Slashdot Mirror


Closing In On 1Gbps Using DSL

angry tapir writes "DSL vendors are using a variety of methods, such as bonding several copper lines, creating virtual ones, and using advanced noise cancellation to increase broadband over copper to several hundred megabits per second. At the Broadband World Forum in Paris, Nokia Siemens Networks became the latest vendor to brag about its copper prowess. It can now transmit speeds of up to 825M bps over a distance of 400 meters."

230 comments

  1. 400M ? by ak_hepcat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Um. great, how many people are within 2 city blocks of the local wire center?

    They need to be working on extending the speeds out past 15,000 feet (5,000M) if they want folks to get excited.

    --
    Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
    1. Re:400M ? by urikkiru · · Score: 2, Informative

      Me. I've just had vsdl service installed, which utilizes QWest's FTTN(Fiber To The Node) service. The DSLAM is about 2 blocks away from my house. I'm getting 20mbit down/5 mbit up. It's awesome. I see it as the future of DSL, simply bridging the last mile problem from fiber nodes.

    2. Re:400M ? by Thorfinn.au · · Score: 5, Informative

      That means a mini DSLAM in a street pillar connected by fibre to the exchange, this gets the speed they need for the connection without the need to replace that last "mile". Still a significant cost to put in but saves about 80% on a full fibre retro-fit to the house/business

    3. Re:400M ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a typical scenario for VDSL, where the "other" DSL modem is located in some box outside in the street. In Germany, 25% of the households can get 25 or 50 MBit/s connections via VDSL. This new technology could extend the speeds by quite some margin...

    4. Re:400M ? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised how many customers can be covered by that, as others have pointed out.

      Personally, I'd be more interested in finding out what they can push to 900m though... that's the limit that my DSL provider seems to be using for deciding who they can sell IPTV to (think ATT's uVerse), and those customers are on a 27mbit VDSL2 profile. Their network seems to be designed to limit distance to the DSLAM to 1km or less whenever possible.

    5. Re:400M ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      My driveway is more than four hundred meters.

    6. Re:400M ? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Me. I've just had vsdl service installed, which utilizes QWest's FTTN(Fiber To The Node) service. The DSLAM is about 2 blocks away from my house. I'm getting 20mbit down/5 mbit up. It's awesome. I see it as the future of DSL, simply bridging the last mile problem from fiber nodes.

      I'm on U-Verse, and have been very pleased with it. U-Verse is also VDSL, and while it's no gigabit connection it works very well. Somewhat ironically (well, irritatingly) there's an AT&T VRAD right across the street from my house, not fifty feet away. But I'm not connected to it: I'm running from a box down on the main drag, maybe a mile away. I'm currently on the 12 mbit/sec plan (saved a few bucks) but I get about 15 which is fine for me, and when I first got it I was rated at 18 mbit/sec, and was getting a solid 22. Not bad for phone wiring. Plus which AT&T gives me a 2 mbit/sec backchannel, which I find very useful (compared to the 30 or 40 kbit/sec up I got from Comcast, when I was on their 20 mbit/sec plan!) And it's consistent, usable bandwidth in both directions.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:400M ? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      In places like Korea and China, probably quite a few people.

    8. Re:400M ? by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I like to bash Comcast as much as the next guy, but 30-40 kbit/sec....exactly when did you switch??
      I've had Comcast for over 8 years in 2 different cities and have always maintained faster upload rates than that. By a number of multiples!!

    9. Re:400M ? by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In places like Korea and China, this isn't an issues, as they left behind speeds like this a decade ago.

    10. Re:400M ? by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1

      **replying to myself. just ran speedtest.net and got 15 mbit down, and 2.6mbit up. I am on the standard internet plan.

      30-40kbit, comeon...lets try to be somewhat accurate on this website please.

      I can also attest to pulling torrents down at similar speeds, so I do find SpeedTest.net to be an accurate indicator of bandwidth.

    11. Re:400M ? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I like to bash Comcast as much as the next guy, but 30-40 kbit/sec....exactly when did you switch?? I've had Comcast for over 8 years in 2 different cities and have always maintained faster upload rates than that. By a number of multiples!!

      Not where I am. This was a few years ago. Then U-Verse moved in, and now I understand that Comcast has improved considerably. This was during the height of their anti-torrent "network management" madness too. Not only was I getting hit with fake RSTs, but they cut the backchannel too, presumably for the same purpose (slowing down torrents.)

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    12. Re:400M ? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      **replying to myself. just ran speedtest.net and got 15 mbit down, and 2.6mbit up. I am on the standard internet plan. 30-40kbit, comeon...lets try to be somewhat accurate on this website please. I can also attest to pulling torrents down at similar speeds, so I do find SpeedTest.net to be an accurate indicator of bandwidth.

      I am being accurate. And I ran any number of bandwidth checks, even ran them periodically and logged them so I could try to reason with their tech support people. They wouldn't believe me, claiming it was my problem. Not that it mattered: it was like trying to argue semantics with chimpanzees, but it cost them a good customer when U-Verse rolled around (oh, they screwed with me in other areas as well.) I once asked a tech if I was some kind of a test case to see just how much a customer could or would tolerate. He just shrugged. Actually, their on-site guys were pretty sharp, and always tried to give me what I was paying for. It was the phone support and provisioning people that gave me the most grief.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    13. Re:400M ? by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      Time Warner Cable, Road Runner, payed for the Turbo Package.

      30 MB down / 0.5 MB up. I wish I had faster up, can't complain about the down :)

    14. Re:400M ? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      FIOS... 30/30 :) Join us....

    15. Re:400M ? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>how many people are within 2 city blocks of the local wire center?

      Most of the Japanese nation, apparently. Japan uses almost nothing but DSL, and they are the world's second fastest country (average net speed). Just because DSL may not work in the mostly-rural US/Canada, doesn't mean it can't work for other cultures.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:400M ? by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. This is pretty much the first thing that came to my mind when they start crowing about crap like this. How fast it can be if you live next door to the CO means fuckall if Joe Internet User on the edges of town is lucky to get 1.5Mbsp/384Kbps. Fuck making it faster, make it reach further out.

    17. Re:400M ? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>The DSLAM is about 2 blocks away from my house.

      If your company upgraded from VDSL to VDSL-2 you would be close enough to get 180 Mbit/s down (and 20 up).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    18. Re:400M ? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Um. great, how many people are within 2 city blocks of the local wire center?

      They need to be working on extending the speeds out past 15,000 feet (5,000M) if they want folks to get excited.

      With more neighborhoods being served with Fiber to the neighood distribution cabinet I would say the majority of people in newer neighborhoods are withing reach.

      Old cities, not so much. You often nave multi-mile copper runs in those places.

      But fiber is being pushed closer every day even when you don't have fiber in front of your home.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    19. Re:400M ? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I believe you.

      My up speed is slow too: Only 128 kbit/s, but even then it interferes with the down channel (slows it down). The practical limit for uploading, without slowing web or torrent downloads, is just 80 kbit/s.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    20. Re:400M ? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I'd like to but it's not installed here yet.
      Plus I don't need symmetric speeds. I'd rather FiOS were configured as 50/10 or 55/5 Mbps.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    21. Re:400M ? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>In places like Korea and China, this isn't an issues, as they left behind speeds like this a decade ago.

      Bull.
      Here's the average speed for these countries using speedtest data:
      KOREA 35.6 Mbit/s - much less than 825
      CHINA 3.5 Mbit/s - much less than 825

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    22. Re:400M ? by Eyezen · · Score: 1

      I'm on U-Verse, and have been very pleased with it. U-Verse is also VDSL, and while it's no gigabit connection it works very well. Somewhat ironically (well, irritatingly) there's an AT&T VRAD right across the street from my house, not fifty feet away. But I'm not connected to it: I'm running from a box down on the main drag, maybe a mile away. I'm currently on the 12 mbit/sec plan (saved a few bucks) but I get about 15 which is fine for me, and when I first got it I was rated at 18 mbit/sec, and was getting a solid 22. Not bad for phone wiring. Plus which AT&T gives me a 2 mbit/sec backchannel, which I find very useful (compared to the 30 or 40 kbit/sec up I got from Comcast, when I was on their 20 mbit/sec plan!) And it's consistent, usable bandwidth in both directions.

      What's a backchannel?

    23. Re:400M ? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      What's a backchannel?

      Data going the other way, i.e. when you upload.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    24. Re:400M ? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      FIOS... 30/30 :) Join us....

      Would if I could. But for now, I'll live with my 12/2.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    25. Re:400M ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why there is Serving Area Concept. Moving DSLAM'S closer to peoples homes means they can do exactly this. 400M is completely attainable using SAC boxes and Aerial / Underground Plant. What's really the kicker is that telco's are going to have to start using a dedicated count on their Aerial plant, removing bridge taps, clear capping as these sorts of 'could get away withs' at lower broadband speeds are pretty much 'cant get away withs' with VHDSL.

    26. Re:400M ? by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      If you prioritize acks, you won't see that problem with premature choking

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    27. Re:400M ? by adolf · · Score: 1

      Please describe a method for prioritizing acks using U-Verse with the ubiquitous and irreplaceable 2-wire "residential gateway" which is supplied.

      (And, hint: If it involves egress throttling on an external router and DMZ Plus on the gateway, you fail. DMZ Plus is broken.)

    28. Re:400M ? by atejero · · Score: 1

      With SAC boxes everywhere this isn't really a problem. The DSLAM justs gets pushed further and further out towards the customer. The real problem for Telco's will be line noise on aerial plant (due to induction, bridge-taps, and having to use clear caps). This will pretty much mean all telco's using VDSL-2 will have to be going to a dedicated count (bell-core) which means it's a good time to be a phone guy, cuz you'll be working lots :)

    29. Re:400M ? by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      Ummm how is DMZ plus broken? It works great where I am (on it now)

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    30. Re:400M ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to be working on extending the speeds out past 15,000 feet (5,000M) if they want folks to get excited.

      Exactly... I'm one of those lucky rural Americans that doesn't live in a Metropolis and although I'm about 3.5 driven miles from the local CO I'm about 7 cable-length miles from that same CO. So, my choices are 19.2k dial-up or $70/mo 1.5Mb/900+ms latency satellite. I currently have the latter... yeah. I suppose gig connections to doors within a couple of blocks of the CO is an accomplishment but I'd really like to see any tech that pushes that 15000ft barrier. It's hard to believe that options past the 15000ft mark haven't really evolved at all in the last 10 years. I'm sure it's an ROI thing based on subscriber density but I'm sure feeling left out in the cold.

    31. Re:400M ? by definate · · Score: 1

      Though, in new developments they should still fit it out with fiber, since that's the time to make life easy, and fiber has a way greater life expectancy, and through doing more of it, should become much more cost competitive.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    32. Re:400M ? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      I was going to say, that speed is horrid. People enjoy faster with fiber and DSL. I'd hesitate to call anything below 50mb down and 10mb up (minimum!) awesome at this point.

    33. Re:400M ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I am within 2 blocks of mine.

    34. Re:400M ? by adolf · · Score: 1

      Random TCP connection hangs, killing torrent throughput. Peers would just sit there and do nothing for a time. Partial blocks were common. It was a mess to watch.

      Tried with a variety of WRT54G/GL/GS routers, using a variety of popular third-party firmware, and not doing anything fancy. Eventually, I got sick of playing whack-a-mole with an invisible mallet, and realized that the mole itself was the devil.

      The various permutations of WRT-based routers I was trying were things that always worked fine on network connections of similar speed which don't do any sort of NAT: Bridged ADSL, PPPOE, DOCSIS...pretty much anything dumb like that.

      And, the various permutations of WRT-based routers I was trying were also things that always even worked fine with two in series, each performing NAT. I want to blame the WRTs, but I can't.

      And, in all cases, removing the extraneous router and turning off DMZ Plus has always rectified the problem, doing the same workload.

      So, yeah: DMZ Plus is broken. Unless it has magically healed itself in the past 1.5 years or so.

      I'd love to hear otherwise.

    35. Re:400M ? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Any chance it was a piece of your gear? Ive never heard of any provider-- T1, DSL, ISDN, cable, etc-- provide upload THAT low. Even bad DSL with a bad modem on a bad line will be at least 128kbit usually....

      Is it possible you had some QoS mis-setting, or a bad modem, or a bad ethernet line? Did you test any of it (particularly the modem, since that would have changed after the ISP switch)? Comcast tends to be pretty darn good with respect to uploads...

    36. Re:400M ? by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      Firmware updates happen pretty often. Im a fairly recent customer to it, but i have seen none of the issues you describe, even running stable backups across my mpls over site to site vpn tunnels, dont see lsp renego very often at all

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    37. Re:400M ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In germany it is becoming more and more common to have mini dslams within 400m which gives you a speed of 50MBit (downstream)

    38. Re:400M ? by Barny · · Score: 1

      Not to mention good fibre will be upgradeable by simply dropping new routers at both ends well past 1Gb/s with todays technology.

      As an Aussie about to have my old un-twisted, paper insulated, lead lined copper pair replaced with fibre in the near future, I can happily say "screw you DSL" :)

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    39. Re:400M ? by definate · · Score: 1

      I too come from the land down under, where there's rain and censorship.

      However I'm less optimistic about the "near future", I reckon it's going to take a hell of a long time to roll out. They haven't even done Tassie yet, and that's a tiny place in comparison. I live in a place which isn't densely populated (but still 20 minutes from the city), and has no new housing developments, so I'm not expecting to get anything awesome anytime soon. Though I would like some in between solutions, like pseudo exchanges/repeaters/something to transfer many copper connections to many fiber connections, so at the very least I'm not 7kms from my effective exchange... which is what I am at the moment.

      Either way, Rudd in a dress is in power, and I just hope she pulls her thumb out and gets this shit done! I want 100mbit!

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    40. Re:400M ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Please describe a method for prioritizing acks using U-Verse with the ubiquitous and irreplaceable 2-wire "residential gateway" which is supplied.

      Put a Linux box on your network with any IP in the same subnet as the other machines. It doesn't even need two NICs. Just turn on IP forwarding, make the default gateway on the Linux box the AT&T gateway and make the default gateway on everything else the Linux box. Then you can use egress throttling or whatever you want, because all traffic to the internet is going into and then back out of the Linux box.

    41. Re:400M ? by badran · · Score: 1

      Anything over 1M down/up is awesome. I remember when my harddrive was slower than that. I think you should try to use a dialup for a week or two and then you appreciate you connection. And what do you need 50 mb down for??? A website is not going to to render faster? Are you downloading 100's of gigs a day? Are you even watching/using the stuff that you download?

    42. Re:400M ? by adolf · · Score: 1

      It didn't seem like much of a problem with a handful (or even a bunch) of TCP connections, as you seem to report.

      It blew itself apart when there were hundreds, or thousands of connections to different hosts*.

      You may think of my torrenting practices what you will, but they didn't work with DMZ Plus and a second router. However, they worked fine with neither.

      I may try again. I am not hopeful of positive results.

      *: Initially, I was using the same OpenWRT router that I had, just the day before, been doing the exact same thing with, only with Roadrunner and no NAT madness, with very similar network speeds and connection counts. It worked fine. UVerse showed up, I configured DMZ Plus, and things went to shit. The experimentation and basic troubleshooting came later, and consistently returned DMZ Plus as the source of problems.

    43. Re:400M ? by adolf · · Score: 1

      Put a Linux box on your network with any IP in the same subnet as the other machines. It doesn't even need two NICs. Just turn on IP forwarding, make the default gateway on the Linux box the AT&T gateway and make the default gateway on everything else the Linux box. Then you can use egress throttling or whatever you want, because all traffic to the internet is going into and then back out of the Linux box.

      Cool.

      This not only breaks DHCP, thus making wireless access non-trivial, but by extension ruins local DNS resolution. And without DMZ Plus, it gives me twice as many configurations to fuck with every time I need a port opened from the outside world to some widget or other.

      Thanks, but no thanks. I gave up on this level of configuration insanity over a decade ago, and I'm not going back.

    44. Re:400M ? by paulkoan · · Score: 1

      It is only a saving if there is no intention of doing FTTH ever. If there is, then just get on with it. It is far cheaper to do FTTH(now) than FTTN(now)+FTTH(later).

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank
    45. Re:400M ? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what Qwests service is but if you already have "Fibre to the Node" why would you personally care about a 1 Gbps DSL over copper when your fibre line can get speeds past 100 Gbps ?

    46. Re:400M ? by __aatirs3925 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I concur, my upload is between 200-480kb/s and my download is roughly 500kb/s-2.5mb/s depending on the server and I'm using comcast. As far as reputation goes, you are either in a good neighborhood or a bad one but when you're in a good neighborhood comcast is very, very reliable and insanely fast for american standards.

      Though, as a side note I'd like to just say that it upsets me when providers advertise like 20mb/s down but have terrible upload speed, which in the end makes web browsing slow and painful.

    47. Re:400M ? by FictionPimp · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is DMZ Plus broken? I turned off the wireless on my 2-wire and used DMZ plus to forward to my own router. Everything works perfectly, xbox, ps3, computers, bittorrent, etc.

      I've been doing this for as long as I've had Uverse. I use two wireless routers to tunnel my network to the other side of my house rather than run cable. This allows me to have wired networks in each room (nice for file transfers) with wireless N connecting the two rooms on each end of the house. No way I could pull that off with the 2wire POS.

    48. Re:400M ? by triple.eh · · Score: 1

      They need to be working on extending the speeds out past 15,000 feet (5,000M)

      That may have been the case in the 90s.

      In the 21st century competitive telecom DSL providers are deploying FTTx technologies that reduce the loop length of the last mile so they can better serve subscribers and offer these higher speeds.

      Unless you're getting fiber optics right to your house or your DSL provider really doesn't care about growing their network it is unlikely you'll ever see 5000M loop lengths with copper in the future.

    49. Re:400M ? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      After reading the responses, it sounds complicated and expensive. If I had to go through all that for torrenting, I'd rather just buy the DVD of my favorite show/movie.

      Or else just stick with 80k UL limits.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    50. Re:400M ? by ledow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because running 5km of fibre for you (and 5km of fibre for the other people on your exchange which is presumably in the best location they could afford to put it, so we're talking everyone in a 5km *RADIUS* of the exchange, which means 20-30km + of cabling at least in some sort of web or star configuration) and a handful of people is a extreme loss. It would have to be fibre - we have nothing else that can really go that distance - and it would probably need repeaters for that length.

      So they run the cable, dig up, say 20km of road / install 20km of poles / repeaters/ shielding, etc. just to get a fibre into a box somewhere nearer to you in order to do DSL or whatever they need (you to a nearby exchange doesn't matter, because there's no end of cheap, easily available hardware and wiring that can already be used to get you connected to that fibre). If you live in a rural area, say that connects 20,000 or 30,000 people. How much do you think that's actually going to bring in each year versus their outlay, repairs, upgrades, etc? It wouldn't cover the interest on a loan of the amount required to do the work in the first place (so they are theoretically better off by just leaving that money in a bank account, earning interest instead of costing it).

      It's not a question of technologies - 5km is a huge distance - over radio for more than a handful of people at the bandwidth you're wanting is ludicrously difficult (and just fills the airwaves for even more miles around, making it harder to do more) or you'd have amateur radio networks doing it all the time at those speeds. Plus, you'd never get a license for it. Over cable, that's a huge amount of digging, burying, pole-installing, raising, repairing, planning, obtaining permission, and an awful expense in copper too (people are stealing copper cables over here for things like that because of its scrap value). Over fibre, you have all the same problems but only get no theft value, almost-infinite upgradability, conversion costs and extreme fragility as differences.

      It's mostly quite sensible business reasons - it's ridiculous to expect a company to make a loss unless it's forced to (like some British ISP's are in order to fulfill their telecoms license obligations). That's a governmental problem - to force them. If they *are* forced to, they can't give you the same as everyone else because the technologies don't cover the same distance, and your maintenance / installation costs are ridiculously higher so you'll get slower / more expensive broadband. They won't get any fans by doing it, they'll just get people moaning that it's not as reliable / fast as other people's inner-city service again. Years ago, 56k was the standard, if you didn't have that, you were "deprived". Now it's 2Mb. By the time an installation is settled, it'll be 4Mb or 8Mb or whatever. They wouldn't recoup any money on their investment before they were digging it up again to replace everything.

      Don't blame your ISP, or the scientists for not giving you the technology (that amount of combined bandwidth over that wide an area is all but impossible), blame your government for not subsidising what is now seen as an "essential" service. Get it classed as a utility, then it's in the same category as not having running water, or sewerage, or electricity. Until then, there is NO business case to ever do it. Without a business case, no business will do it, and no bank will fund them to do it, and no business that ever does it would ever be shown gratitude. When the government starts subsidising or enforcing it, then you'll have the service they lay down, and probably no more, and it'll be a cost burden on every other ISP user in the country.

      It's like demanding that you get access to the city center by vehicle in the same time and same cost that a city-dweller can. Yeah, it can probably be done, but there's zero business case for it at all (in fact, there's almost infinitely more business case for you to get to the city centre in five minutes than for you to get br

    51. Re:400M ? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I too come from the land down under, where there's rain and censorship.

      Don't forget the vegemite sandwiches!

    52. Re:400M ? by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      Yes I know what connection state tracking overflow looks like, I torrent too. It works fine.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    53. Re:400M ? by urikkiru · · Score: 1

      You don't get fiber directly to your house, the expense of doing that kind of build out is just too high. So, they lay fiber to the local DSLAM, and then use vdsl to bridge the 'last mile' from the DSLAM to your house.

    54. Re:400M ? by thynk · · Score: 1

      I call about every 6 months to see if there is a faster package for my DSL line. It's still locked down to 1.5m/768k. The wireless ISP gives me 6m/1.5m. It's frustrating to not even get real DSL speeds, I guess it's one of the prices to pay for living rural outside a small town.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    55. Re:400M ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you all stop playing with linksys(and clone) toys and start using something actually capable of handling sustained 5+ megabits without completely shitting itself.

      http://www.pfsense.org/

      I stopped dicking rebooting blue boxes every week when I read the pfsense forums and saw serious discussion of hardware requirements for routing near gigabit line speed traffic. A serious torrenter you say? Well shoot. Increase the size of the firewall state table. You can do it, or even view it yourself with few clicks. Make it as big as you want! A 1 gig stick of ram costs a good 19 dollars. Your linksys devices top at at what.. 16? 32 megs of ram?

      Get the slowest, cheapest dual core CPU you can find(might as well, as single core cpus are quickly going the way of the dodo) and underclock it so it barely needs a heatsink, let alone a fan. Get a modern one because smaller die process=less power needed. Get a gig stick of ram. Don't, however, skimp on the NICs. Get good intel network cards. Get a motherboard you can plug them both in to. Install pfsense on a DOM or a hard disk or cheap SSD.

      You won't have a single problem ever again.

    56. Re:400M ? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I'm on ATT DSL and I was really excited when they installed a DSLAM right across the street from me. However, the best speed I can get is about 1 mbit down and half that up... pathetic.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    57. Re:400M ? by hufman · · Score: 1

      The problem with DMZ Plus is that connections through it still fill up the UVerse NAT table, which has a maximum size of 1024. Random people portscanning you will be passed through DMZ Plus, placed in the NAT table, and potentially boot off normal connections. This is why I take the effort to double-port-forward everything I use through my Netgear.
      If anyone else offered more than half of the upload that UVerse provides, I'd switch. I'd pay several hundred dollars to replace my UVerse router with a UVerse modem. Verizon said they don't dare come to Milwaukee because AT&T has the entire county bought, so FIOS won't be available ever.
      But yet, America's Internet Service market has lots of competition, somewhere. I wish I lived in that magical place.

    58. Re:400M ? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Ever thought about getting a second phone line?

      (1) They install the second line.
      (2) Now you have two phone numbers.
      (3) Upgrade phone #2 to DSL.
      (4) Now you have two 1.5 Mbit/s feeds into you home. One for you, and one for the kids.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    59. Re:400M ? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      heh, old redundant argument is old and redundant.

      The proper answer is "3600 baud is good enough for everyone".

    60. Re:400M ? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Assuming I've run the numbers properly and assuming line-of-sight, at 5 km and 10 GHz, a 0.7 m (28 inch) dish with a 1 mW transmitter will provide 30 dB SNR for a 1 GHz bandwidth. This won't work in mountains and forests, but in the plains it's feasible. A couple hundred dollars for hardware (assuming such stuff is in moderate volume production), the same for installation, and you've got a link. If the telco offers this for a $600 setup fee, charges a monthly amount that covers costs and profits and maintenance, where's the problem?

      Where I live, 2 miles from from a town of 1200, I get 1.5Mb/s DSL, and higher speeds are available. Eventually, if I want higher speeds than are possible on that line, more repeaters would be needed. Why shouldn't that be available if I'm willing to cover the capital costs?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    61. Re:400M ? by kriston · · Score: 1

      I live very, very far away from the central office, but we suddenly were offered DSL several years ago due to a new technology known as "g.Lite" and the deployment of miniature DSLAMs on local, neighborhood telephone poles and cabinets.

      It's a neat idea. Think of it the phone company's version of what the cable companies did with HFC cable about fifteen years ago.

      --

      Kriston

    62. Re:400M ? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Any chance it was a piece of your gear? Ive never heard of any provider-- T1, DSL, ISDN, cable, etc-- provide upload THAT low. Even bad DSL with a bad modem on a bad line will be at least 128kbit usually.... Is it possible you had some QoS mis-setting, or a bad modem, or a bad ethernet line? Did you test any of it (particularly the modem, since that would have changed after the ISP switch)? Comcast tends to be pretty darn good with respect to uploads...

      Nope. Replaced everything more than once, and they admitted it was a provisioning issue. They just weren't willing to do anything about it. I had other problems: for example, I was paying for a second IP, couple bucks a month, but it was handy for testing and other things. At the time, I had AT&T Callvantage VoIP service for my phones, and I used the second IP for that (kept the VoIP traffic off my router.)

      Then I decided to "upgrade" my service to the fastest tier. A few days later, my phones stop working: turned out they'd provisioned out my second IP, but were still billing me for it. In the process I reset the modem: now the VoIP box got the one IP and the router was left out, so I had no Internet service.

      So I call up and talked to the usual Indian drone for an hour or so, trying to get it through his thick head that it wasn't a problem with the modem, but he insisted that I needed a technician visit. So, okay, whatever.

      Now as I said earlier, I never had a problem with Comcast's field service people: generally they were very good. So two of these guys come out to the house. I explained what was happening: they looked at each other and one said, "Why did you request a service call? That's a provisioning problem!" {italics mine}}

      So he calls up the provisioning department (not a number that you or I would have access to) and the woman that answers the phone spent fifteen minutes trying to convince the tech that I had no use for a second IP, and that "does the customer know that he can use his existing router for his VoIP service?" The tech looked around my shop, half a dozen computers running, big file server in the corner, cables everywhere and said, very slowly, "Yes, I believe the customer understands that, but WOULD LIKE TO GET WHAT HE IS PAYING FOR!" He'd had just about enough of her, I could tell. She then said, "Okay, sir, it's all fixed" and an hour after the techs left my phones stopped working again.

      Really, I wouldn't go back to Comcast if you offered to pay my bill. Yes, I'm glad you have stellar service, and I'm sure that I'm just one of those statistical outliers, but I did not have a good experience with them.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    63. Re:400M ? by hidave · · Score: 1

      I'm reallly glad to read everyone's comments about this potential and how it may or not be better than what you have now. For me, I live in the boondocks of Tennessee, and have to live with satellite access to the Internet (no cell signal, no DSL). So max download is 1.5 Mbps and upload about 50 kbps. I'm paying for 250 kbps upload, but they are oversold, and are screwing everyone in that regard. And then there is the latency of about 1.4 seconds that prohibits the use of things like Skype and Vonnage. How nice. Remember Obama's promise on this? So far nada.

      --
      Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant
    64. Re:400M ? by ledow · · Score: 1

      So apart from the line-of-sight to every household, apart from the potential licensing for such communication (if required which is almost certain if you're aiming terrestrially and with such a point-to-point radio link), apart from the fact that - to be economical as a business - almost every house in a 5km radius would need one, plus several hundred dollars each installation (not including ongoing maintenance and dealing with every git whinging about someone who's erected a tent in the way of their signal) and then the telco has to be provide bandwidth and other services behind it. If it's for more than one household, you're basically looking at tower-erection, planning permission, etc. the same as bringing cell-phone infrastructure to the place (and if you can get cell-phone infrastructure, you should be able to get HSDPA anyway) - a $600 setup fee would probably have a similar monthly cost too, because you *wouldn't* get even a few percent of people in such an area that would be eligible, and only a small percentage of them would actually end up using it and the company would have to recoup such a huge investment AFTER they planned, designed, deployed and tested it. This is why small local community projects set such things up on a shoestring (literally two men with Wifi and a couple of cantennas, as in some rural Scotland deployments), try to expand and ultimately go out of business and/or get no customers even when they are subsidised. It might work (possibly, maybe) for a single link for two experienced people using certain known limitations but bringing it to a general populace in a rural area is much, much more tricky. And if you *can* do it, the quality of service are less and the associated costs are WAY more than anything you can get from a professional setup using other methods (satellite, local DSL, etc.)

      The numbers do not add up. Point-to-point microwave links are used all over the place - it saves hassle when coupling buildings that can't have copper / fibre between them, and they are used in rural schemes in places like Scotland between islands. You can even build your own if you're confident with electronics - there are projects everywhere that can get 10km LoS but they are stupidly expensive and unreliable and have much vaster problems than running something through the cable conduits of a major city would (hence they are always perceived as stupidly expensive). They are *prohibitively* expensive not because of the company just stinging people (it tends to be small, local, village startups doing just that service) but because the problems mean it's actually more expensive and less reliable than most of the alternatives and thus the worst of both worlds. Hell, a bit of rain, fog, mist, damp, dust or snow and such things just die, let alone trying to find 5km of open ground for LoS.

      If you're willing to cover the capital costs, you can have what you want but you are vastly underestimating the capital costs. Hell, there was a story in the news a few weeks ago that the UK electricity suppliers are quoting one Scottish household £50,000 to be connected to the mains electricity when they are 50m from a road, because the infrastructure isn't in those sorts of places to handle such things, and the costs *per household* are ridiculously high. It's cost per household that matters if you're having to do the work and recoup the money back from household subscribers. Digging up even a small plot of land for installation of something can cost thousands and thousands and if you can't suck that back from a per-household profit (rather than expecting a handful of people to foot the entire bill) then you are wasting your time.

      A point-to-point business-level microwave link can cost thousands just to span between two buildings on the same site, and will never be as reliable as fibre or cable. Companies buy them because sometimes there are no alternatives (e.g. someone owns the intervening land and won't authorised cables of any kind, they are near power lines that interfere with or

    65. Re:400M ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We shouldn't build an entire infrastructure to support you and your cats, sorry. I don't care if Obama used the phrase 'everyone' in his speeches. He meant 'everyone within reason'.

    66. Re:400M ? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Rural areas in many states do indeed tend to have trees -- my last place sure did. I would have had to put up a 40' tower to begin to clear trees, which would continue to get taller while the tower didn't. Many areas already have fiber to them, for the voice network. In my case, Verizon simply couldn't be bothered to drop a DSLAM into the local site.

  2. Too slow by spazdor · · Score: 1

    I was going to be the first to comment but I'm more than 500 meters away from my phone company's nearest DSLAM, so I have to wait for them to build another one halfway in between.

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    1. Re:Too slow by dattaway · · Score: 1

      AT&T puts those boxes on every block in our neighborhoods. Uverse currently runs at 8.5MHz over flat pair here.

    2. Re:Too slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for keeping us updated on your present distance to DSLAM condition.

    3. Re:Too slow by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      AT&T puts those boxes on every block in our neighborhoods. Uverse currently runs at 8.5MHz over flat pair here.

      Maybe they could twist some speed out of it.

  3. worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just replace copper with fiber and stop pushing dead horses. no one is located 400m from a CO. all this technology is worthless for the real world. ADSL2+ cant even do 24Mbps in the real world as its supposed to.

  4. And yet, I'm stuck by Night+Goat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately, I still find myself with a 2 Mbps download speed tops. This technology needs to be actually utilized! It's killing me to read this stuff and then never see it in action.

    1. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by angry+tapir · · Score: 1

      In Oz we're getting a national fibre network with 1Gbps :-) (though there is political argy-bargy about it)

    2. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by corbettw · · Score: 5, Funny

      though there is political argy-bargy about it

      I think there's something wrong with your new, high-speed network. It seems to be getting lots of line noise coming across as random characters on your Slashdot posts.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by angry+tapir · · Score: 2, Informative
    4. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      I keep hoping this will actually get through, it might give us some sort of future after we run out of stuff to dig out of the ground. Tragically, the opposition, having an obsession with having zero debt and no actual policy of any significance(mind you the government doesn't have an awful lot of policy either) has decided that the NBN is going to be their issue of differentiation. If the current mob don't hold on long enough or make the cancellation policies in the contracts sufficiently horrendous, we probably won't see it in more than a few areas.

    5. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah and cable is being pulled in Brunswick, Victoria only a few k from my home. I know a guy who lives a bit closer to the test area who has been invited to participate in tests.

    6. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      though there is political argy-bargy about it

      I think there's something wrong with your new, high-speed network. It seems to be getting lots of line noise coming across as random characters on your Slashdot posts.

      Can't you read Australian? Its not like we speak English here you know.

    7. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by AbRASiON · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah it's costing us FORTY THREE BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS.
      We have a water crises, housing crises, we are making all our money from a mineral boom in the west which eventually end and then what?
      Seriously, fix this housing issue - I don't give a fuck if it's a 'states' problem - this is vastly more important than having fibre internet.
      Yes we need to ditch the copper network but do we need to do it right now? for forty three billion dollars?
      How much sustainable energy is currently being produced by this country.

      Argh - and no before you say it, I'm not a liberal, not even bloody close.

    8. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by AnonymousClown · · Score: 4, Funny
      Interesting.

      ABC.net.au huh. That's what, the gold version of ABC radio?

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    9. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Yep, we do and as far as I am concerned it is money well spent, regardless of other priorities.

    10. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by froggymana · · Score: 1

      I wish I had that. Right now I'm stuck with a terrible connection to frontier (was on Verizon DSL) and its the worst service I have ever had. I get a 1mbit down, 384kbits up and I'm usually stuck with a 600-700ms latency.

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    11. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, fix this housing issue - I don't give a fuck if it's a 'states' problem - this is vastly more important than having fibre internet.

      Mate, I can build a house for myself, but I cannot drag a working fiber to my home.
      This is to say: I don't give a dam' about the housing problem (because I can take care), fix the internet access in outback and I will move there (because I can telecommute).

    12. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The opposition seems not just opposed to the NBN but to anything at all that weakens the near monopoly of Telstra on fixed-line communications (there are a few places where alternatives such as Optus Cable exist but for most of this country, if you want fixed-line phone or internet, you need to go wtih Telstra)

    13. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I see the childish nerds have been moderating again, yep GIVE US OUR FAST INTERNET WHAAAA WHAAA
      How many Aussies now have 8 to 20mbit connections with fairly reasonable download limits? Quite a fucking few actually considering the size of the country.

      Think about the future and not your own selfish download quota, as for the dumbass with his housing problem 'all taken care of' - fuck you, there's a hell of a lot of us who are fucked and it's getting worse, you selfish cunt.

    14. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      5 seconds to blow through my monthly "unlimited" quota!! I didn't realize a DVD could travel through a tube that fast!!!

    15. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by Shinmizu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stewardess, I speak Australian. Foster's. Argy Bargy. Wallaby. Foster's.

    16. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oh, we were all going to get broadband up here in the US too. The telecoms got their money, but the lines are still slow......

      --
      Qxe4
    17. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by jcl-xen0n · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's costing us FORTY THREE BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS.

      $27 billion FFS, not $43b - that's the total project cost over TEN years. The public cost is capped at $27b (estimated spend between $22-27b). The remainder of the money will be raised by NBN Co through bond issues and commercial partnerships. Read up on the facts before bleating about the cost PLEASE!

    18. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by teachknowlegy · · Score: 1

      I don't even use more than 768Kbps @ Home. More is available, but I don't *need* it. I do have resources outside of the home for the rare necessary to have more bandwidth days, but I don't have to spend any money on them :)

    19. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      I am on ADSL1 and am relatively close to the exchange..
      A couple of years ago i could get a sync rate of 8Mbit (the theoretical maximum)... However over the last year or so i get about 6Mbit except when it rains, when its raining or has rained recently i get under 1Mb and frequent connection drops.
      I've contacted the telco, who always send an engineer round in good weather who will claim nothing is wrong since it works for him. One engineer even said there couldn't possibly be water ingress because the cables run under the ground.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    20. Re:And yet, I'm stuck by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      In the proposed trials they've been suggesting prices of $2 / GB, which Conroy has been referring to as effectively free. And they wonder why take up rates are so low...
      The money to pay for the NBN has to come from somewhere, and the amount we're paying for it is completely ridiculous. The Liberals' plan offered them same speeds, rolled out over a longer period, at a fraction of the cost.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  5. And here in the US by TheOddOne · · Score: 0

    We still have to bend over, take it, and say thank you to our local (well, heck... AT&T) phone companies for the PRIVILEGE of having 8megabit/s downstream....
    Competition anyone? or are we just such mindless sheep that "it's good enough, 'cause my granddaddy only had the pony express"

    Argh....

    1. Re:And here in the US by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      It gets even better. For about $40/month I'm getting a 10Mbps DSL. So, for 825Mbps I'm looking at paying $3300.00/month. What a fucking value! Suddenly, paying $.10 for a text message seems reasonable. I won't pay it, but more reasonable for sure.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    2. Re:And here in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      And with a 25 GB cap, you'll get several seconds on full-on internet!

    3. Re:And here in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in the US you can get DSL from a variety of providers, not just the company that owns the last mile.

      You typically pay a little rent to the owner of the last mile, but otherwise you don't use verizon or AT&T or whoever your local phone co is.

    4. Re:And here in the US by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      We still have to bend over, take it, and say thank you to our local (well, heck... AT&T) phone companies for the PRIVILEGE of having 8megabit/s downstream.... Competition anyone? or are we just such mindless sheep that "it's good enough, 'cause my granddaddy only had the pony express"

      Argh....

      I guess I'm one of the lucky ones. I have both Comcast (blecch!), U-Verse and SBC DSL in my area. Consequently (having tried the others and suffered) I have U-Verse running at 12-mbit/sec for $45/month. I could add a few bucks and go back up to the 18 mbit tier, but this is sufficient for my needs (the occasional torrent and a girlfriend who loves streaming movies.)

      So yeah, I certainly agree with you. Competition is good. I used to use that when I had Comcast: when dealing with their (ahem!) "customer service" I would bring up the dreaded "A" or "S" words in order to get a better level of support. Just threaten to switch and you get escalated fast, I found. Not that, at the time, I could actually get SBC DSL or U-Verse, but I figured what they didn't know might actually get me what I was paying for. They still managed to jerk me around on a number of different levels anyway. So far I've no complaints about U-Verse. I admit though, if I were in a U-Verse-only area I might be singing a different tune. But that's all the more reason to let these outfits slug it out for our money.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:And here in the US by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Some areas have a local cable/telco monopoly that is enforced by a franchise agreement with the town or county. Sometimes there is a huge fight to let someone lay fiber (My local county took a year or more to allow Verizon to lay fiber in some areas. Grrr...) Other times you're so far in the sticks that no one thinks you're big enough to be worth laying cable to. Makes me wish we were more densely populated

      --
      SSC
    6. Re:And here in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think you're confused with the US of a decade ago. Now there is no requirement for the telcos (last mile owners) to lease the connection to anyone else.

      Either you're misinformed or some kind of shill.

    7. Re:And here in the US by cynyr · · Score: 1

      I could add a few bucks and go back up to the 18 mbit tier, but this is sufficient for my needs (the occasional torrent and a girlfriend who loves streaming movies.)

      DIRTY LIES! PICS or it didn't happen!

      P.S. OOO pasting in slashdot is fixed in chromium 8!!

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    8. Re:And here in the US by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      The difficulty with sustained high speed is that you need robust hardware to handle the throughput.

      If I had 1Gbps ariving at my plastic-housed Netgear router, it would literally burst with the onslaught of so much data.

      I may be able to make it last a little longer my wrapping it in duck tape but it wouldn't be long before it got to the "it canna take any more cap'n" stage

  6. 400m! by garcia · · Score: 1

    The distance between my house and the nearest telco connection for DSL is about 500m. There is only one housing development closer and they were built long after my home went up. My speeds were twice the advertised rates due to this close distance as they were ramping up bandwidth so as to hit the minimum by the end of the line. That advertised rate? 2000/256.

    Hey, I mean it's great an all that they are doing research to come up with faster DSL usage. Unfortunately while the speeds can be theoretically (or even practically) possible, we're still bottlenecked by price and desire of the telcos to push speeds out that fast.

    After inquiring about business class and faster speeds, I wanted 768k upstream at least, and being told they don't offer anything that fast nor did they plan on it at any time in the near future I had to go to business class cable. While the business class cable is rocking fast, the downtimes are more frequent and the latency is unpredictable (well, it's predictably going to be poor during peak use times).

    How about we first pass some legislation which forces the telcos and cable companies to give back to the consumers what they took when they built out their infrastructure all those years ago to give us wicked fast speeds we have yet to see--and no, 50mbit "speed boost" for 15 seconds doesn't count.

    1. Re:400m! by Barny · · Score: 1

      If your on ADSL and you want faster uploads, talk to your ISP to see if they can do "annex-M", it can provide upto 2Mb/s upload speeds on ADSL2+ with only a slight loss in download speeds.

      Also line bonding may be your only other option.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  7. Only 825 Mbps? by the_humeister · · Score: 1

    I can do better with my carload of 3 TB hard drives! Latency's a little slower, but no asked about that.

    1. Re:Only 825 Mbps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carload?

      Heck, you could run with a single 3TB harddrive in your pocket and still beat that DSL thingie.

    2. Re:Only 825 Mbps? by froggymana · · Score: 2, Funny

      Never underestimate the bandwidth of SSDs on ostriches..

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    3. Re:Only 825 Mbps? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Check the bandwith on the Datastorm! To bad the video is gone.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  8. how exactly does 'creating virtual ones' work? by Surt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Someone please explain how this works. Is this some bizarre artifact of the signaling protocol, such that the only way to overcome a design flaw is to use some incomprehensible technique treating physical wires as virtual wires? How can that possibly be better than just natively signaling faster on the wires?

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    1. Re:how exactly does 'creating virtual ones' work? by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Funny

      They can do this using two or more pairs. Most likely it has to do with harmonics, impedance, alloys and compositions and things with molecular structures that my primitive intellect cannot understand.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:how exactly does 'creating virtual ones' work? by BulletMagnet · · Score: 2, Funny

      Someone please explain how this works. Is this some bizarre artifact of the signaling protocol, such that the only way to overcome a design flaw is to use some incomprehensible technique treating physical wires as virtual wires? How can that possibly be better than just natively signaling faster on the wires?

      Think of it as HyperThreading for the Tubez....

    3. Re:how exactly does 'creating virtual ones' work? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      trunking?

    4. Re:how exactly does 'creating virtual ones' work? by TheJediGeek · · Score: 1
      My kingdom for a mod point!

      Hail to the king baby!

  9. Noise by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 3, Funny

    "advanced noise cancellation"

    So that rules out most of the internet and email then, eh?

    1. Re:Noise by corbettw · · Score: 1

      No, but good luck reaching idle.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:Noise by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      So that rules out most of the internet and email then, eh?

      RTFA- this was in Paris, not Canada.

    3. Re:Noise by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny
    4. Re:Noise by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Maybe not that drastic, but you probably won't see the comment section under Youtube videos any more.

  10. 4 pairs by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They are using 4 pairs to achieve that 825 Mbps speed.

    Note that 1000BASE-T also uses 4 pairs to achieve 1000Mbit over a shorter 100 meters. I'm curious what maximum range 1000BASE-T will actually work at (100m is guaranteed), and if it were to work at 400m, what the bandwidth would be.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:4 pairs by Starteck81 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are using 4 pairs to achieve that 825 Mbps speed.

      Note that 1000BASE-T also uses 4 pairs to achieve 1000Mbit over a shorter 100 meters. I'm curious what maximum range 1000BASE-T will actually work at (100m is guaranteed), and if it were to work at 400m, what the bandwidth would be.

      Yes they're using 4 pairs but it's not the same thing. You're forgetting that they are working with cat 3 copper cabling not cat 5 or 6.

      --
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
    2. Re:4 pairs by LoRdTAW · · Score: 3, Informative

      I doubt most of the copper POTS wiring out there is cat 3. The phone wire used in most homes is the old 4 conductor cable that did not have twisted pairs. Nowadays I believe most of the four conductor phone cable is indeed twisted and meets CAT 3 standards. I bought some at home depot not too long ago and it was 4 conductor CAT 3 twisted pair with RED/GREEN and BLACK/YELLOW pairs. The non twisted pair might still be sold so no guarantee there.

      And that is just the home wiring. Who knows what crusty old non twisted pair cable lurks between homes and the central office.

      And getting back to the grand parent poster:
      1000BT is an IEEE 802.3-2008 standard. It not only defines the data layer (how the bits are transmitted) but also the physical link which defines the electrical interface.
      DSL is different than the 802.3 standard both at the data link layer and the physical layer. So its an apples to oranges comparison. Gigabit is Ethernet and DSL and other broadband technologies are completely different.

    3. Re:4 pairs by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      I'll answer that, its called untwisted pulp in the boonies. Good luck running *SL of any variant over it

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    4. Re:4 pairs by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0

      The post your replying to never indicated they were the same thing other than they both used 4 pairs. Are you a bully or can't you read?

      I dunno, I thought Starteck81 was making a reasonable point. And it's worse than that, even ... in older installations you can be lucky if you have Cat 3.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:4 pairs by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      And you just hit that nail RIGHT on the head as to why this stuff ultimately sucks, thanks. The people in the dead center of most towns they have choices while everyone else? Lucky if they can get anything at all. Ultimately all the phone crap that much of which is older than Elvis needs to go, instead of this stretching and beating that dead horse for every last inch. Otherwise we are gonna end up with another IPV4 situation where by the time we realize we need to get on the ball everything is gonna be so far behind it'll cost 20 times more and be a giant mess.

      While this is great for those right by the hub, there is a HELL of the USA out there, and most of it is frankly falling apart with seriously old junk lines. Sooner or later we are gonna have to accept we need a nationwide broadband plan or fall behind the rest of the world even further. All those connections is worth a hell of a lot more than just for watching youtube. There is eCommerce, new markets and new businesses, eLearning and a thousand other uses. But to compete we are gonna have to step up to the plate and realize something this big needs actual planning and execution, not just hoping AT&T or one of the other providers will actually build all this for us.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:4 pairs by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, worked as head engineer for ISPs forever. Even a lot of areas of real cities have crap lines, Bell cherry picks to hell and back. It doesn't matter if you live on the CO's back step, if your neighborhood is poor or an unlikely amazing return on investment in 3 years, they aren't going to bother upgrading the 5 1600 pair anacondas serving your area from 1930.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    7. Re:4 pairs by atejero · · Score: 1

      I think the difference is that DSL uses QAM where 1000BASE-T is using (correct me if I'm wrong) Manchester Bit Encoding (analog vs digital). I think that's where the speed difference comes into play.

    8. Re:4 pairs by atejero · · Score: 1

      I was a linesman/I&R guy for Telus, and I can attest to what you're saying. There is LOTS of old wiring out there, especially that 'licorice' stuff, it was the worst to work with. Nothing kills DSL like the dogs breakfast of Inside Wiring, Drop Wire and Telco Plant.

    9. Re:4 pairs by adolf · · Score: 1

      Phone cabling, between you and the CO, is always twisted or otherwise arranged in a very specific fashion to accomplish much of the same thing, to keep crosstalk down. You'd think that it wasn't important Way Back When, but Way Back When when these guys were spending a fortune in time and materials installing 100-pair lead-sheathed cable, they tried to get it right so they wouldn't have to go back and do it over again.

      The problem with this is not that it doesn't work, or that it is old, but that they didn't see any purpose in making the wire behave outside of the audio range. Meanwhile, modern DSL variants extend up to a few MHz: That it works at all is a testament to the amount of thought that went into designing these old cable plants.

      Details in "A manual of telephony", dating to 1905. (Electrical engineering isn't exactly a new science...)

      That said: I've got a pretty solid 19.2mbps pipe over VDSL, which passes through a couple of thousand feet of old lead-sheathed cable and a thousand or so feet of more modern stuff. The wire from the modem to the pole is all new Cat5e, but that's just a drop in the bucket.

    10. Re:4 pairs by Korin43 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Otherwise we are gonna end up with another IPV4 situation where by the time we realize we need to get on the ball everything is gonna be so far behind it'll cost 20 times more and be a giant mess.

      I don't see how not upgrading older lines is going to make things any worse down the line. In fact, it seems more likely that it'll make future upgrading cheaper. Consider this: If we upgraded the entire communication infrastructure of the U.S. every time we thought of something faster, how much more money would've been spent on it?

      That's not to say that it doesn't suck for people who can't get cable/fiber, but it's not like some day in the future we'll all be wishing we had upgraded our old phone lines sooner.

      All those connections is worth a hell of a lot more than just for watching youtube. There is eCommerce, new markets and new businesses, eLearning and a thousand other uses.

      And how fast do you really need that connection to be for e-things? I have a fairly fast connection, and the main reasons I think it's worth what I pay are (in order):
      1. Watching Hulu.
      2. Downloading packages/source code.
      3. Uploading files to my webserver (remember, this is Slashdot, most people don't do this).

      Everything else I do (Slashdot, blogs, web comics, shopping) are perfectly usable on much slower connections. If I had a slower connection, I probably wouldn't watch TV online, and downloading things would be annoying, but I don't see how it would be so terrible.

      But to compete we are gonna have to step up to the plate and realize something this big needs actual planning and execution, not just hoping AT&T or one of the other providers will actually build all this for us.

      Hope you realize what country you're in. If our government says it'll roll out national broadband, what it means is that Comcast or Qwest or someone will get a huge paycheck with very few strings and we'll never see the result.

    11. Re:4 pairs by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      I don't see how not upgrading older lines is going to make things any worse down the line. In fact, it seems more likely that it'll make future upgrading cheaper. Consider this: If we upgraded the entire communication infrastructure of the U.S. every time we thought of something faster, how much more money would've been spent on it?

      Which is why you put in single mode fibre to the home. You might need to change stuff at either end, but that is it. Once in it will do any speed you want for the foreseeable. Right now it is known to be good for AT LEAST 100Gbps. Given that all the vast bulk of the cost is in the laying of the cable, do it right now with single mode fibre and you will never need revisit it.

    12. Re:4 pairs by PacketShaper · · Score: 1

      This is not correct.
      While there are 4 pairs of wires in a CAT-5/6 cable, only two are used for data.
      One transmit pair, one receive pair. When using the standard wiring, they would be the Orange & Orange-White / Green & Green-White pairs respectively.
      The Blue and Brown pairs are unused. You can verify this by capping your own cable and leaving those four wires out. You will still achieve Gigabit speeds.

    13. Re:4 pairs by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      In 100base TX only 2 wirepairs were used. (The other wires are sometimes used for POE.)
      In 1000base TX (Gigabit) however, all 4 pairs are used.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  11. Great... by BulletMagnet · · Score: 2, Funny

    825Mbs @ 400m ... I'd rather not live INSIDE the CO, thanks....

    1. Re:Great... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      825Mbs @ 400m ... I'd rather not live INSIDE the CO, thanks....

      Well, the heat coming off the racks of DSLAMs and other equipment will save on your winter heating bill.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Great... by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      It sucks in the summer though, unless you're in Michigan... then it just sucks all year =)

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
  12. DSL Phantom Mode by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Yes, very interesting and realistically just a way for the big telcos to not have to upgrade the wire and instead upgrade the modem and equip at the CO. Take a look at the graphic here.

    Looks like today's announcement is the extension of existing work last year, but using 4 copper wires (ie, 2 phone lines).

    What's interesting is noone mentions latency, and whether this actually will increase responsiveness or just throughput.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:DSL Phantom Mode by Surt · · Score: 1

      Interesting. 4 wires to 3 pairs worth of bandwidth. It seems like it should be possible to signal at 4C2 = 6 pair worth of bandwidth if you were signaling optimally.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:DSL Phantom Mode by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      I think the way to look at it is this (linear algebra): Your input to the four wires, at each time, is a 4-vector. The common mode is another 4-vector, (1,1,1,1); that picks up a lot of noise. Nevertheless, you have the whole orthogonal complement to (1,1,1,1) to work with. The vectors (1-1,0,0), (0,0,1,-1), and (1,1,-1,1) -- the two pairs and the "virtual pair," respectively -- form an orthogonal basis for this subspace. So you represent all data as linear combinations of those three vectors.

      You might notice, though, that there's nothing really special about this basis; any isometry (rotation/reflection) and/or scaling of these three vectors would also work. For instance, the vectors (1,-1,1,-1), (1,-1,-1,1), (1,1,-1,-1) (which, together with the common mode (1,1,1,1), is the Hadamard basis in R^4), or a DCT basis, both work.

  13. Does. Not. Mean. Shit. by blair1q · · Score: 1

    I have the same piece of copper that they gave my house when it was built 20 years ago.

    They are not willing to dig just to upgrade it to give me gigabit DSL. If they were, they'd just drop in fiber and get the massive headroom that the barely-utilized bandwidth of glass wires gives you, coupled to easily-upgradable yet current state-of-the-art lasery bits on the end.

    So I'm using the TV cable for 30 mbps broadband right now, and wishing that the Corporation Commission would use its power to dissolve the LATA's monopoly so another can walk into the neighborhood and string that glass.

  14. Direct link to graphic by rsborg · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Direct link to graphic by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      Thanks; that was interesting.

    2. Re:Direct link to graphic by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      so THATS how SEO works!

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    3. Re:Direct link to graphic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm, so would it be possible to use the uncommon pairs as a 2nd phantom pair? (so 2 physical pairs also gives 2 phantom pairs)

    4. Re:Direct link to graphic by AVryhof · · Score: 1

      Meh. No Bruce Campbell in that graphic.

  15. As long as it's Adsl I don't want it by blahbooboo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I briefly had ADSL and it was crap compared to cable modem. People forget the ASYMMETRIC part of DSL. In my usage I really felt this when using the net. Lots of lags etc. I switched to a cable modem and it was night and day better in my usage. Granted this was many years ago so perhaps it's better now?

    1. Re:As long as it's Adsl I don't want it by Lehk228 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      most cable connections are asymmetric too, and my experience has been that around here the warez monkeys love their cable modems, so i get consistently better gaming latency out of my 1.5 / .75 ADSL than my brother gets at my parent's house on a 20 something / whatever cable connection. sure he can download a game in the time it takes to microwave some dinner, but online play is worse, and less predictable. i am within 10ms of the same latencies every day

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:As long as it's Adsl I don't want it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like somebody doesn't know what asymmetric means. Almost all residential service is Asymmetrical.

    3. Re:As long as it's Adsl I don't want it by realityimpaired · · Score: 2, Informative

      An ADSL line is divided up into multiple 4KHz bands, each one carrying either 33.6kbit up, or 33.6kbit down. That's what the "Asymmetric" means: each band is either upload or download, but not both. Cable is exactly the same. On a normal ADSL1 connection, the bottom portion of the frequencies will be set aside for upload, and the top will be set aside for download, and you can definitely upload at the same time as download. Usually you can't get nearly as fat a pipe as you can with cable (though in some areas, DSL actually offers faster speeds), but for most use of the Internet you're limited by latency, not bandwidth, because the first 82kb of any file you download on the 'net is transmitted during the TCP Slow Start phase of the connection, and most of the files on the 'net are smaller than 82kb.

      Despite the added overhead of using an ATM frame to encapsulate your ethernet packets, DSL usually offers much lower latency than cable, because of differences in the way the information is encoded end to end. The difference... for casual surfing and online gaming, DSL is better. For downloading large files, Cable is better. Of course, your latency on ADSL depends a lot on the type of error correction your ISP is using... whether you're on an interleave, a partial interleave, or a fast weave.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow-start

    4. Re:As long as it's Adsl I don't want it by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Asymmetric != Asynchronous

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    5. Re:As long as it's Adsl I don't want it by Kjella · · Score: 1

      His ISP just needs a beating. I'm on cable, and just checked the ping time to a big local newspaper.

      rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 4.762/7.914/14.891/2.623 ms

      That I can reach another server in less than 5ms means it's not the cable tech that is the problem, it's overloaded or oversold systems somewhere else.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:As long as it's Adsl I don't want it by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I briefly had ADSL and it was crap compared to cable modem. People forget the ASYMMETRIC part of DSL. In my usage I really felt this when using the net. Lots of lags etc. I switched to a cable modem and it was night and day better in my usage. Granted this was many years ago so perhaps it's better now?

      Interesting. You'll find that most gamers MUCH prefer DSL over cable, since you're heading into a central hub and get right on to the fiber, rather than sharing a typically oversubscribed local node.

      I currently have VDSL, fiber to the VRAD, and it's the best I've ever had for gaming. That kinda surprises me, actually.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:As long as it's Adsl I don't want it by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

      So, your brother that lives with your parents and downloads games ... does he by any chance live in the basement? And what's his Slashdot user name?

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    8. Re:As long as it's Adsl I don't want it by definate · · Score: 1

      Warez monkeys got on our porch, mumma just sweep 'em off with a broom.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    9. Re:As long as it's Adsl I don't want it by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      ADSL is to 10Base-T what Cable is to 10Base-2. And we all know which of the two 10Base ethernets were called "cheapernet" and why.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    10. Re:As long as it's Adsl I don't want it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the A from the ADSL that makes it suck. That's why your VDSL works.

    11. Re:As long as it's Adsl I don't want it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His ISP just needs a beating. I'm on cable, and just checked the ping time to a big local newspaper.

      rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 4.762/7.914/14.891/2.623 ms

      That I can reach another server in less than 5ms means it's not the cable tech that is the problem, it's overloaded or oversold systems somewhere else.

      That means nothing.
      What you're seeing is the ping time from your modem to the local Akamai web caching server which is probably located at your ISP's head-end in the town you live in. Akamai's caching servers can't do anything with online gaming or other data that is not 'cache-able'.
      The chances of getting a 5ms ping response from any server off your ISP's network is close to zero if the data is actually leaving their network.

      Most of what you hear people talk about when they claim that cable or DSL is 'better' from a bandwidth perspective has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with poor upkeep on the physical plant. If bandwidth hits a crunch at a node they can just drop another card into it, or add another node, that's true for both cable and DSL. Assuming the ISP is keeping their backbone, peering circuits, and plant operations up to date there is only one major difference between the two; you will always find variation in max DSL speeds based on distance from the node, but with cable you don't have that issue (if it can talk to the node, bandwidth is capable of 100% speeds). But as long as the DSL provider isn't a cheapskate and tries to extend too far without adding more nodes, it's not a significant difference.

      In my experience the vast majority of speed problems are due to oversold circuits, overloaded routers, routing problems (sending data through too many hops for example), or issues on the user's end or the server's end. Keep in mind the server has an ISP as well, and it's not at all uncommon for your data to transit several companies.

      In regards to the article, all this really means is that DSL companies who upgrade down the road can ofter faster speeds to the people close to the node/DSLAM. Since they aren't improving the speeds at distances they still have to run a lot more nodes to keep speeds up, and I wouldn't expect to see them change their actual behavior much (i.e. selling it to people who are too far out to get the full advertised speeds). The speed at a distance is much more important, since it would allow the DSL providers to offer services farther out without expensive node additions..

    12. Re:As long as it's Adsl I don't want it by Deorus · · Score: 1

      Where I live there's been 200mbps DOCSIS2 for a while. Since I'm cheap I only have 100mbps DOCSIS2, but I've had it for 2 years now, and I can't really complain with downloads ranging between 4Mb/sec and 9Mb/sec. Before the upgrade I had a 20mbps DOCSIS2 connection. Makes me laugh when competing technologies are on their toes to offer the same that cable has been offering for so long without any of those constraints. I can still recall the arguments that I had on IRC 10 years ago about the superiority of cable and the communications experts telling me that copper was better...

  16. This is Frick'n great.. by thestudio_bob · · Score: 1

    And yet with AT&T's awesome service, I can only get 768Kbps. Thank goodness they have great customer support... [sarcasm]

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    1. Re:This is Frick'n great.. by Cheile · · Score: 1

      You could always do what AT&T told me to do when they could only hit me with 384Kbps reliably, go around and get my neighbors to sign a petition saying that with extra bandwidth they'd switch to AT&T that I would then deliver to the AT&T business office in hopes that we'd get scheduled for a closer netpop within the next couple of years. :]

  17. Docsis 3 by papasui · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm deploying docsis 3.0 networks today that can reach 200 mbit today. Only real limitation is the money to upgrade the gear and shifting around tv channels to free frequencies. Expect to see major pushes in 2011 by all carriers.

    1. Re:Docsis 3 by misexistentialist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very expensively priced bandwidth tiers should fix the funding problem!

    2. Re:Docsis 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the upstream on that?

      I have 7/1 ADSL and I'm quite happy with it, but the latency to the first ISP hop is ~30ms which is a bummer. I really just want more upstream bandwidth. DSL is near the only choice if you want a static IP as well.

    3. Re:Docsis 3 by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Most cable companies will sell you a static IP on a business account. A lot of telcos have the same policy.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    4. Re:Docsis 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Comcast in the boonies, I'm currently reading 18.84 Mbps down / 4.40 Mbps up, 25 ms ping and though it is a dynamic IP, I do host some services on it utilizing a dynamic DNS provider, and it has not changed since March. Having a dynamic IP is not the issue it used to be since the root DNS servers were updated to propagate changes within 5 minutes.

      My best reading was 35.32/11.05 with 12 ms ping.

    5. Re:Docsis 3 by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Most cable companies will sell you a static IP on a business account. A lot of telcos have the same policy.

      I tried that with Optus in Australia. It was no-go. They weren't interested in giving me a static IP so I moved to ADSL from comcen.

    6. Re:Docsis 3 by frozentier · · Score: 1

      On my own cable system (Time Warner), I'd much rather get rid of many of the "junk" channels and dedicate the freed-up bandwidth to internet.

    7. Re:Docsis 3 by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      I'm currently signed up for Comcast's new 50/10 Docsis 3.0 connection. I get a constant 50 Mbit on Bittorrent with bursts up to 70 Mbit. Upload bursts to 20 Mbit and provides reliable 10 Mbit speeds. Not bad for cable. I am told that there are no data caps in my area but I won't know for sure for a few months :P.

      However, FiOS still has better upload speeds and no download caps. Verizon offers 35/35 (around 43/35 in practice) in most of its service areas for $100/mo. or $115 with its ultimate HD package.

    8. Re:Docsis 3 by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Comcast is moving towards caps of 250GB/month in all markets. At least I get a snazzy meter in my Comcast account page to see how much of my quota I've used.

    9. Re:Docsis 3 by korean.ian · · Score: 1

      It hasn't done so yet....:)

    10. Re:Docsis 3 by rekenner · · Score: 1

      You're confusing bandwidth and the actual *time* it takes to get from point A to point B. While bandwidth *can* matter, it's the intermediary router bandwidth, not your connection's bandwidth. Even if your pipe had upgraded bandwidth, it wouldn't change the latency. (Hell, if nothing changed in the intermediary hardware, and everyone got an upgraded connection, latency would *increase*)

    11. Re:Docsis 3 by definate · · Score: 1

      Well, they better sell it soon, because there's not many left. After that, they'll have to go to IPv6, and with how many of those there are, they aren't going to get much money for an IP.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:Docsis 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have to use an ISP webpage to determine monthly bandwidth usage, your router is teh fail.

    13. Re:Docsis 3 by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 1

      ISP colocated caching servers (like those used by Akamai and Google) probably don't count toward your bandwidth quota (or at least you'd hope so). How are you supposed to reliably know which packets to add to your quota count?

    14. Re:Docsis 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you rely on a single point of measurement for something that could potentially cost hundreds of dollars in overages, then your logic is "teh fail."

    15. Re:Docsis 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the GGP mentioned Comcast, I'll go ahead and quote their customer FAQ down below.

      Local caching does seem to count for Comcast, and this observation is attested to by Comcast's FAQ.

      If you're nearing the bandwidth limit, then sure, the smart thing is to confirm it with the ISP page. It's difficult enough to enter this scenario in the first place. If you're not nearing the limit, then there is probably no reason for the verification step. If the ISP screws up with their logging software, you likely can't do much anyway: it could easily be over by 1,048,576TB.

      I haven't seen Comcast's report underestimate when compared to my router's logs. For the last 8 months, Comcast's report has been between 1 and 10GB over my own. I typically download between 40 and 70 GB / month.

      What will happen if I exceed 250 GB of data usage in a month?

      The vast majority - more than 99% - of our customers will not be impacted by a 250 GB monthly data usage threshold. If you exceed more than 250 GB, you may receive a call from the Customer Security Assurance ("CSA") team to notify you of excessive use. At that time, we will tell you exactly how much data you used. When we call you, we try to help you identify the source of excessive use and ask you to moderate your usage, which the vast majority of our customers do voluntarily. If you exceed 250GB again within six months of the first contact, your service will be subject to termination and you will not be eligible for either residential or commercial internet service for twelve (12) months. We know from experience that most customers curb their usage after our first call. If your account is terminated, after the twelve (12) month period expires, you may resume service by subscribing to a service plan appropriate to your needs.

      Our practice for the past several years has been to call only our heaviest data users, and this practice remains the same now that the 250GB data usage threshold is in effect. We may change our practice but will, of course, provide notice to you of any change.

      Does the data usage meter measure all data usage or do I need to download multiple meters if I use multiple devices?

      The data usage meter measures all data usage flowing through your cable modem. If you are using multiple computers and other devices behind your modem, such as on a home network, the meter will report data usage for all of those computers and devices combined. This also includes general DOCSIS-related IP traffic between the cable modem and the Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) which is not possible for you to measure on your own.

      Is data usage from Fancast.com included and streaming video or video downloads, or On Demand and Online service that Comcast is going to roll out included?

      Yes to both. All data usage, regardless from what Web site or application or device, is counted by the data usage meter. Thus, we are not applying preferential treatment to data usage for Comcast's Internet-based video services over the services of other companies.

  18. It seems that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Telcos are trying to speed up their bandwidth to provide what cable the company already provides - video. Cable companies are trying to decrease the bandwidth needed to provide video so they can provide faster internet. Either way, I would prefer an internet connection over video service. Whatever technology is in place, I don't think it will be very long before TVs get content from a Cat-5 (or 6, or whatnot) connection over a coax one.

  19. Multiple phonelines by munky99999 · · Score: 1

    Their methodology requires multiple phone lines bonded and being used with parity in order obtain these speeds. Most houses dont have multiple phone lines. Which means they have to send techs out to install said extra wires. WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU BE SO STUPID?? Send the techs to install fiber. Now you are future proofed to 10g speeds AT LEAST. Verizon's gpon can deliver 10g right to your house. I'm sure in a decade when gigabit becomes a sluggish speed... 10g can EASILY be deployed. The next step after that is also just as easy to deploy.

    1. Re:Multiple phonelines by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Their methodology requires multiple phone lines bonded and being used with parity in order obtain these speeds.

      Most houses dont have multiple phone lines

      Actually every house I have been in (this is in Australia) has had at least two pairs. My current house has two separate cables, each with two pair. Though that doesn't mean the infrastructure can deliver two pairs end to end.

    2. Re:Multiple phonelines by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      2 pairs with one crushed or in use or shared or so far from the exchange or on a rim. Two pairs sounds great, but how much is of use for this in real life?
      Best to roll out optical.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  20. Great... by FridayBob · · Score: 2, Funny

    That means I'll soon have 825M bps down and 1M bps up to look forward to.

  21. Sigh. by debrain · · Score: 1

    I'm now living in a major urban metropolis and I've got the same crappy DSL internet that I had in rural Canada in 1995. 5mbps. On that basis I conclude that whatever the powers-that-be are doing to stimulate innovation, it's been a failure. Utterly. Sigh.

    1. Re:Sigh. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      And I'm in a rural area in the middle of nowhere and we have 5mbps over cable. Sigh.

    2. Re:Sigh. by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. There's no way you had 5mbps DSL in 1995 at a rural location. The chips necessary for 56kbps modems didn't exist until 1996, and didn't even become standardized until consolidated into v.90 in 1998. Most cable companies weren't even thinking about providing internet access yet, and the DSL standard wasn't created until 1996. Canada's DSL standard wasn't drafted until 1997.

      Now, if you want to claim you had 5 mbps at a rural location in 2005, I might believe you.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    3. Re:Sigh. by nixNscratches · · Score: 1

      I actually had DSL in 98-99. Relevant factors = Seattle suburbs, Covad business class DSL that we split a cost of around 300 a month for and for the record it was the best DSL service I ever had (SDSL at that) . They pulled ethernet right up to the house, and put a jack in, we plugged that right into our router (10mb if I remember correctly) and that was that. ran wires to every room of the house and we were all set. I've had most permutations of broadband since then, and I'm currently on cable. Tried ADSL a bunch of times but I can never seem to get the 'good' speeds no matter where I live.

    4. Re:Sigh. by debrain · · Score: 1

      You're right! Good catch. It was around 1998-99, in Fredericton, New Brunswick. I seem to recall NB Tel was at the time a testbed for Nortel and perhaps other telecom equipment makers. I also seem to recall NB Tel was, with Sasktel, the first DSL provider in Canada... but alas I can't remember or find a web-site to verify that.

      In any event, it was around ten years ago I had the same speed of internet access that I have now ...

  22. Get rid of copper! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this sounds like an argument Tony Abbott and his crew will use against the NBN in Australia. If it were up to them we'd all be using the "reliable" 3G network here for our internets...

  23. http://nerdsforallcom.socialgo.com/home.html by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://nerdsforallcom.socialgo.com/home.html

  24. The we can exceed the AUP in just a few minutes. by ydrol · · Score: 1

    Most ISPs like to sell speed and hope that you dont use it much.

  25. Well, that's nice.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who live within slingshot range of the telco can get faster speeds...how about better tech to get any sort of half ass decent DSL further than a couple of miles? There are millions of us out here who don't live in the wilds of alaska or anything like that, just normal rural areas or suburbia, who can't get jack shit for any sort of broadband except really flaky pseudo "broadband" from various fail wireless schemes like satellite and "wifi" type stuff. The only other option is a restricted telco "data plan" with ridiculous caps and "tethering" is banned and so on..

    Yes, I read the article, faster speeds at still dismal ranges on copper. I mean, WTF, nations over yonder in euro land can provide it way out in the sticks, and still "make profit", but for some reason it "won't work" here. Effen telco cartels...

    How about "no food for YOU" if you live more than two thousand meters from a real farm? I bet we'd get broadband the next day with a similar arrangement.

  26. WTB moar speed by tekgoblin · · Score: 1

    Its sad that I still only have 3mb DSL, I would really appreciate increased speed in my area....

  27. Not necessiarly by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For gaming, all that matters is ping. You need little bandwdith by today's standards. I've yet to see any evidence that DSL is reliably lower ping than cable. I know it can be much high ping, I've had that myself. When I was with Speakeasy, they actually switched the connection up to Seattle before the first hop. There are DSL switches, just like Ethernet, and Covad switched it up there for them. A low ping to a site for me was 150ms with that connection. Compare that to my current cable connection which pings like 24ms to Google.

    Also oversubscription isn't such a problem these days. Cable companies have built fiber out quite far, and as such can segment down the network a whole lot. Plus the new equipment can operate on multiple channels (DOCSIS 3 is actually done through channel bonding). So you can have multiple frequencies that different customers are on, which of course don't share bandwidth.

    Finally there's always oversubscrtiption at various levels, even with DSL, even with big lines like DS-3s. It is just a question of doing a good job with it. A good or a bad job can be done with any technology. DSL doesn't mean no problems. It could be more or less as big a problem as cable when they do it wrong. Peopel have connections to a DSLAM, which is in a non-fiber area and just has a couple DS-1s or a DS-3 back to the central office. They've got too many people, the backhaul gets overloaded, speeds are slow. Seen it happen with Qwest more than a few times.

    It is not a matter of DSL vs cable, it is a matter of implementation. Implement either poorly and you'll have problems. Implement either well and it can be good.

  28. Whoopidie doo by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    I was paying for 1.5Mb service, it never peaked over 1.3, when it dipped below 100k for over a month I ended up spending nearly 8 hours on the phone, disconnecting my entire network 3 times, buying a new 80$ modem and screaming at the support monkey, and then got offered to have it looked at for an 80 dollar charge

    meanwhile the phone exchange box LESS THAN A QUARTER BLOCK FROM ME is still wide open with a copper rats nest hanging out of it still sits there in its condition

    THEN only then after I switched to cable and called to cancel my service ATT offered me 10$ off a month of service and to come out and look at it for free

    FUCK DSL, screw ATT, its worthless, and its not competitive in the price market anymore

    825Mbps? you asshats cant even deliver 100k, get real

    1. Re:Whoopidie doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T here with 15Mbps down and 2Mbps up.

  29. Not where I live! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where I live, HI SPEED BROADBAND!!!(tm) is sold as 2.5 Mbps. I have a TV tuner card on my computer. I receive digital TV broadcasts, wireless, from 2Km away (soon to be 15 Km away) without problems at 19.1 Mbps. Sure its omnidirectional and I don't get to pick content, but its the highest data rate coming into my computer (the 19.1 Mbps is effective, the actual data rate is 32 Mbps, but with forward error correction, etc. the effective rate is 19.1 Mbps). Its clean MPEG video at 1920x1080 in dolby surround. 9 gigabytes per hour. If they were sending software, I could fill two DVDs in an hour. I could broadcast Ubuntu to a whole city in 30 minutes. What the hell is with ADSL?

    1. Re:Not where I live! by ledow · · Score: 1

      Downstream is easy if you consider only a single path with no switching, movement, conversion, routing, etc. Upstream isn't the problem either, really.

      Telecoms networks that have to splice emergency calls between your torrent packets are the problem. Real-time phone data is truly real-time and has to have an enormously low latency despite going over the same network as your ADSL data. The more "real" phones, the less available for your un-important IP packets by a big margin. Then you have to join several million people's connections together, route them and deal with them all seperately, rather than just transmit only a single message. Then you have to have equipment in exchanges to handle all these conversions because people want it to come over a copper wire (or fibre) most of the time and that needs special equipment at the consumer and exchange ends. Then you have to squeeze it into a copper cable that comes into your premises and has almost no security - shielding might be damaged, your extension wiring might be shit (for telephone-based ADSL), the cable might go through a garden or under a fence, etc. and then the router the user buys is completely up to them so it has to be standardised to the lowest common denominator. It has to deal with all that and give you a stable signal with milliseconds of latency or you'd moan like shit.

      Compare to a pure fibre-based ISP who have to run a fibre to every house, hope it doesn't get damaged, install custom equipment in the customer's house, a cabinet in every street, a backbone between them all that can take their combined traffic, hope they don't tug the cable too much, and then you have a true "network" of digital fibre connections. Fibre carriers are offering 100MBps or more even now, and they've said there's pretty much no upper limit (10Gb/s Ethernet and many WAN or MAN connections can use the same grades of fibre in most cases, over the same sorts of distances). Their only problem is the switching hardware and having that amount of customers on that high a bandwidth connected to the Internet. It's easy for me to join my neighbour with Gigabit fibre. It's a different matter to connect either one of our houses to the general Internet at that sort of speed, even if you could string a fibre into the datacentre next door. Have you seen the prices of dedicated 100MBps Ethernet connections in your local data centre (and not the ones that share connections or have ridiculously low guaranteed bandwidth)? You'd need one or more of them (or the equivalent) PER customer.

      And then that company has to make a profit, abide by telecoms rules, use standardised hardware, manage all repairs and breakages and deal with you.

      Broadband isn't, and never has been, limited by the technology. The school I'm in runs two full 24MBps bog-standard consumer DSL lines. It gets 24MBps sync on both lines and works perfectly. Has done for years. The problem is convincing the ISP at the other end that that should get me 24Mbps of direct Internet-connection to their main backbone and to all their peers without any restrictions whatsoever. It's a business problem, in that you can't just give EVERYONE several hundred Megs of connection immediately a new technology comes out, because the backbone and routing peers cost a shit-load of money. Otherwise, Google would be running off a room full of ADSL modems instead of their guaranteed multiple-fibre, super-high-speed, Internet backbone fibres with huge peers passing equal amounts of traffic over transatlantic lines and ENORMOUS cost.

      You're not just paying your ISP to stick you on their local net. You're paying them to (indirectly) rent a cable that goes under the sea to every country in the world.

  30. Not to nitpick... but it's by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    VDSL2, VDSL was crap which is why half baked solutions like SHDSL came into existence. If Slashdot guys can't get this right, then who is it providing information to the masses that for years talked about 3 and a quarter inch disks and call the computer "the cpu"?

    And VDSL2,3,... is the short term future. Any time there's a nasty hack like DSL to cope with delivering over existing lines, at some point, it becomes necessary to replace the old, aging cables with something that is capable of lower noise. When this happens, I hope for your sake that they either replace it with fiber or 8-pair cat-6 (or better). Electrically isolated Ethernet is also a hack, but at least it's a clean hack. There just is no substitute for running a clean, environmentally secure solution like fiber.

    For outdoor data requirements, fiber is the ONLY solution. When you stop demanding it, the service providers will start thinking you're happy with their hold-me over hacks.

    1. Re:Not to nitpick... but it's by urikkiru · · Score: 1

      Sure, fiber to my house would be even better. However, demanding such build-outs I think is less then realistic right now. Some day perhaps. Right now, utilizing copper wire to bridge the last mile is just more suitable.

  31. Missing the point by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The 30 up exists simply because it doesn't cost them anything extra to provide it. The fact is, they can oversell the up by a factor of 10 and probably no one would ever notice it. It's because 90% of all fiber traffic is downstream. That's because while there are some people who are sharing their entire movie and music collections with the masses, most people are watching youtube, hulu, etc...

    So, while you get 30 up, and when connecting to others on the same provider's network, you're getting 30 up, the provider is simply throttling the overall up at their data center where they host servers for other businesses.

    Remember the provider isn't paying for 10 terabit up and 500 gigabit down. They have a large group of switched fibers. They still run much of it over OC-(insert big number here) networks as Sonet is for the time being a hell of a lot easier to load balance and provide redundancy on than using massive Ethernet load balanced trunks.

    So, what are they going to do with 9.5 terabits of unused upstream anyway?

    Also remember that with the exception of P2P traffic, upstream between providers is becoming less important since Akamai, Google, etc... are distributing content all over the Internet anyway. If you're a provider with so much as 4U of rack space to spare, Google or Akamai will gladly install a caching server that will offload insane amounts of traffic from you. So if you have 100,000 users all watching the same viral video on youtube, after the first time it's viewed on your ISP, the video is probably located on a server at your ISP.

    1. Re:Missing the point by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Okay:

      Let's suppose each FiOS customer is assigned a 10 MHz block on the fiber. That 10 MHz bandwidth can provide 60 Mbit/s of data throughput. My point is rather than configure that block as 30/30, I'd sooner see it configured as 50/10. i.e. Download speed is more important to me than upload speed.

      That was the principle behind asymmetric services like 56/33k modems, or 7/1 ADSL..... that most customers would have rather a fat download channel, rather than a 40/40k or 4/4 symmetric service, because web surfing or video viewing is primarily a download activity.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Missing the point by SETY · · Score: 1

      "That 10 MHz bandwidth can provide 60 Mbit/s of data throughput."
      You sir have just won a Nobel prize if you can prove that!

    3. Re:Missing the point by Bengie · · Score: 1

      "10mhz block on the fiber"? Upload and download on fiber is independent. You can't reconfigure upload for download. The only time fiber is asymetrical is when it's cheaper to provide cheaper optics for upload vs down. Like with some FioS Node connections. Some node connections use a cheaper up-link emitter/receiver than for download. Kind of akin to having ethernet where the upload wires run at 1gb but the download run at 10gb.

  32. Don't forget the other factor. by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    On a DSL technology, if you can provide 100% of X at distance Y. Then you can provide z% of X at distance z% of Y...

    Well not precisely, the loss of speed is at least logarithmic if not exponential as distance increases. There are tons of reasons for that, but DSL is theoretically provide maximum bandwidth at a specific speed based on copper installed in the 50's.

    If you're in a location where the wiring is cat-5 instead of cat-3 (or worse, from the 50's), then your SnR is much higher over longer distances and therefore you can receive closer to the potential bandwidth of the circuit at longer ranges. If your provider has installed Cat-6 STP (some places have it), then you can get almost potential speed at much longer ranges... well assuming the shield is grounded.

    So, if they can deliver 1 gigabit at 400m, then they should be able to offer 30Mbit at 3-4km.... MAYBE. Either way, it has very little to do with specific distances as opposed to specific SnR introduced from environmental factors (sadly line capacitance is one of them, and therefore distance IS a measurable factor).

    1. Re:Don't forget the other factor. by icebike · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, yes, we all are pretty much aware of DSL limitations by now. But the point is as fiber is pushed into the neighborhood the distance over copper is reduced. Because what used to have to be located in the nearest exchange can now be in the distribution panel on the corner of the block.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  33. Just deploy it already at a reasonable price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't need 825Mbps in a lab. I currently pay $45/mo. for 12/1.5. What I need is faster speeds at lower prices.

  34. Uverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a town a hundred miles from here has uverse already. The local cable company is offering plans upto 107Mbps (www.suddenlink.com) I am still on an AT&T 6/768 DSL connection. Holding out for uverse.
    AT&T has been doing massive amount of fiber work around town lately so I'm hoping that it's not to far away.

  35. In Newcastle, some cabby asked... by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    Well, I don't know what the hell he asked.

    I'm a yank and I speak American which is a descendant of English. Thanks to language reform, it IS a different language and we can NOT share a common dictionary with England.

    I have been to different parts of England quite a few times. People from Manchester, York, London, New Castle etc... not to mention Ireland with places like Cork (Zeus help us all), I am convinced that the only one left who speaks Queen's English is in fact the Queen and some other stuffed suits.

    British itself isn't a language since British would refer to a common tongue spoken by the masses of people contained within even the tiny little area including England, Whales, Scotland, Northern Ireland (sorry for including you guys, it's geographical).

    English as a language simply refers to a language group. Just like Great Britain is a name that linger from the days when England was an empire, but has little meaning anymore. There's just a powerless Queen on a powerless throne, recognized by a few countries who don't have to do anything except print her face on some money which they'd have to print anyway, but would spend LOTS more money designing if they had to think of something else to put on it.

    English is simply a name which stuck with the language. While English and Norse were once a common tongue, understandable with a little effort by both people, the evolved differently. We now call Norse Icelandic (hehe) and we call English.. well English.

    It may sound painfully nerdy, but it might be time for a movement to start referring to English as "Common" instead of English as the geographic connotation is obviously no longer applicable. Common would simply refer to a group of languages that are understandable by people on an international level. The group would include :
    - Most forms of American (Louisianan, Texan and other forms of Redneck is probably not included)
    - Most forms of English (New Castle and Manchester is not included)
    - Some forms of Irish (Cork... well let's not talk about them)
    - Some forms of Scottish (Don't know if that's a geographical thing)
    - Most forms of Australian
    - Singlish (Singaporean national language)
    - Chinglish (English spoken with the lack of ability to reproduce sounds due to their lack of existence in Chinese, there are now more who speak it than there are American's who speak American, or English who speak English).
    - Kenyan (which is actually what I feel is the cleanest dialect currently.)
    - Kiwi (That's an awesome language)
    - South African (Try living in a country so far removed from the rest of the "western world" for so long without eventually having your own language)
    - MANY other English dialects which have arisen since the English language group has become the common International tongue.

    Take a tiny little country like Norway for example. There are 4.7 million people here. They have scores if not hundreds of different dialects. There are THREE different written languages. Yet, they refer to Norwegian as a top level grouping which includes the two main languages. Beneath that, they clearly differentiate the dialects. Oslo is kind of like "Queen's English", but there's formed a great diversity in it due to half a million people speaking it now. Trondisk which refers to a language similarly difficult to understand as Texan is to Americans. Bergen and Stavanger which actually apply entirely new sounds and some new spellings to some words and have even reformed the correct spellings of some of them to coincide. There's an entirely different language which instead of looking a lot like Danish looks a great deal more similar to Swedish called Nynorsk and a bastardized offspring of that called Nunorsk.

    I can go on for ages about the Norwegian languages, but the point being that while we call them all Norwegian (except for Lapp), they are in fact many different dialects which in some cases can be (and

    1. Re:In Newcastle, some cabby asked... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Argy-bargy is slang and very casual slang at that. I would be a bit surprised if its meaning wasn't clear it any non-Australian speakers from context and usage. It just means having an argument.

      English is like C. It works well enough to be useful in most places. It gets messed with a lot and you can count yourself lucky if you get something out of it. It openly steals good words from other languages. My favourite is Awas which means caution in Malay. Its shorter and more striking than the English equivalent and easier to put on warning signs.

      I know my wife has been speaking Cantonese to her family when she starts confusing "Lights", "Mirrors" and "Windows". They are all the same in her native language and she has to do this manual disambiguation.

      I was just joking with my wisecrack above. I didn't mean it to be taken seriously.

    2. Re:In Newcastle, some cabby asked... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      As an English person I find your comments highly insulting. I personally speak English not British English just plain English and it will always be so. In sort just like other languages that are spoken outside their mother country, there is English (as spoken in England), American English, Canadian English etc.

    3. Re:In Newcastle, some cabby asked... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      British itself isn't a language since British would refer to a common tongue spoken by the masses of people contained within even the tiny little area including England, Whales, Scotland, Northern Ireland (sorry for including you guys, it's geographical).

      "British" does include Northern Ireland, as "British" means "citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

      There is a common tongue anyway: English.

      English as a language simply refers to a language group. Just like Great Britain is a name that linger from the days when England was an empire

      In that case all words like English, Norwegian, French etc refer to a language group. Would you like "Manchester English" to be another language, just because there are two or three slang words used only in Manchester? Should "[my workplace] English" be another language, since there are about 15 words that, through a couple of centuries of existence, now have slightly different meanings to outsiders?

      Great Britain (the largest island in the British Isles) is "greater" than Brittany, Little Britain, and it's been that way since the 12th Century.

      There's just a powerless Queen on a powerless throne, recognized by a few countries who don't have to do anything except print her face on some money which they'd have to print anyway, but would spend LOTS more money designing if they had to think of something else to put on it.

      You might like to read about the Commonwealth of Nations. Anyway, if you don't like powerless monarchs on powerless thrones, why did you move to Norway?

      - Most forms of American (Louisianan, Texan and other forms of Redneck is probably not included) ...

      Do you mean "American English", "Irish English", "Scottish English", "Australian English", etc? Since all those places have other languages (Spanish, Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, various Australian aboriginal languages, etc). "Irish" alone has nothing to do with English, it's the Gaelic language. There used to be "Scots English", but through improved communication the distinction from English has been lost.

      But tell me, when there are more people who say "Flied Lice" than there are who say "Fried Rice"...

      Some Chinese (and elsewhere) schools employ British (and presumably other) teenagers just to speak English with the young children so that they do learn these sounds. Many immigrants to Britain have trouble with some sounds, but their children don't. Increased communication will solve this.

    4. Re:In Newcastle, some cabby asked... by ockegheim · · Score: 1

      So, if you speak Australian, use Australian words, put them in the Australian dictionary, make them acceptable in Australian Scrabble. But make sure your language stays close enough to the Common language that you can still participate in it unlike people from Cork or people who vote for Palin.

      Australian slang is a bit like the Norwegian dialects. We talk it to each other, and international English with non-Australians. Sometimes a certain Australian phrase will feel particularly expressive, and occasionally it’s not obvious that a phrase is particularly Australian. Maybe that’s where argy-bargy came from. But in general when talking with British people, Americans or non-native speakers, after the tenth time one has had to explain a word or phrase, one gets pretty good at simplifying one’s vocabulary.

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    5. Re:In Newcastle, some cabby asked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      British itself isn't a language since British would refer to a common tongue spoken by the masses of people contained within even the tiny little area including England, Whales, Scotland, Northern Ireland (sorry for including you guys, it's geographical).

      "British" does include Northern Ireland, as "British" means "citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

      There is a common tongue anyway: English.

      No, British is a nationality. I am British and carry a British passport but have never been a UK resident. There are still a few British territories that are not part of the UK - for example the Falklands, Gibraltar, IoM etc - and people born to expatriates may also be British even though they have never been considered UK resident. People from Northern Island are British because they were born on British territory, and they are UK citizens if they are still considered resident in part of the UK.

      - Most forms of American (Louisianan, Texan and other forms of Redneck is probably not included) ...

      Do you mean "American English", "Irish English", "Scottish English", "Australian English", etc? Since all those places have other languages (Spanish, Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, various Australian aboriginal languages, etc). "Irish" alone has nothing to do with English, it's the Gaelic language. There used to be "Scots English", but through improved communication the distinction from English has been lost.

      Really, you think the distinction has been lost? Have you ever actually tried to have a conversation with someone from Glasgow?

    6. Re:In Newcastle, some cabby asked... by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Just like Great Britain is a name that linger from the days when England was an empire, but has little meaning anymore.

      "Great Britain" means "big Britain", and was originally to distinguish it from Brittany (diminutive form, "little Britain") in France. It refers to the largest island in the British Isles archipelago, and gets it's name from the Brythonic Celts ("Britons") who inhabited both areas.

      It pre-dates a united England (let alone united Britain) by many years. Great Britain has nothing to do with the British Empire (except in giving it it's name). As a term for referring to th big island which is home to England, Scotland & Wales, it is still very much relevant and current, and has no decent replacement.

      Not to comment on the validity of you post. Just thought I'd correct your misunderstanding.

  36. How do telcos explain DSL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....when forever they said that 56KB was the limit over copper? How does one jump from a rigid 56KB barrier to current DSL speeds after such "fact" being spewed? HOw did the 56K limit get broken despite such assertions that this was physic law, it couldn't be broken.

    1. Re:How do telcos explain DSL... by ledow · · Score: 1

      Nobody said 56k was the limit over *copper*. That was *always* not true because 10Base2 has used copper cable for decades and got a lot more than that, and many other technologies before it. Copper networking faster than 56k predates 56k by decades.

      56k is the limit if you use *only* an audible signal over the voice channels of an ordinary copper telephone line. Due to timeslicing, and analogue routing and other things (which is why you could still "dial" a number by pipping down the phone just right like the old pulse-dial telephones), your conversations never got the full capabilities of that bit of copper coming into your phone. Try it. You can't get more than about 14.4 or 28.8 over those audio channels without having special tricks on both ends and even when you DO (56k was basically special expensive hardware on the ISP end that could tap into slightly more of the telecoms network and do timeslicing and other tricks to send slightly more down the audio channels to a customer, and only worked one-way - them to you, because you weren't allowed the special access to the telecoms network that they had - which is why uploads were always only 28.8 or something even on 56k modems). So even 56k is a myth with ordinary modems - if you dial one consumer modem from another over the cleanest, shortest bit of copper in the world, you'll only ever get 28.8.

      Even today, over a standard voice channel of an analogue telephone line, you can't get more than about 28.8 up and 56 down. This is why things like ADSL with its splitters were invented - they separate out the analogue audio using capacitors and the exchange has to be ADSL enabled, because it receives everything and then splits it into two signals - old-fashioned analogue, time-spliced as always, only on limited frequencies, and the entire audio signal pushed over the telecoms network in real time and still only gets 56k, and ADSL operating on higher frequencies on your same cable, converted to a digital signal at the exchange and then fed digitally into the telecoms network as "packets" that arrive at your ISP.

      Old modems communicate directly with another modem - either at your ISP, BBS or whatever you were dialling - the connection is across thousands of miles of repeated, amplified, etc. copper. If they get digitised, they have be to "analogued" back when they hit the other end or your phone wouldn't be able to hear it - that conversion strips out anything that's not audible. ADSL etc. only communicate analogue data over copper to the local cabinet / exchange which then relays packets to a nationwide digital telecoms network (usually all fibre) and it arrives as IP packets to the ISP (or thereabouts). The DSL data arrives as digital data, the modem data arrives as analogue audio, over the audio channels, and has to be "demodulated" (the "dem" of modem) to digital data by the destination (e.g. you or your ISP), not the telecoms firm itself.

      ADSL isn't audible on a phone line (except through harmonics of it's many-MHz signal). ADSL doesn't get transmitted to the number you dial (that's why you DON'T have to dial your ISP any more) but to the local exchange which then relays the data digitally, independent of your phone call. That's why you can phone AND browse nowadays. ADSL operates over the same copper but much less distance over different frequencies. ADSL data is "filtered" from all phone lines and the original signal never goes over the telecoms networks - it's digitised and then follows a completely separate path once it hits the street cabinet / exchange. ADSL cannot be used with a foreign ISP because the ADSL data isn't transmitted with the phone call, it stays in the private telecoms network.

      Modems are audible on a phone line (they can only work when the remote side could hear the same sounds in a normal phone conversation). Modems transmit to the number you dial, and directly to them using data encoded into audible sounds over the analogue audio channels (even if some of those are now digital too, it's still only wh

  37. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one in the US should care about this, you all have 7mbps DSL anyway, trust me it's not going to improve.

    1. Re:Who cares by Sl4shd0t0rg · · Score: 1

      VDSL can do much more than 7mbps here in the US for me.

    2. Re:Who cares by neminem · · Score: 1

      For the record, I'm capped (like, my apartment complex doesn't go higher than) 3. And no, I don't live in the middle of nowhere; I live in a city that's in the top 50 in Wikipedia's list of largest US cities. I'd *love* to see 7mbps DSL.

  38. Well said, and thank goodness I offended you.. by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    instead of a Texan... he'd be on here trying to identify where I live to hunt me down and teach me the finer points of the Texan language.. which requires props produced by some guys names Smith and Wesson.

    But, you seem to be offended that we would try and take something away from your identity by removing the name of your nation from a language which I for certain don't speak.

    Think of it this way... do we call Norwegian Danish just because for the most part it comes from there, and people who speak Norwegian still understand Danish (sometimes) and vise versa? The Norwegians even spell almost everything identical to the Danes with the exception of changing a letter or two... it's common that a word in Danish is the same as the Norwegian word except the Danes will use the letter G where the Norwegians will use the letter K. It's similar to how I prefer color vs. you who prefers colour.

    We speak extremely similar languages you and I. In fact, my dialect has been heavily influenced by your language because I have lived here in Norway which until recently has preferred the English descendant of our common tongue. Thanks to American TV (which I don't watch... though I don't want TV at all), the Internet, and the fact that Microsoft Word uses American by default, it appears that the Norwegian spoken version of the common tongue has become more similar to American as of late.

    Language is not an identity. It's a means of communication. The "English" identity for the language does in fact impede it's adoption by.. what's the English word for people who don't eat "bangers and mash" or "spotted dicks" or "butties" and other sexual or anatomical components we shouldn't insert in our mouths? Was it savages? barbarians? I can't ever get that right.

    Identification of a dialect of the common tongue is beneficial so people may understand the slight differences which can be dangerously misinterpreted.

    For example, if you were in England and you announced you were "Going to smoke a fag". Someone might join you and offer you a light.

    In Texas, again, a republican might join you.. and he'll offer to let you use his gun.

    Your version of English chooses to use a great deal more verbs as nouns. For example, instead of using a Lifter, you use a Lift. We use a device which alters our elevation called an elevator. We eat "mashed potatoes", you eat "mash".

    Additionally, you order a Joe Baxi... we don't even know who the hell that is.

    Of course, we torture the hell our of our language as well, and unfortunately you have the poor luck of adopting many of our disasters thanks often to the existence of MTV and adolescents. I apologize deeply from my heart for the 30% of my countrymen who are not only literate, but also intentionally read more that just hunting publications and sports pages, assuming they'll allow me to represent them in this cause.

    The fact is, the English and American languages are as different as the Norwegian, Swedish and Danish languages, yet we still call them the same thing. You an I still understand each other and may even adopt more similar traits of each others languages now that communication is easier. But we've have 200 years to evolve our languages in different directions and to suggest that the American dialects are in fact still English is highly offensive to me.

    If we were to start suggesting a language should be named based on the geography of its roots, then we can just call it Danish and be done with it.

  39. "advanced noise cancellation" for teh Internets by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    Does that mean putting a second microphone up into 4chan and then propagating reverse white noise?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  40. Digging vs. pulling by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    Why do they have to dig?

    Didn't the phone company plan far enough out to put manholes in so they could pull new wire in without messing up people's driveways?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  41. WHY?!! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    So I can exceed my download cap in like 60 seconds?!

    Jerks, I hate you so much.

  42. Is it really just the connection? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    The bandwidth problem in my neighborhood appears to be more to do with the inability of my ISP to buy sufficiently powerful equipment to properly handle the load, not my connection to it.

    I suspect my scenario is more representative of the actual problem in many cases, at least in the US.

  43. Hey man: Progress, IS PROGRESS! SO "mellow out" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AK_hepcat, come on man... see my subject-line, & seriously give it some thought man!

    (Now, if you're having a "bad day" & you're feeling pessimistic @ the world, well, then have @ it man... we're all entitled to those types of days after all, but it seems like you're having one of those is all!)

    OASIS said it best: "All around the world... you gotta spread the word! Tell 'em what you heard, it's gonna make a better day!"

    Which is what this site & others like it are ALL about really.

    (NOW - There's a thought for the day, yea?)

    APK

    P.S.=> I mean, hey - they're making progress, and eventually, they'll probably get it down perfect for larger distances, & imo @ least? It'll probably mean repeaters/amplifiers to make up for "signal attenuation" (which is probably part of the problem, 'signal/wire resistance-over-distance')... apk

  44. Distance, age. by OFnow · · Score: 1

    Lets see, we are 18000 feet by wire from a central office (measured
    by PacBell) and the wires were installed in 1947 or so.
    And no new wires are going to be installed.
    So bonding wires-that-do-not-exist over
    a few hundred feet is going to help how?

  45. Seeing Is Believing by theGhostPony · · Score: 1

    Seeing is believing. I couldn't even get AT&T (formerly Bellsouth) to provide me with POTS that wasn't noisy and useless.

    --
    /. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.
  46. Speed is good ... but much easier than DSL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought and drank the DSL cool-aid for years. First the sDSL, where I paid a fortune for 320 kbps bidiretional, then later aDSL from the telco at 3mbps down, 784 kbps up. I looked forward to Uverse. When we finally got it in our neighborhood I cheered. And called. And discovered that for some reason my apartment building was the only in our multi-building complex which for some reason couldn't get it. I spoke to 2nd level tech support. They agreed with me that it made no sense and they sent someone out to check the wire (they really sent him; he started measuring in my apartment). No, it wasn't a database mistake, my building for some reason (bad underground wire?) just won't get Uverse.

    So the telco lost a $150/month customer. I dropped multiple phone lines and a business grade DSL connection with multiple static IP#s. And went with Charter Cable. They've got fiber to the neighborhood and cable to the home. Now I'm paying $65/month for 16mbps down and 1.5mbps up. Not as good as some of my FiOS friends, but good enough for me. I've got two phone lines from Vonage, but I'm already experimenting with my own VoIP to cut that cost further. I just tested and right now I'm getting 23.2 mbps up and 2.12 mbps down, while listening to KUSC classical music in the background. Imho, it's time for DSL to quietly die.

  47. Why are they trying to reinvent the wheel? by Txantslusam · · Score: 1

    It seems strange to me that as an ESL teacher I have been told by students of China, Taiwan and South Korea of speeds in excess of this like 3 or more years ago, upwards of 1 - 2 Gbps and here we are trying to sound cutting edge at approaching merely a fraction of this. I mean do they think we don't know? Is it arrogance or blind ignorance that says they have to invent for themselves something that all they need to is assimilate that which has already been done? I just don't get it at all!?! I've heard tell of movies within minutes and realtime, seemless online gaming such that they now have to 'rehabilitate' kids off them by means we can only conjecture. Yet here we are expected to be in awe of discovering what must seem like obsolete technology.