On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 19:32 -0400, Chad Bailey wrote: > > ADSL has much more reach than VDSL.
Not by much, VDSL is like under 5000 feet. But regular DSL degrades around 7000 feet. I am between 7k and 11k from the CO based on many tests run back in 2003. Best I could get was ~1.1Mbps down, for ADSL or SDSL. Even when I had Covad 1.5Mbps SDSL ordered, they could only provided 1.1Mbps, and thus dropped me down to that plan. > Because of this, just like how there are people who still use > 56k today, I dont personally believe that DSL will ever be fully > phased out unless a better replacement emerges, or the government > mandates it (both highly possible). Probably not going anywhere, but at the same time the distances are not improving. Thus even DSL is very limited as to who can get it, if your to far from a CO, you are SOL. > Wireless internet is definitely a > focus, and related to AT&T's decision to purchase T-Mobile, but I dont > think we'll see wireless internet replacing landline internet for a > while. Wasn't aware of that merger, wasn't paying attention. I really hope they don't merge. Competition is a good thing! > AT&T does intend to keep [most of] their current DSL customers, > however, some areas are being 'capped', meaning no further DSL sales > are allowed. This means if you lose your DSL service for any reason, > getting it back would not be a possibility and U-Verse would be the > only option. There are actually some technical reasons for this, but > of course the primary reason is their desire to deploy U-Verse. At&ts own cellular wireless speeds are likely faster right now than most DSL connections. Short of the 3Mbps and 6Mbps ones. But I think cellular speeds will catch up sooner than later and overtake DSL all around. With no distance issues :) > > I was thinking > > about a friend of mine that has DSL in Middleburg, and the fact that she > > hasn't said anything about it, and then I thought, U-Verse isn't available > > in her area yet. > > If the population density isn't very high, it may be a very long time > until they deploy there. If ever, might be easier to go wireless in those areas. The U-Verse technicians were saying the future of At&t even U-Verse services, TV and the rest are all going wireless. Makes sense with the T-Mobile merger, as both At&t and T-Mobile are offering tv services over cellular now. > They get their best bang for buck out of > densely populated areas. Population density has been the pattern I've > noticed which has affected deployment. Also, signing up for waiting > lists does actually affect business decisions, as they may see that > they have a higher earning potential with deployment in a certain area > if all of the residents have signed up for a waiting list. Very well could end up like Verizon, where they cease after some point. Though Comcast back in the day would provide you with costs to get cable in areas that did not have it. It was considerable amounts, but it was at least an option. But not an option all the time, cable had to be some what near by. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Obsidian-Studios, Inc. http://www.obsidian-studios.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive http://marc.info/?l=jaxlug-list&r=1&w=2 RSS Feed http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml Unsubscribe [email protected]
