Vectoring? Forget it, G.INP is better!

[#1]

Shocking to read this: http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/alcatel-lucent-says-vdsl2-vectoring-isnt-enough-deliver-100-mbps-...

[#2]

Kinda makes sense of how I understand G.INP.
If the modem in the DSLAM detects a transmission error, rather than waiting for the two systems talking to each other saying "Errr, I didn't quite get that, can you send it again" it attempts to retransmit the transmission that error'd before the two systems are aware a problem even occurred, which should be faster for throughput.
Vectoring, as I understand it is to do with trying to eliminate the errors rather than compensating for them.

G.INP = Chinese whispers where you can say "Sorry, I didn't catch that can you repeat it?"
Vectoring = Whispering louder.

[#3]

Hmmm...  not sure.  Both is best. 
I hardly think G.INP will give me back the 30Mb Ive 'lost' due to crosstalk.

[#4]

Try reading the paper it references. It is in no way shocking and makes perfect sense then.
The article is written in a tabloid style. The source material refers to both stability and speed, and states that G.inp is better than FEC, however to deliver 100Mb to all bar the closest loops with any kind of take up vectoring is essential.
My own loop is about 'average' length and lost over 30Mb due to crosstalk. G.inp has returned a a few Mb however there are still 30Mb to go from performance as the only active line.

[#5]

I think it's important to understand that Vectoring and G.INP are there to solve different problems.
G.INP solves error problems (typically impulse noise on customers' wiring) on the line by allowing the modem to request a repeat of an errored packet - it hasn't got to travel far. It also means that, by removing the existing technique of Forward Error Correction (which duplicates a lot of data), higher capacities can be achieved.
But if you've got a line that is prone to heavy crosstalk, the G.INP system will end up doing a lot of retransmitting, and you may not see much increase in speed.
However, Vectoring works on the line itself and compensates for the crosstalk. It does nothing to help with impulse noise. Depending on the length of the line, it's possible to push a further 25-100% speed with Vectoring.
So, whether G.INP or Vectoring is better will depend on individual circumstances - but having both will give everyone the benefit.

[#6]

Quote from: goldenfibre

Shocking to read this: http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/alcatel-lucent-says-vdsl2-vectoring-isnt-enough-deliver-100-mbps-...

Why is it shocking? They aren't saying "forget vectoring, G.Inp is better".  All they are saying is that G.Inp will work with vectoring to achieve the desired speeds. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone as the two technologies address different issues. The article even explains this:
"When used alone VDSL2 can support speeds up to 100 Mbps at a maximum distance of 500 meters, while vectoring is used to reduce crosstalk on the line created by adjacent copper lines.
G.inp, known as the G.998.4 ITU standard, also combats interference generated by household appliances"
Two separate issues. Two different solutions.

[#7]

Quote from: goldenfibre

Shocking to read this: http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/alcatel-lucent-says-vdsl2-vectoring-isnt-enough-deliver-100-mbps-...

max you missed this
"When used in conjunction with VDSL2 and vectoring"
they talking about adding g.inp to vectoring, not replacing it.