<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>May as well run ethernet? in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22082401</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:43:52 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:43:52 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: May as well run ethernet?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22082728</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/442241"><b>keyboard5684</b></A> : Yes, but my point is that you can keep milking the copper as long as you want, the technologies to do so are all over the place. The thing is, the people who own the copper are going to use DSL or run fiber at this point.<br><br>I just think these stories of achievements are nothing special, this article is just picking and choosing. <br><br>Everything over existing copper is "up to" because you cannot predict the quality of the copper. A T1 for example is run over existing copper, it is just repeated every 4,000 feet. You see the round small tub like things mounted on the telephone poles everywhere. A T1 can be stretched a lot farther, but they want to avoid that up to crap and just make sure it works.<br><br>And that is why DSL is so limited, quality of copper and why it has to be designed to scale back when needed. All xDSL modems will scale back when the copper is crappy, it has to or it will not work. A good example is heat, on a hot day your DSL speed may actually drop back because of resistance.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22082728</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:38:15 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: May as well run ethernet?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22082471</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/973490"><b>Ignite</b></A> : Have to love that the 155Mbps is 'up to' 155Mbps total throughput at 'up to' 4000ft. So long as you have the units near as damnit next to each other you can get 100M one way 55M the other.<br><br>The other is 12.5Mbit of DSL rate, and equals a 10Mbit data rate.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22082471</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:50:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>May as well run ethernet?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22082401</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/442241"><b>keyboard5684</b></A> : 300 meters is the "limit" for 100Mbps ethernet so why not just run ethernet if you were going to do something like this?<br><br>Problem is, they keep trying to use EXISTING copper/infrastructure when if we are down to 500 or 300 meters, run new cable... or FIBER!<br><br>This "technology" is not worth mentioning. I can get 600Mbps if I bond 12 pairs together! Geez.<br><br>Here is a link to just a few examples of the technology already there, just nobody cares except in a corporate building or something, not a carrier picking it up...<br><A HREF="http://www.patton.com/products/pe_products.asp?category=53&MiDAS"> Patton 12.8 Mbps at 4,500 feet </a>  <br>Or the <A HREF="http://www.versatek.com/products/vxveb160r2.htm?gclid=CM_aqNqkqpkCFRaA3godD3Vjpw">155Mbps at 4000ft </a><br><br>Just Google it, there are tons of ways to do this.<br>The technology exists, just fiber makes more sense.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22082401</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:39:16 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
