 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| Vectoring? trial will look at "pair bonding, vectoring, (and) spectrum management," which Bloom insists "can be done very inexpensively and on a per-user basis." I thought the whole point of vectoring was to get gains by having all pairs in the bundle working together in a manner that reduces crosstalk and interference. How would it be done on a per user basis?
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by djrobx:trial will look at "pair bonding, vectoring, (and) spectrum management," which Bloom insists "can be done very inexpensively and on a per-user basis." I thought the whole point of vectoring was to get gains by having all pairs in the bundle working together in a manner that reduces crosstalk and interference. How would it be done on a per user basis? if i understand it correctly -- its not referring to all pairs sitting in the crossbox or so. its as the loop leaves to the customer premise to the point at which it terminates on the nid. my only concern would be around making sure that if the multiple customer pairs are "vectored" in such a way that cross-talk is cancelled on a per-customer basis, as the loop enters the crossbox there must be some sort of cancellation occurring between the individual bundles (i.e. you have two homes, "a" and "b" -- each are vectored separately such that the effective crosstalk/mutual inductance/etc is cancelled within itself, but if the fields are such that when "a" and "b" are near each other they actually create more interference (due to parallel fields) rather than cross-cancellation or so). i'm sure that could be overcome through standards and processes, etc as long as you don't have sloppy techs.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
