Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rolling DSL and Wireless Access Out In One Swoop

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the how-can-it-be-faster-than-dsl dept.

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."

10 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Shared bandwidth by crow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the great things about DSL is that you have your own connection to the ISP, as opposed to cable modems, which share bandwidth within each neighborhood. With this scheme, it looks like they are using each subscriber as a relay, so your bandwitch is shared with anyone upstream from you. This can be good for business, but not so great for consumers.

    1. Re:Shared bandwidth by RC514 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but typically a DSL connection is not using the maximum possible bandwith. They probably use a fixed part of the bandwith for the paying customer and any excess bandwith is allocated to the wireless access point.

      --

    2. Re:Shared bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Okay, I'll clarify.

      Cable modems share a "collision domain". DSL does not.

      There. Go get a degree, and then use your intelligence. Otherwise, piss off.

    3. Re:Shared bandwidth by Cerebus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DSL is only dedicated to the terminating point, usually a DSLAM.

      SBC is extending DSL coverage with DSLAMs located outside the CO, typically on the poles in the serviced areas.

      The question then becomes: how much bandwidth is the pole-mounted DSLAM fed, hmmm?

      --
      -- Cerebus
    4. Re:Shared bandwidth by GSloop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But a DSL customer get the opportunity to change this. Cable doesn't. Just switch ISP's. (Not only that, but cable rarely even gives you the choice of ISP's either, so either type of congestion will screw you.)

      My ISP charges for bandwidth used. That means that if they keep congestion down, they get the opportunity to bill me more money. That's incentive to keep oversell to a minimum.

      Choice is a good thing! DSL isn't perfect, but it does allow for a more choice rich system.

      Cheers!

  2. unsubscription by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So do they like not let you unsubscribe because you'll be taking out a portion of their network?

    or is there a claus that says that once the transmission tower is welded to your house/trailer it cant be taken down. ever.

    --
    -
  3. How Fat's the Pipe? by Wintersmute · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I may be showing my ignorance here, but does this mean that each subscriber is going to be broadcasting WiFi to the neighborhood?

    Doesn't this make the whole network more susceptible to wireless attackes by AirSnort and WEPcrack technologies?

    Or am I on crack?

    --
    It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
  4. Hmmm... by stressky · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds like a good idea. There's a group over here in Australia that are looking at doing the same thing as these guys. They're called the "commpunity broadband project"...It's not so much a commercial venture as a group of knowledgeable members of the broadband community (read : users) whom are trying to get together a more affordable broadband solution for Australians.

    Still, these vista guys seem somewhat further advanced in their endeavor - they've actually launched!

    --
    ...this is getting out of hand
  5. As others have pointed out... by GoRK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This has absolutely nothing to do with DSL. A Tin can and string is closer to DSL than this.

    A lot of fixed wireless companies (not just broadband data) call their services the wireless equivalent of the wireline alternative. Ie: Wireless Cable -- what a misnomer!

    Some company says "Wireless DSL" and some stupid person posts it to slashdot as some sort of breakthrough idea. It's simply fixed wireless.

    You can't sell DSL service "beyond SBC" unless you want to run your own CO's, which is not turning out to be very profitable for small companies to do. DSL only goes over copper wires and it only goes so far.

    ~GoRK

  6. Amateur usage. by bobdole369 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anybody have an definitive answer as to how these wireless devices stand on the FCC's "totem pole". I was under the impression that us ham radio operators (at least for the part of the spectrum we share with 802.11b, about 1/2 - 2/3 of the channels) were given a higher priority than the ISM unlicensed users. In fact my license gives me the ability to jam out 1500 watts with no limitation of ERP. So my spread spectrum 5 watt signal at 2.406 mhz sent through a 15db vertical is going to cause them at least a hiccup if they ever make it down to Florida. (my signal is audible enough to digipeat at 23 miles from my house. (yikes, too bad I can't make money off of it...)) What would happen if say a company wanted to use the same frequency my station is set to? In the past hams have usually been trod upon, as the primary users have priority. Does this actually mean they have to work around me for once?!

    --
    Lousy facepalm.