not relying on subsidies from higher density areas that far cheaper to provide service to.
--
Re:Bandwidth Constraints and other barriers. (Score:1)
The real sticking point with VDSL is the distance sensitive nature of it. It will make sense in large apartment buildings first. This would permit you to surf the net, talk on the phone and watch "every movie ever made in every language" or whatever (probably more like all the porn that you can take from every conceivable angle).
However, we may see that people that don't have ADSL now will be MORE likely to get VDSL. VDSL will involve putting some environmentally hardened equipment out at some box in your neighborhood and being fed by fiber back to the central office. People that are far away from the central offices are already (in many cases) fed by fiber. being fed by fiber prevents ADSL from working, but will ensure that those people will be served by VDSL.
DW
Re:Bandwidth not so a plenty... (Score:1)
apparently this had to do with the strange monopoly situation which i am not entirely clear on (or, strictly speaking, care about). just give me my damn bandwidth!
Bandwidth Constraints and other barriers. (Score:1)
this brings up another concern: cost. will telcos charge outrageous prices for this new technology, if they provide it at all? certainly!
the great thing is that the modems for vdsl will be backwards compatible with adsl. this will allow consumers to purchase such a modem and use it for adsl, upgrading to vdsl when they (or their telco) see fit.
Re:One to fetch, one to carry? (Score:1)
A server that I can ping at around 40ms with my DSL connection takes generally 500-700ms on my Hughes dish. The outbound packet headers contain a source address to the subscribers sat transmission POP which can be many more hops than shown from your outbound network interface. Then your downsteam packets are queued with every other subscriber for transmission. I'm better off with only a modem in this situation, even when factoring in the latency for modulation.
If you can receive a good DSL signal in the first place, what would be the benefit of bringing in a dish?
Not where...but who will offer. (Score:1)
-Al-
PS How come when I submitted this story early this morning it got rejected? I think the squandron of samuri squirels are getting reject happy!
Covad has been a nightmare. (Score:2)
And where is Covad's network? Apparently, they get the "last mile" network from US West, the same US West that didn't want to give us DSL service but will give DSL network support to Covad for the same area!?
(sorry for venting, they're holding my bandwidth hostage
Re:AGGH! (Score:1)
I've check just about every high speed solution out there, and the only one that is feasible for my area is a satillite dish. But, I would still have to use my (slow) modem for upstream. Big Lose.
Re:Still waiting for BT to sort out ADSL (Score:1)
Unfortunately all this means I will have to abandon my current ISP, Demon Internet, who seems to have fantastic international bandwidth, fixed IPs, SMTP mail delivery, etc. Ideal for a tech like me. Cable will probably put me behind some poxy firewall I don't want to "protect me from hackers" and give me a dynamic IP. In actuality the firewall will be to prevent me from setting up a web server, etc. Anyone here work for Telewest to open up a few holes in the firewall pointing to my fixed IP?
Re:Covad has been a nightmare. (Score:1)
Re:wow, sounds nice (Score:1)
Re:wow, sounds nice (Score:1)
The signaling rates of such technologies are moving higher and higher into the RF spectrum and as such have a very real potential (especially when not used in properly shielded environments) to both cause RFI and become more susceptible to it.
This is going to be especially true if deployed on the rather mediocre twin wire telephone lines that feed most of our homes and businesses.
Still waiting... (Score:1)
He's right (but don't move anyway) (Score:1)
Every one of my Canadian friends is on cable or DSL and the cost is US$30 (after tax). I mean, frickin' Nanaimo, British Columbia, has cable modems now. This is a medium-sized town on Vancouver Island. Not a capital. Not a big centre. They race bathtubs there. Seriously.
Now, I admit that part of the reason for this post is to say "ha! ha!" Sorry. But I also sincerely don't understand why the States lag so far behind its northern neighbour. Has our tolerance for monopolies helped us? Fewer population centres to cover?
And to the Scarberian who can't get DSL in Ontario, try Rogers@Home instead. I know four people in Scarborough on cable and none of them have problems.
That being said, one of the advantages of Canada is that we only have to put up with 10% of the people that Americans do. So please, stay where you are! There are bears here! And taxes! Stay!
Yogurt
Excellent reply -- thank you (Score:1)
Re:telcos (Score:1)
USWest (Score:1)
BTW, I also noticed they have an ADSL sevice called Megabit 256, which offers 256k. Is that a misleading name or what? ("59 minute cleaners is just the name of the shop. Your clothes will be ready next week.")
Re:USWest (Score:1)
Actually, they are probably using "Fiber-To-The-Curb" boxes to the neighborhoods, then existing copper from their to the homes.
Re:USWest (forgot to mention the price) (Score:1)
Re:My DSL provider is terrified of SDSL bandwidth (Score:1)
No upload caps, reasonable price, uses the same phone line as voice with no extra wiring required.
The entire kit was sent to me, within 2 days of ordering. The line was even availble before my official turn on date. Sweet. $39.95 1Meg/down 120K/up
I can't wait to get the VDSL when it comes out, the only caveat is that, as another user stated,
the backbones will need necessary upgrades to cope.
Re:Move to Canada then! (Score:1)
One Word (Score:1)
(I just wish my phone number had DSL)
It will be interesting to see what kind of pricing stucture this has, it will probably have big $$ with it at first...
(First post?)
One to fetch, one to carry? (Score:2)
I have this thought: how complex will it be to implement a cable/satellite + DSL system, so that downloads come over cable and uploads go out on DSL? And we get the phone line back when we'd much rather do the heavy breathing ear to ear instead of using chat boxes? (Flipness aside, I'm sure someone's worried about this already - pointers, anyone?)
Re:AGGH! (Score:1)
I couldn't have said it better myself.
I live in Toronto and Bell Canada can't even get their HighSpeed Edition of Sympatico to my condo. There are 5 other condos on the same block!!! And I'm talking about a high income area + high density. And no, I don't really care how far away I am from a call-centre.
Don't Move to Canada! (Score:1)
I live in Toronto (Scarborough) and Sympatico High-Speed edition is not available in my area. I live in an area with 5 condos.
Unless you live in a particular area you can forget about getting any technology.
Hell, I know of complains about poor DSL service in downtown Toronto. Apparently because the underground lines are so old.
Wow. 60MB? (Score:1)
--Evan
Re:Is the backbone ready for this? (Score:1)
Re:60 Mbps or 6.5 Mbps? (Score:1)
I know that here in Cincinnati the ADSL coverage misses a lot of people because they are out of the 18,000 foot-from-the-CO range. I can only imagine what the coverage would be like (actual I can, there would only be a handful of subscribers) if the distance was even the 6.5MB 5000 feet.
I would have to imagine that this will be one of those technologies that is really cool, but not economical to roll out because of its limited coverage area.
users? (Score:1)
will this new technology, that i cant have yet , have the same sort of problems? does anyone really know what the connections would be like if/when a real %age of people are using these lines. by the time this new tech comes out we may already be in that position. is the industry taking into consideration this as much as they should or is this new fast connection just going to be a gimmick to geeks who want to brag.
-lexicon
60 Mbps or 6.5 Mbps? (Score:1)
VDSL data-access rates vary depending on the
length and condition of a line, from 26 Mbit/s
symmetrical over about 1,000 feet, down to 6.5
Mbits/s symmetrical at approximately 5,000 feet.
Not that I'd complain about 6.5 Mbps.
Re:One to fetch, one to carry? (Score:1)
They don't have to be the same ISP, and as long as neither one engages in anti-smurfing filters, it will work without intervention.
Bandwidth isn't the issue (Score:2)
Re:My DSL provider is terrified of SDSL bandwidth (Score:1)
But your in the minority, my friend, if all you had to do was install a dingle, twist a gidget, and POOF, out pops baby bandwidth.
Here in Chicago area there are no gingles to twist or gidgets to push. Here, we wait for Ameritech.
And here, we all know (as evidenced by all of our posts on chi.internet) that if it can be fscked up, Ameritech will fsck it up.
I'm sure the same can be said for any other telco when it comes to DSL: PacBell, Boston Atlantic, etc.
The nightmares far, far outweigh the "chill dude, all's I had to do was place a call and it worked" installations.
My DSL provider is terrified of SDSL bandwidth (Score:3)
Nevermind the obvious facts that (a) DSL is only available to a small percentage of the population due to the distance-from-CO requirements, (b) that getting DSL installed is a nightmare (Ameritech [for example] has to come out, install the line, then Rhythms, then you need to sync up properly, etc. etc.), (c) DSL pricing is still widely variable (I pay 49 bucks a months for 1.04/1.04 SDSL, yet a buddy of mine pays 185 bucks a month for 384/128 ADSL), (d) providers offering xDSL take anywhere from 4-12 weeks to actually the DSL working (because of, ahem, Ameritech fscking up the install, missing install dates, calling for additional $$$ for construction) -- nevermind these obvious facts, what makes this such uninteresting news is that unless VDSL uses some revolutionary sort of technology that means less expense for the telcos or that it somehow obviates the infamous "truck-roll" it'll only add more confusion to the already confused and expensive DSL market.
Not to mention that VDSL would probably only be affordable if it forces some sort of upload/download cap on the average home-user.
To me, a home-user, VDSL screams out a couple things: extremely fast downloads of MP3s and extremely fast downloads of warez, period. It means I can run a bigass server on a fat pipe.
So what?
I got an upload cap on my SDSL service (49 bucks/month which includes 1 gig upload w/additional uploads at 20 bucks a gig.)
Everyone is trying to limit everything -- downloads, uploads, the number of minutes for streaming video, etc. etc.
And what all this means is that everyone is terrified of bandwidth because bandwidth is expensive. So, please, you're gonna taunt me with VDSL but say, well, I'm capped to 20 gigs a month or capped to 10 mins a day of broadcast quality video, or use some weird-ass PPPoE protocol so that, well, it's DSL but it's not 24/7?
Please. Forget it.
Re:Is the backbone ready for this? (Score:1)
The backbone doesn't need to handle the bandwidth, if people like Akamai [akamai.com] and InfoLibria [infolibria.com] have their way. They put servers at the ISP headend, and charge content providers for cacheing their material at the "edge of the web".
Consider that much news footage is shot in DV25 these days. This is a 25 Mbps format. I think VDSL + edge servers looks really interesting for full-quality video delivery.
I'm not forgetting the quality-of-implementation and distance-from-CO issues; I just figure they'll get worked out eventually.
it's 60 MegaBITS, not MegaBYTES per second!!! (Score:1)
V2K
The reason (Score:1)
The first Broadcasting Act (1920s? 30s?) said that the "National" broadcasting system would be responsible for providing service to the entire nation. It is not clear in the Act whether the CBC=="national broadcasting system" or whether the CBC is just one part of it, and I believe this lack of clarity has persisted. The CBC does have those millions of repeaters in remote villages though.
This policy environment was probably at least partly responsible for stimulating the academic debates that resulted in the work of communication theorists like Innis (and later, McLuhan). Innis in particular was able to see a centre vs. hinterlands communications environment, one of the touchstones of his work, developing in front of his eyes.
Given the immense distances between population centres (and a lack of suitable land lines, and the availability of some ready cash from governments), Canada was an early adopter of satellite and microwave-repeater technologies and played a key role in telecom development (at least a role out of proportion to Canada's economic and population status).
When cable became a viable technology in the early 70's, cable companies were set up as government-mandated monopolies. The philosophy at this time was still that anything that arrived in your house via a pipe or wire should be regarded as a "natural monopoly", because any other way of handling it would just be too difficult to manage.
The original Canadian cable monopolies were mostly small, and mostly confined to one city or a clearly defined portion of a city. This led to rapid availability of the service - nobody could get the monopoly for an area unless they made a guarantee that they would deliver the service more or less uniformly across that region. Having made the initial investment in dishes, wires, and other hardware, the companies also had to build their customer base quickly, so "free" services such as premium movie channels or late night soft porn were available in some areas. Households with cable quickly climbed to over 70% in urban areas.
What the regulators and policy-makers either didn't foresee (or weren't bothered about) was the rapid (over the period of ten years or so) accumulation of smaller cable companies in the hands of huge media companies like Rogers and Maclean-Hunter (Shaw, as far as I know, wasn't really huge until a bit later on). The broadcast regulators seem instead to have spent most of their energy in wringing their hands over their failure to foster a domestic television and radio production industry. Every new service which has been added to cable since the early 80's - pay channels, packages of specialty channels, pay-per-view - has been implemented with assurances that it would somehow benefit film and television production in Canada. Some of these efforts have been unconditional failures (the pay-tv service called "C-channel" in the early 80s); others have been mild successes (the demand for animation from Canadian studios has arguably increased, and the markets for those studios' products may have widened).
Given the wide adoption of cable and the fact that it is controlled by a very few companies, Canada was able to deliver cable modems to consumers very quickly and relatively cheaply, in spite of a late start relative to the US. The telcos, which had been dragging their feet in bringing ADSL to consumers. Given the fact that the "old" telcos were few in number and were accustomed to collaborating on and setting national standards, ADSL's availability around urban switches was good - once they made up their minds to deliver it.
Since the telcos were forewarned that local service was going to be opened up to competition, they started a furious program of developing premium services, and ADSL was on this list. The services themselves are useless for retaining customers unless the customers adopt them, so between the initial planning stages and the actual public availability of ADSL, the price kept dropping and dropping, and believe is still dropping. Rogers, Shaw, et al would have beens tupid not to see that coming, so they adjusted the rates for their cable modem service. Now both sit at around the same level in most locales, about 1.5 to 2x the cost of an unlimited dialup account with an ISP.
True to form, the delivery of "broadband" to consumers in Canada has resulted in a lot of homes being wired, but most of the content going to those homes is from the US. The banks, retail businesses, and media outlets in Canada have all dragged their feet where the internet is concerned (even while some of them have been spending enormous sums on it). The old (70s/80s/90s) strategy of taxing the delivery services to fund domestic content, or regulating the percentage of Canadian-produced content in a particular medium, just will not work in the current net environment (if they could ever have been said to have "worked").
I assume that my version of history has some good holes in it too. But that's the view from the clouds.
--
Re:Bandwidth isn't the issue (Score:2)
I think it's not really worth it, because here at work on our fractional T1 I usually get anywhere from 3-10KBytes/s. Oh well.
why use dsl... (Score:2)
Uses other than data... (Score:1)
Choice TV and OnLine - Developed to compete head-on with the cable companies, U S WEST's Choice TV[VDSL] and OnLine represents the nation's first and only full-scale rollout of integrated digital TV and online services using VDSL technology.
The telcos are going to use their existing infrastructure to compete with the cable companies. The system isn't designed to give every person in America 60Mbps internet access, as others had saig, the existing backbone isn't fast enough, rather, its going to give the telcos instant access into a sector they have traditionally stayed out of. Competition, yummy.
Peter Pawlowski
Whining about TCI (Score:1)
interesting but... (Score:2)
There are too many other hurdles to be cleared, political and economic. Technology is not even close to the limiting factor right now in consumer broadband.
Almost anywhere you go, the local cable and phone service is a monopoly. In some places it might be an oligopoly, I doubt you'll see more than 2 competitors anywhere in one market. Therefore, they can get away with price gouging, and hold back new technologies.
Why would these companies invest in their infrastructure to support this? These companies would rather charge you $20 a month for modem service that costs them probably 10 cents a month. Don't like that fact? Well, you can't tell your phone company to f' off, because you have no alternative. The telecommunications act a few years back only makes this situation worse.
I don't know why this company even wasted their time developing this technology (sounds like a "I've got the biggest penis" thing to me). They should be putting their money into political lobbyists to try and break this monopoly situation. As far as I'm concerned, this technology doesn't even exist. It won't affect me or anyone else for a long time.
Re:One to fetch, one to carry? (Score:1)
OTOH, regarding the ability to use voice, all the ADSL implementations I've seen allow that anyhow. I mean, voice communication only uses, like, 1% of the copper's transmission capacity, so why bother cutting it off. I used Bell Canada's ADSL service for a couple months, 1Mbit downstream, 128KBit upstream, but I could pick up the phone anytime I wanted. It was all multiplexed.
BTW - It occurs to me now that the DSL/Satellite thing probably won't take off (no pun intended). If a company is in a position to offer you a DSL hookup just for your upstream on their satellite service, why not just get yourself a decent xDSL connect and screw the satellite? With this new tech, the DSL is likely to have comparable if not better transmission speeds, and it's two way.
Re:Density Matters (Score:1)
Deserves? Nice attitude. What about farmers, doctors, etc. that must live in low density areas? Screw them, huh?
-beme
Re:Density Matters (Score:1)
I guess I'm assuming that eventually everything will be broadband, so if you want to make a phone call, you're going to need it. This article seems relevant, since we're most likely talking about new construction in rural areas to upgrade the existing equipment.
http://numa.niti.org/phone.htm [niti.org]
Me, I don't mind paying more for the good of society. Not about to try and force my beliefs on you, though.
-beme
Is the backbone ready for this? (Score:3)
But even if the backbone can handle the load, what about the telcos themselves? As someone recently pointed out, they're not going into DSL wholeheartedly at least partially because they want to protect their lucrative T1 business. You can easily squeeze T1 and faster speeds out of DSL and small to medium businesses are going to start waking up to that fact if they haven't already.
Fortunately, there's some competition in this area. US West has been blowing me off for about a year on the DSL issue. Just recently I checked Covad's web page and found that they would cheerfully install a line to my house, so I ordered one from them. Yay, competition!
Re:Still waiting for BT to sort out ADSL (Score:1)
Re:Bandwidth not so a plenty... (Score:1)
As for Cable, I got to laugh. About a month ago was the first time Time Warner (who serves the vast majority of NYC customers) acknowledged a cable modem rollout. When? Sometime in 2000-2001 they will start this rollout.
So DSL is a couple months old and Cable modems have yet to be seen. Folks, don't believe it when people say that NYC is what is being catered to. Look to Boston and SF and other 'target' markets for that rap. I live in Brooklyn and won't see broadband for about a year.
Re:Bandwidth not so a plenty... (Score:1)
this is a silly subject to get excited about until someone comes out and says yes you to can have high bandwidth, and actually mean people who live in cities with under 1 million people.
I live outside Boston (a city of ~650,000) and have cable modem. And we even have DSL around here (though its astronomically priced).
But you're right. They need to start deploying these technologies outside the few major metros. Marketing types have this uncanny nack for thinking that New York & LA are the entire U.S., forgetting that the vast majority of the population lives in that big flat space in between :)
Re:Thats nothing.. (Score:1)
Since I cant get ADSL yet... (Score:1)
I wonder how much this will cost, where i am, ADSL base speed (384 kb/s down,96 kb/s up) is 29.95/month.
mid speed (784 kb/s down, 384 kb/s up) is $39.95/month+isp costs
max speed (1.5 meg/s down, 784 kb/s up) is $150+isp costs
I could imagine where the localtelco will just go with a little math on this and screw people over:
VDSL (not sure on the math here):
7.5 megs/sec?
i would guess about $800/month
pure speculation, you may check my numbers but dont harass me about them if theyre wrong, dont show this to the phone companies.
VDSL? Hate to burst your bubble.... (Score:1)
Re:VERY SHORT distance HIGH SPEED dsl (Score:1)
Re:Still waiting for BT to sort out ADSL (Score:1)
That's exactly the same situation with NTL. I'm currently with Demon too (for the same reasons :) but with NTL's catv modem service (why the hell is it called a modem anyway?) they want you to switch to their crappy ISP (dynamic ip, pop3, probably firewalled to hell).. arrghh!!
Anyone here work for Telewest to open up a few holes in the firewall pointing to my fixed IP?
Which fixed IP address? Your Demon one? Hmm, aren't you abandoning Demon to go to TeleWest?? :)