 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 | If only user desire trumped engineering obstacles... Maybe if we got enough people to sign a petition we can get crosstalk considerations removed from the ADSL2+ protocol spec! |
|
| Yeah, if only there were a technology that offered faster upstream speeds! Gosh, we're just sunk. |
|
 pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | Maybe, just maybe, we can just bond 2 lines together. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Yeah, if only there were a technology that offered faster upstream speeds! Name a technology that Qwest could deploy at the same or lower costs than their FTTN ADSL2+ offering that would allow those faster upstream speeds. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to pokesph
said by pokesph:Maybe, just maybe, we can just bond 2 lines together. There's nothing to stop you from ordering 2 lines and doing this yourself today. |
|
 PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | reply to pokesph
BLASPHEMY! Shut your mouth, such evils should not be spoken of! |
|
| reply to espaeth
oh gee FTTH? |
|
 mikepdDiscoveryPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-26
New Port Richey, FL | reply to espaeth
Not going to happen since true line bonding requires support at the ISP end as well as the subscriber end.
--
Always Reach Beyond Your Grasp |
|
|
|
| reply to espaeth
Juice boosted carrier pigeon? |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to mikepd
said by mikepd:Not going to happen since true line bonding requires support at the ISP end as well as the subscriber end. No ISP support necessary. You just need to have a box somewhere with sufficient bandwidth (ie, a server at a local data center) and establish a multilink PPP session to that. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to vortex91
*sigh* An FTTH deployment would not be the same or lower cost to that of their FTTN deployment. |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by Karl Bode:Yeah, if only there were a technology that offered faster upstream speeds! Name a technology that Qwest could deploy at the same or lower costs than their FTTN ADSL2+ offering that would allow those faster upstream speeds. None. That's why I stick with Cable, because they can.  |
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to Karl Bode
Gosh, if only the whiners would get together and put up $20 billion, they could build the "perfect" network instead of bitching about what everyone else isn't doing for them. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by Karl Bode:Yeah, if only there were a technology that offered faster upstream speeds! Name a technology that Qwest could deploy at the same or lower costs than their FTTN ADSL2+ offering that would allow those faster upstream speeds. Yes, Qwest shouldn't have to spend MORE money! God, how dare some suggest that they may be better off with a more expensive choice- haven't those unlucky enough to hold shares in Q suffered enough?
Qwest dug themselves into this pit with all their debt, but now I don't really see how they can do anything else- they simply don't have the capability to make huge expensive deployments like telecom mega-conglomerates VZ and T. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by mikepd:Not going to happen since true line bonding requires support at the ISP end as well as the subscriber end. No ISP support necessary. You just need to have a box somewhere with sufficient bandwidth (ie, a server at a local data center) and establish a multilink PPP session to that. Screw fiber to the home or DOCSIS 3.0, let's all order 2 DSL lines, co-locate a server in a data center, pay for our bandwidth there, just so we can get 1.8Mbps upstream!
Whooo! |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to Dogfather
Maybe we can commendeer some of the money from the Iraq "war" for this. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to espaeth
I do remote desktop over 3Mbps/512kbps - and it works just fine. As far as uploading large files...get off Windows platform, and use Solaris/Linux/HP-UX and Java/Weblogic
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to SLD
Or better, give it back to the taxpayers. |
|
 quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | reply to en102
What exactally does Windows have to do with the size of a download? Last I checked, Linux ISOs/DVDs are pretty large too... |
|
PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | reply to Matt
No kidding. A much cheaper alternative would be to order two lines and connect them to a dual-WAN router. Although I'm not sure if you can max out both lines with only one connection (say, uploading a large file to a server). |
|
