Talk:DSL modem

message: Its curious that broadband modems are never add-in cards - dial-up cards are ubiquitous. I assume they exist but I cannot find even one. Is there a technical reason for this or is it just that the market prefers external boxes?--ChrisJMoor 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some internal ones were sold around the turn of the century but were discontinued for reasons of versatility and diversity.  First, not every DSL modem works with every line; to be sure you have to use the one that your telco provides for your line.  Second, not every DSL line has only one computer.  I think the companies should have handled this better, allowing multiple modems to share a phone line and all compatible so the modem could be an internal part of the computer and not require the wall wart and Ethernet cable that add to the opportunities for consumers to install wrong.  Now it's probably too late to use these advantages against the CATV companies.  Jim.henderson 04:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also all the testing I have done tends to suggest that internal DSL modems suffer terribly from the speeds of the computer. Both PCI and USB are poor cousins compared to Eth based connections. (I have links to detailed analysis of why on my site, but I don't think that is an unbiased reference now is it!). --Adslgeek (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Eh?  In my BBS operator days I used external modems, but my callers almost all used internal ones.  Look at the computer shelf of any consumer electronics shop in the past decade, and almost all have an internal voiceband modem.  Voiceband modems sold separately are still sometimes external ones, but most are offered as computer parts inside the case, same as the Ethernet and video ports, rather than as accessories as monitors and mice are.  Yes, it's a marketing decision and not completely uniform, but it is usual.  Jim.henderson (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Broadband modem never in add-in card format?

message: I am requesting this page be moved back to "DSL modem." This is by far the common name for this device. The article uses the term "DSL modem" except for the introduction. The discussion above does not seem to support the move that was made, yet it happened anyway. it should be moved back.--agr 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  "DSL modem" is (1) term by which most users call it, (2) more precise than "transceiver", and (3) technically correct.  Jim.henderson 16:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't more correct, Modems are for analog to digital (and vice versa) connections, and CSU/DSU's or transceivers are for digital to digital. Mobus 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what sense is the phone line signal of some other gadget "analog", and the phone line signal of the present gadget not "analog"?    Jim.henderson 00:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Can someone find out what each of the  on the image relate to? This could really be of assistance to the article.
Jaybest (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of modem  on diagram? 

message: I have added to "confs" to allow the ignorant (read 'me'!) to know what is being said. But the sentence still reads "The confs (configuration files) generally to open a browser, type the DSL modem's LAN IP address in the browser's address bar, and then press 'Enter'." I don't know how the sentence should read, but it is not a true sentence as it stands, and is hard to understand. Would the knowledgeable please correct it? Thx.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloucks (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity in the "Comparison to voice-band modems" section, bullet 4 

message: I'd like to see the distinction between modem and router be made more clear. It was confusing to me to come to this page and then most of it is talking about a router. My network setup, as done by BT, has *two* boxes - one is a modem and the other is a router. It is clear (to me) that they serve different purposes. Having said that, it is pretty clear to me that it is difficult to find a modem on the consumer market that isn't integrated with a router. However, the 'better' routers don't ever seem to have a modem built in, so quite how we're supposed to use them with DSL connections I'm not sure...but that's sort of beside the point, which is, this article should be just about the modem, and perhaps a short mention that they're usually integrated with routers, and link to a page on routers.
Davidmaxwaterman (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a page on routers.  Explaining DSL again on that page would make it very long.  It makes sense to me to keep all the DSL stuff on one page.  As you say, the combination DSL modem/router is the more common type of box.    Why not add a section here describing a standalone DSL modem?  --ChetvornoTALK 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "ADSL" should be introduced into the name, as I think "DSL" is the WP:COMMONNAME used for the device, but I wouldn't object to changing the name to DSL router if that name is most widely used. But is it?  It seems to me that most sources call it a "DSL modem and router" or "DSL modem/router"    The device is actually a DSL modem combined with a router, so the hybrid term "DSL router" is a little misleading for introductory readers.  We already have an article for routers, this article focuses on the DSL modem part, and as Davidmaxwaterman says there are standalone DSL modems, so it seems to make most sense to me to keep this article "DSL modem", it's primary topic, and explain in the intro that most (but not all) DSL modems are combined with routers.  --ChetvornoTALK 18:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any domestic DSL kit is extremely rare, it's ADSL instead. Nor are any of them gateways (for some years). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modem vs router 

message: I have removed some modem-specific content from Digital subscriber line because it was not well cited and is dated. If someone thinks this material should be retained, I would suggest it be restored to this article instead. ~Kvng (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initialization