Surewest Launches Bonded DSL 3 and 6Mbps tiers become 6 and 10Mbps While it's not exactly the symmetrical 50Mbps fiber connectivity the company offers in portions of California and Kansas City, Surewest today announced that the company has started offering bonded DSL. By assigning two customer pairs to each home (assuming a second pair is available), Surewest is now improving service reach, while bumping the speed of their 3Mbps tier to 6Mbps, and 6Mbps tier to 10Mbps. Surewest says they're offering twelve month introductory rates of $27.99 for the 6Mbps tier, and $31.99 per month for the 10Mbps tier. "As we continue to expand our advanced fiber-to-the-home network in Sacramento and Kansas City, we are also creating a superior customer experience for our copper subscribers by providing them with the most bandwidth and highest speeds technology allows," says Surewest CTO Bill DeMuth. "Bonded DSL allows us to provide faster Internet speeds deeper into our copper network, and now over 50 percent of potential DSL subscribers have access to 10 Mbps."
|
 premio
join:2002-02-17
Sunnyvale, CA | Phat Don't take this lying down SBC. You can offer the same thing! I'd love 12Mbps, provided of course it's cheaper! | |
|  Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
1 edit | Why use bonded DSL under 10mbps? ..I thought the physical restriction of DSL was around 10mbps?
I know Qwest here can do 7mbps/896kbps DSL. I had it with my Cisco 678 back in '05 and it worked quite well. | |
|  | | | Re: Why use bonded DSL under 10mbps? They are using a bonded connection because most lines out there cannot support 10mbps on a single pair due to distance limitations. | |
| | | | | Re: Why use bonded DSL under 10mbps? The key here is they use 2 pairs...usually you have 1 pair delivering 3-7Mbps.... times 2 you get 10-14Mbps, hence the word bonded(2 pairs performing as 1). You have to agree with the CTO they're doing their best to provide the best available service. | |
|
| | | Slightly better loop length reach with bonded DSL (or VDSL) from what I understand.... | |
| | dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | said by Simba7:..I thought the physical restriction of DSL was around 10mbps? I know Qwest here can do 7mbps/896kbps DSL. I had it with my Cisco 678 back in '05 and it worked quite well. 8M for ADSL, 24M for ADSL2+ is the limit per line. Bonding uses multiple lines- both in terms of cable pairs and (presumably) DSLAM ports. | |
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Good for them! I still think DSL is currently the best answer for rural service and will incidentally save the telcos in the process. | |
| |  dslwanterIt's comingPremium
join:2002-12-16
Niles, OH
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Good for them! said by MrMoody:I still think DSL is currently the best answer for rural service and will incidentally save the telcos in the process. How? DSLAMs transmit DSL up to about 3 miles cable length, how can you justify that when houses can be 1/2 miles+ apart in rural areas? The best bet is some form of a fiber optic cable network.
--
Need a DJ within 60 miles of Youngstown, OH? Check out my service: »www.thebomb102djservice.com | |
| | | | | | | dslwanterIt's comingPremium
join:2002-12-16
Niles, OH Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
3 edits | Re: Good for them! said by dataice:I feel that some form of fiber/coax hybrid cable system would probably be somewhat cheaper to deploy compared to DSL. But you have to keep in mind that most people that live in rural locations are not only outside the reach of DSL, but in most cases are not passed by a local cable carrier as well, unless they live near the city limits of a modest size town, which most don't. Unless I misunderstood your post, and you were referring to a fiber plant from a local telco, which is not going to happen anytime soon in remote locations. You did missunderstand my post. I was responding to the statement above saying DSL was the answer for rural broadband. I never said they were served by a cable carrier either. I just said building some form of a network out of fiber optic cable may be a better soltuion. For example, Armstrong cable just bought our township which is "rural". They built us a cable system out of fiber optic cable. Why? Fiber can carry a signal further so less amps needed & fiber has significantly come down in price. It doesn't even have to be a "cable op", just some organization to come in and run fiber, we're talking broadband here, not CATV.
--
Need a DJ within 60 miles of Youngstown, OH? Check out my service: »www.thebomb102djservice.com | |
| | | | | | | | | | | dslwanterIt's comingPremium
join:2002-12-16
Niles, OH Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | Re: Good for them! said by dataice:Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes costs are coming down for fiber, but most companies don't seem all that enthused about deploying a fiber built internet plant out in the sticks. I'm glad you were lucky enough to find one that did.  I still think some form of wireless is the best route to go for remote locations. But unfortunately, rural locations will most likely be overlooked by most companies for some time to come. Especially considering the health of our current economy. Wireless isn't an efficient idea. Unless you're talking about flat land with little obstruction (trees, houses, etc), that signal isn't going very far. Plus the cost of tower rental or possibly building new towers and transmitters. Why not use the same poles already in place carrying power and telco service? The only thing you're really paying for there in terms of materials is the fiber optic cable itself, splice devices to feed the drops, and then whatever device (such as an omnibox, provided by Armstrong here) to service customers. Fiber can carry signals a hell of a lot further than any other medium before needing amplified & in terms of "rural" distance is the biggest factor. Another thing is it's immune to EMI/RFI.
--
Need a DJ within 60 miles of Youngstown, OH? Check out my service: »www.thebomb102djservice.com | |
| | | | | | |  dataicePremium
join:2002-10-27
Crisfield, MD
4 edits | Re: Good for them! Good point, but I think we both can agree with the fact that rural locations will continue to be overlooked for the foorseable future. | |
| | | | | | | | dslwanterIt's comingPremium
join:2002-12-16
Niles, OH Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | Re: Good for them! said by dataice:Good point, but I think we both can agree with the fact that rural locations will continue to be overlooked for the foorseable future. Absolutely. I'm in a "rural" location, I was lucky enough to catch the end loop of what was very marginal DSL (384kbps, with connection loss). Most others in this township have never had broadband. We just now got this cable, we always had cable, it was just not worth much it was nothing but analogue, now it was rebuilt with fiber.
--
Need a DJ within 60 miles of Youngstown, OH? Check out my service: »www.thebomb102djservice.com | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Good for them! If you think some company is going to spend untold millions of dollars dropping fiber to the stix then you are delusional. It would make more sense to strike up some kind of deal with cellular providers and just drop the needed equipment at the cell towers. That would make much more sense financially over fiber. and coverage in rural areas would be no different than current cell phone coverage. Fiber is just barely getting off the ground in major metropolitan areas/suburbs, it will be at LEAST a decade away before rural areas can even think of getting fiber, and Verizon has already said in so many words its not interested in getting 100% of its copper plant switched over to fiber anytime soon, and most likely those places will just be sold off to another carrier like what happened in several new england states earlier this year, when Verizon offloaded them to Fairpoint communications. | |
|
| | |
| dataicePremium
join:2002-10-27
Crisfield, MD Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·AT&T Wireless Br..
·Verizon Broadban..
·Verizon Wireless..
 ·Comcast Formerl..
1 edit | DSL isn't the best option to use in a rural setting. With distance limits of 18,000 feet from the nearest Central Office, that leaves a large majority out of the reach of DSL. Even if the telco's were to use remote terminals, that is cost prohibitive in a rural area. IMO the best option for rural locations is wireless technologies like the Xohm 4G WiMAX service that Sprint just launched recently in Baltimore, MD. If this service takes off, it will make it cheaper in the long run to deploy later in rural locations, once they start seeing some profit in the urban rollouts. Of course with the economy being in the pits right now, you probably won't be seeing any company taking a risk in rolling broadband out to the boonies. I live in the boonies, but I am also a realist, and do understand the huge risk companies take rolling out services to the sticks. I am just thankful that I am one of the lucky ones that has a couple of broadband options. | |
|
 DaneJasperSonic.NetPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:7 | CPE Anyone know what they're using for the customer premise equipment?
-Dane | |
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | no mention. . . of anything on the upload side. 10000/896 - *yawn*
-
wonder what the price becomes after the intro runs out.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| |
|
|
