Deadpool
Go Sens Go
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-29
Canada
 ·Bell Sympatico
| reply to qworster
Re: Not entirely accurate
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 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. |
|
