I was hesitant to post a reply, but you seem determined to get an answer.
The reason I was hesitant is because the definition of "broadband" has
become corrupted in recent years. Lots of references are made to broadband
as (totally) digital. Originally, the term was used to refer to
transmission of a "broad" range of frequencies through a single cable using
RF (radio frequencies) ... cable TV still does this.
Your original question was (as I interpreted the question) ... why not
modulate the entire thing like baseband? The answer to that is that you
would than only have one data stream going thru the pipe, utilizing all
available frequencies as one ... a total waste of capacity. What broadband
does is impress separate digital (on/off) signals on many multiple
frequencies, permitting a very large number of discrete data streams to go
thru that single pipe (each on a separate frequency).
Hope this clarifies the issue for you.
"David Halpern" <> wrote in message
news:I6-dnZM-oZu3rKPcRVn-...
>
> "none" <> wrote in message
> news:zTN_c.679$...
> > In the case of DSL, using analog allows it to utilize the extra
bandwidth
> > on
> > the existing analog voice line into homes without need for conversion of
> > existing equipment or the need for additional equipment beyond a simple
> > DSL
> > modem with a filter(s) to keep the voice out of the DSL's bandwidth.
> >
> >
> > "David Halpern" <> wrote in message
> > news:AcidnXmlfIjCHqbcRVn-...
> >> This is just something that intrigues me?
> >>
> >> Why wouldn't Broadband just be a digital signal
> >> and modulate the whole bandwidth essentially like baseband and be
> >> digital?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> D.H.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> All Broadband is not Analog though I would have to say?
>
> D.H.
>
>
Similar Threads
