The article is about broadband, so it is impossible to claim that it attacks it. I could go through and show you the various errors, but...
As a veteran here, though you haven't been active, you know the extensive arguments I've made about DSL. If you've forgotten, or if others want a rehash, I'll give you all the details. It can be a little technical, but not too daunting.
I, too, was in the DSL camp for 2 years. I pushed and pushed, but that plane would only taxi. When ATHM launched the IPO I scoffed and sneered and was almost in Job's camp, but in August of '97 I decided to put my prejudices aside and take a look. What I discovered and what has been confirmed during the interim in a myriad of ways, is a truly remarkable potential for an elementary technology to explode and radically change our world.
It's always wise to re-evaluate, but I don't think you'll find yourself moving towards DSL at that time because it is the technological equivalent of telegraph vs cable's telephone. It works, but it won't support the future and it supports the present only at a cost that isn't competitive nor can it be made ubiquitous. DSL always has holes in its area coverage. The only technological advancement that will be coming for most of the 21st century will be improvements in the fiber waveguides or in the methods of signal compression. In 20 years we will be able to send the Library of Congress to your house in a millisecond. |
