Rob Froelich
join:2000-03-26
Saint Charles, IL
clubs:
 ·Comcast
|  Re: DSL - from the installer
Nice Article -
Mr. Butt Phone (nice name) has done a really thorough job of identifying the challenges we face, and while some of the details may vary slightly from carrier to carrier the basic fact remains that we are providing a revolutionary new service over an existing and highly inconsistent infrastructure. The Number One Goal from my perspective, as a broadband ISP, is to satisfy our customers. To do that we need make this discovery process as quick, and painless as possible so that consumers don't have to endure long waits, and great personal effort to find out whether they can benefit from this technology or not.
The bottom line for DSL in my opinion - This is still the very early days of broadband and your results may vary. DSL may not be right for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's not right for the Millions that will benefit from a very high performance Internet connection at a very good price.
Regards,
Rob Froelich
VP of Carrier Relations and Service Delivery
Phoenix Networks |
|
Brendan
Warr Guitar is here
join:2000-07-14
Littleton, CO
|  It's too bad that broadband isn't being deployed.. even to metropolitan areas, such as Colorado Springs, Colorado, where I'm located. However, I am eligible for IDSL (not exactly my definition of broadband.. basically two 56k modems linked). I ordered IDSL from PhoenixDSL, and waited a grand total of FOUR MONTHS for my *wonderful* telco, Qwest, to tell me that they are out of facilities. So much for broadband in Colorado. Maybe if I wait another 10-20 years, broadband _might_ be available.
*Pissed In Colorado* |
|
wesm
tmb.org
Premium
join:1999-07-29
Lewisville, TX
| As someone whose friend was stuck with a 56k modem before IDSL became available, I can tell you that IDSL is a far sight better than "two 56k modems linked." For one, you get the benefits of DSL (always on, line sharing [usually]), and its better than the (theoretical maximum) of 112k that two 56k's would provide.
As for "not being deployed.. even to metropolitan areas, such as Colorado Springs, Colorado," I don't think most companies regard that as a major metro area. Usually, those are the ones that you hear about regularly, such as New York, Dallas, Chicago, San Fran, etc... |
|
Brendan
Warr Guitar is here
join:2000-07-14
Littleton, CO
| You don't understand, Colorado Springs is a city of 800,000 people.. it's not a rural area. And, it's located only 70 miles south of Denver, Qwest's headquarters. It's the second largest city in Colorado. The point being, there's absolutely no reason for this entire city not to have DSL (except for a certain monopolistic telco).
About IDSL, it delivers at 144k, approximately 2.5 times that of a 56k modem. It's basically ISDN that uses all three pair and isn't dialup. Big deal... I'll stick with this 56k modem until something more convincing actually makes it to my area, which will be quite awhile I'm thinking.
*Pissed In Colorado* |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| ISDN/IDSL only uses one pair. However, you cannot line-share it as you can with ADSL, you'd need another pair for voice.
I would wholeheartedly agree that it's far better than two 56k modems combined. A 56k modem only gets about ~42k, and even then it usually suffers from a lot of retrains and high latency. ISDN-56 was WAY faster especially for web browsing.
If you can get IDSL at a reasonable price I'd go for it. |
|
