Talk:Symmetric digital subscriber line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

'but compatible'[edit]

The article says This ETSI variant is but compatible with the ITU-T G.SHDSL standardized regional variant for Europe.. What does 'but compatible' mean, compatible or not compatible, is the reader supposed to guess? Can somebody correct this, Thanks. Edward 16:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the hint. it took a while, but now i have removed the 'but'...

Still a problem?[edit]

I think there is still a problem, either with this page, or the one on G.SHDSL. On this (SDSL) page it says:

"This ETSI variant is compatible with the ITU-T G.SHDSL standardized regional variant for Europe."

...but on the G.SHDSL page, after mentioning SDSL it says:

"In Europe a variant of G.SHDSL was standarized by ETSI using the name 'SDSL'. This ETSI variant is not compatible with the ITU-T G.shdsl standardized regional variant for Europe and must not be confused with the usage of the term 'SDSL' in North America."

(emphasis mine).

Appears to be resolved by now. Conquerist (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Split pages?[edit]

I tried to fix the confusion about SDSL, the predecessor of (G.)SHDSL and SDSL, the opposite of ADSL. Now I'm not sure whether it should maybe be split into two different articles. --Pgallert (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

In reference to the move request, my changes, and the paragraph directly above this one: Instead of moving, it should be split so that we would have:

  1. Sdsl (an umbrella term): All synchronous DSL technologies, and
  2. SDSL (a particular technology): The SDSL technology which is (apparently, I don't know much about it) a legacy technology.

To make clear that it is different concepts something should be added to the title, e.g. Sdsl (telecommunication) and SDSL (technology). --Pgallert (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


There are two SHDSL pages. This one, and another Single-pair high-speed digital subscriber line. G.SHDSL directs to the Single-pair high-speed digital subscriber line page. So what is it meant to be? Which is what? (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

SHDSL, also known as G.SHDSL, is a specific SDSL variant. It is not synonymous with SDSL. Conquerist (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Narrow Sense[edit]

"In the narrow sense SDSL is a particular DSL variant that supports data only on a single line and does not support analog calls"

Really? In Australia (and presumably other regions) this is called "Naked DSL". I have never heard of this being called SDSL. (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand the term, "naked DSL" refers to all DSL service that is sold without analog/digital voice service (POTS or ISDN). SDSL refers to all DSL service with identical downstream and upstream bitrates. Many SDSL variants happen to be incompatible with simultaneous POTS/ISDN service on the same line. Conquerist (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Incomprehensible to the layperson[edit]

This article is completely incomprehensible to the layperson. What is the benefit of SDSL? What does it do? What is a DSL?! These are probably stupid questions for techies, but for laypeople just trying to become moderately conversant with a technical term, to look it up and be confronted with a whole blizzard of new technical terms renders the exercise pointless. So can someone in the know please put in a paragraph near the top that explains in very simple, non-technical terms exactly what this thing is? Thanks. (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The lead has now been rewritten in an attempt to be more comprehensible, as WP:JARGON recommends. Conquerist (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)