North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:34:12PM -0400, [email protected] wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:45:07 -0000, "Chris L. Morrow" said: > > If there were then I bet $TELCO || $CABLECO would drop prices and speed up > > links... since there isn't I think we're all lucky we're not still using a > > 110baud coupler modem :) > > OK, what drove the improvement from the 110 baud backwater to today's US > backwater? And what evidence is there that the same driver won't continue > to push? The reason that we were able to get from 110b aud to V.92 without active cooperation from $TELCO was because $TELCO didn't have to do anything to make it happen. The extant copper pair was (mostly) good enough for technology to advance "at the ends" for quite a while. Similarly, since this was all done over the voice network, $TELCO didn't have to actively cooperate in moving the data along, beyond what they'd do for any other phone call. DSL[1] and DOCSIS require active cooperation from the carrier. Ergo, tech advancement in the carrier-assisted data transport arena is dependent on the carrier cooperating. .....Matthew [1] except for "alarm circuits" that somehow got repurposed for point-to-point DSL circuits (or T1s, for that matter), in which case you're back to tech advancement happening in the CPE, not the medium. -------------- Matthew F. Ringel Sr. Network Engineer Tufts University
|