On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:34:02 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <KjsTh.77$j63.63@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> :

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:46:53 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
>> wrote in <Np7Th.21636$tD2.13140@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net>:
>>
>>> Then you have the new limitations on how far DSL will reach. Straight from
>>> AT&T's sales department here are the latest deployment distances:
>>>
>>> 6 Mbps up to 6,500 ft.
>>> 3 Mbps up to 9,500 ft.
>>> 1.5 Mbps up to 14,000 ft.
>>
>> Those limits aren't really new.
>
>They were implemented about a year ago. "Latest" means there have been no
>changes to that policy up to present.

They were actually implemented (albeit not as explicitly and publicly
stated) long before that.

>>> For these customers, wireless broadband might be an alternative. But with
>>> the telcos aggressively deploying DSLAMs in pedestals along the roadsides
>>> instead of only at the central office as in the past, we're seeing DSL
>>> being offered out in the country side.
> >
>> RE-ADSL2 and ADSL2+/RE-ADSL2+ are capable of much longer distances than
>> standard ADSL, a range increase of roughly 50%.
>> The questions are
>> if and when AT&T will deploy them.
>
>IMHO they are more likely to drop in a new DSLAM on a buried fiber line
>along the roadside.

You may well be correct in many (or even most) cases, but these newer
ADSL technologies are compelling from a cost standpoint in cases where
that kind of major upgrade isn't needed.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>