http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19896480 en Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:32:34 EDT Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:32:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19914071 anon : They do not bond. This specification is single pair. Ot is significant when AT&Ts u-verse is only offered to 3000ft.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19914071 Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:27:18 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19901129 patcat88 : Also remember CLECs dont do RTs. So the only hope of this ever being installed anywhere is the ILEC, and if they haven't done ADSL2 by now, they sure wont do this.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19901129 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:59:23 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19896924 bogey780 : Everything needs RTs. It's the reason why Mesa cabinets have been in huge demand for a decade or so.

This will probably never fly for the telcos as they've already made their decision and the incremental increase may not justify it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19896924 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:50:56 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19896808 Guspaz : If Bell can sprinkle ADSL2+ remote DSLAMs everywhere, why not?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19896808 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:31:14 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19896480 myokitis : The attached links seem to indicate that RTs will be req'd for this, so it will take a significant effort to deploy this in the wild. This might be appealing to someone like Quest, who has no other next-gen plant improvements planned, and maybe some smaller ILECs. However, I don't see the bigger ILECs being able to use this.

Does anyone know if this is supposed to work over single pairs, or is bonding necessary?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19896480 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:44:27 EDT