🚀 go-pugleaf

horacewachope@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 23:39:23 +1000, "Kwyjibo."
> <kwyjibo@Removeozdebate.com> wrote:
>
>> <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ohpi72la2sd1avqr1o5u4rg262jp223qno@4ax.com
>>> On Sun, 28 May 2006 11:29:25 +1000, "Kwyjibo."
>>> <kwyjibo@Removeozdebate.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And pity about the D in ADSL, DSL, ISDN, etc etc etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pity it doesnt show up with normal dialup modems, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. Let's see.....
>>>>
>>>> ISDN - you end up with an analogue representation of digital data
>>>> being passed along a copper pair using 2B1Q encoding.
>>>> Dialup - you end up with an analogue representation of digital data
>>>> being passed along a copper pair using (for example) V.90 encoding.
>>>> ADSL - you end up with an analogue representation of digital data
>>>> being passed along a copper pair using constelation encoding.
>>>
>>> If that is the case, why does DSL have any greater claim to being
>>> "digital" than ISDN?
>>
>> It doesn't. They are both as digital (or not) as each other.
>> What I was disputing was Rod's claim that "ISDN is DSL". It's not,
>> and never has been.
>
> But, if an ISDN line:
>
> (1) provides for digital data transmission (to the same extent as does
> what is called "DSL")
>
> (2) over a wire line
>
> (3) to which one subscribes
>
> surely is it just as much a Digital Subsriber Line as is what is
> marketed as DSL?
>
> I think that's all Rod was saying.

Precisely.