🚀 go-pugleaf

Kwyjibo. <kwyjibo@Removeozdebate.com> wrote:
> <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7qgj725ag4ugm6232uvujlokmong874g4p@4ax.com
>> 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?
>
> What Rod actually said was "strictly speaking ISDN is DSL too".
> That's a direct quote.

No it isnt, you pathological liar. What I ACTUALLY said was

    The main problem with the DSL title is that strictly
    speaking ISDN is DSL too and it isnt actually used
    that way except by mindless pedants.


> It's not.

Fraid so, its a DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER LINE, fuckwit.

> ISDN is a network (hence the N) which incorporates a line technology.

Irrelevant to whether its a DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER LINE too.

> DSL is purely a line technology.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that it aint DSPL

> The network is an entireley separate entity.

Irrelevant to the SUBSCRIBER LINE, fuckwit.

> My point regarding the D for Digital is that if Rod is claiming that ISDN is a form of 
> DSL as a result of its ability to transfer digital data,

Never ever said anything remotely resembling anything like that.

> the same could be said for dialup modems.

Pathetic, really. THEY DONT HAVE A DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER LINE, fuckwit.

> They both do exactly the same thing,

No they dont.

> just using different D-A encoding techniques.

> DSL refers to a specific means of transferring data using specific 'channels' of 
> available bandwidth that are not used for transmission of voice.

DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER LINE doesnt. The D is there for a reason, fuckwit.

> ISDN doesn't do this.

It still has a DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER LINE, fuckwit.

> It doesn't split it's bandwidth into channels and covers the VF spectrum as well.

In fact its digital, like that or lump it child.

>> I think that's all Rod was saying.

> He's wrong.

Nope. You are, as always.