not require them. That version is known as either "ADSL Lite" or "G.lite" (after the ITU-T G-Series standards that govern much of the ADSL tech- nology). In 1997, Microsoft, Compaq, and Intel created the Universal ADSL Working Group (UAWG),¹ an organization that grew to nearly 50 members dedicated to the task of simplifying the rollout of ADSL. In effect, the organization had four stated goals: To ensure that analog telephone service will work over the G.lite deployment without remote splitters, in spite of the fact that the quality of the voice may suffer slightly due to the potential for impedance mismatch. To maximize the length of deployed local loops by limiting the maximum bandwidth provided-Research indicates that customers are far more likely to notice a performance improvement when migrating from 64 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps than when going from 1.5 Mbps to higher speeds. Perception is clearly important in the marketplace, SO the UADSL Working Group chose 1.5 Mbps as their downstream speed. To simplify the installation and use of ADSL technology by making the process as plug-and-play as possible. To reduce the cost of the service to a perceived reasonable level. Of course, G.lite is not without its detractors. A number of vendors have pointed out that if G.lite requires the installation of microfilters at the premises on a regular basis, then true splitterless DSL is a myth, since microfilters are, in effect, a form of splitter. They contend that if the filters are required anyway, then they might as well be used in full- service ADSL deployments to guarantee high-quality service delivery. Unfortunately, this flies in the face of one of the key tenets of G.lite, which is to simplify and reduce the cost of DSL deployment by eliminat- ing the need for an installation dispatch (a "truck roll" in the industry's parlance). The key to G.lite's success in the eyes of the implementers was to eliminate the dispatch, minimize the impact on traditional POTS tele- phones, reduce costs, and extend the achievable drop length. 