Talk:G.fast

Move new standard to own page
Shouldn't we move new standard (TerabitDSL) to new own page? 2001:678:A08:777:B9BD:396F:DFC1:D85B (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Radio Interference
It is telling that this advertorial avoids mention of the risk of Interference (both to and from) licensed Radio Services.

ADSL and VDSL suffer a nightmare level of drop-outs caused by inpulse interference. And because G.fast proposes using spectrum up to 212Mhz, the interference problem will certainly be even worse. 119.18.11.19 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2017‎ (UTC)


 * they are using G.fast-psd (power spectral density of the transmit signal) to limit affects. 2001:678:A08:777:B9BD:396F:DFC1:D85B (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

GOLD section
The section appears to be properly written and sourced (although to primary sources), but it really lacks context and to me reads like a veiled ad of some commercial projects behind the initiative. Should it be included? Is it possible to rewrite it with more context? —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * second version of G.fast is alreadily released as new 212MHz G.fast standard: approval of G.9701 granted on December 5, 2014. there is no content in GOLD project after that date. lets assume its work done.--165.227.149.165 (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on G.fast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140213133238/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/121213-itu-standardizes-1gbps-over-copper-276870.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/121213-itu-standardizes-1gbps-over-copper-276870.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Ref. No #2 returns 404 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:323A:AF00:31BA:1FF7:CCBE:6859 (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Terabit DSL
I think the terabit DSL section should be removed. Right now the both sources are just from the ideas of John Cioffi, with little academic research to back up this viability (and from what I have seen, only work demonstrating it being unpractical).

I'm not saying that the idea is 'wrong' or anything, just that this is very blue-sky research, and it being on this page makes it sound much closer to practical implementation than it seems to be. TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Brown University is doing the Academic research and ASSIA is industry sponsor. --Volkirik (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree - I don't think it belongs on this page anyway, as it is clearly a different technology - but I am not sure a yet-unproven research project can lay claim to its own page either. I removed an unsourced claim already but I think it should be fully removed. obw (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)