Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (ASCEND) xDSL limitations
No, it was the ill effects of crosstalk on 2B1Q coding in general that
suggested ADSL and RADSL as preferable in noisy environments for high speed
transmission. IDSL and HDSL/SDSL are 80K baud, I believe, with analog
stepping to increase the number of bits per baud. ADSL and RADSL use CAP
which is lower frequency and incorporates both phase shifting and analog
stepping to get still more bits per baud. With ADSL, the customer sends
fewer steps per baud than the telco so that the attenuated signal is less
susceptible to noise in the telco CO. With 2B1Q coding, both ends send the
same number of steps and, therefore, the attenuated signal from the
customer is more effected by noise at the telco CO than R/ADSL.
My problem is that my MAX is sitting 5000 feet outside the telco CO with
the customer another 8,200 feet on the other side of the CO. The
attenuated caused by that 5000 feet makes the noise at the telco CO a
serious issue. Together with crosstalk from the AMI encoded T1's in the
same physical bundle, it simply doesn't work.
--Tony
----------
> From: Christopher Davies <mcd@min.net>
> To: Tony Ray <Tony@turbonet.com>
> Subject: Re: (ASCEND) xDSL limitations
> Date: Wednesday, October 08, 1997 11:18 AM
>
> actually, the arguments that Paradyne listed are for ADSL and RADSL....
> and are not involved when talking IDSL or HDSL/SDSL loops.
>
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd: <http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>