Talk:ADSL

message: The Suppliers section seems to be very short. I will be adding more Suppliers of ADSL/DSL services. Ishmael Rufus 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provider Section 

message: The spectrum breakdown is not entirely accurate in this article. CAP did allocate spectrum the way that the diagram indicates it, but DMT doesn't - it defines 247 (from memory - this figure might be a bit out) subchannels, each of which can be either upstream or downstream (dynamically).
--DaveSymonds 06:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spectrum allocation not quite right 

message: Out of interest, how does ADSL affect faxes? can you send or receive a fax on an ADSL line? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A fax is just a low-speed modem, so it uses the voice band. This band is protected by a splitter from the DSL signal. Biot 09:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I though. Cheers Biot! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faxes 

message: ADSL is a syncronous protocol at the lowest data layer. Amusingly enough, it runs ATM (async transfer mode) on top of this layer, but it still used syncronised clocks at the sending and receiving end.
:That is, I think, true of most layers atop which ATM runs. Guy Harris 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asynchronous 

message: "Upstream rates start at 64 kbit/s and typically reach 256 kbit/s but can go as high as 1024 kbit/s."  Is this also true for ADSL2 and ADSL2+?  Or do they allow higher upstream rates? --ozzmosis 10:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upload speeds 

message: I was wondering, if its approriate to mention that the shift from ATM backbone networks to Ethernet is also because of the future possibilities of using the same backbone network for other services like POTS or mobile phone networks?
..."or lower signal to noise (SNR)ratios"...
Shouldn't this be lower Signal to Noise Ratios(SNR)?
Cruxit 15:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADSL backbone network 

message: CarlosRibeiro 17:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating ADSL and DSL entries 

message: Hello
Is it correct to describe it as a digital technology since it modulates analogue carriers?
Thanks
I.I.A —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.130.120.24 (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it an analogue or digital technology? 

message: The page here states the download speed is 28mbit, but the [[ITU G.992.5 Annex M] page says 24mbit... which is it? 125.236.153.184 09:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annex M 

message: Reading  I think it means this article is incorrectly capitalised, while Digital subscriber line is correctly titled.  Does anyone agree that only the first word should be capitalized?  Disagree?  Think both styles are correct for their respective article?  Jim.henderson 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: My USR router specs says that with S=1/2, it can do 12Mbps, up from 8. What does S=1/2 mean and how does it extend the download speed? Any info appreciated, cheers! 84.9.32.226 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S=1/2?

message: Feel free to add an ADSL column to the OFDM#OFDM system comparison table. Mange01 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OFDM system comparison table 

message: I came to this page to find out when ADSL was invented and rolled out. If someone knows, can they add it to the article? It would also be good to know who invented it. exterminator 11:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I came here hoping to find a definitive answer, because Verizon's claims make no sense ("768 kbit/s DSL is 21 times faster than 56k dialup").  768/56 == 13 which is nowhere near Verizon's claim.  (It's even less when you consider 56K modems use compression to increase effective thoughput to ~150 kbps).)    I'd like to find an actual study that's not biased by salesmanship.  -  Theaveng 17:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that ADSL can run from 768Kb/s (or possibly even lower) to 6Mb/s (or possibly even higher), there isn't a single definitive answer to your question.  I've gotten 1.5Mb/s; 1500/56 = 26. Guy Harris (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Much Faster is ADSL compared to Dialup? 

message: My dialup modem uses V.44 to compress text 6-to-1 (effective throughput of 300 kbit/s) and executables like flash programs 3-to-1 (effective throughput of 150 kbit/s).  Does DSL use a similar technology to squash data on the fly?  -  Theaveng (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does DSL use V.42, V.44, or some other data compression?

message: Where in the OSI model do (A)DSL and ADSL+ fit?  In the link layer?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.251.240.114 (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: OSI Model

message: It is great to have all this tech info about the range of possible speeds.  But it would be good to also have a table of the most common marketed speeds.  In the US 2008 at the low end for Verizon that is 768 Kbps / 128 Kbps.  It would be interesting to see a table of the most common low-end DSL speeds current around the world, and the average price.
-69.87.200.195 (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  768Kbps 

message: The footnote for Annex L seems to be ineditable. I was one of the contributors to that bit of text, and I think it should probably be changed a bit by now, but that doesn't seem to be possible anymore, or am I missing something? KryzMasta (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just clicked on the Edit key for the table, and shortened the footnote without diffuclty.  Maybe someone fixed the problem and didn't say.  Jim.henderson (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annex L footnote 

message: What is the source for the downstream/upstream bitrates of the various modulations and annexes? The G.99* documents don't specify a theoretical maximum that I can see. Kisch (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bitrates 

message: On 3 December 2008 Mikeblas tagged this article as possibly containing original research or unverified claims. I have searched and cannot find any evidence for this, and Mikeblas has not explained his reasons on this talk page. Can anyone indicate where the possible original research is?
 On the same date Mikeblas also tagged the article as citing no references or sources. Certainly it would be good to have sources cited, but is this the reason for the original research tag too?
 The following is quoted from the Wikipedia Verifiability policy:
:This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.
It is worth noting that this refers quite explicitly to "material challenged or likely to be challenged", and does not support the view which seems to be held by many Wikipedia editors that articles must always cite references, even if the information given is quite uncontroversial.
JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research tag 

message: I have noticed that my ADSL connection slows down during a thunderstorm. I did some searching using the terms "rain slow dsl" and I discovered that there have been many cases of people complaining (on message boards)of loosing their ADSL connections due to rain and thunderstorms. I can not find any solid resources that would warrant an article edit. Anyone know of any good resources on this issue? Dreammaker182 03:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My call???  My call is that it is perfectly understandable that your ADSL signal degrades when it rains or when there is a thunderstorm - it's like when you talk on your telephone and there is a thunderstorm and you hear static - the signal degrades - why? - because ADSL is NOT digital - it is analogue - just like when you talk over the phone - the only difference that I know of is that ADSL operates well above the 20kHz frequency spectrum that humans can hear.  But it's still plain old analogue.  Thus your signal degredation.  See my entry below titled "But then why is it called Digital???"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.154.57 (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

text: If you have old external wiring, even here in Brooklyn where all other utilities are buried, cable service and phone are above-ground, dampness tends to permeate into the cable, so the longer it stays wet outside, the more likely you are to have problems, in my personal experience. It's the main reason we upgraded to cable Internet service originally, not the increase in speed (or cost!). If your service junction box is outside, it may be that the oldest phone wiring on the outside of your house is the wire that goes from the junction box to inside, if that's old, I would start with replacing that segment with cable sheathed and rated for external use and go from there. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rain and ADSL speed 

message: I realise that there is a paragraph above where somebody asked if this technology was digital or analogue - and it was never answered.  I came to the ADSL page to find that out.  It turns out that the Wiki page on ADSL does not answer this.  I'm pretty sure that ADSL is NOT digital - it is just analogue way above the 20kHz that humans can hear.  Can somebody that knows this technology STATE THAT in the first couple of sentences of this Wikipedia entry????   If not, I am going to have to do that in the next week or so - I would prefer not to do that - I am not an expert on this technology.  But I think it is not a good Wiki article if you go to ADSL and never read that "it is NOT digital - it is an ANALOGUE technology".  Please help me out here.  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.154.57 (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a digital technology.  All digital communications techniques modulate some analogue quantity (current, voltage, electromagnetic field, acoustic pressure); that doesn't make them inherently analogue.  What makes them digital is the nature of the data being communicated.  Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 09:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

text: All the above are digital transmissions on carrier wave.  You may prefer to restrict the term digital signal to only baseband signals.  In that case you will count none of the above as digital, nor will you count other carrier wave transmissions including digital television and optical fiber connections as digital.  That's your private choice; just don't confuse this private meaning with public ones.  Jim.henderson (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Short version, digital refers to the encoding of the signal independent of the transmission medium. As "on" and "off" are not infinite shades of gray (that is, a continuously varying signal), it can stand up to much more signal degradation and re-amplification during transmission without affecting decoding at the receiving end. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  But then why is it called "Digital"??????? 

message: Suggestion: A section criticisms of ADSL be added
Rationale: I have plenty of field experience of ADSL and have experienced problems personally. Where the local loop has few ADSL subscribers, the quality and reliability of service tends to be excellent. I have observed that over time, the quality of service on many lines has degraded. 
I imagine this is caused by crosstalk. Crosstalk is a well known and well defined property of wires in close proximity. 
The local loop was designed with 4Khz voice bands in mind, and with relatively few lines active at once. If the frequency is pushed from 4Khz to 138Khz (lowest downstream), the level of crosstalk for those high frequency transmissions will be orders of magnitude greater.
Local loop wiring will have a pair of wires for each subscriber, in a bundle, laid under the pavement from the local end-of-street box to the exchange. That bundle may contain hundreds of individual pairs over perhaps many miles. ADSL tends to become a victim of it's success; as more subscribers opt for ADSL, the proportion of those pairs which carry HF ADSL frequencies increases leading to the noise induced into each wire in that bundle increasing. Once saturation is reached, a new subscriber will result in an existing subscriber, further from the exchange, experience the ADSL HF noise on their line increase beyond the maximum threshold. In effect, there is a maximum number of ADSL signals which can be carried by a bundle. Those further away from the exchange will be knocked off ADSL first. A local loop bundle of wires will generally have an ADSL carrying capacity of far less than the number of phone lines carried.
The criticism so far is that of the local loop infrastructure when it applies to the ADSL coding scheme. This criticism could extend to the ADSL coding scheme as follows: 
1) Lines which can carry voice calls will often not sync an ADSL signal at all; if ADSL were more flexible in choosing upstream and downstream frequency bands, ADSL would presumably sync on very poor lines by establishing both an upstream and downstream path close to audio frequencies. If not providing broadband, at least an always-on internet service.
2) Related to 1) above, ADSL tends to fail abruptly rather than gracefully. Once noise has reduced the sync to 700Kbit, a slight increase in noise has, in my experience, broken the connection completely rather than the preferred behaviour of the system continually lowering the data rate. A better design would exploit any usable clear frequency bands the line has, to maintain some sort of bi-directional connection. Both attenuation and crosstalk-induced noise will tend to be higher at higher frequencies.
3) ADSL always noisy: Given the issues so far seem not to have been fully factored in the ADSL system design, it may be that ADSL generates a lot of HF noise on lines even when data is not being communicated. If the system tended towards minimum hf signal generation, the local loop capacity may not be limited by number of subscribers, but by data volume carried, aggregated across subscribers served by the bundle of wires. Given most ADSL modems are not transferring data at max rate 24/7, a 'quiet' ADSL system may lead to a much higher local loop capacity.
These problems could potentially be solved by re-defining the ADSL specification, and perhaps minor (if any) equipment hardware modification, to have a more flexible frequency choice and for ADSL to make less noise when not actively transferring data. Overall, the best approach would be for telecoms companies to change the topology of the local loop to terminate a line closer to the home or premises.(Fiber_to_the_x). Nick R Hill (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ADSL is a tool designed for one purpose, to wedge relatively high speed digital transmission onto an ancient infrastructure, it wasn't that long ago that our central office (built in the 30's) was upgraded. These are all good points, but,... if you were a land line provider, would you concentrate on improving digital transmission over the technology equivalent of bear skins and stone knives, or would you roll out fiber optic as quickly as possible to leapfrog traditional cable as a transmission medium to offer greatly increased signal bandwidth capacity (along with VOIP to handle your traditional "reach out and touch someone")? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of ADSL 

message: "CJ Currie Overview
CJ can run at 3MPH over a distance of 1KM, in terms of fibre hes a fat bastered"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.11 (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is abuse on the page 

message: I found it impossible to decipher this text:
"The distance from the telephone exchange  and the characteristics of the cable mean that some frequencies may not propagate well, and noise on the copper wire, interference from AM radio stations  and local interference and electrical noise at the customer end mean that relatively high levels of noise are present at some frequencies both effects the signal-to-noise ratio in some bins (at some frequencies) may be good or completely inadequate."
This part reads like a complete sentence:
"The distance from the telephone exchange  and the characteristics of the cable mean that some frequencies may not propagate well, and noise on the copper wire, interference from AM radio stations  and local interference and electrical noise at the customer end mean that relatively high levels of noise are present at some frequencies"
... but then there is this tagged on the end?
" both effects the signal-to-noise ratio in some bins (at some frequencies) may be good or completely inadequate."
Perhaps this could be re-worded or split into two or more sentences for better expression of the intended meaning.
Thanks.
--86.186.216.130 (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully better English now. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation 

message: So if I understand the article correctly, the DSL signal and the phone signal use the same wires in e.g. an RJ-12 cable? 75.121.7.160 (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cables, splitters? 

message: Additions in this edit appear purely reflective based on opinions formed from personal knowledge. Unlike hard facts, soft theories are like philosophy and are subject to interpretation and the editor provided no attribution to reliable sources to support his theory. It is a free write up off his mind and we're not a political banter box. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflective essay spurt offing 

message: Surely, users send URLs to websites and email.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.133.212 (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  the only uploaded data is that used for the purpose of verifying the receipt of the downloaded data or any data inputted by the user into forms etc.

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved per request.  Favonian (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Asymmetric digital subscriber line →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:ACROTITLE. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 November 2022