XPost: uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.america, alt.conspira   
   y.america-at-war   
   XPost: us.politics   
   From: banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk   
      
   In article , Greg Hennessy   
    writes   
      
   >On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:43:50 +0000, banana   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >>>It doesn't. If your local exchange is DSL enabled and your line is within   
   >>>tolerance for noise and distance, no extra line is required.   
   >>   
   >>What about line splitting?   
   >   
   >It's a physical layer requirement, otherwise the two very different   
   >types of signaling required to simultaneously carry an analog phone   
   >conversation in parallel  with a digital data signal will interfere   
   >with each other to the extent of neither working properly.   
   >   
   >The splitting also provides proper termination for the digital data   
   >signalling being carried.   
      
   What I meant was, why can't I have an unsplit line, which carries voice   
   traffic when I want it to (and no broadband internet traffic), and   
   broadband internet traffic (and no voice traffic) when I want it to?   
      
   >> Can you get it where the existing line is not   
   >>split, so that it is NOT possible to be connected to the internet via an   
   >>ISP and to call someone else on the phone at the same time?   
   >   
   >Yes, don't plug anything into the normal phone socket on the splitter.   
      
   Sorry - I don't understand this, nor much of the rest of your post, but   
   I will save the rest of your post and interpret it some time...   
      
      
      
   >>Also, I'd be interested to hear your view on why broadband is so much   
   >>cheaper than non-broadband dial-up, despite being much faster?   
   >   
   >That's economies of scale, When broadband came out before the turn of   
   >the century, it was a hell of a lot more expensive.   
      
   What economies of scale?   
      
      
      
   >>Take personal computers. For the same price, you can get a faster one   
   >>now than you could get a year ago, and with more functionality too. Same   
   >>with most electronic gear. But the 'old' one will itself be cheaper (if   
   >>you can work out where to buy one). It's very rare for a higher-spec   
   >>product or service to be much cheaper than a lower-spec one - not just   
   >>for the duration of a 'promotion', but all over the place (in the UK   
   >>anyway). Why is this the case with broadband?   
   >   
   >I don't follow.  Most UK ISPs connect their ADSL connections through   
   >BT's IPStream network, access to this has got cheaper and cheaper over   
   >the years as they have been forced to compete against other broadband   
   >suppliers with their own network infrastructure  such as Cable   
   >companies.   
   >   
   >The fall in pricing reflects this.   
      
   So it's more competition that's made broadband much cheaper than the   
   much slower dial-up? Weird... Are the overheads cheaper?   
      
   --   
   banana     "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you   
               give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to   
               Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the   
               rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)