February 9, 1998
DSL technologies look a long way off
By Bob O'Donnell
I don't know about you, but I really don't like to wait. I don't like waiting for slow
Web sites to finally appear on my computer screen, nor do I like waiting for technologies
to arrive on the market that were supposed to have been here a long time ago.
As a result, I'm in a bit of a quandary regarding all the news recently about Digital
Subscriber Line (DSL) technologies. In case you missed it, what I'm referring to is the
recent announcement at ComNet by Compaq, Intel, Microsoft, and several regional Bell
operating companies (RBOCs) of support for a new universal DSL format that they hope will
provide fast, inexpensive access to the Internet for businesses and consumers by as soon
as the end of this year. (See "ADSL
Consortium is Planned.")
On the one hand, I'm eager to break the bandwidth bottleneck that keeps Web access for
many people (myself included) at barely tolerable speeds. Analog modems and even ISDN
lines don't really cut it when you're trying to get some serious work done. With the
promise of 6Mbps to 8Mbps download speeds for ADSL and even 1.5Mbps for the less-expensive
universal DSL (or DSL Lite, as I've seen it referred to), I, like many others, am champing
at the bit to get one of these technologies installed. After all, today's
"speedy" T1 lines only run at 1.5Mbps.
At the same time, I am getting sick of feeling as if someone is hanging a carrot in
front of my nose that I can never quite reach. (It is sadly ironic that in doing some
research for this column I came across a number of links to old news stories that referred
to widespread deployments of various flavors of DSL technology "by 1997.") DSL
technology was originally developed by the phone companies in the 1980s to provide video
over existing copper phone lines, but it has been talked about as the "next big
thing" in Internet-access technologies for several years now. The problem is, it
still isn't here yet, and from the looks of things, it really won't be for several years
to come.
Part of the problem with DSL has been the lack of a single standard that the computer
industry can get behind. Right now, there are practically as many flavors of DSL as there
are flavors of ice cream at your local Baskin-Robbins. In that regard, the Compaq,
Microsoft, Intel, RBOC announcement of support for a particular standard can (and I hope,
will) help.
But the bigger, thornier issue is that the infrastructure needed to make DSL an
affordable reality for large areas of the country are simply not in place, despite the
announced support by several RBOCs. It's a classic case of the phone companies talking out
of both sides of their mouths because on the one hand, they want to show that they're
building for a better future, but on the other, they're not particularly willing to give
up their lucrative T1, T3 and leased-line businesses.
High-performance, low-cost Internet access has become the Holy Grail of the high-tech
industry because many companies are counting on ubiquitous, high-speed Internet access for
future products and services. The Active Desktop features of Microsoft's Internet Explorer
4.0 and Windows 98, as just one example, don't really make much sense with today's dial-up
connections. High-speed, always-on connections promised with DSL and cable modems,
however, make those features and many, many other products and services much more
feasible.
Witness, as a result, Microsoft's substantial recent investments in cable companies, as
well as its eagerness to support DSL. It obviously is not interested in cable modem vs.
DSL arguments, Microsoft just wants Internet access for everyone to get faster, regardless
of what route it takes.
Back in the real world, however, it's starting to look as though the promise of DSL
will prove to be yet another empty one for some time, despite recent claims to the
contrary. In fact, we'll probably be dealing with the day-to-day realities of year-2000
issues before we'll have to worry about how to hook up our new DSL modems. And in the
accelerated continuum of "Internet time," that's just too long to wait.
Copyright 1998, by InfoWorld Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of IDG Communications,
Inc. Reprinted from InfoWorld, 155 Bovet Road, San
Mateo, CA 94402. Further reproduction is prohibited.
