Slashdot Mirror
Rolling DSL and Wireless Access Out In One Swoop
B1ackFa1c0n writes: "Finally those of us in telecom valley (Petaluma/Santa Rosa, CA)
are getting DSL with a twist... Vista Broadband is beginning to roll out DSL to those of us beyond the SBC limit. Rumours have it that every home that installs gets a wireless router and an antenna on the roof - effectively expanding Vista's wireless network at the same time. If enough people sign up, this would allow seamless wireless coverage for the whole area *at a profit* to Vista."
This is not DSL, it is wireless broadband - probably not unlike the Nokia Rooftop system that Cringely mentioned not too long ago...
Jeff
Yes with DSL it is true you have your own dedicated connection, but that usually only goes as far as a local collection point - it certainly is not a dedicated amount of bandwidth right to the ISP, nor to the Internet.
The only difference with cable is the proximity to the individual customer at which the sharing begins. Peak usage times on DSL introduce just as much slowdown to the user with his "dedicated" pipe as they would to the Cable user with his "shared" pipe.
I understand that your point relates to the sharing forced up on the user by the reselling of the wireless access which is sure to come, but the shared/dedicated differentiation between DSL and Cable is already misunderstood enough by Joe Sixpack without this added complexity.
[Pinhead alert]
Cable is shared bandwidth from the cable company CO or central office to the users on that local cable loop segment.
DSL is NOT - it's basically a PPP style connection from the CO to you.
Thus, your won't suffer from performance lag from other users in your segment.
Now, if the DSL is terminated in a ATM or Frame cloud that is saturated, you'll have to compete with those other requests from other customers to the SAME ISP.
If your ISP oversells too much, you can always switch ISP's, and then provided the new ISP doesn't oversell, the problem is fixed.
If you are on the same cable segment (cable modem here) and another group of users saturate the cable segment, the only solution is to blow up those users who are saturating your segment. Since you stand to do a long stint with Bubba in the local pen. for such an act of terrorism (Seig Heil Ashcroft!) it doesn't seem like such a great solution.
For these reasons, DSL has some significant advantages over cable.
Cheers!
This is residential wireless of the same type that Sprint/Earthlink rolled out to several major cities. Check out their services page.
Residential wireless is neat, but only if you can't get DSL or a cable modem. The latency makes it problematic for fast-paced online games, but the download speed makes it ideal for web surfing. Also, wireless usually has a transfer limit -- in this company's case, it's 3GB-6GB a month (3GB for the lower-priced connections.) You have to watch your downloads.
It's a great idea if your only choice is dialup, and I'm glad to finally see a company recognize that this is a great service to those in flat areas that DSL/cable are not covering.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
There are non-802.11 wireless systems out there that have different security properties.
It's all shared bandwidth if you look at the larger picture. With DSL, each person has a dedicated line to there house....but only from the CO. Once the line gets to the CO, then it is combined with many other subscribers and passed on to the fatter pipes. Several DSL subscribers can still suck most of the bandwidth. So what if you are guaranteed a 768/128 or whatever to the CO...it's beyond the CO that matters.
Cable does share the bandwith among the neighborhood, but it usually (or at least is suppose to be) partitioned off into smaller neighborhoods once one gets beyond the capacity.
See here for more of an explanation and other DSL/Cable myths. Yes it is from Cox cable, and yes the do have a vested interest in trying to get you to subscribe to cable service, so take it with a grain of salt. But for the most part it is true.
Ok, looks like the article is a little misleading. "Wireless coverage" is not really the goal of this approach, but merely the means to provide residential broadband internet access. It makes connecting distant customers feasible because up to 40 subscribers can be connected to one one "airhead", which is a special box connected to an uplink, which in turn can be either wired or wireless (but not through other airheads). The cost of installing an uplink can therefore be split among 40 customers, and because the "airhead" is so small, renting an office for hub hardware isn't necessary. This whole concept doesn't appear to be based on 802.11b at all.