> Couldn't technology analogous to a megaphone be applied to dialup as
> well as DSL?
> Ah, crosstalk! It seems to me that if DSL uses the same wire dialup
> used, the same crosstalk will be present.
Not necessarily. Remember AM and FM radio waves go through the same
air, but AM is much more sensitive to lightning and other static than
DSL service may be arrangeed to minimize crosstalk.
> On dialup, it seemed to be the wire that wouldn't let me connect at
> the farm at the same speed I could connect a block from the CO. I
> wonder how the farm wire, that wouldn't take 50k on dialup, will carry
> 1.5M or more on DSL.
Because it's NOT just the wire to the farm, but ALSO other parts of
the telephone plant being set up for DSL.
> I have trouble understanding on the phone, and I often resort to the
> phonetic alphabet to be understood. I think the problem may be more
> in the typical quality of phones than in bandwidth.
You could have broadcast quality microphones and loudspeakers and it
will still sound like a telephone because of the limited bandwidth.
Since bandwidth is limited, telephone components aren't high fidelity
as it would be a waste to make them so. (I believe the modern "K"
handset is clearer than the older "G" handset.)
> Does a POTS line from the CO to a house carry multiple voices?
Depending on the location, often times yes. Between central offices
or within the CO almost always yes. I mean if you live across the
street from the CO you probably have dedicated copper pair, but you
live some distance you probably are multiplexed over a carrier line.
The degree of multiplex determines your bandwidth.
> A bundle can be cheaper if you would have bought all the services
What matters is the total price. When I got a car it came bundled
with power windows, which I didn't want. Multiple dealers told me I'd
pay _more_ to go a la carte and not have the power windows because it
was a special order to them. So I got the power windows. (Turned out
I like them. Sure, I could've hunted for a dealer who'd give me a
better deal, but at some point the cost of the hunt would've exceeded
> For marketing, bundling can entice a customer who would not
> otherwise have bought them all. You lose the customer who wnats just
> one and doesn't have money to waste. That's why Henry Ford didn't
> bundle his cars with garages.
Remember that while Henry Ford did very well at first, eventually
General Motors and Chrysler surpassed him with their cars. They
couldn't be the Model T on price, but they had better marketing. What
was great in 1918 wasn't so great in 1928. Henry Ford was so stubborn
he almost ruined the company and his family had to take it away from
him. Even his wife voted her shares with the others and he was forced
out. It's a shame such a brilliant man was also such an mean SOB.
His "$5/day" wages was partly myth.
> I was speaking of Bellsouth's costs. I understood million-dollar
> switches were the big cost for voice service, while equipment to carry
> heavy internet traffic was the big cost for DSL.
In many cases, if not all, the equipment is the same. Today voice
talk is converted to digital for transmission, and those digital
signals share the lines with DSL signals. I'd say the biggest
investment (beyond more capacity) was in local loops so that customers
could have reasonable speed on DSL. Not everyone can get it.
> Is a 14.4 modem more lightning proof than a 56k?
No, they're just easy to find laying around idle so one may take them
and others will be glad you removed some old clutter.