DSL-Extender Brings Broadband 20km

An anonymous reader writes "Whirlpool outlines Telstra's new DSL deployment: "Telstra announced a trial of the technology back in January, saying it would allow DSL to be connected to people who were up to 20km from a central exchange. DSL Extenders work by splitting an existing copper phone line into eight separate ADSL lines using a tiny, ruggedised remote DSLAM.""

Comments

Remote DSLAMs

[Phroggy]

Remote DSLAMs are certainly nothing new, but usually the connection from the remote DSLAM to the CO is fiber, not copper.

Newer housing developments sometimes have a fiber line that runs into the neighborhood, then copper lines from there to each house, so the phone company doesn't have to run a big bundle of copper all the way back to the CO; a remote DSLAM is the only way to offer DSL to these houses.

What I want to know is, how did they get a reliable 2.3Mbps link to work over 20km of copper?

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[el_womble]

This has always struck me as stupid.

Copper: great for POTS, crap for data, ubiquitous. So they invent DSL to compensate for copper's inadequacies.

Fiber: crap for POTS, great for data, ubiquitous right up until the end of the street. DSL doesn't work because its a copper technology, so these poor people who are feet away from all the broadband they could ever need can't access it because telcos only know how to do DSL.

I'm not oblivious to the fact that it costs more to split fiber (light doesn't split like electricty), but thats because we don't do it very often as the priority has always been POTS. How long will it be, now that data outweighs POTS, until we get fiber to the front door?

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[Anonymous Coward]

$ push @x,ord()-32 for split'','Z=!;g&7?<:*5gI5:>oO&:;- c';split'','phroggy'x4;print chr^shift @_ for @x,109
sh: syntax error near unexpected token `('

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[Macfox]

Telstra are already using this MINIMUX technology. In many new housing estates they have installed RIM units (on the cheap) where there wasn't enough copper back to the exchange.

When the residents discovered they couldn't get ADSL in the brand new mega expensive developments, Telstra backflipped and took two years to addressed the issue with the so called MINIMUX (Mini DSLAM). They're still rolling them out as we speak.

Having said that, even if your on a RIM voice service, you can't get access to other providers, only Telstra (wholesale). So you're still at the mercy of Telstra's premium pricing.

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[elgatozorbas]

Copper: great for POTS, crap for data, ubiquitous. So they invent DSL to compensate for copper's inadequacies.

They invent DSL because copper is ubiquitous. Why do you think the fiber was put there in the first place? Exactly to have a headend for either DSL or cable.

Fiber: crap for POTS, great for data, ubiquitous right up until the end of the street. DSL doesn't work because its a copper technology, so these poor people who are feet away from all the broadband they could ever need can't access it because telcos only know how to do DSL.

In a FTTC (fiber to the curb) system the DSL modems are right in the cabinet at the end of the fiber you mentioned.

I'm not oblivious to the fact that it costs more to split fiber (light doesn't split like electricty), but thats because we don't do it very often as the priority has always been POTS. How long will it be, now that data outweighs POTS, until we get fiber to the front door?

The problem is not technological in nature: neither light nor electricity is 'split'. The connections are point-to-point (between modem and DSLAM), so there is no splitting involved. The real cost is in guys digging trenches to put the fiber (and obviously the fiber and installations themselves).

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[rf0]

Probably install a remote team of kangeroos to help relay the packets

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[Anonymous Coward]

How long will it be, now that data outweighs POTS, until we get fiber to the front door?

Data doesn't outweigh POTS, and will never outweigh POTS until the telcos quit giving away moneyhats to people important enough to be able to decide otherwise.

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA, most existing DSLAMS are connected over copper. It was initially a way to avoid 'copper starvation' during buildouts in developed areas. Instead of feeding new trunk lines out from the CO, you drop a pedestal and split two pair among 24 or 48 POTs lines. Pair gain, in the sense that two pair carriers now become 48 pair at the DSLAM.

This was going on long before fiber became as popular as it is now. New DSLAMs are likely to be fiber feeds, but the existing base is copper for historical reasons. If a technology allows higher data density over copper, then the upgrade to the provider is simply to fork lift out the old DSLAM and replace it with a more capable unit. No need to run fiber to get the new capability.

That rate over that distance has been in the labs for quite a while. The issue is not the difficulty with the data rate over the distance, the difficulty is doing that without interfering with adjacent pairs in the cable. Receiver sensitivity and noise margin/rejection has apparently solved that problem.

With some of the new wireless technologies coming on in the next two to three years, wired/fibered broadband for anything slower than 3Mbps is going to go the way of the dinosaur in any case.

And 3Mbps addresses most of the user base for data access. Particularly in rural areas where there might be 1000 ft between houses, high speed wireless makes a lot more sense from both capex and opex.

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[ckaminski]

Holliston, MA already has it (Verizon.net FIOS). Funny too, as it's a little podunk suburb that's pretty spread out...

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[Anonymous Struct]

It'll bring a whole new meaning to the term 'next hop'

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[tjstork]

A friend of mine did do a fiber to the curb sales pilot in Texas for quite a well that could give insane bandwidths. In fact I think Verizon ran a DSL fiber to the curb trial in Arizona where you could get 50+ Mbs up and down.

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you actually got Mini DSLAMs installed in the end.

I live in a newish housing estate in the UK (http://www.fairfordleys.com/), and BT installed TPON fibre optic cable instead of copper (to save money). Now of course, they can't offer ADSL. Their solution? Install a copper overlay. As I type this, they're busy laying down copper all over the estate to supplement the newer, better fibre cable.

That's just wrong on so many levels. Why not make use of the fibre by installing mini DSLAMs instead of laying down copper? Oh well, at least we can finally get broadband soon (after 5 years of waiting).

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[elgatozorbas]

What I want to know is, how did they get a reliable 2.3Mbps link to work over 20km of copper?

Maybe they used more than one copper pair and implemented special MIMO (multi-input, multi-output) techniques. Uncoordinated copper pairs interfere with each other, degrading the transmission. These MIMO-techniques use special precoding and postcoding taking the interference into account leading to higher data rates, but only point-to-point (because you need access to the signals on all copper pairs simultaneously).

One possibility would be that eight pairs start at the central office, carrying 8 pots channels (as we know them) and the above described MIMO communications channel. At the cabinet where the pairs are split apart (because the subscribers live in different houses) this common data channel is collected and spread over 8 new individual DSL modems brining it to the subscribers houses. Filters are used to let the pots pass by and keep both DSL transmissions (CO-cabinet, cabinet-subscriber) separated.

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[Halcyonandon]

I like to introduce you to something called "Perl"...

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[mcrbids]

This has always struck me as stupid.

Just be careful when you use strong language that you can take what you dish out.

How long will it be, now that data outweighs POTS, until we get fiber to the front door?

A few years ago, when I had not yet "made it", I saved a few hundred dollars by wiring my house's telephone lines with phone parts from the local dollar store, using a kitchen knife and a penny. (as a screwdriver)

This wiring works very well today - I have 2 phone lines in my house, and a DSL modem that gives me 1.5 Mb throughput. The DSL modem has been tested to 6 Mb with no difficulty. (Since I went for the cheaper plan, my speed is capped)

Tell me again why fiber is so much better?

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[Anonymous Coward]

Fiber is better because it keeps you regular.
Copper just makes you turn blue-green....

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[rekoil]

Oh, and don't forget, thanks to various legislative and FCC actions, the LEC doesn't have to let any other ISP have access to the DSLAM. No Speakeasy for you! :/

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[trentblase]

neither light nor electricity is 'split'

Well, it's not split traditionally, but I would expect the signal would need to be demuxed. Unless each house gets it's very own fiber...

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[kilodelta]

Umm.. copper gets me my 5MB down, 384KB up via coaxial. Matter of fact, coaxial gets me 2MB symmetrical at one of my offices. Of course it costs $450 a month but its worth it.

Copper works. And it is already part of the standing infrastructure. But in most cases it is badly aged and poorly maintained copper that are the main limitation regarding DSL speeds over x distance.

It will be a very long time before FTTP is widespread.

The interesting part is that we're moving to a rehabilitated mill building. It has fiber from Cox and Verizon, as well as 300 copper pairs from Verizon coming into it. It also has a butload of bandwidth for data, 10MB of that which will be my offices.

But of course the Bell Co's and cable co's are rolling this to commercial locations first. That's just skimming the cream off the top.

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[Anonymous Coward]

Fiber has already arrived at the front door in some parts of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fios

I've had it for about two months now and I couldn't be happier with the service.

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[el_womble]

I'm not overly serious, but my sense of humour is dry, and when written down can, as it does in this instance, make it look like I'm trying to start a fire. I'm British, and sometimes I forget that Slashdot is American - Two nations seperated by a common language, its not that I'm trying to offend... honest.

However, whats wrong with copper? We're being butt fed asynchronous 6Mbps, when we could have fiber connections that make SATA look slow. I'm sure we could argue over whether we're ready for the technology on a national scale. Whether its cost effective etc. But in this context, when we're looking at trying to make POTS work over 20km, its time we really start to look at utiliziling fiber properly.

Your reply highlights one of the greatest weakness of fiber technology. Despite being cheeper to produce than copper, its still more expenisve to utilize. I guess thats got more to do with muxer / demuxers (mudems?) than anything else.

There I go again... butt fed just sounds funny to me.

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[verizonpeep]

"How long will it be, now that data outweighs POTS, until we get fiber to the front door?" Verizon is already offering Fiber to the home in certain areas... Huntington Beach, CA, Keller, TX

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[jaseuk]

The local loop technology isn't really the issue.

Across town fiber connections while having high initial setup costs, don't really cost all that much in rental (£600 a month for a 100Mbit connection, see LES circuits in BT price list).

The real cost to the ISP is giving you 100Mbit of usable internet bandwidth and that is where the costs really kick in. The 256kbit upload limit on DSL nicely slows down P2P traffic which would otherwise crucify any ISP.

Of course in some countries faster broadband speeds are possible, this is not however a function of the technology as such, this is due to local properties, take Japan for instance, often touted as broadband heaven. Considering that the vast majority of the large population lives in a relatively small geographical area, language considerations limiting the need to hit international bandwidth, its no surprise that compared to us they've got superfast broadband speeds.

The opposite to Japan is Australia, about a dozen cities, low population size (20 Million) and english speaking so hitting a lot of international (mostly american) bandwidth. It is no wonder that broadband service is expensive and slow.

Before the advent of cheap broadband the limiting factor was the local loop, but for now and the forseeable future its the bandwidth between your ISP and the rest of the internet that is the bottleneck.

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[dal20402]

Copper works.

I guess this depends on what the definition of "works" is... (apologies to Slick Willie)

2Mb (that's bits, not Bytes) may work fine for checking email and reading /. , but it definitely doesn't "work" for video applications, the games of the future, or real-time high-quality audio.

Once there is fiber or some other high-speed (>50Mbps) technology to the doorstep we will start to see those next-generation applications. At that point we'll feel about 2Mbps the same way we feel about dialup today.

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[kilodelta]

You have something of a point there. But physicists are always finding out new things about matter and the way it interacts with us.

When you think about it, not so many years ago the most they could squeeze out of a single pair of copper was 128kpbs using both ISDN channels.

I'm not so sure about your point though - I can stream pretty well on my 5MB connection. Oh, and I'm running VoIP on it too.

The two 2Mb links we have are going to offices with 12 and 8 employees respectively. That will then feed to our office where a 10Mb link will get us out to the I2 and Internet.

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[scum-e-bag]

2Mb (that's bits, not Bytes) may work fine for checking email and reading /. , but it definitely doesn't "work" for video applications, the games of the future, or real-time high-quality audio.

I don't know which universe you come from, but in my world 192k VBR MP3s stream quite nicely over a 256Kb (that's bits, not Bytes) DSL line. I can easily upgrade my DSL line to a 1.5Mb (that's bits, not Bytes) line and stream FLAC audio files, which are 16/44 CD quality.

As for video, you do have a point about the quality of the stream, however, I can watch BBC news casts without to many problems on a 1.5Mb DSL line. The quality does leave something to be desired, but the news stories are quite easy to understand.

Games of the future... hrmmm, microsoft is going to bloat network gaming now that it has found its continued bloating of windows difficult to do... I guess it is possible.

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[dal20402]

192k VBR MP3s

I guess I should have clarified that I'm not really thinking of ordinary streaming, but future audio applications... specifically, I'm imagining "bands" playing in real time over the Internet. Ideally, you'd have many more than 2 channels of sound (think 4+ tracks, 2 channels each) at much higher fidelity than 192k MP3 (think FLAC or ALAC).

In any case, the mass-market, passive-consumer application for Big Bandwith will be streaming HD video. Imagine a client that prevents Joe User from saving the content... the studios will be (misguidedly, of course) ecstatic.

And I expect net gaming will bloat further as worlds get more complex and play gets more fine-grained... although I'm sure MS can help, and probably has a few engineers on the case. :)

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[djblair]

The potential already exists for thousands of frequencies or lambdas per fiber using DWDM (Dense Wave Division Multiplexing). Next-generation optical switches hold the promise of managing those light signals without converting the signals to electrical and then back again.

Assigning each house in a neighborhood a specific lambda would is an attractive way to distribute services using a single fiber. However, the need to multiplex the signal makes this approach infeasible with current technology. Muxing signals for transmission over fiber is a complex process requiring significant processing power, expensive equipment, and either a central office or hut to hold all the gear. Perhaps one day, passive devices mounted on aerial lines or in distribution cabinets can be used to 'grab' a specific lambda and direct it to a fiber serving the customer's home.

-DJ

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[cthulhu11]

[i]Fiber: crap for POTS, great for data, ubiquitous right up until the end of the street.[/i] "Ubiquitous" must mean something different on your planet than on mine. My connectivity options are analog or ISDN dialup, and paying $500/mo for a frac DS1.

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[mcrbids]

We're being butt fed asynchronous 6Mbps, when we could have fiber connections that make SATA look slow. I'm sure we could argue over whether we're ready for the technology on a national scale. Whether its cost effective etc. But in this context, when we're looking at trying to make POTS work over 20km, its time we really start to look at utiliziling fiber properly.

Basic economics, as I tried to highlight earlier. To satisfy your average home user, you have to get CHEEEEP. Your average home user wants to pay $10-$20/month for 'IntarWeb' service. That leaves precious little money for infrastructure improvements. A single hour of lineman's time costs $40-$60 USD, and TWO HOURS of their time can equal the profit margin on a single DSL account for an entire year!

And, this doesn't include equipment, trucks, ladders, MODEMS, and all that other stuff, either.

5 years ago, I got a 1.5 Mbps DSL circuit, and it was, bar none, the hottest, fastest connection around. Now, it's pretty ho-hum, while prices have dropped. I'd say things are progressing pretty nicely.

Want fiber? Pay. I'm OK with that, since the commodity DSL is "good enough" for consumer use.

The only thing I find annoying is that the bandwidth capping happens AT MY MODEM. Why would they do that? In fact, I can download a patch for my computer that "uncaps" my DSL modem to get full speed service - until they notice and pull the plug on me, that is.

Why not allow connections within SBC (my DSL provider) at full speed, and cap them at the 'net connections? Sorta like my cell phone allowing unlimited minutes within their network while charging me for calls made to customers with other companies...

Re:Remote DSLAMs

[el_womble]

Which I guess it just another way of saying, that in order for consumers to get vast internet pipes, telcos et al need to stop charging by data transfered, and start charging by pipe width.

I'm guessing thats going to take legislation.

As rugged as they claim?

[garcia]

When they talk about the extender DSLAM hardware being rugged they aren't kidding:

Only the size of a small shoe-box, and being fully submersible to a depth of 5m (16 feet), the R8as can be deployed in more locations than any other DSLAM. It can be installed on a pole, or in a pit or manhole susceptible to flooding, as well as other locations such as un-powered cross-connect cabinets. Its small size and light weight also allows it to be suspended from overhead cable.

I'd like to know if they were serving DSL through a submersed DSLAM during the testing phase. I'd really like to know if works as well as they claim.

Re:As rugged as they claim?

[grumling]

I'd like to know if they were serving DSL through a submersed DSLAM during the testing phase. I'd really like to know if works as well as they claim.

Well, if the gaskets hold up, it may even work better, since it will be water cooled.

Re:As rugged as they claim?

[dsginter]

I'd like to know if they were serving DSL through a submersed DSLAM during the testing phase.

Why? Do you have a submarine in need of broadband connectivity or something? ;)

Re:As rugged as they claim?

[smithmc]

  Well, if the gaskets hold up, it may even work better, since it will be water cooled.

And if the gaskets don't hold up, why, then it'll be cooled even better!

Re:As rugged as they claim?

[weharc]

Nah we're in the middle of a drought, we don't have enough water to submerge a cat.

Re:As rugged as they claim?

[pbjones]

All thing considered, eg lightning, human stupidity etc, the same housing has been used by the company for over 10 years and provided it is installed correctly, it works as claimed. They do fail when shot at, eaten but rabbits, burt in bushfires, etc.(sh*t happens)

Oliver

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Please sir, may I have some broadband?


rural new mexico

Re:Oliver

[RobertB-DC]

Please sir, may I have some broadband?
rural new mexico

You don't have to be very rural to wish for broadband. The nearest broadband of any sort is 10 miles away, even though I'm less than a half hour from Dallas.

I started to wonder why this development was happening in Australia instead of here... then I remembered that 1) Australia has even more empty space than we do and 2) US telcos are a bunch of greedy bastards, and the limited rural market won't add enough to the bottom line.

Re:Oliver

[vic20]

I'm in Dallas proper, and I can't get DSL. Instead I have to shell out bigger bucks for slower AirCanopy access.

Re:Oliver

[geoffspear]

There's no southern sky for 10 miles?

"of any sort" might not be the phrase you're looking for.

Re:Oliver

[RobertB-DC]

There's no southern sky for 10 miles?
"of any sort" might not be the phrase you're looking for.

You're right... let's call it, "any sort less than less than $50 a month" (alternate link here).

Re:Oliver

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, the first month is less than $50 after you pay a $400+ equipment fee and agree to two years of service at $79/month. That ain't a deal or even comparable to what people want in broadband service. It's a rip-off for people who have money to burn and absolutely no other choice in broadband. And it has mega-ping times. So, no online games that can't be played over a 56K dial-up modem.

Re:Oliver

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm.....theres this thing called wireless...

Re:Oliver

[kenneth_martens]

Um, the first month is less than $50 after you pay a $400+ equipment fee and agree to two years of service at $79/month. That ain't a deal or even comparable to what people want in broadband service.

Those are Canadian dollars. It's still a lot of money ($79 Canadian translates to about $65 US) but it's not an unreasonable price for satellite internet access. Still, it's a far cry from the $40 US a month (and no activation or equipment fees) I pay for my DSL.

Re:Oliver

[Anonymous Coward]

Things are even worse in Canada. I live less than two miles from the Toronto border (Canada's largest city) and can't even get a decent phone line, much less DSL.

Re:Oliver

[dadragon]

That's too bad. I live 3000km from Toronto, and I can get 7mb DSL or 7mb cable for less than $40/month. You really should talk to your telco about an infrastructure upgrade. I hear Ontario still has analog switching equipment.

Re:Oliver

[yRabbit]

I also would like some broadband here in rural New Mexico. Arrgh.

Australian Broadband...

[Macfox]

A few facts

Oz Broadband is anything over 128kbs.(ISDN) Laughable yes.

The maximum speed Tel$tra offer (over ADSL) is 1500/256kbs. *

Up till this announcement, if you were over ~3.5km from the exchange, then you probably couldn't get ADSL.

Telstra (Bigpond) charge for data usage in both directions and their largest offering is 10GB, with modem speed shaping there after.

Telstra also force voice bundling. If you want ADSL, you must have voice and pay a minimum of $18.50AUD per month, even if you don't need it.*

This new offering is best described as a mini DSLAM with a ~2.3Mbit backhaul. So even two users could potentially max it out.

While it's good news for some that are out of reach. The overall state of Oz broadband isn't worth writing home about.

* Some providers offer connection without a voice service (ULL) and ADSL2+ (24Mbs) but only in 5% of exchanges.

Re:Australian Broadband...

[hungrygrue]

Oz Broadband is anything over 128kbs.(ISDN) Laughable yes.

Slow, yes, but if your only other option is a modem then that's pretty darn good. My parents live about three miles from town and the phone lines are so poor that their 56k modem only seems to realistically do about 14.4k.

Re:Australian Broadband...

[EasyComputer]

Yea, but thats the point, its for people who are already out of reach, not for those of us who have fast connections already.

It seems that most people determine the value of new technology only according to how it benefits them, something can be beneficial to a few thousand people, but if it doesnt help us we think its nothing big. Actually this goes for everything, "Oh, they cured cancer? But I don't have cancer, therefore its a waste of time and money and is completely useless", Yea thats a bit overboard but it captures the mentality, I think.

Ok I'm done, I'll post again in another few months.

Re:Australian Broadband...

[hattig]

Oz Broadband is anything over 128kbs.(ISDN) Laughable yes.

The important thing about broadband is the always-on status. Now 128kbps is a bit naff, but I reckon lots of people would be happy with always on 256kbps.

Of course I'm typing this in the UK on a 2Mbit connection that will be upgraded to 10Mbit within the next year apparently. Sadly the 10Mbit upgrade will coincide with bandwidth limits (75GB/30GB/5GB or thereabouts, for the different price ranges offered).

The fact that my cable connection was down for a week because of a 'weak power level' is neither here nor there :(

This new offering is best described as a mini DSLAM with a ~2.3Mbit backhaul. So even two users could potentially max it out.

And normal end-user DSL has a contention ratio of 50:1, and business DSL 20:1. The 2.3Mbit/8 users seems quite good to me.

Re:Australian Broadband...

[ds_job]

Broadband is a technology not a speed: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=broadband . If you get a transmission of 1 bit per second and if it over 'wide band of electromagnetic frequencies' it will be broadband. Correspondingly my network card is not baseband even though it can transmit at up to 10 million bits per second http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=baseband

/rant off

Re:Australian Broadband...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first got cable broadband (from adelphia in NJ) back in 1996 it was 10 mbits in both directions. I think it was when comcast took over that they reduced it to 2 mbits down and maybe 256 kbits up.

Re:Australian Broadband...

[David Horn]

I thought we were bad in the UK. With LLU you can get up to 8Mb/s, otherwise you're on 2Mb/s, with that hopefully increasing to 8 next year.

However, all distance limits have been removed so as long as you pass a line test you're fine. My router reports a loop distance of 13km, and we sustain 2Mbit with no problems whatsoever.

Re:Australian Broadband...

[Komarosu]

If you took the free speed upgrade from NTL then you are also currently under download limits, though at the moment they're just "guidelines".

Just wait for NTL to stick the knife in like they did to me ("we want you to pay £10 per GB over your limit"). Off to court and moving to Bulldog

Re:Australian Broadband...

[hattig]

I thought that Bulldog had a lot of issues as well?

I didn't take up NTL's offer, they just upgraded me eventually. I'm still being billed at the 600k rate though, and I'm not going to tell them.

Re:Australian Broadband...

[budgenator]

I'm in town and geophraphy and bizzar cable routes put me 28,800 ft from the co so no dsl. 5 .4 mile of copper to cover 2.8 mile straight line!

Re:Australian Broadband...

[samjam]

Bulldog seem to do a good deal, and will provide voice too if you want.

I'm with demon internet who also don't (and won't) put stupid and arbitrary restrictions on use of the connection. I pay a few pounds more than some services but I get a fixed IP and can do what I like as long as it is legal.

Sometime in the next 30 days I should get upgraded at no cost to the 2MB service.

Samn

Re:Australian Broadband...

[che.kai-jei]

my cohort in bradford today was mentioning he had rung up to complain to Telewest, cable company that his '2meg service was a rip off' and he was going to cancel.
they said "pleased don't well upgrade you ten meg!"

he pays £27 a month.

he is reported to being well chuffed in the vernacular parlance as was the style at the time.

Re:Australian Broadband...

[reason]

iinet offers up to 12MBps, and are cheaper than Telstra.

Re:Australian Broadband...

[Anonymous Coward]

5.4 mi of copper to go 2.8mi of distance is not unreasonable.

If you were only 1-2mi away, you'd have a bone to pick.

HENRICO COUNTY BROADBAND

[0110011001110101]

I hear henrico county is giving away 4 year old "gently used" broadband for only $50 lifetime membership!!

Come quick, theres only 1,000 memberships left, and, oh yeah, bring a folding chair,waterproof pants, extra stroller, and riot gear if possible, it's gonna be one hellava fight, but a good beat down is always worth free crap right?

Re:HENRICO COUNTY BROADBAND

[Pollardito]

unfortunately they're not offering drive-thru service like the last time

Re:HENRICO COUNTY BROADBAND

[0110011001110101]

lol... touche ;-)

but plenty of diapers will be on-hand...

In Tokyo....

[djfray]

Thanks to Telstra's latest creation, citizens within a twenty mile radius were alerted to Godzilla's rampaging battle with the creature of the same name.

Interesting, but...

[suitepotato]

...it isn't much beyond an incremental sort of gee-whiz improvement. You can send T1s over long distances and then break them out fractionally or hook them to a DSLAM and use as a backhaul for the customers. The submersion thing might have come about from submersible communications at sea or from the fact that many remote mechanisms in telecom tend to be underground and the waterproofing for those vaults tends not to be the greatest.

I give it a big shrug and a I'll check into it later. I work in telecom so it does get my notice. Now if they make a 1.5Mbps line work to twenty miles on pure copper all the way, that will knock my socks off.

Re:Interesting, but...

[timeOday]

It's mind-blowing how lax the telcos have been in rolling out DSL. Wherever their existing network doesn't happen to reach, they just say "sorry, you need to be within X meters of an exchange" and leave it at that. In 2005 they are finally considering some sort of buildout to extend their broadband reach? Ridiculous. They should have been to this point in 1998.

Re:Interesting, but...

[DjMd]

Huh?
I just read that and it sounds like:
It gives 1.5Mbit/s to eight users
at upto 20km distance
and it uses the existing phone line

So seeing as it up from like 3 miles and these microDSLAMs are rugged enough to be like pole monted or underground, it seems like this could do a big chunk of the goal of BPL. (see other slashdot discussion)
If Im wrong feel free to explain it to me... It sounds better than bad, (and better than BPL) to me...

Re:Interesting, but...

[rugger]

Its not a huge technical acheivement, but an important one in spreading broadband across sparely populated suburbs and towns.

The important thing with this is that carriers can install them basicly anywhere, on a pit, on a pole, anywhere conventional DSLAMs simply cannot be put. Another important thing is that it uses standard copper for the uplink, so rollout is inexpensive.

Re:Interesting, but...

[PhraudulentOne]

Yeah but it's lame in the sense that they are eventually (very soon) going to have to get a REAL cable plant installed. This is just wasting money on testing/installing technology that can let them sit on their asses for another couple of years. No ISP should be providing DSL unless they have fibre connecting to the DSLAMs. OC3/12/etc is expensive, but GigE is cheap. Telstra, get on the ball, get some GigE DSLAMs and provide your customers with real service.

More info?

[Lexic0n]

Does anyone have more info on this technology? As a resident of a rural area, my only broadband option is satellite. If DSL were a possibility for me via this new technology, it would really be great.

Re:More info?

[arrow]

What this amounts to is moving the DSLAM from the central office to the pole outside your house, then wiring one or more T1/E1 lines to it.

No magic "sprinkle this on your phone line and wait 10 minutes" here.

There is nothing stopping you from deploying "this technology" for yourself today. Except maybe sticker shock. You'll shell out $500+/mo for the T1 line (since you don't already own the lines, like the Telco does), a couple grand for a DSLAM, and ~$100/mo in fees for dry pairs (assuming they even let you order them anymore) to your neghbors houses if you want to be nice and share.

Re:More info?

[swschrad]

adtran has a 24-DSL box about the size of a blade... drive with up to 8 T1 lines, fed with power pairs off the span. you rack up 8 CO repeaters, dedicate one binder of copper, and you're there as far as you want to run t1 repeaters. it's in its second year of use with thousands running.. telestra's vendor got it a third smaller by putting a third of the horses under the hood.

Re:More info?

[dbIII]

There is nothing stopping you from deploying "this technology" for yourself today

Apart from Telstra in Austalia that own the lines.

for the T1 line

Can't get it.

in fees for dry pairs

Can't get them - this almost monopoly keeps a tight control on what they have. You get it from them or you get it from a third party that originally got it from them after going through the amount of red tape and lack of care that only government run corporations that have a monopoly can provide.

USA to AUS

[inode_buddha]

USA to AUS, Hey, can we get in on this 20-km DSL thing? Man, I'm jealous!

Re:USA to AUS

[Anonymous Coward]

"USA to AUS, Hey, can we get in on this 20-km DSL thing? Man, I'm jealous!"

Yep. Just move your "A" from the back to the front.

always a trial

[ch-chuck]

As a Verizon customer all during the DSL revolution, neither the house I had nor the apartments I'm in now are dsl'able. Both are within 2 miles of a CO but for some reason they don't offer it. I'd sure like to sign up for more reliable / commercial level (run my own web / email / streaming audio / etc ) than what I have with consumer cable, which costs $70 / month, incl. tv which I rarely watch.

Re:always a trial

[jav1231]

My Mom can't either. She lives on a rural road with old equipment. Telco doesn't have a cost benefit for replacing it. She's well within her distance requirements, though.

Re:always a trial

[Anonymous Coward]

so go with the cable option and dont wactch it. you are already paying WAY less than most cable subscribers, ususaly the bill is over a $100

Re:always a trial

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that (A)DSL distance limits are usually referring to cable length not geographical "as the crow flies" distance.... if your telco did some strange round the houses cabling then you may be geographically 2kms from the exchange but with 9kms of cabling in between....

Re:always a trial

[intangible]

I knew someone who had just got DSL, he was less than 1 mile from the junction, yet his service was crap. After many phone-calls and complaints, the phone company tracked it down to a 1 mile spool of wire that someone had just left on the line between his house and the junction.

Re:always a trial

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual distance (as the crow flies) to the DSLAM can be quite different from the lenghth of the copper. Here in the Netherlands I remember a customer that had line of sight with the exchange (in a densely populated area, not 'Australian dessert line of sight') yet the copper to his house was to long to connect him.

Re:always a trial

[Anonymous Coward]

You are probably connected to the office through a SLC.

Re:always a trial

[dickens]

It's the "load coils" for me. Cable is my only option at the moment.

since everyone else has the techie side of this...

[Itanshi]

battles for dslam... china hacking japan by way of korea...the information war is really picking up steam

You can't fake....

[Ancient_Hacker]

"You can't fake what you havent got." -- Seymour Cray Seymour was referring to virtual memory, but the same applies to copper wires. They're probably relying on the statistical nature of communications: i.e. not everybody hits the "Next Blonde Bimbette" button at the same time. The basic wire to the central office (funny, ours is on "Central Avenue") is likely no speedier than before. it's just getting used more efficiently.

Re:You can't fake....

[TheRaven64]

(A)DSL is very susceptible to signal loss. As the distance between they two endpoints increases, the amount of bandwidth decreases. Fortunately, since you are dealing with digital data you can just do the analogue to digital conversion somewhere along the line, and then turn it back into analogue for the next hop. The result? Instantly you have double the range you had before. It's not exactly hard, it just means that the local hop is in fact two hops (you to the repeater, then the repeater to the exchange) rather than you to the exchange.

Re:You can't fake....

[Ancient_Hacker]

Ah, we have something like a bootstapping problem here. AFAIK one never sends raw digital levels through copper, at least not for more than a few feet. The digital data gets converted to analog whistles schreeches and moans, the better to make it through miles of twisted pairs. What you might be meaning to say is the DSL signals can be re-encoded into some more distance-worthy analog jumble, to be decoded at the other end. I assume there's been a little progress in modems since DSL was nailed down.

Re:You can't fake....

[dan the person]

No. There is no such thing as "raw digital signals through copper"

Copper is a real world phenomenon and is therfore analog. We encode digital data into voltages and waveforms sent through the copper.

lets say the limit of 100 mbit ethernet over cat5 cable is 100m, after that point the analog signal has degraded to the point that we cannot for instance tell a 1v signal from a 5v signal.

But, you've got to go 200m!!!

Run 100m of cable. Plug the cable into an old 486.

You are only going 100m so you are still within safe limits.

Run another 100m of cable to your end point and plug it into a 2nd ethernet card in the 486.

You can reach the 486 from either end of the 200m.

tell the 486 to bridge the two networks, bingo! you can now transmit 200m via the 486.

Note they are saying how these things can be submerged or stuck on the top of a pole, very handy if you are employing this mechanism across existing POTS copper pairs which will be underground or on top of telegraph poles.

Re:You can't fake....

[Ancient_Hacker]

" No. There is no such thing as "raw digital signals through copper"" By "raw digital" I meant the standard signal levels between your typical IC's. one example is the old parallel printer port, which does a bit of a no-no in using a standard TTL 74LS394 to drive the cable. Not a super idea, generally when you go off-board one should use a driver chip better suited to wotking with the real world, where wires get crossed, shorted, or zapped by static. Now that I re-read the comment I see they adumbrated a REPEATER. Of course, that's correct, just fuzzed up a bit in the description and by my brain.

there is a reason for this

[John Seminal]

the cable company and dsl companies don't want to compete with each other. they pretty much split up territory. where dsl is available, often cable modems are not available. and where cable modems are available, dsl is not. this is not 100% true, but i would bet it is 80%+ true.

it costs a lot of money to set up the equipment to deliver broadband (cable or dsl). neither company wants to invest a lot of money in a market where the other is. they rather saturate the market they currently have.

i want dsl too. i want to be done with comcast once and for all. i hate comcast, they are the new mafia. i have had the cable modem go out at least 2 times a month, for at least 2 or 3 hours each time. i call comcast and they don't give a crap.

and what burns me is a friend who does have dsl gets it for $29.99 a month, i pay $49.99 a month for the same service.

i swear, one day, i will get a big c-band dish in the back yard, i will subscribe to only 3 or 4 channels i care about (like c-span which is free, sci-fi which i think is $2 a month, and espn). everything else that i want is free over the air. hopefully by then my town will have free broadband too. they keep talking about setting up a wireless system, so anyone in town can have free internet like the library. so far, they have it wired at all the public buildings, but they want to expand. then i can tell comcast to go to hell.

Re:there is a reason for this

[pixelpusher220]

Dude....call your local gov't and complain. it works.

Here in Fairfax, VA, when the local cable (Media General) wanted to increase rates...the local gov looked at the massive stack of complaints and said...um..sure, right after you solve all these other problems for your current promised service.

So make sure you aren't just whining on /. do it someplace that actually makes a difference ;-)

Re:there is a reason for this

[John Seminal]

Dude....call your local gov't and complain. it works.

Here in Fairfax, VA, when the local cable (Media General) wanted to increase rates...the local gov looked at the massive stack of complaints and said...um..sure, right after you solve all these other problems for your current promised service.

So make sure you aren't just whining on /. do it someplace that actually makes a difference ;-)

Who do you complain to? Local city hall? What can they do? I thought only the FCC can do anything?

I can give you a list of crap comcast has done that stinks.

They keep raising fee's. Just looking at a bill, I can't tell what is a government tax and what is a comcast fee. Just a few months ago they raised the cost for basic cable. Then two months later, they removed Sci-Fi from the lineup. I called and comcast said that Sci-Fi was now only available with their digital package, but that costs more. I said "Since I was paying $80 a month for all these channels, and you took one away, how much will you lower my bill?". I got a laugh at the other end of the phone. Comcast said I was paying for a service, not any specific channels.

And I swear, the picture quality is worse than just last year. Every now and then, when I am watching a baseball game, the screen will freeze and little boxes will form all over the screen. Once this happens, it takes them an hour to fix the problem, but that does nothing for me because I can't watch the game. And on the lower channels I get small little squiggly lines that just barely distort the picture. The only way I can describe it is if one line of the picture was a string, that someone was making a wave with the string. I went to a second TV just to double check, and the same problem was there too. It is barely noticable, like on a flat screen monitor the 2 little strings. But once you see them, you see them.

And the damn cable modem is crap too. I mentioned it goes out at least twice a month, often for more than a couple of hours. But it will also re-set itself, at random. When it re-sets itself, it takes about 5 minutes for the internet connection to come back again. Pretty much what happens is all the lights on the cable modem are on, then it shuts off, then it blinks for five minutes. I called comcast, and they said that is normal. It sucks if I am in the middle of a download or if I was posting, and I get cut off.

And for about 3 months last winter, I had no DNS service. If I wanted to visit a website, I had to know the IP address and enter it as numerals. Someone here at slashdot told me to change the DNS myself, and I used verizon for a month. I felt like a thief.

And every time I call comcast, it is the same thing. I speak with someone who knows less about computers than your avarage 14 year old. They are often rude. They often want to put you on hold, for long amounts of time. And they end the call before the problem was fixed.

Re:there is a reason for this

[alienw]

If you have problems with cable, it's a good idea to remove any splitters and stuff in the line and replace them with good-quality ones. I had this same problem, and found out that my house had like 3 splitters before the cable modem jack. By the time the signal got there, it was severely degraded.

Re:there is a reason for this

[mforbes]

I lived in Fairfax County when it was under the sway of Media General, then moved away for a few years, then moved back (at this point it was under Cox, which from what I've heard has the same reputation that MG had), then moved away again.

Since you're more familiar with the area than I am (making an assumption, possibly a wrong one, here), you might be able to answer this. Did MG simply go through a name change to become Cox, was their license revoked by the county, or did they simply merge/get bought by Cox? For all the crap they fed us for years when I lived there, I honestly hope it was the second. It always amazed me that one of the richest counties in the US had the shittiest cable system in the country (among counties that actually have cable systems, anyway.)

Yikes, and on a different but somewhat amusing note... I hit the preview button there, then went to check my email while I waited for the page to refresh... the first new message in my inbox is from someone whose last name is Cox!

Re:there is a reason for this

[pixelpusher220]

In most cases it's the local gov't that grants Comcast the 'franchise' to offer cable TV services in your location.

This is where I have filed my complaints.

Re:there is a reason for this

[pixelpusher220]

MG was bought by Cox...their TV service I don't even subscribe too. AFairfax Co actually wouldn't let Cox make changes because they promised to do stuff when they bought MG and then didn't. Fairfax held them accountable for making the digital cable tv rollout happen on schedule without a price increase. The fscking 2 line system was nothing more than a gauranteed $3/month box rental system. If you didn't rent the box the local OTA channels tuned in at 34, 35, 37, and 39! They even said over the phone, "Um, that's the way it comes from the satelllite"! Sheesh!

The Cable Internet service is another thing entirely, good speed, pretty much always on, and just plug and play usage. I've been in 3 different locations for cable service, and all have 3mb+ down speeds consistently. at $55/month it isn't that cheap, but I'll pay it for the reliability I've seen from them.

Re:there is a reason for this

[pixelpusher220]

That would be a lousy installer. The cable internet jack is supposed to be off the first split, then the TVs.

The 'fun' part is they send the weaker of the signals to the Cable Modem...because 'god forbid' they lose TV signal. Yet the TVs are wildly less sensitive.

My installer blatantly told me, "Once I leave, switch these around" ;-)

Re:there is a reason for this

[alienw]

In that case, the cable modem was simply plugged into an existing cable outlet, the installer didn't do anything else. However, I've seen them use the cheap crappy splitters which cause a 6dB loss instead of the more expensive 3.5dB ones.

Re:there is a reason for this

[Thing 1]

You know what you're talking about.

Just last week, the cable guy came to fix my Internet, as the cable modem had stopped working. Nothing had changed in our configuration, but apparently the signal had been reduced out on the pole.

I say that because his fix was exactly what your GP post said: replace the crappy connectors with expensive ones. He explained that the one splitter he put where it enters the house was a 7/7/3.5 splitter, and he put the cable modem connection on the output with only a 3.5 dB degradation. I haven't had a problem since.

If necessary, one can put a two-way splitter where it enters the house and run a separate cable up to the cable modem. TVs don't show degradation nearly as much as cable modems do, so the extra splitter won't have any effect on one's TV viewing.

(I just now read your parent post, and it says similar things to the above, so I think that's correct and will leave them as is.)

Wow

[papasui]

2.3 mbit shared by 8 people. I hope they're cheap coz they sure aren't impressive.

Re:Wow

[Artemis3]

Oi, thats at least 287kbps for each which is more than my current 256kbps at 40US$ month you insnsitive clod! :)

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see 2.3/8=0.2875.
The current DSL connection I have is 256k, so it is even slightly better than what I have now.

Greedy is global

[noisymime]

ohh don't worry, Australian Telcos (Especially Telstra) are greedy bastards as well. Its just that they're being strongarmed by the government to provide reasonable service to remote areas. Its a shame they're not being forced to do it at prices that are inline with the rest of the world.

Re:Greedy is global

[dan the person]

strongarmed = doing what their majority shareholder tells them to do

Re:Greedy is global

[noisymime]

in this case, at least for the moment, the government are the shareholders

Re:Greedy is global

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they certainly do have an excuse, being on a remote continent thousands of miles away from the rest of the world. That may have a certain effect on their connection costs, just like the other inconvenient fact that there are only something like 20 million people on this small continent.

Re:Greedy is global

[Anonymous Coward]

Remote? Doesn't feel remote when you are here. In fact, I think you are the remote one, being in far away USAnia. :-)

Perhaps too late to be important

[Mostly a lurker]

If this technology had been available even five years ago, it would have been widely used. Now, I question whether it is going to be an economic solution. Recent advances in wireless technologies seem to promise a cheaper service in remote areas while being able to provide similar bandwidth.

Re:Perhaps too late to be important

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Wireless has:

Poor reliability
No privacy
Major interference problems

Wireless is NOT the way to go.

Re:Perhaps too late to be important

[Zebadias]

But think of the ping! Oh the ping *weeps*

Z.

Re:Perhaps too late to be important

[thogard]

I've had 7mb wireless to my house for two years. It has been very reliable, its fully encrypted using the same key exchange as CDMA for the wireless link and I can layer ipsec or ssh on top of that and never had interference problems.

I was impressed

[dfn5]

Until I converted to miles.

Re:I was impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

20 kilometers = 12.4 miles

That is actually pretty good, a 12 mile radius is enough to cover a fairly large city.

Re:I was impressed

[sharkey]

Because 12.4 miles is sooooo much worse than the current 3.4 miles typical limit?

*ahem* "Ruggedized"

[IorDMUX]

I've been seeing this word quite often in datasheets of chips we use in the lab. (Like here, in the Description.) My first impression was a small, black IC with a confederate flag painted on top... perhaps some unnecessary facial hair, as well.

Now, the word 'rugged' comes from the Scadanavian word for 'shaggy'. However, the popular cowboy mentality has managed to transform 'unkempt' into 'robust', as evidenced by the definition for 'ruggedize':
--to strengthen (as a machine) for better resistance to wear, stress, and abuse--

I'm going to assume, then, that my chip contains a powerful Texan spirit that herds the current like the stampeding mass of electrons that it is.

Re:*ahem* "Ruggedized"

[Anonymous Coward]

Webster's Dictionary definition for "Ruggedize"

Glad to be of help.

I Heard, I Think, Maybe, Blah Blah Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is wireless (Cell Phones) are cleaning the pots provider's collective clocks. The only way to produce revenue is cheap data connections to the masses via their old rotting copper plant. The DSL extension technology runs at such a high voltage, technicians can find faults in the line by looking for the smoke. Nobody wants a phone sitting at home for no reason anymore. Personal communication means wireless communication. Companies that are big enough to afford it put in their own VIOP switches and bypass the telcos. Pots service and DSL is basically a retirement program for the thousands of baby boomer telco employees.

What would make me happy

[The_Spectry]

I'd be happy if my local telco would extricate its cranium from its anus and get some Internet going through all the Fiber we have going to my brand new neighborhood instead of just letting it sit dim with only phone service going through it . All our friggin house are wired with Cat5 for crying out loud and there is not ONE option for internet here from the telco besides dial-up . Nice waste of money ! OH and we are close to the offic so we would all be DSL ready except they CAN'T do DSL over fiber . SO I'm stuck with cable internet and they charge WHATEVER they like .

Re:What would make me happy

[PhraudulentOne]

We were just installing phone lines (I work for a telco) at a new neighbourhood which is relatively upper class (beside a golf course). We were going to run Fibre-to-the-home (FTTH). The neighbourhood is only about 1km from our CO, so it wouldn't cost too much. The developers said they didn't want any fibre pedestals installed, so we ended up having to run copper. They can still get DSL at decent speeds, so it's not a big deal, but I had to shake my head at those developers. They didn't want to see any pedestals at all, it was to be "clean." If I were you, I would call up the ISP and say you don't mind if they stick a cabinet in your shrubs out front. They can stick a DSLAM in there and hook it to the fibre. They will probably laugh at you, but give it a try ;)

Re:What would make me happy

[Anonymous Coward]

What would make me happy would be if my local telco would extricate its cranium from its anus. Period.

Dallas - rural outlying areas

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in Wichita Falls TX (125 miles northwest of D/FW), actual out in the boondocks west of Wichita Falls, closer to the booming metropolis of Iowa Park (pronounced "Eye-Way Park" by the locals). We've got broadband wireless out here at 1-2Mbps up/down symmetric by at least three different wireless ISP companies for around $50/month.

Perhaps there is a business opportunity for WISPs, more lucrative than I thought, for wireless internet provider business in the outlying rural-esque areas surrounding the metroplex. Maybe I should think of investing in it.

Re:Dallas - rural outlying areas

[RobertB-DC]

Perhaps there is a business opportunity for WISPs, more lucrative than I thought, for wireless internet provider business in the outlying rural-esque areas surrounding the metroplex. Maybe I should think of investing in it.

Yes. You should. Now. Please!

yeahy!

[Anonymous Coward]

finally i know what my dsl acctually talks to.
and now i finally know who to blame, if my dsl
router syncs randomly between 128 and 608 kbps
downstream on a 2 MBps subscribtion.
(i've never ever seen it sync beyond 608 kbps.
strangly the upstream is steady between 608 and 640
kbps ...)

Re:yeahy!

[PsychoSlashDot]

> (i've never ever seen it sync beyond 608 kbps. strangly the upstream is steady between 608 and 640 kbps ...)

It's not strange at all. Residential DSL these days tends to follow the g.DMT spec. That specification places the upchannel frequencies at the lower end of the spectrum allocated for the DSL connection. It happens that lower frequencies survive longer distances for DSL purposes. Effectively, this means that the downchannel suffers first due to length/line conditions, degrading from 8Mbps down to no sync. Through most of that downchannel degredation, the frequencies reserved at the bottom for upchannel remain fully/mostly available. It's not until your downchannel is really suffering that the upchannel starts to degrade.

Other DSL implimentations interlaced upchannel and downchannel frequencies throughout the allocated spectrum.

Re:yeahy!

[binaryspiral]

Other DSL implimentations interlaced upchannel and downchannel frequencies throughout the allocated spectrum.

My DSL provider can adjust the upstream bandwidth independantly of the downstream to allow the modem to "sync" more solidly - especially helpful because they lease lines from SBC (Satanic Bell Corporation) - so they end up getting the copper pair that turned green a long time ago.

Have ADSL control on the line - but keeping the overall package speeds of a SDSL keeps me happy. 1meg up and down for less than $50/month.

I'm 13kft from the CO - they had to adjust my line to 1Meg down / 768k up to get the signal strong enough.

That, and my service has been out for less than 24 hours in 3 years... This is enough to keep me from switching to higher download speed of cable.

Longer ranges, higher speeds - and the possibility of FTC - bring it on Telcos, we want it!!!

Completely misleading press release

[mike_lynn]

If you read the wording of the press release, it says that people can get access to DSL "up to 20KM from a central exchange". Key words: central exchange.

When most people in the US run into a distance limit, it's the 5200m/~3 mile distance from *the nearest DSLAM*, not the central exchange. So when people read this press release, they think: "Wow, now DSL goes 15km farther!"

This is an unspoken lie. The Wikipedia entry their own press release links to lists a distance limit of 3km to the premises and further digging turns up G.SHDSL can be deployed up to about 12km from the central exchange ... or nearest fiber tie-in.

Grand total: 15km.

*Apparent* improvement: 10km ... but people forget that their local DSLAMs are already some considerable distance away from their own central offices.

Working for an ISP has its advantages ... I just ran a distance check between a remote I know of and the central office it's deployed out of: 11km.

So total distance from central office where I am that people can get DSL: Around 16km

Distance Telstra should be getting using the technology they're talking about: 15km / roughly the same.

Distance Telstra claims: 20km

I don't know where that last 5km is coming from, but I bet it's because in this 'longest run' they've got fiber in there somewhere. If fiber isn't being used, I would _really_ like to see some specs on the data rate they get out of that 20km run.

The only advantage to this technology is that it can be deployed using an unused copper pair, which is already installed everywhere that anyone would want DSL.

Re:Completely misleading press release

[jabuzz]

This 3km limit is a load of cobbliers. The vast majority of lines will work just fine out to 7-8km, and some much further.

Last year BT did a large in the field trial of "extended reach" ADSL. Basically they hooked any line, no matter what the distance to the DSLAM and let the customer hook up their modem and saw what happened.

In most cases it just worked, and in the cases where it did not work, a visit from an engineer to fit a ADSL filter at the NTE5 (the master socket in the house) and the vast majority started working. In the UK the official estimate from BT is that about 0.2% of all telephone lines will not work with a 512kbps ADSL connection.

The result of the trial is that if you order a 512kbps ADSL line they hook you up regardless. If it does not work you get an engineer visit, and if you are in the unlucky 0.2% you get a refund.

Any ADSL provider enforcing distance limits needs their head examining. The biggest problem by far with long lines not working is the mess of extensions in the house. Solution filter the ADSL signal off at the master socket. What could be simpler.

See the following URL's for more information.

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/news.php?id=201
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=1 814

Re:Completely misleading press release

[Anonymous Coward]

They use regenerator technology to extend the reach, in some areas the limit could be a lot more, depends on cable construction. Don't confuse metro and rural cables as the rural cables are built to carry signals much further.

Re:Completely misleading press release

[typical]

Working for an ISP has its advantages ... I just ran a distance check between a remote I know of and the central office it's deployed out of: 11km.

www.telcodata.us

Shoddy Cable Plant

[PhraudulentOne]

It sounds like Telstras cable plant is pretty shoddy. We have remote DSLAMS near the customers so that we can give them great speeds. Soon, we will be putting a bunch more in so that everyone can get ADSL2+. This crap that Telstra is using sounds like a massive cop-out. It's not going to last very long if you have 2+ (max 8!) users sharing 2.3MBit. You also have to remember, these are people that have been ITCHING to get highspeed because it has been unavailable for so long. When they get it, they will be using it a lot, which means it will suck for those sharing 2.3MBit with 8 people. Telstra should get their act together and start laying fibre. Then they can put REAL DSLAMs near each neighbourhood and do 8MBit with ADSL, or greater speeds with newer technologies. 2.3Mbit won't be highspeed for much longer.

Re:Shoddy Cable Plant

[pbjones]

who pays for 20kms of fibre?? who pays for the survey work? The problem for Rural Oz is not getting Broadband, it's getting Broadband at city prices. There are many solution for providing hi-speed data, few of them are cheap enought to supply a few customers 20-30kms from the nearest town.

Speakeasy's NetShare service

[goodenoughnickname]

You may want to look into Speakeasy's NetShare service, if it's available in your area.

Basically, you get a T1 line (Free install + Free Router after $500 MIR) and split it with your neighbors wirelessly. You become the admin and set the price and speed for your neighbors, while Speakeasy handles the billing and credits you 80% of what your neighbors pay.

It's $460/month for a 1.5Mbps symmetrical connection, and you'd have to split that down to what you consider affordable -- but hell, anything beats dial-up.

I feel your pain, buddy.

Anyone?

[h2d2]

I'm surprised nobody's referenced Verizon's FiOS so far !?!

DSL?? None for me thanks.

[rainman_bc]

Our phone company here's on strike. I discovered from various DSL resellers that I need basic phone service to have a DSL line. Basic service from Telus is $29.99 /mo + DSL $29.99

So I got cable and voip. Cable: $37.99 /mo; voip: $15/mo... $11 if I buy their hardware.

Oh, and no installation charges for voip. Telus wanted $100.

I'm still $7/mo + $100 ahead. DSL blows, at least in my area.

Plus, Shaw cable doesn't block inbound port 80 and 21 like DSL does.

I'm on a rant. This is OT. Moderators will damn me haha...

People fears

[Nicolay77]

It's not really logical, but a fear of radiofrecuencies damaging our brains can be the answer.

Just read about how zealots fight evolution and put those zealots into marketing...

Ohh wait, they already are !!

info here

[pbjones]

www.extel.com.au

Re:info here

[IceFoot]

pbjones wrote: www.extel.com.au

dns www.extel.com.au
Host doesn't exist

Trace www.extel.com.au
failed, no such host

ping www.extel.com.au
Ping failed, no such host

Yeah, I can see why they're putting out press releases about their DSL services... their internet connectivity is pretty impressive.... NOT!

Re:info here

[pbjones]

well I'm still getting mail via the mail server, and I've had it checked by a couple of people who all see the web page. Sorry if you can't reach it. Contact YOUR ISP. :)

Re:info here

[Anonymous Coward]

or the firewall only answers to web and mail traffic, try extelcomms.com for the US server, but use a browser this time

Clearing up some misconceptions

[FantaPants]

Just to clear some things up. The Extel expandsl solution uses SHDSL as the backhaul, not T1, E1 or anything else. The 20kms is possible because there can be up to three separate spans of SHDSL leading out to the Remote DSLAM (possible due to the use of up to two SHDSL regenerators), followed by one span of ADSL from the DSLAM to the customer. All the equipment is powered over the copper pairs. Consult your standard SHDSL and ADSL rate-reach graphs to confirm that three spans of SHDSL plus one span of ADSL can easily reach 20kms. There is no magic, and no special DSL being used here. Defintely no lies or stretching of truth as claimed by one person who says they are in the industry, so should know better. The 20kms starts from where the "exchange unit" is - essentially anywhere there is power and shelter. This point can be an Exchange (Central Office in USA language) or cabinet (Remote Terminal in USA language). Currently, Telstra have chosen to use the solution only from exchanges. Each of the eight customers shares the backhaul, which (mainly for reasons related to Australian regulation of DSL spectrum management) Telstra has chosen to operate at 1.5Mb/s. This is no different to the sharing of backhaul that happens in conventional DSLAM installations. Some telecommunications carriers put up to 50-60 customers on a single 1.5Mb/s T1/E1. Telstra's deployment rules state that no more than 12 customers can share a single 2Mb/s E1. So those of you who think you're getting a dedicated (not shared) internet connection - 99% of you are wrong. The remaining 1% would be getting a business-class DSL service. There's been a lot of work put into technology and standards that allows this "statistical multiplexing" to work. e.g so that customers doing a big download will not unfairly block other customers. Finally, those of you berating the system for not providing sufficient bandwidth, and/or not using fibre ... the bottom line is fibre costs thousands of dollars per km/mile to deploy. Carriers usually can't justify this expense in rural areas where there are not enough customers to recoup the cost from. Extel's expandsl system does the best that is possible using the existing copper infrastructure. At least it provides a DSL to customers where the only other option has been dial-up.

This is why Europeans get more

[Mal-2]

I mean, doesn't 15 centimeters sound a lot more impressive than 6 inches?

Mal-2

DSL-Extender

[raulzero]

Yes I tried the "DSL-Extender". I rubbed the creme on my DSL modem but it only made my hand bigger.

Yesterday no, today yes

[IceFoot]

Today dns resolves, ping is answered, traceroute works, and their web page opens on my browser.

Applause to extel for hooking back up to the internet! (Or... maybe something else mysteriously happened?)

Re:*ahem* "Ruggedized"

[MrSnivvel]

If is fabbed by TI (Texas Instruments) then yes, they'll have you covered.

No Longer Avaliable

[catprog]

I talk to my local telstra person.

It no longer exists and the people that could get it are angry as telstra has taken everthing back