| The real question is... Who would have the market share if cable AND DSL were available everywhere? I find it very sad that after over 15 years many people still don't have access to DSL even in well populated suburbs. |
|
| After 15 years? Why did you pick 1991 as the starting point? I, like most people, didn't even know what DSL was till 1998 or so. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to Pictor Guy
cable has much greater reach, which brings to question why is DSL so range limited. id think by now it could go 20,000-30,000 feet with modern tech.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
| reply to bogey780
I was reading on the net about hows DSL came to life in 1989 |
|
| And fiber optics came to life long before it came out.
DSL as a telecommunication product didn't come out to far later. |
|
| reply to Kearnstd
Innacurate and bad logic. Cable doesn't have an incredible reach. It just has greater node deployment. The signal still needs to be generated or repeated every so far.
DSL is ranger limiited much the way ethernet is range limited. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Clearwire Wireless
 ·Comcast
| reply to bogey780
When DSL was first developed in 1989 it was designed primarily for video. ADSL was the flavor of choice because it provides the high downstream rates needed for streaming video. Video on Demand (VOD) was viewed as the next generation service supporting the next generation network from telephone companies around the world. Video on Demand was expected to be the telephone company's way of competing with cable television providers, and ADSL was the technology to make it possible. However, with few exceptions, VOD has not proven to be as popular as was once predicted. Instead, the market for DSL has emerged much differently than was once expected. As it turns out, personal computer users need high-speed access to the Internet and corporate networks from residences and remote offices. Now, this PC user market has captured the attention of both cable TV providers and telephone companies, as both are furiously working to meet their needs. |
|
 KompressorPremium
join:2002-02-12
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to Kearnstd
While the name Digital Subscriber Line DSL sounds good, it is a horrible technology. |
|
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780:And fiber optics came to life long before it came out. DSL as a telecommunication product didn't come out to far later. Fiber would require LOTS of changes (as we see now). I'm all for FTTP. But DSL uses most of the same copper as PTSN. So given it's age and relative ease of deployment DSL "should" be more wide spread. Many places still don't have a DSLAM in their CO or are stuck behind a RT that is also not setup with an RDSLAM. In areas where both DSL and Cable are available I wonder that the ratio is. My guess is that Cable has a greater market share only because the phone companies have fallen asleep and not deployed as much DSL equipment. |
|
| But you forget about load coils, bridge taps, and other designed features of POTS that kill DSL. |
|
| reply to Kompressor
said by kompressor :
While the name Digital Subscriber Line DSL sounds good, it is a horrible technology.
Neither cable or dsl is better. Both are pretty much evenly matched. |
|
| reply to Kompressor
Based on your other post on this thread I don't believe you to be familiar in the least with xDSL. |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780:And fiber optics came to life long before it came out. DSL as a telecommunication product didn't come out to far later. Correct.
@Home really only started coming on back in 1997. They were testing and deploying in 1995. Broadband is still a very young technology.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
