qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
2 edits | reply to dynodb
Re: Not entirely accurate
said by dynodb  :You have no clue; I likely have forgotten more about DSLAMs than you will ever know. Hint: It's not about "cabinets". Really?
You are the one that hasn't a clue. Do you even know what crosstalk is? How about a db (decibel)? Hint: BELL |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to qworster
You have no clue; I likely have forgotten more about DSLAMs than you will ever know.
Hint: It's not about "cabinets". |
|
Deadpool
Go Sens Go
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-29
Canada
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to qworster
said by qworster :said by Deadpool :Bingo. We call is 'spectral interference'. No, it's called crosstalk. My post from the other day addresses this: » The bottom line is this: Potato, Potatoe. Every company likes to invent their own terms. 
--
Disclaimer: If I express an opinion, it is my own opinion, not that of Bell or its related companies. |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
| reply to dynodb
said by dynodb :The glich doesn't happen any time a ADSL circuit is in the same count as an ADSL2+ circuit. In fact, ADSL and ADSL2+ are deployed from the same DSLAM- if that were true, none of the ADSL out of a DSLAM offering ADSL2+ would work very well. It apparently occurs in a specific circumstance- when a longer ADSL line from the CO is in the same count as a shorter ADSL2+ one. You are wrong.
Qwest is putting DSLAMs IN the FTTN neighborhood cabinets. Their reason for this is to make the copper loop shorter, so they can run ADSL2 (which offers faster speeds but doesn't work at loop lengths longer then about 1/2 mile).
The ADSL circuits that originate at the DSLAM in the phone office have been attenuated (cut down by pair losses) significantly by the time they enter the cabinet. They can't compete with the local signals that can be 20 to 30 db stronger then they are.
I explain it here: »The bottom line is this: |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
| reply to Deadpool
said by Deadpool :Bingo. We call is 'spectral interference'. No, it's called crosstalk.
My post from the other day addresses this:
»The bottom line is this: |
|
Deadpool
Go Sens Go
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-29
Canada | reply to Telus Lurker
Bingo. We call is 'spectral interference'. |
|
Telus Lurker
Premium
join:2008-11-25
Surrey, BC
| reply to dynodb
said by dynodb :The glich doesn't happen any time a ADSL circuit is in the same count as an ADSL2+ circuit. In fact, ADSL and ADSL2+ are deployed from the same DSLAM- if that were true, none of the ADSL out of a DSLAM offering ADSL2+ would work very well. It apparently occurs in a specific circumstance- when a longer ADSL line from the CO is in the same count as a shorter ADSL2+ one. Good point. It can occur when any xDSL signal out of a CO is in the same distribution bundle as any xDSL signal out of a Cabinet/Node/SAC/JWI/Roadbox. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| The glich doesn't happen any time a ADSL circuit is in the same count as an ADSL2+ circuit. In fact, ADSL and ADSL2+ are deployed from the same DSLAM- if that were true, none of the ADSL out of a DSLAM offering ADSL2+ would work very well.
It apparently occurs in a specific circumstance- when a longer ADSL line from the CO is in the same count as a shorter ADSL2+ one. |
|
