VDSL2 Ratified

But it will prob come to my area last because broadband hates me.

Wow. 100Mbps symmetrical over VDSL2...that is amazing. Why again is fiber being rolled out?

Finally a workable product. The length requirements are killing the bells, and at least this is a step in the right direction..

"over multiple copper pairs"

this means there will be at least half the lines out there available now

peace

I'm really curious to see if BellSouth wises up and heads the VDSL2 direction, or if they're going to stick to their FTTN, then ADSL2+ to the home plans, doling out a paltry...what was it....4-8Mbps at first?

Read to the end... it reads Ready for immediate deployment, the new VDSL2 Recommendation (ITU-T G.993.2), will continue to foster competitive global markets for high-speed equipment, assuring a level playing field for developers and vendors.

I wonder if it is true.

Do they mean 4 copper wires instead of the 2 wires currently being used? Interesting, that would indeed boost downstream, upstream, and increase distance greatly.

I'm thinking about this too, how many are 'multiple pairs', two, three, four? How fast with only one pair?

Because fiber can do gig speeds in the future, and one copper pair won't.

100mbps will be used up rather quickly when you want to stream multipe HD channels into your home, use VoIP telephony, and when your kitchen appliances are all IP-aware.

Fiber with DWDM, on the other hand, can eventually be upped to hundreds of gigabits or even terrabits per second without replacing the fiber.

If i remember right VDSL2 and ADSL2+ are very similar and require little change to switch.I could be wrong thou its been awhile since i read up on it

Doesn't matter what the end says, everyone knows that ISP's like to drag their feet when it comes to deployment.

bellsouth is starting vsdl in october..the highest tier now will be 9mb/3mb

People want it all right now but when the providers says to the consumer "open your pocket book" what do you say?

I thought so.

VDSL2 is a great option for the company in the current landscape of the industry. People say "why VDSL2 if fiber can do gig speeds?" If they could do gig speeds, then why not do it now? Why wait? People, it COSTS MONEY to put these speeds through the pipes. What, do you want to over power that little thing called the backbone?

People want everything! Hey, BROADBAND IS STILL NEW! Remember? What did you ahve 5 years ago? For many, it was still dial up! Let's get real.

Ask yourself this.. if you had the ability to run SBC or Charter, or Verizon even, would you do a large fiber deployment now? If it were me? NO! I would find th cheapest way to deploy the fastest speeds possible in the least amount of time. There is no real way to see into the bb future. Billions people! Billions of dollars to lay fiber. Everyone runs it, now what? Now every company has debt. To pay that debt off, they need paying customers; customers who will pay the price for a fiber line. From what I can tell in these forums, not many here would be willing to pay the REAL price of providing brandband services.

Ever wonder why there is a bundled price for bb service? It's because multiple product hits help subsidize the cost of actually deploying the service. Also, a company has to keep a customer an average of 18 months JUST TO BREAK EVEN!

You guys are asking too much for fiber right now. It's just too much too soon. In time, people will see fiber, but I don't think you will see it as a norm pipeline widespread for at least 25 years or so.

Now, you say fiber can do gig speeds and copper pair won't.. says you? We never thought that copper pair would do more than 28.8... even 56k.. when DSL rolled out, we thought that 1.5 and 15,000 feet would be the limit of that technolody. Proved many people wrong eh?

Anyone here that says "can't" or "won't" is a fool themselves. You don't know what technology could bring.

In all honesty, I think many people here live in a dream world and not reality.

One question to aks you all.. if 100mb came out, what are you willing to pay for it? and what would you expect for that money? My guess is that most people would hope that it was $20 a month and had an uptime of 99.9% (which far exceeds even business class service)

Up to 12,000 feet. Whoop-de-do. Plain vanilla DSL can make it farther than that. So what? A future standard that even fewer people will qualify for than today's standard.

You nailed it my friend! A company like Verizon can't think about rolling out VDSL2 and enjoy the technology for 5 years and then find that it no longer meets the demands. If you're a huge telecom company, you have to think ahead and be pro-active rather than re-active! Verizon is going to deploy fiber and be done with infrastructure for the next decade at least, and not worry about providing any type of HSI or IPTV or whatever, they're DONE! While SBC and Bellsouth will cringe along with ADSL2+, then maybe VDSL2, and keep spending money on aging copper and upgrades to DSLAMs that aggregate your copper pairs to a fiber link to their backbones. Fiber to the home was a right solution. Yes, it's more money spent now, but it's the return on your money not having to upgrade every few years. Someone at Verizon was thinking about the future, and not just looking good to the Wall Street or shareholders. The fact that they're rolling out FTTH in rich neighborhoods that can afford it, that's a whole different topic.

You make good points, but they're not related to the thread you're replying to.

The question wasn't "Why VDSL2 when we can have fiber?", the question was "Why fiber when we can have VDSL2?"

Ah yes, but that 12,000 feet is from the fiber node, not the CO. Did you even bother to read the standard? "Plain vanilla DSL" can't do 100 megabits symmetrical at any distance.

You seem to be missing the facts.

And where is this published? And why are you mentioning VDSL when the tpoic is VDSL2?

'100mbps will be used up rather quickly when you want to stream multipe HD channels into your home, use VoIP telephony, and when your kitchen appliances are all IP-aware.'

Then provision another twisted pair. Voila.

Its takes than a line card to re-consider one's original direction. FTTN should continue since it means shoter-than-12000 loop lengths. This just means a potential for higher success if they were to switch to VDSL2.

Still, there is the cost issue. Is the VDSL2 hardware on the same price-plane as ADSL2+? Will it require a different chassis, network-side aggregate beyond Gigabit Ethernet? Probably yes, and yes.

This could be the telco answer to Fios and bonded coax.

No reading is necessary to gripe when it comes to technology. That's the first rule of BBR

Do these people understand the laws of physics when putting out press releases like this?

Copper wire attenuates signals at a far greater rate than coaxial cable or fiber.

12,000 ft from fiber may be doable, but with cable nodes much less than 12,000 ft from most homes DSL will will still have a tough time competing. Most cable companies have upgraded theri networks to fiber to the node, and only have coax to the home. Even if cable companies do not spilt nodes, better compression technologies will keep cable ahead of DSL.

The race is FTTH. Whoever gets there first wins. Everything else is a waste of time, IMHO.

Not when it can potentially save them money in the end. SDSL is a great technology to replace data-only local loops. It's cheaper (Bell loop) and provides the same service.

Where in the two links above did it say multiple? I went there and did a keyword search in the announcements and could not find the word 'multiple'.

How is this a better alternative to fiber? Eventually you're going to run out of pairs and need to trench new cable anyway. What about the higher maintenance costs of aging copper v. fiber? Just because something can be done doesn't mean it is the best option.

Again, someone thinks reactively rather than proactively. There are so many issues with copper in the buildings, like interference, signal attenuation, etc... The only issue swith fiber is that it has to be installed delicately, that's it. Once you've installed it, tested it, you're done! There's no need for filters, POTS splitters and extra lines to spearate the signal. Fiber is just cleaner.

Riiiighht! So verizon's spending billions of dollars to deploy fiber to the home wasn't necessary then.. they could have served bonded copper streams into the home! Its really too little too late for vdsl2

FTTH is quite expensive but taking care of it now is not necessarily better and cheaper than waiting. FTTH costs will come down over time. As end users, of course we all want FTTH NOW! On paper over at the telecom company it's not quite so black and white. Depends on the competition in certain areas too.

"Copper wire attenuates signals at a far greater rate than coaxial cable or fiber."

Uh, no. A properly designed UTP balanced transmission line has far less attenuation than any coaxial cable of similar diameter, and is less sensitive to interference. Coax has an additional dielectric element which insulates the center conductor from the outer shield conductor, and it has a higher attenuation coefficient than the insulation on the UTP.

Of course, at the frequencies involved with A/VDSL, the resistance of the conductor has more to do with attenuation than the insulation.

12,000 feet gives them quite a bit of design leeway. I don't read anything there that says that each VDSL2 loop has to be that long...

Cable still has to overcome it's RF-based design before it will truly be able to leave everything else in the dust. As long as it's a shared upstream where each modem has to wait for permission to transmit, it will never be able to provide a 100 megabit upstream. At that point they may as well just do FTTH. That's not going to happen any time soon.

Your waste of time is someone else's solution today. Good thing you don't run any of these companies. You'd bankrupt it in a year.