New DSL standard offers faster speeds

Couch Potato

Article on news.com

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-7242800.html?tag=tp_pr

Any chance of this happening here ????

Straker

Ofcourse there's a chance of this happening here. :rolleyes:

SkepticOne

DSL here is not being limited to 512kbs due to limits of the technology currently in use in exchanges.

chernobyl

DSL here is limited to 512/128 etc @ the DSLAM in your local exchange, your existing phone wires can handle 60Mbit/sec which is either S/VDSL...i cant remember anymore.

flamegrill

VDSL can support up to and including 52mb/s.

However an existing copper line can not sustain these speeds.
If i recall reading about VDSL, they got 52mb over fibre, so thats a big difference than copper. But im sure someone may know a bit more about the technology.

[edit]
i went off to look for information on this topic.

Q. What is the best network configuration for VDSL, Fiber-to-the-Curb or Fiber-to-the-Node? Why?

A. Several studies have been conducted by service providers and equipment manufacturers regarding the relative costs of deploying FTTH, FTTC and FTTN. These studies strongly point to FTTN as the most cost-effective solution. Estimates of FTTN costs running from 60% to 80% of FTTC have been derived (ref GTE and Broadband Technologies studies) and FTTN running about 50% of the cost of FTTH. For residential deployment, VDSL will reach from 3kft to 4kft depending on the data rate required. This reach is consistent with a FTTN approach for most market demographics.

This does not necessarily restrict the use of VDSL in FTTN networks. VDSL is also suitable for use in FTTC networks and offers improvements over existing twisted pair copper solutions by providing a more robust technology than is currently available. A well-designed VDSL system will also be scaleable to adjust to the higher rates used by FTTC (52 Mbps) such as that offered by Broadcom.

that is available from here

[/edit]

hudson806

Originally posted by Couch Potato
Article on news.com

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-7242800.html?tag=tp_pr

Any chance of this happening here ????

G.SHDSL is really more suited to business-class services. Its fair to say that ADSL will be the choice for residential users for some time to come, probably followed by VDSL eventually

Urban Weigl

Originally posted by SkepticOne
DSL here is not being limited to 512kbs due to limits of the technology currently in use in exchanges.

That is quite correct. I know people who have ADSL connections rated at 8192kbps downstream and are paying just $150 per month with no caps. Additionally, providers such as @home cable typically provide up to 4mbps downstream with no caps for $39 (speed depends on what area you are in).

Moriarty

Originally posted by flamegrill

However an existing copper line can not sustain these speeds.
If i recall reading about VDSL, they got 52mb over fibre, so thats a big difference than copper. But im sure someone may know a bit more about the technology.
[/edit]

xDSL can get upto around this speed. Cant remember how fast exactly. But bear in mind that that will need to be very close to the exchange (within 200m or somit silly iirc). Fibre can go far higher. Techs in Lucent have recently gotten 10TB/sec over 1 fibre, which you'll agree is a tad more than 52mb/sec . Now, consider there are a lot of fibre strands in one cable, and you can get an idea of current bandwidth capabilities :]

phaxx

Ten tb/sec hehe. I remember reading about how 3tb/sec was now possible over a single fibre... I wonder how long it'll be before we have something really crazy like a petabyte per second (1pb = 1024tb, right?)

R. Daneel Olivaw

phaxx, by the time "we" have that, WE will still be using 56k

chernobyl

I think Burst Satellite Transmissions can beat fibre configs of any kind though.

hudson806

Originally posted by Urban Weigl


That is quite correct. I know people who have ADSL connections rated at 8192kbps downstream and are paying just $150 per month with no caps. Additionally, providers such as @home cable typically provide up to 4mbps downstream with no caps for $39 (speed depends on what area you are in).

True enough, but its probably a good idea to note that this is very much the exception these days - it is basically impossible to avoid losing a forture providing a service like that. Most people still getting service like that in the US are holdovers from the 'olden' days (2 years ago...) who refused to move to the less attractive packages more recently offered by most ISPs when they were asked.

Moriarty

Originally posted by hudson806
Most people still getting service like that in the US are holdovers from the 'olden' days (2 years ago...) who refused to move to the less attractive packages more recently offered by most ISPs when they were asked.

Friend of mine lives in chicago. He has a 10mbit downstream / 512k upstream cable modem, which he got in June. It costs him $55 per month, with no download cap. Biaaaatch.

Urban Weigl

Originally posted by hudson806


True enough, but its probably a good idea to note that this is very much the exception these days - it is basically impossible to avoid losing a forture providing a service like that. Most people still getting service like that in the US are holdovers from the 'olden' days (2 years ago...) who refused to move to the less attractive packages more recently offered by most ISPs when they were asked.

excite@home cable is still available at that speed for that price even if you sign up now. Note well that the service is capped to 128kbps upload (this cap was only introduced something like two years ago) Also, the other person lives in Dallas, and his ISP is still offering his plan to new subscribers as well.

Another guy I know lives in Chicago, and has 1536kbps downstream and 768kbps upstream. His plan also costs $39, and is still available. If he uncapped his cable modem (which is illegal, but can easily be done), he would be getting 36864kbps downstream and 11264kbps upstream.

The fact is that although the DSL services which may be provided by Bell or Covad may be complete crap, you can shop around and easily get a much better provider if you know where to look.

Balfa

all these superbroadband speeds are just a potential limit. the companies can advertise these speeds because, theoretically, that's what they do. But actually achieving these speeds while there are other people in the neighbourhood using the service is virtually impossible

Urban Weigl

Originally posted by Balfa
all these superbroadband speeds are just a potential limit. the companies can advertise these speeds because, theoretically, that's what they do. But actually achieving these speeds while there are other people in the neighbourhood using the service is virtually impossible

That depends entirely on your provider. Some cable companies, I think excite@home included, tend to stick dozens of users on each node, resulting in download speeds plummeting to a measly 100k/second or less at peak times (again, this depends on your location, as one of the admins on my server has such a connection and always gets in excess of 500k/sec downloads, and as high as 800k/sec). Others, on the other hand, don't. The chap in Chicago for example says his download speeds never drop to below 150k/second no matter what time of day or week (as long as the server at the other end can keep up).

My point being: it depends on your ISP/cable company, and how they set things up. So although you're correct in many cases, not every provider oversells to the extent where you notice a slowdown in speed.

Using ADSL in Germany for example, no matter what time of day or week I tried, I never noticed the speed varying -- always a solid 90-100K/sec.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Urban Weigl
Using ADSL in Germany for example, no matter what time of day or week I tried, I never noticed the speed varying -- always a solid 90-100K/sec.

90-100 kilobytes per second?

chernobyl

well if its bits, then id say that you have a new steriod modem and not even crap DSL.
it is for sure bytes.

SkepticOne

OK. I'll have that then. Eircom, please give us that.

R. Daneel Olivaw

That 90-100KB/sec would be expected from a 1Mbit downstream connection wouldn't it? I would expect around 40-50KB/sec from the 512Kbit line we will be able to get (at some stage).

Assuming of course there isn't 200 people sharing that connection and I have to get my 1400 baud USR out to whup some ass.

Hecate

yeah the 512/128k connection gets you on average 35-40k/sec from the majority of sites, any drop is speed is usually the fault of where your downloading from. The highest speed I got was about 100k/sec.

Urban Weigl

Originally posted by SkepticOne

90-100 kilobytes per second?

Yes, kilobytes. Here in Ireland on the other hand, I always get a solid 2-3. That needs to change.

PS: Hecate, I don't think 100k/sec is possible on a 512kbps connection...