100 Mbps Could Finally Be Possible on DSL Lines

Great news for us here in Canada where DSL is the only option for unlimited bandwidth services. Especially now that netflix is here.

Technology based on a 19th century invention, possibly becoming the future of internet communications?

WHAT.

And here I am, sitting on my 30Mbps cable connection. I seriously never thought DSL could ever be improved, but I am proven wrong. :x

Certainly takes the wind out of the sails for the Google Fiber Project; now 1,000 cities who applied for and will not not be selected for Google Fiber have a very handsome alternative.

Ahh but DSL has a limit to how far away from the telco you can be. Fiber can be run for much longer distances and only needs a small local relay to hit a whole area.

It is amazing how much they are now getting out of 60 year old post World War 2 coax and decades old fiber only to charge a premium for it. I highly resent the idea of bandwidth caps.

just let dsl die already geez

No no, DSL just fine for the average joe. It's dial up thats needs to die (yes i still know to many people still on it.)

DSL is fine were I live, I get 7Mb/s constant speed at unlimited bandwidth. Although I like the Idea of having a 100Mb/s connection!

+1. Don't forget IE6!

Anyways, I'm really pissed that they haven't provided this kind of speeds in the US much earlier. There is no real technical reason that prevented them. On to Fiber I say! Much more reliable and more future proof. Japan, China, India, Korea is far ahead of the US in terms of Fiber adoption.

I'm with you. I have an 8mb connection (terrible upload though). But, my DSL is extremely dependable. Cable is about 1.25x faster here, but twice as expensive as DSL if you don't carry their horrid cable TV service. The internet at my buddy's house goes out every time a thunderstorm rolls through. He calls and they are "upgrading the lines" in his area, lol....

I like this, if only because it may mean lower internet prices at some point. Competition is ALWAYS a good thing.

One can only hope that this technology gets accepted and takes a huge chunk out of the monopoly juggernauts that are Time Warner Cable and Comcast.

Long live the small town DSL Co-op! Competition is the only thing that truly benefits a consumer and we desperately need more competition in the broadband ISP market.

Infrastruture costs (and the people to maintain it) is the most expensive for these companies. The reason why FiOS isnt everywhere is because of return on the massive upfront investment and political pressure from cable companies.

This will be a very effective temporary bandaid until fiber is fully strung and/or over air bandwidth increases. Just remember 100mb/s seems like more than enough now... I thought my 286 16mhz with a 40mb HD would be enough computing power for 10+ years! (especially b/c it had a turbo button)

It's nice news for the millions that are stuck using DSL in North America, but honestly, we should all be investing towards replacing the lines with fiber optic cables. Competition over in Japan/South Korea between various ISPs have brought down the price of 1Gbps connections down to what we pay for a 15/30Mbps connection here in North America. Japanese users also have a very generous usage/month that is enough to satisfy even the heaviest downloaders. All this because companies had the foresight to invest in superior technology.

Great News! Cable in my area is ridiculously over priced even if you subscribe to Comcast's terrible TV(which I do not, so the cost is even higher) leaving me with 1.5mb DSL from ATT, which BTW has the worst customer service next to Best Buy I have ever encountered in my life(End Rant). Now only if ithis will be adopted and priced reasonably which is a snowballs chance in Hati.

I also agree with the others here saying that we are behind and we need to heavily invest into our fiber system, it is the future and we are lagging as with so many other things.

ADSL accounts for more than half of world's broadband subscribers..."just let ADSL die"...I just wish people would stop posting idiotic, ill informed one sentence rants...and VDSL2 is perfectly capable of 100Mbit (as long as the loop length requirements are met).
I have tried multiple cable providers and they are a far cry from the stable 30Mbit down / 3 Mbit up, 10 EURO/month no cap connection that I have now...the end.

I can get 25Mbps (though 16 average) on my cable line.
My ISP (Shaw Canada) has fibre lines, but only shares those with governments and business.

The theoretical bandwidth of fibre optic lines is downright amazing, and could last us far longer than these copper lines. The investment needs to be made. I'm certainly not paying $60/month for a 20 year old chunk of copper cable, am I?

When you say "We" should invest in fiber, You realize its hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars, the "Telco" has to invest into these fibre lines. and to add it to existing houses that already have underground lines run to them, its a very expensive process to replace all these "working" copper lines with new fiber lines.

Yes and to think that us here in Australia are paying $2000 per person ($43 Billion) to get optic fibre to every home. And get guess what speeds, 100Mbps.

Labor knows how to waste our money over here.

DSL is not as bad compared to Cable as it once was. I remember back about 5 years ago when I had a 1024mbps upstream connection and it was one of the fastest for DSL. Cable at that time was around 3-4Mbps. Now companies like verizon offer 8Mbps on a DSL line. In terms of future advancement, yes , Fiber Optic is good, but it's good to see older tech to improve.

I have a problem with the article though.

"Typically DSL connections only provide around 1.5 Mbps depending on the provider and local hardware."

I think that is very misleading. At some point it was, not any more. Right now I live in a 3rd world country which is very "Anti West" etc. and I have the option of getting 4Mbps albeit at a $60 a month price. (Average earnings here is $400 a month).

I think most companies that provide DSL internet are "Typically" capable of 4-8Mbps. That's just where the tech is at right now. What the customer gets on his end is a different story as we all know, based on things like distance from the station etc.

1000Mbps, fibre to the premises. i will pay my taxes happily for this! stop thinking only of yourself, think into the future generations, will they be happy with what we did? or didn't do?

my dsl provides me with 20mbps connection and i know in some countries they have that up to 22 or 24mbps.....so its not like a jump from 1.5mbps to 100mb....1.5mb is ancient technology dsl+2 has been out for a long time

Actually, DOCSIS 3.0 allows for up to 42.88mbit per channel, and depending on how many channels your ISP supports per connection, and what kind of cablemodem your provider supports, it could be up to....theoretically lets say 42.88mbit x 8 downstream channels = 343.04mbit. Now no ISP is going to dedicate 8 data channels to a single user, but the 3.0 standard does not specify a maximum number of channels, it just specifies the per-channel speed, and that equipment must support a minimum of 4 channels. Beyond that, if the provider had the proper equipment on both ends, they could send a new config file to your modem, and give you insane speed if they wanted to.

Anything that will create competition for those blood sucking cable companies and their insane prices.

I'm happy that I finally may be able to tell Comcast, "**** off." But I can't do that until:

a) U-verse comes to my neighborhood
b) FTTP or FTTN providers come to my city and cover my house
c) This new DSL happens for my DSL provider... who also happens to also provide U-verse to neighborhoods a few blocks away from mine... hurry up, AT&T...
d) WiMax2 Unlimited comes
e) Hell freezes over
f) Comcast becomes good and provides excellent customer service at decent rate... (the least likely to happen)

I have never had a serious issue with my cable connection, it has gone down, but unplugging/plugging the power and its fixed. As for DSL, i have seen my far share of idiots disconnect it, don't know their user account info, have to call their DSL provider, wait to get a hold of someone, look for an old bill with your account number and verify it. With that said 15Mbps is more than enough bandwidth. Besides it really has more to do with the site you are going to and their upload bandwidth, if they are busy (high traffic hour), ect. Waiting for FTTP since 2003. JMO

you might want to specify which "hell" you're talking about as there is a hell that freezes every year.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hell [...] CBcQ8gEwAA

"
Cable can theoretically handle 30 Mbps however most broadband providers usually offer various packages up to 15 Mbps
"

That is so untrue. We are already using 200Mb cable connections in Finland:
http://www.welho.fi/en/homes/broadband

And uncapped, of course.

The future generations in the outback are going to thank us will they? Most people not in cities don't care and probably won't even sign up, they are just pissed that they have to pay. They watch TV and only check their emails twice a week and this won't change for a long time.

Me stop thinking about myself? How about you stop thinking about yourself in your nice big city, I'm all for the cities getting high speed internet, but in the country we are not going to use it. In 30 years we still won't need more then 20mbps.

Heres some nice plans for you, residential gets 100mbps
http://www.internode.on.net/reside [...] nbn_plans/

Not to include the monopoly the NBN will be. You don't see USA doing this even though there density is so much greater then ours.

Sounds very promising!

This article is way off on its numbers. I have a 50MB net connection here in Vegas, with 1, 3, 10, and 20MB tiers. And the DOCSIS 3.0 standard, depending on where you live, can offer 380MB (NA) or 400MB (EU) maxed out.

The DSL company, CenturyLink, offers 256KB-10MB most areas in town, and 25MB in a few select areas.

Those complaining that east Asia and such are so much farther along, look at when they built their networks, in the 80's and 90's. It is much easier to build from NOTHING, then to have to replace an entire existing architecture. Even most of Europe has the same issues we do because they've got the same type of antiquated architecture.

Eventually everyone (cable and phone companies together) wants to offer FTTU (Fiber To The User), but it takes a whole lot of money (between manpower and permits/licensing) to do so, and that is in short supply at the moment. Most places have FTTN (Fiber to the Node), and some have FTTC (Fiber to the Curb) that has proven to be not very stellar on returns as the premium for the service is pretty high, and that is not very attractive to customers at this time.

I personally don't expect FTTU in the US in my lifetime, but I do expect FTTC to be commonplace in 10-20 years. This is in the US mind you, which, as previously stated, requires a complete overhaul of 60 year old infrastructure. Other, undeveloped places might be faster to the punch.