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

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.

							.....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