I am only linking to another article, if you don't agree with it, go write the author.
I never pretend to know much about DSL or any of it's variations.
I can't even believe you would argue that twisted pair vs Coax. I have never heard that coax has less throughput than even twisted pair for long distances.
QAM 256 is capable of 38Mbps per 6 mhz channel. In my area they are on a 900Mhz system. That is 5.7Gbps, twisted pair that can do that is VERY expensive and limited to 100 Meters. If the existing phone network was that great then Telcos wouldn't be spending all that money to roll out fiber to the premise.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ben Drawbaugh @ Sep 16th 2006 6:30PM
I am only linking to another article, if you don't agree with it, go write the author.
I never pretend to know much about DSL or any of it's variations.
I can't even believe you would argue that twisted pair vs Coax. I have never heard that coax has less throughput than even twisted pair for long distances.
QAM 256 is capable of 38Mbps per 6 mhz channel. In my area they are on a 900Mhz system. That is 5.7Gbps, twisted pair that can do that is VERY expensive and limited to 100 Meters. If the existing phone network was that great then Telcos wouldn't be spending all that money to roll out fiber to the premise.