Chip delays pushes out ADSL2+ until \’05, says report

Chip delays have apparently pushed out the mass deployment of ADSL2+ broadband technology until 2005 — a year later than originally expected by carriers, according to an e-mail newsletter from DSL Prime.

ADSL2+ is the standard consented by the ITU in January 2003. It is based on ADSL2 and doubles the maximum frequency used for downstream data transmission from 1.1- to 2.2-MHz. The technology is capable of data rates up to 25-megabits-per-second, doubling the downstream bandwidth of ADSL.

Several chip makers and DSLAM vendors have rolled out products based on ADSL2+ and promised mass deployments in 2004. But in a newsletter issued this week, DSL Prime claims that ADSL2+ is “still a year away.””DSL Prime has reported this before, but new data adds to the problem, and some vendors are still promising more than their customers tell me is being delivered,” said Dave Burstein, editor of the newsletter.

“The problems are being solved, and ADSL2+ is clearly the way to go. Samples are easily available, and some companies are moving to the field with ADSL2+,” he said in the newsletter. “But Adtran announcements of orders delayed, and several similar stories to come, suggest supply problems and especially carrier uncertainty are delaying most volume orders into next year.”

Among the problems are the lack of modems and working chip sets based on the technology in the marketplace, he said. In the newsletter, DSL Prime asserted the ADSL2+ was supposed to be deployed by year’s end, that is, based on promises from one DSLAM maker.

“Salesmen are like that, probably including the DSLAM maker who just made an extravagant promise for volume delivery of ADSL2+, fully tested, to a carrier in time to deploy extensively before the end of 2004,” the report said.

“He’ll be lucky just to get the boxes out the door. It’s likely central office and DLC gear can be shipped in volume before yearend,” he said. “But until the modems are generally available and tested, it’s quite possible further issues may arise that [could] affect the CO side as well.”

Source :