Slashdot Mirror
150 Mbit/s DSL.
surstrmming writes "German company Infineon have released their new QAM
VDSL Plus
chips, providing 150 Mbit/s data rates over ordinary copper wire." Note that that kinda throughput is at the 1000 feet mark... but the chip can still serve up 4mbps even at 13,000 feet.
I used to drool over the 'next-generation-is-just-around-the-corner' stories, but
;-)
lately I have been having second thoughts.
I live in the middle of Silicon Valley and they can't even serve me DSL better then
190Kbits/sec. No cable modem in my area eiter. It is so painfull, I almost posted this
anonymous
No really...when will last generations broadband stuff truly be available to the masses
here in the US? Who and how will they fix the last-mile problem if the governament isn't
stimulating this issue?
Same with the phone network. 3G you ask? HAHAHA, not in the mother-of-all-technology
countries, nosir.
Thats pretty awesome, however with some people > 5Km from their CO, they may not get a proper sync rate. I'm, thankfully, very close to my CO, and have a 3mbps line now. Downloading at 350kb/sec is awesome, but after a while the cool-factor wears off. It's handy when Red Hat and other distros of interest are released but otherwise it's an expensive (70 Canuckles a month)toy.
many intranet connections are less than 1000 ft from the router. so now the chip could be used for intranet connections too. since most people have office phone, they can share the same line for data too and no need to worry about laying lots of ethernet cable. can i get one of those at decent price for my home networking? i have telephone connections in all rooms but no ethernet wires.
Note that that kinda throughput is at the 1000 feet mark
so why bother posting it?
oh right you like regugitating advertisng
Although this is a nice breakthrough, it still doesn't fix the last mile problem. Other countries, smaller countries have a big advantage in implementing high bandwidth networks. Others like the United States and Canada are still having trouble getting to the last mile.
Rather than keep seeing high bandwidth broadband in (rather) short distances, why not develop a network with decent speeds 500kb/s+ that can go long distances. Wireless helps, but is not quiet there. There have been discussions about internet over power lines, but no standards have been made.
Every Super Villan uses Linux.
Most people I know who have a choice between DSL and cable modem have gone with cable (myself included). This mostly comes down to the speed difference (although in my case it also had to do with a maddening disconnect problem that Qwest DSL could not seem to solve for me).
If DSL could truly start offering service that is MUCH faster than cable, they might be able to reverse the trend towards cable (67% for cable vs. 28% for DSL according to a recent Pew Internet & American Life Project study.)
I now have broadband from a small, independent company (that is slowly going under cause of SWB), but I get 4 Mbit down and 500 Kbit up for about half the price of SWB's 1.5 Mbit down w/ 16 Kbit up. I routinely have 350 - 450 KB/s downloads, and they have great service. They would most likely hop on a technology like this so they can keep ahead of the big companies, but they are going under.
Without the little companies, there will never be incentive for the big companies to invest in techonology like this or any other technologies that would improve our online experience.
"BEHOLD, CORN!!" - Dr. Weird, ATHF
I'm currently about 5KM or so from my CO. No ADSL available, only Comcast cable modem with their usual bandwidth throttling.
SBC did offer to sell me SDSL: twice the price of their standard ADSL ($80/mo) at 128K (bleah).
How about some devices to make it easy to relay the DSL signals to the edges of the CO's area?
If a chip can give you those great speeds at 4KM, can we at least get reasonable service beyond that?
Design for Use, not Construction!
I'd prefer that they bundled it with a gigabit ethernet card.
DSL has been in the works for around 10 years now and still doesn't come close to its goal of providing one video bandwidth channel which is short of the goal it should have. The problem here is that it takes forever to roll out a new infrastructure. Its time the leaders of the industry realize it and make sure that the next infrastructure rollout has the latent capacity (if not the electronics at the nodes) to carry the petabaud traffic that we'll be wanting in 50 years (that's about how often we can afford to do this crap). Spending any more time and resources on copper is wasting time.
There is a market today for multiple on demand video channels, voice, and internet over a single service. As a consumer, I'd pay double just for the pleasure of dropping SBC on their !@#. Plan for that, meet that, and don't even waste a breath on anything short of that.
To reiterate, the minimum bandwidth requirement for any new deployments should be enough to serve at least three unshared video channels, 3 voice lines, and very high bandwidth internet service simultaneously with room in the medium for growth into the dedicated petabaud range over the next 50 years. Anything less is causing a delay in progress while filling fatcats pockets with the proceeds from rolling out already obsolete services.
If your own commercialism stops innovation from reaching consumers, vote democratic. Don't oppose taxes. Write letters to your local representatives.
Whining gets you nowhere, and it's just annoying for those of us who actually have a shot at using this technology.
ISDN is simply expensive (unless you live in TN.) It's not at all difficult. There are a few extra steps beyond "plug in line", but really, how hard is it to enter the switch type and SPIDs provided by the telco? (If you can get ISDN, you can get IDSL... where I work, we have IDSL lines in SC terminated on a DSLAM back in Raleigh, NC. As long as you are withing 50,000ft of an ISDN capable CO, the line can be terminated anywhere.)
Satellite is a pain in the ass for what you get out of it. You cannot install it yourself (legally) -- and most of the people paid to install it aren't very good at it.
I have ISDN. Yes, it's twice the cost of a cable modem and ~1.5x the cost of IDSL. However, I've had this line longer than either cable modems or DSL have existed. Aside from the CO crashing once, I've had no problems with it.
For some reason? How's cost for a reason. The provider doesn't want to lose leased line business because they are paying out the ass. DSL doesn't cost as much, so ...