Talk:G.992.5

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Whisperjanes in topic Removed Deployment section

Upload Speed (Annex M vs. non-Annex M)

edit

3.5 Mbps is not really true

edit

That the max upstream rate is 3.5Mbps is not really true - there is a special annex, M, that defines double upstream. a plain normal adsl 2+ connection only has about 1.5 Mbps upstream rate. --69.233.166.166

3.0 Mbps is more realistic

edit

When tuning the right parameters made available with the ADSL2+ spec, you can achieve nearly 3.0 Mbps upstream rates with Annex M. You must carefully set targetSNRmargin, enable SRA for line stability and keep an eye on the PM stats to make sure you are not taking UncBK at a rate that exceeds your SES threshold for the service you are delivering. SNR=Signal to Noise Ration, SRA=Seamless Rate Adaption, UncBk=Uncorrected Blocks, SES=Severely Errored Seconds > 10E-7 as define by ATM forum.

Bandwidth Efficiency and DMT

edit

ADSL2+ uses a modulation system called Discrete Multi Tone (DMT). The 2.2MHz band is divided into 512 bin that are each 4KHz wide (with 6 KHz spacing). Each bin can transmit a 2-D constellation of 2-points (1-bit) up to 256-points (15 bits). The DMT frame is tranmitted every 250ns. Hence the higher rate - Do not confuse bandwidth with bit rate. The Bandwidth efficiency of DMT is much greater than 1:1 71.127.246.48 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

OFDM system comparison table

edit

Feel free to add an ADSL2+ column to the OFDM#OFDM system comparison table. Mange01 12:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect Image

edit

Comment 1

edit

ADSL2 does use up to 12Mhz, but ADSL1 only uses up to 1.1Mhz. So the yellow portion is mislabelled. Please edit the second "ADSL2" label to say only "ADSL", while keeping original "ADSL2" label untouched. by User:Mdrejhon 18:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Comment 2

edit

The image is indeed incorrect, but unlike Mdrejhon suggests, the 12MHz upper limit is incorrect. ADSL2+ tops at 2.2MHz by 213.246.227.244 10:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Edit Request

edit

Request 1

edit

My reason for coming to the wiki was to discover if I bought an ASDL2+ modem, whether it would work with my BT connection or not. Now I accept I may have missed the information, it is a sizable Wiki page to search, but it would be nice to have backwards compatibility information there either as a warning or an assurance, in an easily understood form by those who think they achieved a heck of a lot to even understand ASDL was what they had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.120.140 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Request 2

edit

New here, just wondering if the large section on deployments should be moved to its own page to not detract from the point of the page. IHateToBeThatGuy (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on G.992.5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on G.992.5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on G.992.5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Removed Deployment section

edit

I boldly removed the Deployment section - which feels a bit strange, because it's an incredibly long section.

The section was almost entirely unsourced, with many self-sourced external links that were simply links to company websites. More than that, it basically acted as a long directory of companies that provide G.992.5 broadband access, with unsourced download and upload speeds. It read more like an internet services listing for each country than it did an encyclopedia article. So, regardless that it was incredibly poorly sourced, and that it is rarely if ever updated, I removed it because Wikipedia is not a directory.

Anyone is welcome to clean up any parts of the section and add them back in with reliable sources. Although I'm not sure that having an exhaustive list of which companies deploy G.992.5 is very useful for an encyclopedia article. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply