It's mostly just different ways to say the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised to find the Aussies have it all bass ackward, but in the US, with ATT (and their lessees) as an example, the DSLAM might be based at a central office (which contains exchanges), or at a remote terminal that talks to the CO over fibre. In any case, the important part is the loop length, the distance we have to travel over copper to reach the customer. Since a signal attenuates relatively quickly over copper, it can't go too awfully far without being repeated by some form of powered equipment. If someone's more than a few miles out, reliable service can't be provided. This fact remains whether we talk about it in terms of distance from the DSLAM itself or from where the DSLAM lives.
Anyway, I'm rambling, but the point is I don't see that there's anything to argue about.
Anyway, I'm rambling, but the point is I don't see that there's anything to argue about.