From: Paul Carpenter on
In article <hnbnso$dkm$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, rm(a)invalid.invalid says...
> To all the people who have dicussed this topic:
>
> Imagine Satellite TV: it is possible to get more than 1000 TV channels
> via the dish. Now this is a huge data rate and data quantity that gets received
> by the dish and made available in the receiver.
> Now, what do you think: is a satellite link faster than a cable link?
> I think a cable should allow more capacity and reliability than air transmission.
> But then why don't we see such transmission rates in computer networks?...

Which is digital encoded as analog (frequencies, phase and amplitude) as
you cannot transmit DC levels even by satellite.

Probably do this and have tried building networks like this, for
computer networks it can get expensive, for the amount you actually
use where by on computer does not need to tune into one of many
channels. The nearest analogy to that is WLAN.

Multiple channels over one piece of copper has been done, before
it is/was the basis of telephone trunk lines.

Do some basic research as you do not understand how things
currently work.

Like others I consider you a troll.

--
Paul Carpenter | paul(a)pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate