 
drmorley
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-20
Park Ridge, IL
clubs: | U-Wish Faster installs would be nice. I've been hearing about this product for about three years and they still haven't installed it yet.
--
»tehblogs.com | |
|
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | but but it is about the bandwith how else are you going to deliver phone, tv, and internet at an acceptable level | |
|
 | 
ninjatutle
You can keep the "change"
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: but but it is about the bandwith Pair bonding.
Fibre is not always needed. Cable is delivered with a single copper strand  | |
|
| | 
robbob340
dslr
Premium
join:2001-02-15
Wichita, KS | Re: but but it is about the bandwith For the last many thousand feet only. Fiber to the node.  | |
|
| | | 
RIRWIN1983
join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH | Re: but but it is about the bandwith Exactly, so can that per read as you supporting at&t's design? | |
|
| | | |
robbob340
dslr
Premium
join:2001-02-15
Wichita, KS
edit:
June 20th, @04:17PM
| Re: but but it is about the bandwith No, not at all. Fiber to the home is the only way to go. If ATT was doing this now, they would not be "talking" about bandwidth upgrades, or "talking" about multiple HDTV streams. They would be doing, just like Verizon is.
EDIT=I was just using the example of Fiber to the node as a response to "fiber is not always needed"
--
Join #dslr unofficial chat! | |
|
| | Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX | You are joking right? Saying a star topology with an individual bandwidth of 12MHZ can do the same thing that a bus topology with a bandwidth of 2GHZ can just because they both share the element copper is insane. | |
|
| | 
Mactron
el Camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv | ROFL !!!!  | |
|
| | |
| | |
RIRWIN1983
join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH | Re: but but it is about the bandwith The lines themself arnt the issue, its the technology sending it down the line. | |
|
| | | |
robbob340
dslr
Premium
join:2001-02-15
Wichita, KS | Re: but but it is about the bandwith Tell that to people with 60 year old lines, that wont hold a dsl connection.
--
Join #dslr unofficial chat! | |
|
| | | |
| | | korfus
join:2002-04-08
Milton, FL
| "Isn't cable something like 10x thicker than a phone wire? Exactly why a cable connections can continue pretty long distances and phone lines can only get... what? 3 miles max?"
What about the "boosters" located all along the cable system, I think they are closer than 3 miles! And my DSL is twice as fast as the cable broadband I just got rid of, and $18 less a month! Mediacom = Bad! AT&T = Better VERIZON = BEST | |
|
| | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
 ·Packet8
 ·Cox HSI
edit:
June 20th, @03:56PM
| said by ninjatutle  :Pair bonding. Fibre is not always needed. Cable is delivered with a single copper strand That can provide up to 1Gbps of bandwidth conservatively... Phone cable can't provide anywhere NEAR that.
--
Prove it... | |
|
| | |
ninjatutle
You can keep the "change"
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: but but it is about the bandwith What provider is going to give you 1Gbps? And you want that at DSL prices right | |
|
| | | | ShadezeRO
join:2006-04-24
Fort Lauderdale, FL | Re: but but it is about the bandwith I thought I read about a company in California that was doing it.
Started with a 'P'
They offered like 100mb symmetrical also. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
ninjatutle
You can keep the "change"
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: but but it is about the bandwith So coaxial cables uses magic copper?
| |
|
| | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Re: but but it is about the bandwith You are the only one who seems to think that some how a single pair of unshielded twisted pair wiring (the wiring that your telephone and DSL comes over) has the same bandwidth capacity as shielded coax. I respectfully submit that you should take yourself over to Google and do some research before you continue to look like an ass.
--
Prove it... | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Re: but but it is about the bandwith Yeah, because of the bandwidth limitations of single and even bonded sets of traditional phone pairs.
UVerse = nowhere near the bandwidth or long term viability of DOCSIS because the physical layer is the limiting factor.
--
Prove it... | |
|
| | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
edit:
June 20th, @05:04PM
| double post | |
|
| | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | But the frequency limits of cable are spread across multiple users back to the node. That's why FTTC is quite promising. All the benefits of FTTP without the premise issues. | |
|
| | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Re: but but it is about the bandwith said by bogey780 :But the frequency limits of cable are spread across multiple users back to the node. Indeed, that has always been one of the weakest points of cable. However, with SDV and some of stuff in the pipe, the ability to manage that bandwidth will improve.
That's why FTTC is quite promising. All the benefits of FTTP without the premise issues. That's where node splitting comes in. Currently, cable operators have nodes and several repeaters. The task, over time, will be to replace the repeaters with more nodes. It is different, however, for the cablecos though... They have the luxury of having a physical network that can support enough bandwidth to put off fibre for probably a decade. Traditional phone pairs, even bonded, don't have anywhere near enough bandwidth to dick around that long. In ten years, demand for bandwidth and content is going to stretch the last mile of the telcos thin if the aren't on fibre.
--
Prove it... | |
|
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Pair Bonding = Band aid solution, which may or may not be available. Just start bringing the fiber all the way, at&t. | |
|
| | |
| | korfus
join:2002-04-08
Milton, FL | Actually, it is RF, so therefore it must also have a grounded shield? On the other hand, fiber, needs only one un-interupted path!
"Fibre is not always needed. Cable is delivered with a single copper strand " | |
|
| | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
·Cox HSI
| said by ninjatutle :Pair bonding. Pair bonding is putting lipstick on a pig. You get to go from 25Mbps to maybe 40, perhaps less if everyone in your area gets U-Verse. They seem not to have learned from the crosstalk issues on regular DSL lines.
RG-6 (which isn't even what they use in distribution, they use bigger stuff) passes a lot higher frequencies than a pair of 26AWG wire will. That's why they have to get the VRAD so close, hence the cable companies not yet needing to move to FTTH, although they should, or at least push it out much closer to the end user so they can pass 2GHz or more, rather than the 560-900MHz that is common today.
Fiber can do many Gbps per wavelength. An enterprising company could easily deliver 10Gbps to each customer over fiber, if they felt like it, putting the same fiber in the ground that one would use for a (E/B/G)PON system. Instead of splitting a single wavelength among many users, they could deliver one wavelength for each user. | |
|
| | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| Re: but but it is about the bandwith 'They seem not to have learned from the crosstalk issues on regular DSL lines.'
What?
'passes a lot higher frequencies than a pair of 26AWG wire will. '
Yea? And? 26ga is the smallest gauge of telco wiring used fwiw. RG-6 is still has a different topology too.
Besides FTTN is just a way to get the FTTH without busting the bank or taking forever, | |
|
| | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
·Cox HSI
| Re: but but it is about the bandwith said by bogey780 :'They seem not to have learned from the crosstalk issues on regular DSL lines.' What? 'passes a lot higher frequencies than a pair of 26AWG wire will. ' Yea? And? 26ga is the smallest gauge of telco wiring used fwiw. RG-6 is still has a different topology too. Besides FTTN is just a way to get the FTTH without busting the bank or taking forever, 1) There is this thing called crosstalk, it causes interference between data lines. Read about it.
2) 26 AWG is by far the most common used by the telcos. It doesn't pass high frequencies well, thus limiting its usefulness for transmitting lots of data compared to RG-6. Yes, the cable plant is essentially a bus topology, but it has more raw bandwidth available, meaning they don't need to go fiber yet, as most of them still have bandwidth to spare. The astute cable companies are already moving past 1GHz plant.
3) FTTN doesn't get you any closer to FTTH. It's a complete waste of money. They're eventually going to move to a PON anyway, in which case they're going to have to rip out the VRADs and completely rebuild the fiber infrastructure. The whole point of a PON is to not have electronics in the field. | |
|
| | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| Re: but but it is about the bandwith 1. DSL doesn't suffer from crosstalk on short loops. The only real interference DSL suffers from is T1 interference. If DSL was prone to crosstalk there would be stories on it on here since some neighborhoods have every other house on the street with DSL.
2. 26ga is the most commonly used because it's great for underground feeders. Guess what U-verse replaces.
3. The VRAD's are a good staging point. You think cutting out several miles of copper is a small step? They can still go PON or bring out a FTTC system from there. Both capable of great speeds. | |
|
| | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
·Cox HSI
| Re: but but it is about the bandwith said by bogey780 :1. DSL doesn't suffer from crosstalk on short loops. The only real interference DSL suffers from is T1 interference. If DSL was prone to crosstalk there would be stories on it on here since some neighborhoods have every other house on the street with DSL. 2. 26ga is the most commonly used because it's great for underground feeders. Guess what U-verse replaces. 3. The VRAD's are a good staging point. You think cutting out several miles of copper is a small step? They can still go PON or bring out a FTTC system from there. Both capable of great speeds. 1. It does indeed, although it is reduced due to the lower transmission power required due to the shorter loop. The transmission power that is increased to force the high frequencies down the crappy wire. Additionally, pair bonding will necessitate many more lines with active DSL than even the most dense current deployments.
2. They're not replacing the wire from the house to the VRAD.
3. It hasn't been several miles in most places for years. Most everybody who will be served by a VRAD is already within a mile or perhaps two of an RT. They could go PON, but it will not be anything close to an optimal build. They'll have active fiber running to within a couple thousand feet of most homes and businesses. They'll have to lay in more new fiber out to the VRAD's location (or abandon the locations entirely and replicate the original copper build, only with fiber) to avoid disrupting current service while they move people over to a fully fiber loop. | |
|
| | | | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| Re: but but it is about the bandwith 1. What you said sounds nice and I'm sure it's a concern. It however still isn't happening.
2. Luckily those are usually a little beefier. 26ga is used for feeder because it's small cross section allows for a greater number of lines through cramped underground ductwork. Not an issue for the last mile.
3. You a professional telco engineer? | |
|
| | | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
·Cox HSI
| Re: but but it is about the bandwith 1. You take this on faith?
2. Not in anything built in the last 20 or 30 years, there's no point, since the feeder is 26 anyway.
3. Nope, I've just had a significant interest in the design of such networks for many years now, so I have some familiarity with how they are built, simply by constant observation and regular reading on the subject. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| Re: but but it is about the bandwith Ahh... you see. I get to play with the things you read about.
You realize that gauge has to increase as does distance after a certain point. It's phone 101. You can't draw dialtone if you drop below a certain resistance. That's why 26ga is harder to find the further you go out.
Crosstalk is not an issue with DSL at all in any way under a mile. | |
|
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
Goodnight ATT
@comcast.net
| Isn't AT&T saying this something like... that AOL executive who said that broadband was a second rate issue to them?
The fact of the matter is, at this point, they have no choice but to try to put a good face on this disaster of a road that they're currently on. What do you expect them to say...we now have 40,000 customers for uverse and Verizon is kicking our asses left and right now with a million?
Or, the cable companies are cleaning our clocks every 3 months and taking our landlines left and right?
Sadly, thats the way things are now at AT&T. Too bad they've been so busy acquiring other companies to notice what was happening right before their eyes.
Too bad that their argument now sounds about as shallow as a pc maker back in 1993 telling the world that their PC would be enough for consumers for the next decade.
Time, nor technology, waits for no one. And if AT&T doesn't know that by now, I predict they soon will.
How bad will it be? I honestly think this company could find themselves OUT OF BUSINESS in 5 years if they don't change..and quick.
Imagine, a pc company from 14 years ago that couldn't..or wouldn't..further upgrade their systems.
And furthermore, that was having their primary source of revenues..ie: landlines..eaten away as bad as AT&T is now.
This company is IN TROUBLE.
Big trouble. | |
|
| 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Isn't AT&T saying this something like... One of the main reasons Uverse doesn't come with or require POTS.
No POTS = no FUSF and all those other government cr@p taxes/fees/unfees. | |
|
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | Hey Rick. Lost your password? | |
|
| |
ninjatutle
You can keep the "change"
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: Isn't AT&T saying this something like... Lol | |
|
alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA
|  Now AT&T is Back-Peddling!
| |
|
blips
join:2001-04-17
Addison, IL
| AT&T AT&T is touting 6MB and Verizon is touting 100MB.
C'mon Verizon push that envelope. The best that us in AT&T territory can hope for is Verizon pushing the cable co's to 100MB to put pressure on AT&T. If I can get a 100MB cable connection I will drop my AT&T DSL 3MB any day of the week. I doubt I would even see U-verse for 5-10 years. I think I'm on an RT now but I don't know how close I am too it. So bonding will not gain me that much. | |
|
| kenny2
join:2003-08-06
Tifton, GA
| Re: AT&T you people Kill me. There's not enough backbone capacity anywhere to transmit 20- 100 meg users from most towns to where ever they need to go, much less thousands of people at 100meg or even millions, What on this earth does anyone need with that kind of bandwidth, a big corp I could understand them, such as coca cola or proctor and gamble networking there sites together as they have been doing for well over 20 years, I have a family of 5 and 3 meg works fine for us, my kids lesson to music on line,usually 2 at a time, I play on line games such as bf2 and I upload files to games servers and such, big majority of data centers only have around 20gig connections, and a even bigger majority with less than that, as far as tv service over dsl, I think all you arm chair pilots need to sit back take a smoke break and let At@t/bellsouth get you your tv service when they are ready, they know more about networking, phones, and what wires will handle what than any of us, and they are not in trouble and never will be, others have to pay them to tie into there network, not the other way around, and further more if you need more bandwidth than stated above right now then your doing something against the law with it to start with. | |
|
|
|
|
AT&T Defends Bandwidth Plans (Again)
·
·
·
·
