1 recommendation |
$$much of the same reason these ideas were abaondoned more than 15 years ago was because of the added cost..
those bonded backhaul cables are going to be roughly the a simlar cost in addition to the dslams to just laying fiber + nodes in the FIRST PLACE!!! there isn't a reasonable way to get the cost down.. besides, using all the excess copper in a bundle leave ZERO room for new customers and defeats the purpose of having copper in the first place.. aggregation will not be able to get 400mbits on aging copper plant-- in the REAL WORLD all of this has been looked at before.. | |
|
| elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2012-Oct-10 4:47 pm
Re: $$said by tmc8080:much of the same reason these ideas were abaondoned more than 15 years ago was because of the added cost..
those bonded backhaul cables are going to be roughly the a simlar cost in addition to the dslams to just laying fiber + nodes in the FIRST PLACE!!! there isn't a reasonable way to get the cost down.. besides, using all the excess copper in a bundle leave ZERO room for new customers and defeats the purpose of having copper in the first place.. aggregation will not be able to get 400mbits on aging copper plant-- in the REAL WORLD all of this has been looked at before.. Doubtful. Running new fiber to the node or curb is extremely costly versus re-purposing copper, especially in low-density deployments. Considering that cost is the number one consideration for a majority of consumers (versus the minority that will buy Fios), and even moreso for rural non-subscribers, copper-based technologies remain viable until such time as someone figures a way to bring down the real cost of stringing/laying fiber. The 400mbps figure is clearly hype, but these technologies may deliver 40+ mbps where very little or none exists today. If I were living in the stix, I'd much rather have "slow DSL" today than LTE in 5 years or FTTH in 20. | |
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2012-Oct-10 1:51 pm
Why would you "never see it"Where is the evidence to support that conjecture? | |
|
| |
Re: Why would you "never see it"400Mbps over a 100 foot copper loop !!!?
lol | |
|
| | mmay149q Premium Member join:2009-03-05 Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-Oct-10 2:16 pm
Re: Why would you "never see it"said by ITALIAN926:400Mbps over a 100 foot copper loop !!!?
lol I know, isn't is sad when we've had gigabit over copper up to 250 feet for the past 10 years? Very true statement dude, this IS lolable........ Matt | |
|
| | | |
AnonFTW
Anon
2012-Oct-10 2:46 pm
Re: Why would you "never see it"said by mmay149q:said by ITALIAN926:400Mbps over a 100 foot copper loop !!!?
lol I know, isn't is sad when we've had gigabit over copper up to 250 feet for the past 10 years? Very true statement dude, this IS lolable........ Matt Over a single copper pair? | |
|
| | | | Anonymous_Anonymous Premium Member join:2004-06-21 127.0.0.1 |
Re: Why would you "never see it"said by AnonFTW :said by mmay149q:said by ITALIAN926:400Mbps over a 100 foot copper loop !!!?
lol I know, isn't is sad when we've had gigabit over copper up to 250 feet for the past 10 years? Very true statement dude, this IS lolable........ Matt Over a single copper pair? Cable has like 8Gig over coax assuming if they dedicated it all to internet | |
|
| | |
1 recommendation |
to mmay149q
said by mmay149q:said by ITALIAN926:400Mbps over a 100 foot copper loop !!!?
lol I know, isn't is sad when we've had gigabit over copper up to 250 feet for the past 10 years? Very true statement dude, this IS lolable........ Matt Keep in mind Gigabit ethernet cable is 4 pair. A regular telephone whire is 2 pair. | |
|
| | | | Jerm join:2000-04-10 Richland, WA ·Ziply Fiber
|
Jerm
Member
2012-Oct-10 3:58 pm
Re: Why would you "never see it"said by majortom1029:Keep in mind Gigabit ethernet cable is 4 pair. A regular telephone whire is 2 pair. Try 1 pair Sure you can have 2 pair, but then you can have 2 lines... | |
|
| | | WHT join:2010-03-26 Rosston, TX
1 recommendation |
to mmay149q
Copper plant = CAT3 GigaBit = CAT6 | |
|
| | | | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
Re: Why would you "never see it"said by WHT:Copper plant = CAT3 GigaBit = CAT6 Telephone is only CAT3 in new deployments, if then. Gig-Ethernet runs fine on CAT5e. | |
|
| | | Anonymous_Anonymous Premium Member join:2004-06-21 127.0.0.1 |
to mmay149q
said by mmay149q:said by ITALIAN926:400Mbps over a 100 foot copper loop !!!?
lol I know, isn't is sad when we've had gigabit over copper up to 250 feet for the past 10 years? Very true statement dude, this IS lolable........ Matt 2006 to provide 10 Gbit/s connections over unshielded or shielded twisted pair cables, over distances up to 100 metres (330 ft). FOR THE WIN | |
|
| | LightS Premium Member join:2005-12-17 Greenville, TX |
to ITALIAN926
Uhh... Look up 802.3. | |
|
| |
Mojo 77 to skeechan
Anon
2012-Oct-10 2:16 pm
to skeechan
You mean aside from the hundreds of ultra-fast DSL promises like this one we've all watched amount to exactly jack shit over the last decade? | |
|
| | skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2012-Oct-10 2:27 pm
Re: Why would you "never see it"From those companies sure, but to definitively claim that you will never see THIS...conjecture. | |
|
| | |
Twaddle to Mojo 77
Anon
2012-Oct-10 7:00 pm
to Mojo 77
That's for damn sure. When they sell you 6 mb/768 and it can't support 1.5/128 because of the piss poor copper strings why would we believe anything . DSL in the lab is not DSL in the real world. Let's hear some real news! | |
|
silbaco Premium Member join:2009-08-03 USA
1 recommendation |
silbaco
Premium Member
2012-Oct-10 2:24 pm
Slow...Huawei is already capable of pushing 1gbps over 100 meters, 500mbps over 200 meters. | |
|
pb2k join:2005-05-30 Calgary, AB
1 recommendation |
pb2k
Member
2012-Oct-10 2:28 pm
Exchange server?? lolAll this time I thought DSLAMs connected into aggregation switches and/or edge routers. I wonder if they are referring to a server in the exchange (CO), or a microsoft exchange server (In the exchange???). | |
|
1 recommendation |
It will require upgradesThis would require "fibre huts" in addition to VDSL2+ hardware installed at the DSLAM. Looking at the architecture as a ring, I'm not sure if it's bi-directional but if there is a ring disruption it could take the loop out. That never happens The question would be if the telco updates to VDSL2+ (and remember AT&T uses a variant) why would they want to build out huts. That seems questionable... All of this will compete w/ wireless, macrocells, or ethernet over copper/fibre. This is also predicated on the aging copper lines in existence today at the prem not needing replacement which costs lots. | |
|
antdudeMatrix Ant Premium Member join:2001-03-25 US |
antdude
Premium Member
2012-Oct-10 4:03 pm
And I still can't get DSL.No DSL in my two Verizon home areas. | |
|
|
dslte
Anon
2012-Oct-10 4:38 pm
hahI will see it when I believe it | |
|
leibold MVM join:2002-07-09 Sunnyvale, CA Netgear CG3000DCR ZyXEL P-663HN-51
|
Pros and consThis is definitely a logical approach that has much going for it: Up 12 or 15 homes are wired into a ring with short distance copper pairs. The short distance allows maximizing the performance of VDSL2 but the ring design also means that the top speed of 400Mbps is shared for those homes. Concurrent Internet use means each home is only getting a slice of the pie but it will still be plenty fast.
By sharing a connection for 12 (or 15) homes existing copper pairs are being freed up that can be used for bonding (ADSL2+ and VDSL2 can bond up to 32 pairs). This allows existing copper wires to connect from CO to the CN instead of installing new fiber. Little cost and time to deploy.
Using existing VDSL2 standard components means little development cost and faster speed to a marketable product.
Where it will all break down is at the CN. DSL (all variants) work by transmitting a strong signal over a copper pair to a very sensitive receiver at the other end. The reason this works is because the uplink and downlink frequencies are different and neither the DSLAM nor the DSL CPE are transmitting and receiving at the same frequency.
In order for the DSL Ring idea to work DSL signals need to be retransmitted. This means that the CN will need to receive DSL signals at the same frequencies (from the CO) at which it will forward it into the Ring (to the CPE) and vice versa. If the HGW are active components (retransmitting instead of just passing through) the same problem exists there as well. I'm not sure how realistic it is under real life conditions to avoid the feedback problems (from local transmitter to receiver) this is going to cause. | |
|
| |
Re: Pros and conssaid by leibold:In order for the DSL Ring idea to work DSL signals need to be retransmitted. This means that the CN will need to receive DSL signals at the same frequencies (from the CO) at which it will forward it into the Ring (to the CPE) and vice versa. If the HGW are active components (retransmitting instead of just passing through) the same problem exists there as well. I'm not sure how realistic it is under real life conditions to avoid the feedback problems (from local transmitter to receiver) this is going to cause. By placing a notch filter on the line, you can allow the voice coming from the exchange to pass through the line while effectivley cutting the line at dsl frequencies. Or you could feed the voice circuits from the exchange by running a PCM encoded system or voip over the top of the DSL signals between the local ring and the exchange backhaul. | |
|
|
sparc
Member
2012-Oct-10 8:56 pm
I'd be happy with 5% of that via DSLIf someone like AT&T could take advantage of these technologies to make an upgrade of only 5% of that, i'd be very happy. | |
|
|
|