Jump to content
just_some_guy

Broadband: should I go cable, or naked DSL?

Recommended Posts

and traffic (so at peak times it can be very slow).

No different to ADSL.

 

Excellent post. I didn't understand the above however. Cable is a shared medium...so if everyone is downloading at the same time, there will be a noticeable slowdown...more so than if everyone is on ADSL at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you share your line back to the node, whereas ADSL gives you a private line back to the DSLAM.

 

But the pinch point it still the backhaul to the ISP's HQ. At peak times, this is generally satched well before the individual nodes will be.

 

+
		   +-------+		   +------------+
	   +---+ DSLAM +-----------+ ADSL MODEM +
	   |   +-------+		   +------------+
	   |
	   |   +-------+		   +------------+
----+  +---+ DSLAM +-----------+ ADSL MODEM +
ISP |  |   +-------+		   +------------+
BACK+--+
HAUL|  |   +-------+		   +------------+
----+  +---+ DSLAM +-----------+ ADSL MODEM +
	   |   +-------+		   +------------+
	   |
	   |   +-------+		   +------------+
	   +---+ DSLAM +-----------+ ADSL MODEM +
		   +-------+		   +------------+


		   +-------+
----+  +---+ NODE  +----------+-----------+-----------+
ISP |  |   +-------+	  +---|---+   +---|---+   +---|---+
BACK+--+				  |CBL MDM|   |CBL MDM|   |CBL MDM|
HAUL|  |   +-------+	  +-------+   +-------+   +-------+
----+  +---+ NODE  +----------+-----------+-----------+
		   +-------+	  +---|---+   +---|---+   +---|---+   
						  |CBL MDM|   |CBL MDM|   |CBL MDM|
						  +-------+   +-------+   +-------+

Edit: Yeah, theoretically it is possible for the node to become saturated, but this is due to poor network design and distribution than a fault of the technology itself. I.e. if Telstra hang too many customers off the node, there is a greater chance of the node being overloaded at peak times. But again, this is Telstra's fault, not a problem with DOCSIS.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was on Optus cable way back. Seemed fine at the time. But net usage has become so much more data intensive since then.

 

Hmmm, I can see a big coax cable running past my house. But the Telstra website says I can't have cable at my house. So it must be an Optus cable.

 

Does Optus cable access really suck in terms of price and download limits?

 

If so, I think I'll have to go ADSL 2+ or Naked DSL. I like the idea of saving on line rental by using VOIP.

 

Thanks for all the great posts above, by the way.

Edited by just_some_guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I tried that thanks. Unfortunately, but when it comes to Naked DSL and associated call costs, that wizard cant actually cope unfortunately :( I guess it reflects the complexity of bundling these days.

Edited by just_some_guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99 bucks for 25GB, then capped.

But I figure I save 30 bucks a month having no landline and using VOIP, so I reckon it's not too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine's a bit slow tonight.

 

Posted Image

 

Edit - Telstra Cable Extreme.

 

I hate you -.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the chart on whirlpool.net, I get 11 plans for SA. Not one of them is cable. There's a reason for that, cable sucks and is over priced in Australia.

 

I had cable in the USA for years with a 7GB modem. The best speeds I ever got were about 2.5MB/s, and usually nothing over 1.5MB/s with terrible fluctuation that dropped to dialup speeds. DSL will never give the same fluctuation.

 

Then I upgraded to 3GB DSL there in '99 (no caps on either). I'm not going to argue the advantages/disadvantages. ADSL speeds in Australia are limited because the lines are copper. ADSL has no 1.5mb/s limit. Australia phone lines have limits for speed and distance. ADSL on fibre is doing between 15-18MB/s down and 1.5MB up in the sticks where my kids live in the USA. Cable shmable.

 

I stick to my earlier statement. I'd never use cable again.

 

Both cable and naked DSL will work well without an activated phone line, but DSL remains by far the cheapest and best option both in Australia and the USA IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS, darklife, please research your facts before you open your trap again.

 

1. WTF is a 7GB modem?

 

2. ADSL speeds are limites in Australia because the distance between the exchanges and the houses are greater than zero. You can't get ADSL by any other method than copper. Period.

 

3. Until around 2006, the fastest ADSL connection you could get was 1.5Mbps. If your line can't sync at or above 1.5Mbps, you are (normally) deemed as ineligible for ADSL services. Soon after ADSL2+ was introduced, Telstra allowed ADSL1 connections to sync at the full speed that the line allowed.

 

4. ADSL does NOT work on fibre. At all. In NO WAY is any DSL related to fibre optic cabling. You can get high-speed Internet via fibre-to-the-home, but [A]DSL is a copper technology. Don't confuse the two. Rudd's NBN plans to deliver fibre-to-the-home.

 

5. Stop comparing Australian and Yankee Internet delivery. It's apples and pairs.

 

With every post you expose how little you know about the topic.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with iiNet NakedDSL, 100GB for $90 a month. Being but a short stroll from the Subi exchange (~700m) means pretty decent speeds:

 

18.5Mb/s

1.2Mb/s

 

Can't complain. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine's a bit slow tonight.

 

Posted Image

 

Edit - Telstra Cable Extreme.

 

I hate you -.-

 

That's OK.

I feel sorry for those who can't access these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS, darklife, please research your facts before you open your trap again.

 

1. WTF is a 7GB modem?

 

2. ADSL speeds are limites in Australia because the distance between the exchanges and the houses are greater than zero. You can't get ADSL by any other method than copper. Period.

 

3. Until around 2006, the fastest ADSL connection you could get was 1.5Mbps. If your line can't sync at or above 1.5Mbps, you are (normally) deemed as ineligible for ADSL services. Soon after ADSL2+ was introduced, Telstra allowed ADSL1 connections to sync at the full speed that the line allowed.

 

4. ADSL does NOT work on fibre. At all. In NO WAY is any DSL related to fibre optic cabling. You can get high-speed Internet via fibre-to-the-home, but [A]DSL is a copper technology. Don't confuse the two. Rudd's NBN plans to deliver fibre-to-the-home.

 

5. Stop comparing Australian and Yankee Internet delivery. It's apples and pairs.

 

With every post you expose how little you know about the topic.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you. Every time you post, you look more like an ignorant Telstra Employee. I'm not confusing anything, but you're making assumptions. Obviously I need to be more detailed for you to follow along. Only an idiot would think the phone lines are pure fiber optic. You're the one who needs to research. When I moved here and saw ADSL2+ (24MB) plan, I had to research it. I suggest you do the same for a 7GB cable modem.

 

AU and USA have always measured bandwidth differently. The reference to the fiber optic lines just shows that they aren't running 100 year old copper lines in the USA, like they are here. Other than the quality of their land lines, there is no difference from the USA to AU for broadband, or any other country in the world.

 

Almost all phone lines in the USA are now fiber optic (which means they have 2 copper wires and a sealed fiber optic wire), and have been for a number of years. I had 3MB/s down and 768 up DSL in the USA in '99, well before there was a such thing as ADSL in Australia. The USA doesn't commercially distinguish between ADSL, ADSL2, and ADSL2+, as that is Australian marketing hype. Boosters such as ADSL2 and ADSL2+ use the same technology as plain old ADSL and work on the same lines. The plans may be throttled back to insure connections for every area they service in Australia, but DSL is capable of 8MB/s without any boosters. So once again you're wrong about DSL speeds.

 

The USA also has Extreme DSL now in 17 states, which is actually "Extreme Fiber" and capable of 50MB/s. It runs on the same phone lines as DSL. That's something Australia cannot currently do as Tesltra is still replacing phone lines with copper only lines.

 

The only reason things are different in AU is because Telstra's monopoly has controlled our low quality phone lines forever. When our land line infrustracture catches up to that of other civilized nations, so will our internet speeds. Breaking up Ma Bell was the best thing the USA ever did. Australia should learn from that and break up Telstra. Competition drives prices down and technology forward. Telstra has no incentive to improve as things are.

 

Read and learn. This applies to ADSL in Australia. It's a very old article, but is more in line with your knowledge of the subject and Austalian land lines:

 

ADSL technology can provide maximum downstream (Internet to customer) speeds of up to 8 megabits per second (Mbps) at a distance of about 6,000 feet (1,820 meters), and upstream speeds of up to 640 kilobits per second (Kbps). In practice, the best speeds widely offered today are 1.5 Mbps downstream, with upstream speeds varying between 64 and 640 Kbps. Some vast improvements to ADSL are available in some areas through services called ASDL2 and ASDL2+. ASDL2 increases downstream to 12 Mbps and upstream to 1 Mbps, and ASDL2+ is even better -- it improves downstream to as much as 24 Mbps and upstream to 3 Mbps.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/dsl.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only an idiot would think the phone lines are pure fiber optic.

Point out where I said that.

 

I suggest you do the same for a 7GB cable modem.

http://www.google.com/search?q=7GB+cable+modem

 

7GB refers to the data allowance of the plan. Not the modem. lrn2read.

 

Almost all phone lines in the USA are now fiber optic (which means they have 2 copper wires and a sealed fiber optic wire), and have been for a number of years. I had 3MB/s down and 768 up DSL in the USA in '99,

Your DSL didn't come via fibre. If it came via fibre, it wasn't DSL. Your Internet connection may have come by fibre. Broadband, and fast Internet connections, don't automatically mean DSL. Once again, DSL is a copper technology.

 

well before there was a such thing as ADSL in Australia. The USA doesn't commercially distinguish between ADSL, ADSL2, and ADSL2+, as that is Australian marketing hype.

Well no, it's not "JUST" hype. They are actually separate standards. But I guess for the consumer, there's no real reason to differentiate.

 

DSL is capable of 8MB/s without any boosters. So once again you're wrong about DSL speeds.

No, I'm not wrong. What I specifically said was correct. Read my post again. I said that they WERE LIMITED (as in, a limit was placed on them) to 1500kbps in the early days. Not that they weren't capable of anything higher.

 

The USA also has Extreme DSL now in 17 states, which is actually "Extreme Fiber" and capable of 50MB/s. It runs on the same phone lines as DSL. That's something Australia cannot currently do as Tesltra is still replacing phone lines with copper only lines.

No. DSL is a COPPER TECHNOLOGY. You can get an Internet connection via fibre, but not DSL.

 

If your provider is marketing a product with "DSL" in its name, which isn't delivered by copper, it's false advertising.

 

The only reason things are different in AU is because Telstra's monopoly has controlled our low quality phone lines forever. When our land line infrustracture catches up to that of other civilized nations, so will our internet speeds. Breaking up Ma Bell was the best thing the USA ever did. Australia should learn from that and break up Telstra. Competition drives prices down and technology forward. Telstra has no incentive to improve as things are.

I do agree with this. The full sale of Telstra was a fucked move.

 

Read and learn. This applies to ADSL in Australia. It's a very old article, but is more in line with your knowledge of the subject and Austalian land lines

Congratulations, you just quoted some text that proves exactly what I was saying: "In practice, the best speeds widely offered today (at the time of writing, obviously) are 1.5 Mbps downstream"

 

Anything else?

 

Edit: The main point here is that you're confusing technologies with products. DSL is a physical mechanism, it uses free bandwidth in copper cables to communicate between a DSL modem, and a DSLAM. When you use fibre optic cabling to connect the customer equipment to the exchange, it's no longer DSL. It's technically not even a broadband connection, it's baseband (100BaseFX or 1000BaseFX). What it IS, is a fast Internet connection.

 

Edit2: For clarity: Fibre optics ARE used in the delivery of DSL connections (e.g. from HQ to the exchange, or from the exchange to a local RIM) but not for the last mile.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.google.com/search?q=7GB+cable+modem

 

7GB refers to the data allowance of the plan. Not the modem. lrn2read.

Once again you link to Australian terminology, when I already stated clearly that USA measures bandwidth differently and it was a USA modem. I'm not sure what they're using now, but in those days cable modems were rated according to speed. It had nothing to do with the plan and wasn't purchased from an ISP.

 

Your DSL didn't come via fibre. If it came via fibre, it wasn't DSL. Your Internet connection may have come by fibre. Broadband, and fast Internet connections, don't automatically mean DSL. Once again, DSL is a copper technology.

I was pretty clear about this too. Both my phone and DSL came via the same phone line. I wasn't using the fiber at the time, but the line is still referred to as a fiber optic telephone line by every USA ISP and phone carrier. You've repeatedly stated that my DSL had to come though the copper instead of the fiber optic. Nowhere did I state any differently. Thus, I can only assume you thought the line was all fiber optic, even though I specifically stated that the lines have 2 copper wires and a sealed fiber line.

 

But you can't have it both ways either. Digital Subscriber Lines work on both fiber and copper. They just need to be converted for your computer with current technology. It is not a "copper only" technology.

 

Well no, it's not "JUST" hype. They are actually separate standards. But I guess for the consumer, there's no real reason to differentiate.

No, it's hype, and in this case the standards are hype as well. ADSL2+ is nothing more than ADSL with higher frequency spectra. ADSL2+ modems are backwards compatible with ADSL. Same exact technology.

 

You're correct, there is no reason to differentiate by name. All the end user cares about is speed. It's much simpler to understand a 1.5mb/s, 3.0mb/s, or 30mb/s connection than ADSL, ADSL2, ADSL2+, or ADSL2+ Extreme.

 

No, I'm not wrong. What I specifically said was correct. Read my post again. I said that they WERE LIMITED (as in, a limit was placed on them) to 1500kbps in the early days. Not that they weren't capable of anything higher.

Just an incorrect usage of the term "limit" on your part then. To say that something is "limited" infers that is all they're capable of, regardless of the reason. If you'd said they were limited by the ISP, your post would have read as you now say that you intended. They are apparently throttled down in Australia since I've never gotten anything above the advertised speed on ADSL or ADSL2+. DSL was never throttled down in the USA. The plan guaranteed a minimum speed, but they often reached much higher than advertised.

 

No. DSL is a COPPER TECHNOLOGY. You can get an Internet connection via fibre, but not DSL.

 

If your provider is marketing a product with "DSL" in its name, which isn't delivered by copper, it's false advertising.

Once again, you're arguing semantics. Look up extreme DSL in the USA and you'll find several ISP's offering 50mb/s connections. I'm not really sure what the difference between the technologies is as I haven't studied it yet, but if they could be sued for false advertising I'm pretty sure it would have already been done. The catch might be "A" DSL as opposed to DSL, while it may not be asyncronous, but again I'm not sure about that. If the technology is digital, DSL (digital subscriber line) is still an appropriate name for it. Digital signals work with both fiber and copper, as you've pointed out yourself.

 

Congratulations, you just quoted some text that proves exactly what I was saying: "In practice, the best speeds widely offered today (at the time of writing, obviously) are 1.5 Mbps downstream"

LOL! That quote said exactly what I've been saying too. DSL is capable of more than 1500kbps, but is guaranteed in the USA to get your plan speed as minimum (1.5mb/s, 3.0mb/s), where in AU it's throttled back to the plan speed as a maximum and not guaranteed.

 

Anything else?

 

Edit: The main point here is that you're confusing technologies with products. DSL is a physical mechanism, it uses free bandwidth in copper cables to communicate between a DSL modem, and a DSLAM. When you use fibre optic cabling to connect the customer equipment to the exchange, it's no longer DSL. It's technically not even a broadband connection, it's baseband (100BaseFX or 1000BaseFX). What it IS, is a fast Internet connection.

 

Edit2: For clarity: Fibre optics ARE used in the delivery of DSL connections (e.g. from HQ to the exchange, or from the exchange to a local RIM) but not for the last mile.

I haven't confused anything. If anyone has, you have. In one breath you say DSL can't be used on copper, and in the next breath you say it can, but not from the exchange. Obviously digital can be used on both copper and fiber, but it needs to be converted at some point for your computer. ISP's have chosen to do this in AU at the exchange for now.

 

I simply stated that most USA phone lines are now fiber optic, and pointed out that means they have both copper and fiber in them. You've tried to make an argument where none existed. Everything in my statements on this subject is true and fairly accurate. How you have interpretted my statements has been the problem all along.

 

At any rate, I've been in this business far too long for someone on a forum to convince me that I don't understand it. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending upon your view) I've seen how the technlology is discussed and implemented in both the USA and AU. There are subtle differences, but the technology is virtually the same. I don't take myself too seriously, and hopefully you don't take yourself too seriously either. You may have the last word. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with ss, darklife you got your terminology mixed up

You're entitled to your opinion, but don't be too upset if I don't care about it. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again you link to Australian terminology, when I already stated clearly that USA measures bandwidth differently and it was a USA modem. I'm not sure what they're using now, but in those days cable modems were rated according to speed. It had nothing to do with the plan and wasn't purchased from an ISP.

Having both lived and worked in the USA, I can assure you the USA, nor any other country measures bandwidth differently. The only thing a 'USA modem' could possibly mean, was a modem restricted to sale in the USA. The idea of a 7GB modem is pure nonsense, and as the google search shows, it does not, and never did exist. In fact, if you search for "GB modem", you can see there is no reference to a modem defined by a storage capacity, only references to the download limit on a plan, and then a reference to a modem.

 

I was pretty clear about this too. Both my phone and DSL came via the same phone line. I wasn't using the fiber at the time, but the line is still referred to as a fiber optic telephone line by every USA ISP and phone carrier. You've repeatedly stated that my DSL had to come though the copper instead of the fiber optic. Nowhere did I state any differently. Thus, I can only assume you thought the line was all fiber optic, even though I specifically stated that the lines have 2 copper wires and a sealed fiber line.

Again, having worked and lived in the USA, this is simply not the case. NO where in the USA is a DSL line referred to as fibre optic. They have regulatory bodies for advertising too ya know. Maybe we can get wlayton27 in here to confirm...

 

But you can't have it both ways either. Digital Subscriber Lines work on both fiber and copper. They just need to be converted for your computer with current technology. It is not a "copper only" technology.

DSL works over telephone lines, be it POTS or ISDN(IDSL). Both of these telephone networks use copper wiring. DSL only works over copper wiring. Anything else, and it's not DSL, because it's isn't using the telephone lines. Maybe I'm misreading what you're trying to say, because I don't see how the type of line would need converting at the end user level. That statement makes absolutely no sense in context, whatsoever.

 

No, it's hype, and in this case the standards are hype as well. ADSL2+ is nothing more than ADSL with higher frequency spectra. ADSL2+ modems are backwards compatible with ADSL. Same exact technology.

First, it is not the same exact technology. They are, in some respects, fundamentally different, utilising an entirely different band for example.

 

How can you say the standards are just hype? Do you have any idea who or what the ITU is? Hint: The I stands for International, which again voids your earlier claims about the USA having different standards.....

 

Just an incorrect usage of the term "limit" on your part then. To say that something is "limited" infers that is all they're capable of, regardless of the reason. If you'd said they were limited by the ISP, your post would have read as you now say that you intended. They are apparently throttled down in Australia since I've never gotten anything above the advertised speed on ADSL or ADSL2+. DSL was never throttled down in the USA. The plan guaranteed a minimum speed, but they often reached much higher than advertised.

To be fair, I saw no ambiguity with SquallStrifes original post. Nor did he misuse the word 'limit'. DSL is often throttled in the USA. It's something that depends on the ISP, the plan etc.

 

Once again, you're arguing semantics. Look up extreme DSL in the USA and you'll find several ISP's offering 50mb/s connections. I'm not really sure what the difference between the technologies is as I haven't studied it yet, but if they could be sued for false advertising I'm pretty sure it would have already been done. The catch might be "A" DSL as opposed to DSL, while it may not be asyncronous, but again I'm not sure about that. If the technology is digital, DSL (digital subscriber line) is still an appropriate name for it. Digital signals work with both fiber and copper, as you've pointed out yourself.

You seem to be missing the point about standards. 'Extreme DSL' is not any sort of standard at all. After looking it up, it appears to be the name of a fairly small ISP offering ADSL2+. That's no different from Telstra offering Cable Extreme(or whatever it's called). The synchronicity of DSL has has nothing to do with fibre being able to be termed under DSL. DSL has never, and will never be applied to a fibre connection.

 

LOL! That quote said exactly what I've been saying too. DSL is capable of more than 1500kbps, but is guaranteed in the USA to get your plan speed as minimum (1.5mb/s, 3.0mb/s), where in AU it's throttled back to the plan speed as a maximum and not guaranteed.

Your main point seems to bat fibre can be a type of DSL. This is wrong.

 

I haven't confused anything. If anyone has, you have. In one breath you say DSL can't be used on copper, and in the next breath you say it can, but not from the exchange. Obviously digital can be used on both copper and fiber, but it needs to be converted at some point for your computer. ISP's have chosen to do this in AU at the exchange for now.

 

I simply stated that most USA phone lines are now fiber optic, and pointed out that means they have both copper and fiber in them. You've tried to make an argument where none existed. Everything in my statements on this subject is true and fairly accurate. How you have interpretted my statements has been the problem all along.

You're confusing fast broadband as a service with DSL as a technology. Not all fast internet is DSL. DSL refers to a specific type of broadband, for use of telephone lines. You're also wrong that most phone lines in the USA are fibre optic.

 

At any rate, I've been in this business far too long for someone on a forum to convince me that I don't understand it. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending upon your view) I've seen how the technlology is discussed and implemented in both the USA and AU. There are subtle differences, but the technology is virtually the same. I don't take myself too seriously, and hopefully you don't take yourself too seriously either. You may have the last word. :-)

Out of curiosity, what is your experience? You're not the only person with US experience on this board, and I'm sure the rest, myself included, will point out how wrong you are. How long are you going to keep this going on for, and what will it take for you to own up and admit you're wrong? You've had three people tell you now, perhaps it's time to take a step back and check your facts?

Edited by TheSecret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again you link to Australian terminology,

I don't see a ".au" in that link anywhere. Google's American, isn't it?

 

Thus, I can only assume you thought the line was all fiber optic

This is how you made it sound. On one hand you did say that your house has a fiber/copper combo cable coming in to it, but on the other you kept insisting that you had a fibre ADSL connection. Here is the distinction I'm trying to draw. Calling the whole cable a "fibre optic cable" is very misleading.

 

The catch might be "A" DSL as opposed to DSL, while it may not be asyncronous, but again I'm not sure about that. If the technology is digital, DSL (digital subscriber line) is still an appropriate name for it. Digital signals work with both fiber and copper, as you've pointed out yourself.

A in ADSL stand for Asymmetric. It just means that the upload and download speeds are different. One can get SDSL (Symmetric DSL) where the upload and download speeds are the same.

 

DSL is not an appropriate name for a fibre optic connection, because that's not what it is. It's not a generic term for broadband or fast Internet. It specifically refers to using unused spectra in a copper cable for a digital connection. This and only this. A fibre connection is a fibre connection. That's what it's called.

 

but the line is still referred to as a fiber optic telephone line by every USA ISP and phone carrier.

That's incredibly misleading, if you'd said that earlier, I'd have had a clearer picture of your angle.

 

In one breath you say DSL can't be used on copper

Please point out where I said this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how you made it sound. On one hand you did say that your house has a fiber/copper combo cable coming in to it, but on the other you kept insisting that you had a fibre ADSL connection. Here is the distinction I'm trying to draw. Calling the whole cable a "fibre optic cable" is very misleading.

God Squall, don't be such a pendant. To your average joe the distinction isn't important, and they use the terms interchangeably. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how you made it sound. On one hand you did say that your house has a fiber/copper combo cable coming in to it, but on the other you kept insisting that you had a fibre ADSL connection. Here is the distinction I'm trying to draw. Calling the whole cable a "fibre optic cable" is very misleading.

God Squall, don't be such a pendant. To your average joe the distinction isn't important, and they use the terms interchangeably. :P

 

They're very different things. If you think this is pedantry, I hope you never have 1shot reply to anything you post. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how you made it sound. On one hand you did say that your house has a fiber/copper combo cable coming in to it, but on the other you kept insisting that you had a fibre ADSL connection. Here is the distinction I'm trying to draw. Calling the whole cable a "fibre optic cable" is very misleading.

God Squall, don't be such a pendant. To your average joe the distinction isn't important, and they use the terms interchangeably. :P

 

They're very different things. If you think this is pedantry, I hope you never have 1shot reply to anything you post. ;)

 

No i understand the distinction, and agree with all you have said.

 

I was just taking the piss. After your techno rant and all. ;P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×