[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Apr 15, 2012 12:53 AM, "Julian Hall" <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 14/04/2012 21:36, Philip Hudson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Can't believe nobody's confirmed for Tony that he's spot on about the term "modem" being wrong for *DSL. It's pure marketing-speak, a holdover from pre-broadband days, something the punters understood and was close enough in function. Less sure of my ground now: I think it's correct to call it a codec, which we usually think of as a software library these days, but can be hardware. Gordon would know.
>>
> It's wrong for all broadband not just *DSL, in fact even more so for cable connections. However, inasmuch as Modulator/Demodulator converts digital to analogue and back again, that was the job of the original equipment as it converted a digital input into sound that could be carried over the phone line, and reversed the process the other end. Given that AFAIK it's digital all the way now with fibre in use and even *DSL over copper wire doesn't employ an analogue signal anymore, I agree the term 'modem' is inaccurate. However, in terms of it being 'the device which sends and receives information to/from the computer over a remote network' the general public (and let's be fair technicians too) have got used to that bit of kit being called a modem and so rightly or wrongly it has passed into the lexicon of IT terminology as a modem.
>
>
> Julian
I'll have to look it up but I'm pretty sure the signal used on the WAN side of an ADSL modem (and a cable modem, for that matter) is still analogue, just at higher frequencies.
Grant.
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq