Alcatel-Lucent Tests 300 Mbps DSL
At roughly 1,300 feet in lab tests...
Alcatel-Lucent's research arm, Bell Labs, has announced that the company has achieved speeds of 800 Mbps using a pair of traditional DSL lines. Those speeds were achieved during a lab
test of something they're calling "DSL Phantom Mode," which the firm says was achieved by the creation of an third "phantom" channel to supplement the two physical wires common with bonded DSL. Lab tests also found that the technology is capable of offering 100 Mbps over a distance of 1,000 meters (3,820 feet).
Apparently the bonded lines and phantom mode creates a lot of crosstalk (or noise) on the lines, so the company is using vectoring to analyze the lines and cancel out noise (a simplistic metaphor might be noise-canceling headphones). Alcatel-Lucent clearly wants DSL to remain relevant amidst all this talk of 100 Mbps connectivity that recently surfaced around the FCC's broadband plan. Many phone companies with limited cash that are nursing copper are listening.
"Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs' DSL Phantom Mode lab test adds a whole new dimension to the ongoing '100Mbps for all' debate," insists Ovum analyst Kamalini Ganguly, apparently part-timing it as an Alcatel-Lucent spokesperson in their release
. "The fact that existing copper loops can facilitate 300Mbps at 400 meters reshapes the whole next-generation broadband competitive environment - and will open up a wide range of new business opportunities for 'traditional' DSL players," says Ganguly.
Of course if you ask the Fiber To The Home Council
(stocked largely with fiber vendors), carriers looking to upgrade would be better served by simply making that jump to fiber -- which continues to get cheaper to deploy and will better help them fend off faster speeds delivered by DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades without pesky distance limitations. The firm recently issued a study claiming that once fiber to the home networks are built, take rates among consumers averages "above 50 percent."
As for 300 Mbps DSL, it's still only being tested in a lab environment, not on the real world's aging copper, where homes may or may not have an extra pair to spare. Any real product capable of that speed won't be out for a year or two, and nothing guarantees it sees any level of real adoption. Phantoms and other spirits aside, here in the States production delays mean we still haven't even seen just regular bonded VDSL (which will improve both VDSL distance and speed), though AT&T appears to be close
. For now, Alcatel-Lucent seems to have created a 300 Mbps stopgap that may or may not ever actually arrive in the field.
Are Take Rates Really That High?
take rates among consumers averages "above 50 percent."I thought it was closer to 30-40%...at least based on VZ's FiOS.
Re: Are Take Rates Really That High? Yeah it is lower for Verizon but higher for the 700+ other outfits deploying fiber -- at least according to their data, and the FTTH council is of course created by those same companies selling the gear and deploying it, so....
·Time Warner Cable
Re: limp it along...
said by mrkevin:Yes. The technical case is clear. Now, you need to convince management, accounting, and shareholders to get behind this. I'll check back in 20 years to see how that's going. Good luck.
Let's be done with the copper already...It's time to move on now. Resistance is futile.
It's like trying to hang on to the old time open wire days, or the pony express.
Find your Lat-Long:
| |fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
Seems silly to me.. ... I don't get it. If all these companies in "the industry" would stop investing into DSL technology and refocus their resources, it just seems to me that deploying a solid fiber option would seem "less expensive" in the end.
I dunno, though.. maybe the "industry" wants to keep this going. Maybe there's something to be said about the reasons why the health care industry doesn't want to actually "cure" anyone.. they'd rather keep their "inventory" of sick people flowing so the industry keeps making money. This also reminds me of an industry that just won't die; telemarketing. JUST becuase it's something that makes money doesn't mean it's worth continuing. All it does is make those involved rich. Innovate.. move forward. It's time to invest in something that makes sense.. and DSL just doesn't make sense anymore. They're trying to stretch that copper wire so much that eventually its just going to snap.
Until America, and many other countries of the world, finally "get it" we're bound to keep up with status quo and continue to invest in the past. And no, it doesn't mean I also support this 'green' push either.
| |fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
Re: Seems silly to me.. There is also one thing I'm actually for as far as Giver-ment regulation (and while I AM for regulation, I'm for it to a point)...
I believe that Hollywood needs to see some regulation once and for all. Yup! Hollywood!
My views don't come from business merging as I believe that with out some of these mergers, we'd not be where we are at today. Comcast would not be able to have pushed out the expense to bring out Docsis 3.0 today, I don't think we'd really see the DVR at levels they are today becuase the buying power would have been smaller and prices even higher for less adoption, I think we'd not even see cable in telephone.. all good things in my eyes.
Verizon would not have had the money to deploy Fiber with out strength in size.
I believe that if it weren't for the size of some of these companies, I think even the price of entertainment would be even higher than it is today as well. I DO see benefits to the prices we pay today; they could be worse. Smaller cable operators are a sign of that as they often charge more for their services than even the big boys.
HOWEVER, I believe that everything comes in that wave-cycle. We have the high points and we cycle back to low points. (Same as the spectrum wave that we all know about) I believe that it's probably time to, as people, stop focusing on the big boys and back to the people a little more. Yup! Get back on your chairs - I said it. (to a point)
What we've seen already is that people are there.. customers are subscribing and overall we know there is plenty of entertainment money to go around. We KNOW that Hollywood (for a general term) can support certain prices. In fact, they CAN actually take a HUGE cut in what they bring in and still not blink an eye in the process.
I STILL think that much of this is entertainment and is still a luxury. I still believe that internet has to be decided if it's a utility or not, and I believe that the wire line telephone system still is a foundation of our society. (remember, much of our phone calls STILL hit a wired service during that call, so don't think just about the drop to the home)
But, where I see things, it's time that the INDUSTRY makes their own investment. THEY, as a collective, need to put their organizations together and figure this out on their own without government involvement. We KNOW how many customers are out there so they need to put that to the side for a moment, and instead of worrying about monthly sub numbers, they need to COLLECTIVELY figure out how to get to more of them and connect to more of them.
If these idiotic ass-hats in the industry would pull their collective heads out of their holes for a moment, pool their money together, they could connect more people, cut their profit margins for a bit, improve the delivery systems, access, and drop their rates.. they can make their money on QUANTITY over QUALITY of their monthly bills.
However, I still think that if they're going to accomplish this, the MAIN issue, in my eyes, comes from Hollywood.. the TRUE pig is in California.
I dunno.. I don't think I'm as, um, envious of Brian Robert's paycheck as I am the one Tom Cruise gets, the spoiled brat. At LEAST Brian has to go to work and think.. Tom just shows up and reads a script, and WHO makes more again? Anyone know why Tom left Paramount? Lets just say, it takes a LOT of money to take over something as big as United Artists... yea, in my opinion THAT guy made too much money for what he does.. and, apparently he and Paramount disagreed on how much Tom was getting in the process.
In the end, I just think the entire entertainment industry is WAY out of balance.
Also, to me, I don't think that these LARGER corporations are really making what I consider an "investment".. Investment takes RISK, something I don't think they're taking. I think many of them are simply purchasing with little RISK involved. So, I think the term "investment" is actually an understatement. I think they're doing minimal involved to keep what they have so rather than "investing" I believe they're simply trying to "retain" what they have.
As much as I HATE verizon as a company, I see what they did with their Fios deployment was infact a "risk".. they put their money where their mouth was and it was a risk that is paying off for them. Still, it's a risk that I think they didn't CHOSE to take, I think it's one they were FORCED to take so I give them only a little credit. So while I think it was a right thing to do, I don't think they did it was much honorability.
And, ONE thing I will give Obama credit for is that while it's not popular, it's something that people need to hear. When Obama basically is telling investors that we need to rethink about how we invest, the republicans take that as a threat to a system that has been out of control over the last decade. While we all still have a right to make money, and people WILL make money, we need to take a break from INSTANT returns and put the real meaning behind the term INVESTMENT again. We not only invest our money to make money, we also need to invest in OURSELVES so that we can continue to sustain future investments. It is, however, hard to take something back, or move us back some, when we've let things get out of hand.