backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by Neophyte1980.. on Nov 10 at 8:21 PM


Its not easy being green--Dr. Papandriopoulos has come up with technology which promises to revolutionize the internet.  (Source: The Sydney Morning Herald)
Australian researcher develops tech to raise internet speed x100, which should hit the market in 2 to 3 years.

It’s not easy being a young super-genius who just developed an algorithm to reduce interference in ADSL lines, potentially raising broadband connection speeds by a hundredfold. It’s not so easy, being internationally acclaimed and having fame and fortune knocking on your door.

Okay, so maybe life is going pretty good for 29-year-old University of Melbourne research fellow Dr. John Papandriopoulos -- but it’s not like he didn't earn it.

Dr. Papandriopoulos's PhD thesis is comprised with methods and techniques to use mathematic algorithms to reduce interference in DSL lines. This research is grabbing international attention due to the promise it holds; ADSL connections implementing the algorithm can go from approximately 1-10 Mbps to a blazing 100 Mbps or above.

Such an increase would revolutionize the internet industry worldwide. Dr. Papandriopoulos has two patents pending on his research, which will likely bring him some future wealth.

Further, he has been lured to move from his native Australia to Silicon Valley by Stanford University engineering professor John Cioffi, the "father of DSL" who helped develop the chips in the first DSL modems.

Professor Cioffi reviewed Dr Papandriopoulos's PhD thesis and was so impressed that he called up the young super-genius and offered him a job at his start-up company, ASSIA. Dr. Papandriopoulos accepted and is now on his way to fame and fortune abroad.

His Australian alma mater has not forgotten about Dr. Papandriopoulos either. University of Melbourne gave him the Chancellor's Prize for Excellence, a prestigious award. It’s no secret why the University of Melbourne is so happy; Dr. Papandriopoulos is assigning the University of Melbourne his patents, however; he will still likely make big royalties from the licensing agreement he reaches with the university. The university is eagerly looking into commercializing Dr. Papandriopoulos's technologies. They are in talks with multiple vendors of DSL equipment and modems.

Dr. Papandriopoulos's technology revolves around the interference and cross-talk that occurs between the cable wires of high-speed ADSL (Asymmetric DSL) wires. This significant cross talk and the resulting interference forces providers to settle for lower speeds.

"That is not an issue for voice calls these days but it becomes a problem when you're trying to wring more bandwidth out of these existing copper telephone wires [which power ADSL broadband connections],” explains Dr. Papandriopoulos. “This cross-talk in current day DSL networks effectively produces noise onto other lines, and this noise reduces the speed of your connection."

He says that his technology is better that competitive solutions as it is more practical and easier to implement. He sees it coming to the market with 2 to 3 years.

Meanwhile, Professor Cioffi and Silicon Valley can't wait to put the Aussie to work in only two weeks, developing more brilliant solutions. With a mind like his, perhaps the sad state of broadband in the U.S. and abroad can be overcome, and be replaced with ultra-fast and efficient high-speed connections.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

way to go
By Quiksel on 11/8/2007 9:04:47 AM , Rating: 2
WANT.

I do hope this actually comes to fruition. Around here, I can't recommend DSL to anyone, given the complexity of setup and poor speeds. Someone bringing speed enhancements of this magnitude would sure put the pressure back on cable companies to continue their development and increase speeds on their wire too.

This has to blow FiOS away, too, would it not?




RE: way to go
By therealnickdanger on 11/8/2007 9:31:19 AM , Rating: 5
I'm pretty sure that if this offers 100Mbps, it will crush FIOS. However, broadband companies will likely just withhold this technology to people that want to pay through the nose for it: upper crust, businesses, ubernerds.

BTW, the Enzo Ferarri is not supercharged, it's just an amazing NA V-12.


RE: way to go
By ted61 on 11/8/07, Rating: 0
RE: way to go
By LogicallyGenius on 11/10/2007 12:23:57 AM , Rating: 1
now the capitalist morons cant argue to charge more for research in internet speeds.


RE: way to go
By Polynikes on 11/8/2007 12:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
I got excited hearing about this, but you're right, this is capitalism; the telcos will have to charge more for faster speed. I'll pay for it if the price is right.

Sounds like this will make cable internet the new dial-up. Cheaper and a lot slower.


RE: way to go
By Oregonian2 on 11/8/2007 2:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
May be great stuff, but comments are a bit overdone.

1. There has been DSL technologies available that will do over 50-MBps for a long time. Just isn't implemented/used. Some only do it over shorter lines, but some are pretty fast over long lines as well.

2. Verizon is starting to install G-PON for FiOS. It's download speed is 2.4 Gbps and upload 1.2 Gbps and gets split up to 32 ways I think it was (it's split passively, the 'P' in PON so there's a limit on the number of splits). Remember that FiOS also is made to deliver a different HDTV signal channel to each house on the trunk, in addition to internet service and apparently other services they have in mind to roll out later. So they've some headroom -- but aren't going to cut their other revenue streams.

3. Advantage of copper pairs is that it's already there. Disadvantage is that often it's been there for a LONG time. The copper infrastructure apparently has relatively high maintenance compared to fiber. If it gets wet, it's bad -- fiber doesn't care. No crosstalk to even have to mathematically remove (and I suspect there are some assumptions in his algorithm that may not fully met in real systems).

4. All of these discussions are just the "last mile" link. From the central office (or not even there, perhaps in a neighborhood DSAM box) it's all shared resources (for internet service) and their OC-xx trunks probably won't be 100% dedicated to that one service (probably has the lowest QoS setting for that matter).


RE: way to go
By TwistyKat on 11/9/2007 10:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
For a second I thought you were referring to Enzo from Mainframe.


RE: way to go
By TomZ on 11/8/2007 9:39:49 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
This has to blow FiOS away, too, would it not?

The benefit of this invention is that it uses existing copper pairs that are already run to nearly every building in the country. FiOS, on the other hand, requires new, costly fiber runs. After all, those costs are the only thing that keeps us all from having fiber run to all of our homes and businesses today.

So yes, it could blow away FiOS, for that reason alone.


RE: way to go
By Blight AC on 11/8/2007 10:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it uses the existing copper... sure, but the network equipment connected to that copper will most likely need to be upgraded, and the current backbones will need to be upgraded as well to handle that kind of speed, so it's not a free speed boost for Telco's to give to their customers, but still cheaper then a Fiber Optic switch. Although Fiber Optic is the future anyhow, so Verizon is future proofing by going Fiber now. This new tech will help DSL providers in low profit areas (Rural and farm communities), where they can't afford to provide fiber to the door, to stay competitive.

And as far as blowing FiOS away.. I doubt it, once DSL providers get the infrastructure with the new technology to get to FiOS speeds, Verizon will just double FiOS speeds easily.


RE: way to go
By baseball43v3r on 11/8/2007 11:05:10 AM , Rating: 1
if i remember correctly werent the cable companies given like something along the lines (no pun intended) of 25 Billion dollars to run fiber throughout the company and then pass that savings on to the consumer? but like all things with the cable companies they pretend like that money never existed and that their service is just a courtesy and not a neccessity.


RE: way to go
By TomZ on 11/8/2007 11:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, of course the upgraded DSL would require cards in the central office (just like DSL does now), but those can be installed on a customer-by-customer basis (investment is immediately paid for), and it is relatively cheap to bring a high-speed link to the backbone into a central office.

The other problem with Fios is that it has relatively little coverage. Verizon projects they will have 7 million households covered (not actual customers) by 2010, out of a total of about 115 million households in the US. That means that just 6% of the US is covered by their service. And that is with a projected $18B in investment - that's "B" as in billion - which works out to about $2500/household - not cheap!

For the other 94%, i.e., the rest of us, a quick upgrade to next-gen DSL could be the ticket to Fios-type speeds.


RE: way to go
By Blight AC on 11/8/2007 11:48:23 AM , Rating: 2
Well right, for the majority of folks who don't have FiOS and only especially for those that only have DSL, this will be a boon.

I was mainly referring to where DSL is in competition with FiOS. While Verizon is paying through the nose to upgrade to FiOS now, it will payoff as the technology is pretty future proof.

Copper on the other hand is showing it's age, the new discovery will however, breathe new life into it. Course.. if they can get reliable 100 MB connections on Copper, perhaps it's not as obsolete as Verizon would like us to believe.. especially for the folks Verizon is providing FiOS too, as they are removing the old copper (to reuse or sell to reduce the overall cost of installing FiOS).


RE: way to go
By euclidean on 11/8/2007 12:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The other problem with Fios is that it has relatively little coverage. Verizon projects they will have 7 million households covered (not actual customers) by 2010, out of a total of about 115 million households in the US. That means that just 6% of the US is covered by their service. And that is with a projected $18B in investment - that's "B" as in billion - which works out to about $2500/household - not cheap!


Ya, it's not Cheap, but they do still offer speeds for the same or cheaper price in all of the areas they're at. So it's very inticing for more people to jump on board, and with each new person, the total cost Verizon paid is going down bit by bit. I don't know about you but most people I know have been switching to FIOS and getting off of Comcast and Charter to be with a cheaper inet/tv solution. Also, FIOS literally is like a fire hydrant....depending on how much you want to let through you just have to open the valve more. They could easily uncap their speeds to 100mb/100mb and not even flinch. But if they did that now for the price they could get sued for trying to make a "Monopoly"...

But all in all, Verizon could you use this same technology on their existing Phone/DSL network and not even flinch. Hi capacity FIOS in town, Comparable speeds in rural/farm locations....I don't think this would hurt them much at all.


RE: way to go
By Screwballl on 11/8/2007 9:59:25 AM , Rating: 1
Remember, they are talking by 100x.. so in the case of DSL, this means increasing that 512k line to around 50Mb which puts it within competition level of cable for most areas. Cable has the capability of somewhere around 30-60Mb depending on location.


RE: way to go
By drebo on 11/8/2007 11:05:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to know where the hell you live that your cable gets 30-60mbit.

For me, both cable and DSL cap out at 6mbit.


RE: way to go
By Korvon on 11/8/2007 11:29:43 AM , Rating: 3
The DOCSIS 3 spec (new cable modems) can reach speeds up to 160mbits. Now weather your cable company wants to give you that much or not is up to them. Current DOCSIS 2 modems max out at 30mbits. Shaw cable here in canada has a top tier service that is 25mbits. $99/month though.


RE: way to go
By drebo on 11/8/07, Rating: 0
RE: way to go
By wordsworm on 11/8/2007 12:01:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This has to blow FiOS away, too, would it not?

I think it's on par with direct fiber. That's the speed they get in S. Korea anyways. DVD downloaded in 5 minutes anyone?

I'm certainly not on the same wavelength as this guy, but I can't help but wonder why the same theories wouldn't apply to FiOS as well.


RE: way to go
By ajfink on 11/8/2007 12:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure it has to deal with interference of the particular implementation of ADSL over copper. I don't think fiber has such problems. Either way, fiber is really only limited by the electronics on each side and what speeds they can deliver.

Makes me wonder about digital cable / cable network connections, as well.


RE: way to go
By Reflex on 11/8/2007 12:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
Because this is a method of reducing crosstalk, which is when frequencies in one copper line interfere with frequencies in another copper line in the same bundle. Fiber however does not use frequencies, it uses light pulses, and there is zero interference, so algorithms that reduce frequencies are not helpful in that scenerio since it solves a problem that already does not exist.


RE: way to go
By winterspan on 11/9/2007 3:02:52 AM , Rating: 2
I think we all know what you meant to say, but jesus.. you sound like a damn retard. I can't really comprehend how you ended up using the word "frequencies" for electrical current? Yes, that electrical current that is traveling over the copper pair is modulated at a certain frequency, but your use of the word is just plain odd. Alas, you are "correct", in that fiber optic cable does not suffer from the electrical interference /crosstalk/induction that copper lines do....


RE: way to go
By scrapsma54 on 11/8/2007 12:37:51 PM , Rating: 1
Airecomm is faster the FIOS. It's just expensive. It can go up to 60Mbps. Airecomm uses a satellite to transfer data. It has the same fidelity as XM and Sirus so it is certainly fast.


RE: way to go
By Etsp on 11/8/2007 1:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
If they use Geosynchronous satellites then the latencies are also at minimum 1/2 of a second, are probably dependent on weather, and possibly require costly fees to re-align in case of extreme weather conditions causing the antenna to move.


RE: way to go
By lumbergeek on 11/8/2007 1:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. And it's not faster than FIOS. FIOS is deliberately limited by the ISP, it could easily do 10GB/s, it doesn't for commercial reasons not technical ones.


RE: way to go
By trisct on 11/8/2007 4:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that, but because of the way most TCP connections work the latency works against available bandwidth too. Unless the satellite company dedicates special hardware to correcting the situation for EACH customer, TCP-IP only allows 3 packets in-flight at the same time. With high latency that limits a socket connection over satellite you can only get about 200K per second, maximum, regardless of the channel size.


RE: way to go
By Etsp on 11/8/2007 10:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
Many satellite connections "cheat" by somehow pre-acknowledging packets. I'm not exactly sure how it works, it's just what I've been told. I work in a satellite internet company and I often see download speeds in excess of 1mb, so at least my particular company seems to have gotten around that limitation.


RE: way to go
By winterspan on 11/9/2007 3:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
Um... yeah he said 200K as in kilobytes = 1.6 Mbps. That's more than the highest speed I ever saw when I was using DirecPC/Hughes. And as he and others said, the latency is ABSOLUTELY MISERABLE. My average ping times were around 850ms-1000ms... totally rotten. It was unique back in the mid 90's when 400kbps down blew away a 56k modem. (the older systems were only 1-way.. had to use a dialup for the uplink)
When they went two way the uploads went to 150-300kbps but the latency was even worse. All in all, a pretty bad experience once cable and DSL service started rolling out in the late 90's and early 2000's. I wouldn't recommend it to ANYONE.


Verizon FIOS meet ADSL part 2
By BruceLeet on 11/8/2007 9:23:36 AM , Rating: 2
Who knows if it will ever make it to the states? lol the article says he has been offered and taken a job in the united states, of course it will come there, upto ISP's to adopt it which is most likely

Another thought, these speeds are definately faster than Verizons FIOS, but will it be cheaper? IMO Yes, but maybe he will come up with something for FIOS aswell.

Bruce




RE: Verizon FIOS meet ADSL part 2
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/8/07, Rating: -1
RE: Verizon FIOS meet ADSL part 2
By OrSin on 11/8/2007 10:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
No.
The algorithms reduce cross talk and in fiber thats not existant. The real break through is not only speed but distant. DSL has been great limited by the distanct from the hub. With this dsl distanst can be increased 5 fold. That mean no new wireing is needed for alot area.


RE: Verizon FIOS meet ADSL part 2
By daemoth on 11/8/2007 11:05:54 AM , Rating: 2
Photons speed has nothing to do with why Fiber beats Copper. When you send signals over Copper, the information itself propogates along the wire at really really really close to the speed of light (under optimal conditions). Copper has issues with EM interference, temperature, etc. that make it much harder to achieve high speeds. Photons inside an enclosed tube essentially have a lot less 'outside' factors to screw it up. Sounds like the new algorithms deal with copper's interference issues.


RE: Verizon FIOS meet ADSL part 2
By Squidward on 11/8/2007 11:10:07 AM , Rating: 3
exactly, fiber wouldn't benefit from this technology at all, the algorithms intent is to overcome interference inherent with copper.


RE: Verizon FIOS meet ADSL part 2
By Blight AC on 11/8/2007 11:06:13 AM , Rating: 2
The only thing keeping FiOS "slow" is Verizon. They put out a package that is THE answer to high speed internet to blow away the competition, but only went as far as they feel they needed to. If there is competition that starts to compete with their FiOS speed, they'll just bump it up for that area.

Allow DSL to compete at this level will be good for the consumer.


By SavagePotato on 11/8/2007 11:06:53 AM , Rating: 2
Fios is most likely "slow" because the companies are capping it at what they feel is enough. Or simply do not have the bandwidth themselves to feed that much to individual customers.

The isp's pipe is only so wide and that allows them to either limit what they give, or spend more for a bigger pipe. We all know how much companies like Verizon or Comcast love to spend money on their customers.

When it comes to 100 or 200 meg dsl, the same issue will remain. Don't look for a company like verizon to put out a 200 meg dsl connection that roasts their fios service. They will simply cap connections at far less than what fios does wile still offering a bit of a boost.


By notfeelingit on 11/8/2007 1:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the real benefit of fiber is its resistance to interference. Electricity over copper propagates at the speed of light, minus a small factor for the inertial mass of the electrons in the wire. This has little to no effect on the bandwidth you receive.


Wouldn't mind super speed at low prices
By rpgman1 on 11/8/2007 11:53:58 AM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't mind mind cheap DSL at high speeds. Japan and S. Korea have already done theirs and are now experimenting with gigabit broadband speeds with FiOs. The ISPs in the US are monopolies giving us low speeds at high prices. Everything costs money, but let's hope the Democrats will implement a broadband standard for high speed Internet since the money seems to spent on the war and them first. Western Europe also seems to enjoy the high speed at low costs as well. The US is still far behind and we're 13th place overall in terms of broadband speed and Internet per household.




RE: Wouldn't mind super speed at low prices
By TomZ on 11/8/2007 12:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
let's hope the Democrats will implement a broadband standard for high speed Internet

No, thanks. It's hard to imagine something that government could do that would either (a) not be a complete handout of large amounts taxpayer dollars to large companies, or (b) regulation of the market that will have a bad long-term effect.

I'm all for pro-competition regulation, e.g., anti-trust, but regulation beyond that is not something that the government has a history of not doing effectively.


By TomZ on 11/8/2007 12:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
sorry, I meant "...has a history of doing effectively."


RE: Wouldn't mind super speed at low prices
By Ringold on 11/8/2007 2:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's hard to imagine something that government could do that would either (a) not be a complete handout of large amounts taxpayer dollars to large companies, or (b) regulation of the market that will have a bad long-term effect.


Agreed. It'd be almost impossible, due to the corrupt way in which Congress operates, to pass a clean piece of legislation that somehow fairly spurs competition and boosts the performance of the internet. This applies to both parties.

The only likely outcome even of an attempt would be higher prices paid for by the government, marginally better performance for some and worse service for others, and rampant political kick-backs in an industry that thus far isn't horribly mired in them already. Military Industrial Complex Cost-Plus Contracting meets Internet Backbone.

I can see the title of a post-apocalyptic movie of 2020 being produced after such Democratic action had been in place for while: "The Day the Government Rationed World of Warcraft".

I don't know why people have a knee-jerk "Uncle Sam, please help me!" reaction to something like this; was Dr. Pap a unionized government hack pulling down a comfortable federal salary? Nope. Is Verizon, the only one thus far even trying to do something interesting, a government Fannie Mae style agency? Nope. Google the result of government action? Not even close. We have the internet connections we do now in spite of government regulation, not because of it.

The government is not the solution to any and all problems, folks.


By winterspan on 11/9/2007 3:31:23 AM , Rating: 2
You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. First of all, ignoring the absolute anti-competitive nature of the telecom situation in this country, A true national broadband strategy COULD be a great thing.

The only area of this country making progress in broadband are the smaller municipal fiber networks going up around the country. There are small towns of 10,000 people with GPON fiber networks at 1.2GBPS!! I'm not suggesting that the government would actually create and run a network infrastructure, what I am suggesting is that they dump a bunch of money into the private sector to have it done which would otherwise go to the totally irrational spending that goes on today. A large outlay for national infrastructure a GREAT boon to the economy and America's competitiveness in the world just as the original freeway system was 50 years ago!

Unfortunately, when the states tried this individually, citizens were taxy payers were outright defrauded by telecom and cable companies. Over a period of almost a decade, over $100 Billion was given out to a handful of companies in the form of tax breaks and other incentives to build out a next generation network. Over time through buyouts and mergers, and politicians and committee's changing, NOTHING was accomplished and the money basically disappeared. Sounds outrageous? YES IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. And NOT ONE PERSON was prosecuted and NOT ONE COMPANY was fined. Truly unbelievable.

Now with the type of leadership that comes out of Washington these days, we may have to focus on a plan that is much less ambitious. What we really need is a democratic president (hopefully Obama as he is committed to net neutrality) who will appoint the proper FCC commissioners and set an agenda towards telecommunications reform to break up the virtual monopoly and anti-competitive market we have now. A small amount of well-placed regulation could go A LONG WAY towards resolving our broadband problem.

I encourage anyone who is interested in this issue to do some research on the internet. There are plenty of knowledgeable resources to be found. Start with this excellent write-up:

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction...


The sad thing is....
By FITCamaro on 11/8/07, Rating: 0
RE: The sad thing is....
By michal1980 on 11/8/2007 9:36:31 AM , Rating: 2
the biggest problem With american speeds are size, age, and mixtures of networks.

being one of the first countries to have all the wiring put down, means theres alot of old copper everywhere, connected to alot of old equipment.


RE: The sad thing is....
By RedAlice on 11/8/2007 10:25:54 AM , Rating: 2
OoOoH. Old Copper...

quote:
Copper thieves grow more brazen as cost of metal rises
'People can get killed,' Xcel says after crooks try to saw into electrical lines


All right.


RE: The sad thing is....
By lumbergeek on 11/8/2007 1:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
Let people get killed if they're trying to steal copper electrical lines. Darwin at work.


RE: The sad thing is....
By geddarkstorm on 11/8/2007 1:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
They usually aren't that dumb. We caught people stealing all the copper piping out of our neighbor's house right after they moved out to leave it vacant. Besides, if you want the electrical wires, just throw the main circuit breaker and you're good to go.


next!
By lumbergeek on 11/8/2007 1:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
Ok Doc, now can you work on methods and application for extending the distance from a node that ADSL signals can travel? Perhaps extending into the 20 mile range?

For those of us who live a bit more distant from town, such a thing could be a real boon to connectivity! My WiMAX is good, but competition never hurt!




RE: next!
By aos007 on 11/8/2007 2:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually this research should already address your issue. It should increase the speed for people who can use it now, and allow people who couldn't use it because they live too far to hop on board. Too much interference (low signal/noise ratio) is the main reason you can't use ADSL if you're 5km or more away from the central office (used to be 5km 10 years ago, no idea what it's now).

That's my understanding at least, I haven't read the paper but I probably will as I'm interested in what he did.


Chop Chop
By SavagePotato on 11/8/2007 3:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
That is one bad picture, the guy looks like an evil axe murderer.




RE: Chop Chop
By BruceLeet on 11/9/2007 9:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
It actually looks like a pictures someone would have for their Myspace or Facebook hahaha


It's Sylar
By saechaka on 11/8/2007 4:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
be careful guys. he's really sylar in disguise.




RE: It's Sylar
By SavagePotato on 11/8/2007 5:23:00 PM , Rating: 1
A very greasy Greek version of sylar.


Now thats impressive
By darkpaw on 11/8/2007 9:05:55 AM , Rating: 2
It's nice to see some research like this that will be able to brought to market quickly. This guy definately has my respect if he can figure out the math to solve these issues.

100Mbps over copper phone lines? I'd love to see that.




New DSL provider....
By Screwballl on 11/8/2007 10:34:05 AM , Rating: 2
Comcast has announced a new partnership to bring new 50Mb DSL connections to many new locations. They announce new controls that will allow revocation of the high speed algoritm if that connection is found to be sending spam, viruses or using a file sharing program. This will essentially limit their connection to the pre-algorithm state of 320-512k.

/end partial sarcasm/




FIOS
By mackintire on 11/8/2007 10:35:27 AM , Rating: 2
FIOS has two major benefits.

The fact that it can sustain higher speeds. Way higher than 100mbps if need be AND the maintenance costs are much lower.

So if this makes DSL feasable it may slow down the installation of fiber but it will not stop the roll out of fiber.




Why just ADSL?
By jaybuffet on 11/8/2007 10:48:12 AM , Rating: 2
Could this be applied to ethernet, cable, or even sdsl?




By wetwareinterface on 11/8/2007 9:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
dsl line speed COULD benefit from this IF crosstalk and or interference is the issue AND if it isn't crosstalk from another digital signaling source like dsl or t1.

there are several issues that would make a T1 or another dsl line's crosstalk negate any benefits of an algo to seperate noise from intended signal. one being emf phase cancellation. T1 lines use signalling in the 1 MHz and above range that, when it produces emf crosstalk, will negate the dsl signal to below operable levels. it's the basic electrical or sound wave principle that take any signal 180 degrees out of phase and reapply it to the original signal and you have no signal. T1 line radiation causes dsl to go out not from signal to noise ratio issues but the signal strength itself drops due to phase cancellation. before any signal can be noise filtered using an adsl modem/dslam's dsp chip the signal has to be there to interpret first. digital line emf issues that make most adsl installs fail in metro areas are from high concentrations of T1 lines in cable bundles. this tech won't help metro area dsl subscribers much at all.

next issue is long line subscribers. problem here is that to get long telephone lines out to rural areas there are coils placed on the phone lines. these increse impedance in order to reduce capacitance so the phone will still signal over long lines. as far as dsl is concerned 1 coil on the line = no adsl for you. so this isn't going to do anything for rural or long line subscriber access. another problem is timimg on long lines. the adsl signal needs a sync rate that is hampered beyond line feet of 25,000. after that length you are looking at maybe 512Kb if you are on a perfect copper pair of around 18 guage wire. and just so you know that is never gonna happen except for maybe 10 customers in the whole u.S.

this will only benefit those existing dsl subscribers who have non-digital interfernce that causes a high noise margin. basically if you can get adsl now at any speed rate and don't live in timbuktu it will be able to increase your speed. otherwise it won't help you much at all.




By Neophyte1980 on 11/10/2007 8:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
The state of broadband here in the UK is an absolute disaster thanks to British Telecom. There are so many places that still have steel wire lines as opposed to copper wire. Our average download speed on an "up to 8Mb" package barely reaches above 4Mb and we usually get a dire 512Kb upload speed with 8Mb "broadband".

I'm one of the lucky people who live in a cable enabled area so I have 20Mb broadband but still only 768Kb upload! That costs me £37 per month which to be honest is quite expensive. I want the best though so that's the price I'm willing to pay.

The british government urgently needs to step in and invest in the infrastructure of this country. It was left entirely to BT for far too long and they are still surrently the only company in charge of this country's phone lines. FiOS will always remain a pipe dream for this backwards s***hole. We don't even have a proper 3G/WCDMA cell phone service up and running yet! The operator I'm with switched on the 3G signal in my city barely 12 months ago.

Poorer eastern european countries have much better broadband services than the UK, a lot of it down to drastically higher upload speeds. Welcome to the dark ages, welcome to not-so-Great Britain.




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki