Switching from analogue DSL to digital - what does that mean?

[Count Zero]

So, I got a call this morning from my ISP and phone company. The person at the other end of the line told me that they were switching analogue DSL connections to digital and thus had an offer for me to change my contract with them (I won't bore you with the details).
I asked some questions about the details of the contract but didn't agree to it (yet). Then I went back to bed. But now I keep wondering what that even means. After all, DSL is already digital (it's even in the name). I searched a bit on the internet but I'm still confused. I assume this means vDSL instead of aDSL?! But what does that even mean?

I hope someone here can clear things up a little. I'm aware that things are probably a little different in the US, anyway, and that this might be more of an European issue.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

If they're switching you from ADSL to VDSL, then you should experience considerable performance improvements. ADSL is generally limited in terms of having a slow upstream. VDSL has no such inherent limitation.

Overall, if they aren't charging you much more money while switching you to VDSL, you'll be getting quite a bit more performance.

How much will depend on a lot of factors that are impossible for me to guess here, but that's why you should ask what sorts of speeds they are promising.

Calling ADSL "analog" is stupid, though, and probably something they're just doing because most customers won't understand the nuances of DSL technologies.

 

[Amaris]

So, I got a call this morning from my ISP and phone company. The person at the other end of the line told me that they were switching analogue DSL connections to digital and thus had an offer for me to change my contract with them (I won't bore you with the details).
I asked some questions about the details of the contract but didn't agree to it (yet). Then I went back to bed. But now I keep wondering what that even means. After all, DSL is already digital (it's even in the name). I searched a bit on the internet but I'm still confused. I assume this means vDSL instead of aDSL?! But what does that even mean?

I hope someone here can clear things up a little. I'm aware that things are probably a little different in the US, anyway, and that this might be more of an European issue.

ADSL is Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line, which simply means your download and upload speeds won't be in sync. You might be able to download at 10 Mbps while uploading at 1 Mbps. This is the standard for most DSL connections.

VDSL is Very High Bit Rate Digital Subscriber Line, which is a faster version of DSL. I don't hear about it much in the U.S., so I'm not all that familiar with it. It's probably similar to FIOS here in the U.S., which is what most DSL companies are switching to in order to compete with cable.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

DSL, even slow DSL, has good upload speed vs cable. Where are they trying to compete with cable?

Or is it download speed where the competition is?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Given that streaming video is now the #1 use for broadband, high downstream throughput is where it's at. Cable generally offers much better downstream than DSL, so that's probably motivating efforts to make DSL faster.

In the US, of course, it's pretty much just cable vs. fiber at this point.

 

[RoJoHen]

In the US, of course, it's pretty much just cable vs. fiber at this point.

Indeed. DSL is going the way of dial-up.

 

[Count Zero]

Yeah, Germany missed the boat on the fibre optic cable front and there's no substantial improvement in sight. Most internet is either by DSL or cable, DSL being more common.

Thanks for the explanation about vDSL. During my search on the net I also read somewhere that the switch to digital means that the phone line is switched to Voice over IP but I don't know if that's a requirement for vDSL or just easier for the service provider. The articles I found about that were about a different ISP than mine.

My current set-up is such that I have a DSL splitter plugged into the phone line and a telephone and a DSL router plugged into the splitter. That's pretty much the standard around here.

 

[Amaris]

In the US, of course, it's pretty much just cable vs. fiber at this point.

Indeed. DSL is going the way of dial-up.

Around here, DSL has pretty much given up. My speed is 5 Mbps Down/0.68 Mbps Up, and I pay about $50 a month for the privilege. To be fair, I live in a farm town, but still, if I want really solid speed better than DSL, I have to with Time Warner, and where I live they're outrageous. The only thing I have going for me is stability.

 

[Count Zero]

In the US, of course, it's pretty much just cable vs. fiber at this point.

Indeed. DSL is going the way of dial-up.

Around here, DSL has pretty much given up. My speed is 5 Mbps Down/0.68 Mbps Up, and I pay about $50 a month for the privilege. To be fair, I live in a farm town, but still, if I want really solid speed better than DSL, I have to with Time Warner, and where I live they're outrageous. The only thing I have going for me is stability.

To be fair, DSL can be much faster than that. The offer I got was for DSL 50,000, i.e. 50 Mbps nominally which would probably amount to about 33 Mbps in practise in my case. But there are also people who get that speed (it depends on a number of factors).

Even my current connection is faster than yours and I get frustrated about the lack of bandwidth pretty often. (I pay 30 € a month for it, the new contract would be slightly more.)

 

[Amaris]

Indeed. DSL is going the way of dial-up.

Around here, DSL has pretty much given up. My speed is 5 Mbps Down/0.68 Mbps Up, and I pay about $50 a month for the privilege. To be fair, I live in a farm town, but still, if I want really solid speed better than DSL, I have to with Time Warner, and where I live they're outrageous. The only thing I have going for me is stability.

To be fair, DSL can be much faster than that. The offer I got was for DSL 50,000, i.e. 50 Mbps nominally which would probably amount to about 33 Mbps in practise in my case. But there are also people who get that speed (it depends on a number of factors).

Even my current connection is faster than yours and I get frustrated about the lack of bandwidth pretty often. (I pay 30 € a month for it, the new contract would be slightly more.)

Oh yeah, it can be, depending upon where you are. Where I am, I'm just on the fringe of the service area. In downtown Cincinnati, you can easily get speeds of 20-50 Mbps. I am nowhere near that. I practically have cows as neighbors.

I wish our ISP wouldn't charge us the same price that, in Cincinnati, would otherwise get you speeds of up to 20 Mbps. Just because we live further away doesn't mean we should be gouged. I mean, if we're getting 5 Mbps, charge us for what you'd pay to get 10 Mbps. Then again, part of why we get charged so much is because they haven't upgraded our equipment out here. I got promises all last month saying that we'd be getting 10 Mbps speeds for about the same as what we're paying for 5 Mbps speeds, and that any day now it would be done. Well, it's all done everywhere else but here. Right now, there are people getting 1 Gigabit speeds in Cincinnati, 100 Mbps speeds 5 miles south of here, and we're still stuck with 5 Mbps speeds, and still paying out the nose for it.

[/rant]

 

[Count Zero]

Sometimes the router is the one thing slowing stuff down, e.g. while my own router works still fine I'd have to get another one for anything above 30 Mbps.

This probably means I'd have to switch providers because it seems my current provider is pretty crappy. Not only would I not get a true flat rate with any new contract they apparently don't allow people to use their own routers and the ones they provide are kind of crummy. When I switched to them a couple of years ago they were the coolest provider but they've changed hands twice since then and now they suck.

 

[Amaris]

Sometimes the router is the one thing slowing stuff down, e.g. while my own router works still fine I'd have to get another one for anything above 30 Mbps.

In my case, though, the router and modem is rated ADSL2+, which means it can handle speeds far, far greater than these. The issue here is our local CO. It needs a serious upgrade.

This probably means I'd have to switch providers because it seems my current provider is pretty crappy. Not only would I not get a true flat rate with any new contract they apparently don't allow people to use their own routers and the ones they provide are kind of crummy. When I switched to them a couple of years ago they were the coolest provider but they've changed hands twice since then and now they suck.

I see that happening a lot more lately. Using your own modem around here just doesn't happen, because all of the ISPs use a certificate that doesn't come in store bought modems, and they won't authorize them, either. We can use our own Wi-fi router if we want, though.

I don't know how it is in Germany, but in the U.S., the major telecoms have merged so many times that having an actual choice is a joke. Some great providers were bought up by the bigger media giants, and proceeded to offer horrible service afterwards. I do hope you find a good provider, though. In the 21st century, it shouldn't be this difficult to find reliable, affordable internet service.

I wish Google would lay down fiber in more places. *sigh*

 

[Count Zero]

Well, in Germany we only had one state-owned telecom company until well into the 90s. Both the cable and the phone line network were owned by the postal service which was state-owned. The company got split up and privatised but they still own most of the phone line network. At first there were many companies trying to compete both in the phone market and the internet provider market but most of them have been goobled up by bigger companies. Basically, as far as ISPs go you now only have about 4 major ones, Deutsche Telekom (the former state-run company), O2 (which is actually owned by Telefonica), 1&1 and Vodafone (which has just bought up one of the two cable providers). Due to the way the market is regulated you do have a real choice between those four, provided DSL is actually available in your area. Many people do have similar problems as you, they only get mobile internet which is very slow.

Between those four providers prices are pretty similar but some details differ. I suppose that's pretty much how low you can go with the pricing here. Some offer additional mobile telephony or a bonus for switching as an incentive. Quality of customer service varies but the internet and phone services are pretty reliable (unsurprisingly because they all use the same network).

 

[Amaris]

Well, in Germany we only had one state-owned telecom company until well into the 90s. Both the cable and the phone line network were owned by the postal service which was state-owned. The company got split up and privatised but they still own most of the phone line network. At first there were many companies trying to compete both in the phone market and the internet provider market but most of them have been goobled up by bigger companies. Basically, as far as ISPs go you now only have about 4 major ones, Deutsche Telekom (the former state-run company), O2 (which is actually owned by Telefonica), 1&1 and Vodafone (which has just bought up one of the two cable providers). Due to the way the market is regulated you do have a real choice between those four, provided DSL is actually available in your area. Many people do have similar problems as you, they only get mobile internet which is very slow.

Between those four providers prices are pretty similar but some details differ. I suppose that's pretty much how low you can go with the pricing here. Some offer additional mobile telephony or a bonus for switching as an incentive. Quality of customer service varies but the internet and phone services are pretty reliable (unsurprisingly because they all use the same network).

That seems like it would work out pretty well there. Considering Germany's size, I'm surprised there are people who don't have access made available to them. I thought it was pretty well connected.

 

[Count Zero]

Compared to the US most countries are small but there are large, sparsely populated rural areas in the country, often with a demographic slant towards elderly people, that are rather unattractive for infrastructure investment.
We also have regions (mostly in the East) that have been disconnected from existing infrastructure (i.e. the railway network) because it's become unprofitable.

 

[Amaris]

Compared to the US most countries are small but there are large, sparsely populated rural areas in the country, often with a demographic slant towards elderly people, that are rather unattractive for infrastructure investment.
We also have regions (mostly in the East) that have been disconnected from existing infrastructure (i.e. the railway network) because it's become unprofitable.

I see. I would think there would be a public works type of scenario, where the government ensures utilities (which the internet is fast becoming) are available to everyone. I imagine that will be the case for many first world nations in the near future.

 

[Count Zero]

With neoliberalism having won the political narrative basically everywhere I don't really see that happen anytime soon - though I agree that critical infrastructure should be publically or state-owned.

 

[Amaris]

With neoliberalism having won the political narrative basically everywhere I don't really see that happen anytime soon - though I agree that critical infrastructure should be publically or state-owned.

I feel your pain. Look at how long it took for our government to drag its feet before begrudgingly agreeing that maybe it's in our interests as a nation to prevent poor people from dying everywhere. I suspect the internet will take a while longer to make headway.

 

[RoJoHen]

I don't know how it is in Germany, but in the U.S., the major telecoms have merged so many times that having an actual choice is a joke.

Indeed. I only have one option for internet, and that's through our local cable company. There are literally zero other internet service providers in my area.

 

[Amaris]

I don't know how it is in Germany, but in the U.S., the major telecoms have merged so many times that having an actual choice is a joke.

Indeed. I only have one option for internet, and that's through our local cable company. There are literally zero other internet service providers in my area.

Isn't it nice to know that if they screw something up, say charging you $400 on a single bill and insisting you pay it while they investigate, you'll have nowhere else to go?