[funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)

Matthew F. Ringel ringel at net.tufts.edu
Tue Mar 13 17:08:54 UTC 2007

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:34:12PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu 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.


[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

More information about the NANOG mailing list