🚀 go-pugleaf

Kwyjibo. <kwyjibo@Removeozdebate.com> wrote:
> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:p6dk72h9q68gntpjfvk7pk3f63hrt5cgtr@4ax.com
>> On Mon, 29 May 2006 09:34:30 +1000, "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")
>>>>
>
> Yes.
>
>>>> (2) over a wire line
>>>>
>
> Yes.
>
>>>> (3) to which one subscribes
>>>>
>
> Yes.
>
>>>> surely is it just as much a Digital Subsriber Line as is what is
>>>> marketed as DSL?

> No.

Yep.

> The term DSL is specific to a set of technologies that do not include ISDN, despite what 
> Rod claims.

Pity about what the D stands for in both.

>> Could you answer the above question please?

>> I get your network vs line point; but an ISDN network must include, as one of its 
>> constituent parts, an ISDN line, yes?
>
> Correct but even the line compenent is not related to DSL.

Pity about what the D stands for in both.

> In terms of what it achieves it is (partially), but it's not even close in the method 
> used.

Pity about what the D stands for in both.

>> Rod's point appears to be that the expression DSL (Digital Subscriber
>> Line) includes more types of service than simply those services which
>> are marketed as DSL services (whatever the official specs might say).

> And the official spec is all that matters.

Pity about what the D stands for in both.