SDSL line checker says yes, ADSL says no

According to the ADSL line checker, I live too far from the exchange to get
broadband. After contacting BT I learned this is basically because of an
ancient cable run that is due to be replaced this month. Today, I looked at
the SDSL line checker for BT Business Broadband Advanced, and it reported my
line as being fit for SDSL, subject to survey! Is there no limitation on
distance with SDSL? Or is the SDSL line checker less precise than the ADSL
one?

Iwan

"Iwan Davies" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Cdnxc.12498$(E-Mail Removed)...
| According to the ADSL line checker, I live too far from the exchange to
get
| broadband. After contacting BT I learned this is basically because of an
| ancient cable run that is due to be replaced this month. Today, I looked
at
| the SDSL line checker for BT Business Broadband Advanced, and it reported
my
| line as being fit for SDSL, subject to survey! Is there no limitation on
| distance with SDSL? Or is the SDSL line checker less precise than the ADSL
| one?
|
| Iwan
|
|
|


A dedicated line is installed for SDSL, so your poor quality existing line
doesn't matter. SDSL is very much distance (or more accurately, line
attenuation) dependent.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:05:47 +0100, "Iwan Davies"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>According to the ADSL line checker, I live too far from the exchange to get
>broadband. After contacting BT I learned this is basically because of an
>ancient cable run that is due to be replaced this month. Today, I looked at
>the SDSL line checker for BT Business Broadband Advanced, and it reported my
>line as being fit for SDSL, subject to survey! Is there no limitation on
>distance with SDSL? Or is the SDSL line checker less precise than the ADSL
>one?
>
>Iwan
>
IIRC, SDSL has much shorter line capabilities than ADSL because it is
symmetric! I had similar readings a while ago (NW Surrey), with
"too long for adsl", "capable of 512k sdsl" and an engineering test of
4.5Km - which would consistent if the adsl/sdsl data was transposed.
PeeGee
--
The reply address is a spam trap. If you need to reply directly, put the UK where it should be - first.

"Mark" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:40c61008$0$4592$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> A dedicated line is installed for SDSL, so your poor quality existing line
> doesn't matter. SDSL is very much distance (or more accurately, line
> attenuation) dependent.
>
Out of interest, do you happen to know the permissible levels for SDSL?

Seeing as getting SDSL seems to require the installation of a new line, it
would seem that the SDSL line checker online simply checks that the exchange
is enabled, rather than providing the (slightly) more accurate line rating
that the ADSL checker gives.

Cheers

Iwan

"PeeGee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
| On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:05:47 +0100, "Iwan Davies"
| <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|
| >According to the ADSL line checker, I live too far from the exchange to
get
| >broadband. After contacting BT I learned this is basically because of an
| >ancient cable run that is due to be replaced this month. Today, I looked
at
| >the SDSL line checker for BT Business Broadband Advanced, and it reported
my
| >line as being fit for SDSL, subject to survey! Is there no limitation on
| >distance with SDSL? Or is the SDSL line checker less precise than the
ADSL
| >one?
| >
| >Iwan
| >
| IIRC, SDSL has much shorter line capabilities than ADSL because it is
| symmetric! I had similar readings a while ago (NW Surrey), with
| "too long for adsl", "capable of 512k sdsl" and an engineering test of
| 4.5Km - which would consistent if the adsl/sdsl data was transposed.
| PeeGee
| --
| The reply address is a spam trap. If you need to reply directly, put the
UK where it should be - first.



a.. 512Kbps - 3.4km
b.. 1Mbps - 2.5km
c.. 2Mbps - 1.6km
This is cut and paste from Zen's site for SDSL. 512 has the same limit as
full rate ADSL, but faster services have shorter lengths.

Mark.

"Iwan Davies" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Olpxc.12580$(E-Mail Removed)...
| "Mark" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
| news:40c61008$0$4592$(E-Mail Removed)...
| >
| > A dedicated line is installed for SDSL, so your poor quality existing
line
| > doesn't matter. SDSL is very much distance (or more accurately, line
| > attenuation) dependent.
| >
| Out of interest, do you happen to know the permissible levels for SDSL?
|
| Seeing as getting SDSL seems to require the installation of a new line, it
| would seem that the SDSL line checker online simply checks that the
exchange
| is enabled, rather than providing the (slightly) more accurate line rating
| that the ADSL checker gives.
|
| Cheers
|
| Iwan



a.. 512Kbps - 3.4km
b.. 1Mbps - 2.5km
c.. 2Mbps - 1.6km

This is from Zen's site - 512 has the same limit as full rate ADSL, but
anything faster is more stringent. The SDSL checker looks at exchange
availability and existing line length. Your line quality is ignored as a
dedicated one is installed.

Mark

"Mark" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:40c76b95$0$4589$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> a.. 512Kbps - 3.4km
> b.. 1Mbps - 2.5km
> c.. 2Mbps - 1.6km
> This is cut and paste from Zen's site for SDSL. 512 has the same limit as
> full rate ADSL, but faster services have shorter lengths.
>
In that case, the SDSL availability checker definitely only checks you're on
an enabled exchange, as I am more than 3.4 km from the exchange as the crow
flies (although there's only a couple of hundred metres in it). And the line
loss recorded at my failed ADSL order was something like 83 dB... (I know
it's a new line they install for SDSL, but as I entered my present number on
the checker, they would presumably use that as an indication for the
probable line length for a new line, or would match it up against my
postcode to find my as-the-crow-flies distance from the exchange).

Iwan