NationStates Jolt Archive

I really hope my American neighbors to the south enjoyed what competition existed among their broadband internet providers; it's not going to last much longer:

FCC Reclassifies DSL, Drops Common-Carrier Status (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/07/1240206&tid=123&tid=215&tid=95)

FCC Opens Door to ISP Wipe-out (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/06/fcc_dsl/)

'Cause we all know that competition in the marketplace is a bad thing...

It's a good thing I don't have DSL. It's shit, anyway.

It's a good thing I don't have DSL. It's shit, anyway.

I love my DSL provider... but then, I'm in Canada. Broadband is teh sex up here. Maybe not so much teh sex as it is in some places in Europe, but still...

Oh, and by the way, they've already done this to broadband cable providers, as well, in the US. Both of these, I believe, will take effect within one year. :(

In my area, cable internet (which already has the monopoly) is better than DSL anyway...so meh. The cable still blows though.

I don't think I've ever heard of an instance in which DSL beats out cable, despite what the commercials would claim. I love my broadband cable, and I'll never switch from it.

DSL's on the outs anyway, or it is once its providers switch to fiber optics...in the meantime, I don't care how much cheaper DSL is than cable; I would rather pay for my RoadRunner than get DSL for free.

DSL is much more reliable than cable, which has a speed that correlates with the number of users sharing the local connection at a time.

I don't think I've ever heard of an instance in which DSL beats out cable, despite what the commercials would claim. I love my broadband cable, and I'll never switch from it.
There are people with 24mbit DSL in my area.

DSL is much more reliable than cable, which has a speed that correlates with the number of users sharing the local connection at a time.
There are like 5 people in my area that use Cable, not to mention, I'm right by one of the boxes so I pretty much get first dibs. Also, I'm using a program which opens up extra ports on my computer and so even if I weren't right next to the computer, my computer is going to be chewing up other people's bandwidth before other people's bandwidth chews up mine.

I don't think I've ever heard of an instance in which DSL beats out cable, despite what the commercials would claim. I love my broadband cable, and I'll never switch from it.

It most certainly does up here in Canada. I was with Rogers Cable for years (one of the big two providers up here), and their service was... unspeakable. Er... almost unspeakable, I guess, since I just spoke about it. :)

I switched to MyCybernet DSL, and haven't looked back.

Anyway... the trend towards megacorp monopolization in the US is really starting to scare me, and I don't even live there! I feel bad for you guys. :(

DSL is much more reliable than cable, which has a speed that correlates with the number of users sharing the local connection at a time.

The only issue I have had with my cable speed is with third-party servers, and DSL is far from reliable in my experience. It's incredibly high-maintenance.

DSL is much more reliable than cable, which has a speed that correlates with the number of users sharing the local connection at a time.
Which is a problem ... shared bandwidth is a crock the DSL companies have never implemented a smooth packetshaping technology they can not accuratly gauge pipeline load nor evenly distribute

Cable is not much better mind you but the concentrators they use at the block level are better

Though I myself use WWLAN (wireless wide area network)

There are like 5 people in my area that use Cable, not to mention, I'm right by one of the boxes so I pretty much get first dibs. Also, I'm using a program which opens up extra ports on my computer and so even if I weren't right next to the computer, my computer is going to be chewing up other people's bandwidth before other people's bandwidth chews up mine.
So an Anti-firewall

Punching open ports is a bad thing lol

Time Warner has dedicated lines to each house, so there's now slowdown when everybody's on (five houses on my block had it, and there's not a bit of slowdown).

Time Warner has dedicated lines to each house, so there's now slowdown when everybody's on (five houses on my block had it, and there's not a bit of slowdown).
But you still have to live with block level concentrators

I have 8 meg ADSL thanks to a new ISP-built exchange, which I share over a LAN with several other people. That's enough to cater for everyone's online gaming, the occasional movie download, and it costs me £6 per month after everyone's "contributions" to "hub maintenance". ;)

Pretty decent deal. And I understand the company is raking in the papers so fast, their call centres are collapsing under call volumes.

I hope the authorities here in the UK don't mess with the system, the market seems to be working fine as it is.

It most certainly does up here in Canada. I was with Rogers Cable for years (one of the big two providers up here), and their service was... unspeakable. Er... almost unspeakable, I guess, since I just spoke about it. :)

I switched to MyCybernet DSL, and haven't looked back.

Anyway... the trend towards megacorp monopolization in the US is really starting to scare me, and I don't even live there! I feel bad for you guys. :(
Though in the end all isp’s end up back at some of the big mega corps like At&T who own so much of the backbone that there is no real way around it

I have 8 meg ADSL thanks to a new ISP-built exchange, which I share over a LAN with several other people. That's enough to cater for everyone's online gaming, the occasional movie download, and it costs me £6 per month after everyone's "contributions" to "hub maintenance". ;)

Pretty decent deal. And I understand the company is raking in the papers so fast, their call centres are collapsing under call volumes.

I hope the authorities here in the UK don't mess with the system, the market seems to be working fine as it is.
So if you are running ADSL what is your upload vs download there ?(intrested)

Time Warner has dedicated lines to each house, so there's now slowdown when everybody's on (five houses on my block had it, and there's not a bit of slowdown).

That must explain why I don't have any issue with speed...I can't speak for other providers, but as a Time Warner subscriber, I have had slowdown only once and it was solved by powering down my modem and router and powering them back up.

By contrast, I hear about slow speeds on DSL every day, and most of them are either a result of line congestion or the customer being a moron and loading their PC up with spyware.

So if you are running ADSL what is your upload vs download there ?(intrested)
I can download at the full 1MB/s, depending on the host server. Obviously sometimes it drops as low as 250KB/s when others are doing the same, but 980KB/s is not unusual late at night. Sometimes the server hosting the file I'm downloading is crap and it falls really low, like Microsoft Updates, I might as well be using a 56k modem. :rolleyes:

Upload is slower of course, I reckon by a factor of five of whatever the upstream speed is at the time.

I can download at the full 1MB/s, depending on the host server. Obviously sometimes it drops as low as 250KB/s when others are doing the same, but 980KB/s is not unusual late at night. Sometimes the server hosting the file I'm downloading is crap and it falls really low, like Microsoft Updates, I might as well be using a 56k modem. :rolleyes:

Upload is slower of course, I reckon by a factor of five of whatever the upstream speed is at the time.
Ahhh alright cool ... not too bad :) I do so much server stuff now I have to have symetrical myself lol

It's a good thing I don't have DSL. It's shit, anyway.

I have DSL... from a CLEC (Cavalier)... so I'm concerned for several reasons...

1. My service, overall, is cheaper than the ILEC (Verizon)... My entire phone service + DSL, with taxes comes to just over $70.00... Which equals what an identical telephone plan without DSL would equal w/ Verizon; or what Comcast Cable Internet would equal alone (without TV) before taxes...
2. My service has 10Mbps down and 1Mbps up (far faster than Verizon's DSL, or even Comcast's Cable Internet; at 786mbps/768mbps and 6Mbps/384kbps respectively) [not to mention I have a static IP, which kicks ass for a few reasons in itself]. [CavTel uses ADSL2/ReachDSL.....]

Speed (https://myhome.cavtel.net:7443/users/tekcomputers@cavtel.net/pictures/speed.jpg.htm)
[linked: screen capture downloading CD1 of Mandriva Linux... speed 1,196.48 kilobytes (not bits) per second]

I'm glad I use the school's own private network (paid for by both tax dollars and my big fat tuition checks) most of the year, and I've got about 2 years left on it...

Though in the end all isp’s end up back at some of the big mega corps like At&T who own so much of the backbone that there is no real way around it
Well, that's the problem. Under the current system, since they have common carrier status, they have to sell access to the network to their competitors at the same wholesale rates that they 'charge' themselves, making for an initially-level playing field (and after all, 'their' networks were heavily subsidized by the government when they were built, ie. the taxpayers).

Once these new rules take effect, they're no longer bound by such laws, and can just price anyone who doesn't have their own (government-subsidized) backbone right out of the market. :(

That must explain why I don't have any issue with speed...I can't speak for other providers, but as a Time Warner subscriber, I have had slowdown only once and it was solved by powering down my modem and router and powering them back up.

By contrast, I hear about slow speeds on DSL every day, and most of them are either a result of line congestion or the customer being a moron and loading their PC up with spyware.

I've only had issues with Time Warner when I had really old, shitty lines (10+ years old). Other really small issues with maintenance and power outages. None of these issues had anything to do with other uses bogging the lines down, well, because they can't... The lines are dedicated, which is great. Plus, Time Warner gives unlimited monthly transfer.

Has anyone ever thought how screwed we'd all be if Sun Microsystems were to suddenly go bankrupt?

24mbit ADSL here. I'm happy with it, but it isn't the cheapest. I'm actually thinking about going down to 8mbit to save some money, because I've noticed I rarely need 24 anyway.

I have DSL... from a CLEC (Cavalier)... so I'm concerned for several reasons...

1. My service, overall, is cheaper than the ILEC (Verizon)... My entire phone service + DSL, with taxes comes to just over $70.00... Which equals what an identical telephone plan without DSL would equal w/ Verizon; or what Comcast Cable Internet would equal alone (without TV) before taxes...
2. My service has 10Mbps down and 1Mbps up (far faster than Verizon's DSL, or even Comcast's Cable Internet; at 786mbps/768mbps and 6Mbps/384kbps respectively) [not to mention I have a static IP, which kicks ass for a few reasons in itself]. [CavTel uses ADSL2/ReachDSL.....]

https://myhome.cavtel.net:7443/users/tekcomputers@cavtel.net/pictures/speed.jpg.htm
[attached: screen capture downloading CD1 of Mandriva Linux... speed 1,196.48 kilobytes (not bits) per second]


Another *nix fan *feint*

I'm glad I use the school's own private network (paid for by both tax dollars and my big fat tuition checks) most of the year, and I've got about 2 years left on it...
Most state schools get their bandwidth for free (at least in Minnesota) the only tuition would be if they chose to purchase increased bandwidth

I've only had issues with Time Warner when I had really old, shitty lines (10+ years old). Other really small issues with maintenance and power outages. None of these issues had anything to do with other uses bogging the lines down, well, because they can't... The lines are dedicated, which is great. Plus, Time Warner gives unlimited monthly transfer.

Most of the time, if my cable is out with Time Warner, everybody's is, so they get it fixed really quickly. The only cases where it wasn't, they came to my apartment and fixed it and it worked like a charm, plus they credited my account for lost time (it was only $10 total, but $10 is $10.) I don't know how many other users bog the lines down, considering a lot of my neighbors have satellite and likely don't have RoadRunner (my apartment complex has an exclusive cable contract with Time Warner, so it's either them or DSL or some other shitty service.)

So an Anti-firewall

Punching open ports is a bad thing lol
No, I still run a firewall. The firewall checks everything that goes through every port, if it's something I've never had before, I get an auth pop up that allows me to choose to allow, always allow, deny, or always deny. It runs across all ports...

Not to mention, I know what I'm doing with my computer, and even with more ports open, I have fewer computer problems than almost anyone else I know.

No, I still run a firewall. The firewall checks everything that goes through every port, if it's something I've never had before, I get an auth pop up that allows me to choose to allow, always allow, deny, or always deny. It runs across all ports...

Not to mention, I know what I'm doing with my computer, and even with more ports open, I have fewer computer problems than almost anyone else I know.
I am glad you know what you are doing with your computer. I have a question how does punching holes in your firewall (your original statement of opening ports to increase speed) actually increase the networking performance?

Another *nix fan *feint*

Yeah, I even downloaded Mandriva's latest DVD ISO in just over 35 minutes (2.1 GB ISO image)...

I love my DSL, and don't want it going anywhere...

Actually, I'm not too picky with OS's... I work so much in networks that I keep myself familiar with:
Windows XP
Windows 2k
Windows 2003
OSX
Linux

Right here in front of me I have one AXP (Alpha Server) running a 64bit port of RedHat, OSX on a powerbook, another Alpha running RC1 of Win2k Server, an Intel box running win2k Server [SP4], an Athy-64 running WindowsXP, and a P4 running Mandrake...

I am glad you know what you are doing with your computer. I have a question how does punching holes in your firewall (your original statement of opening ports to increase speed) actually increase the networking performance?
...there seems to be some misunderstanding here...

However, to put this as simply as possible, does traffic flow faster on a one lane street (one lane in each direction) or a 3 lane divided highway (3 lanes in each direction)?

Yeah, I even downloaded Mandriva's latest DVD ISO in just over 35 minutes (2.1 GB ISO image)...

I love my DSL, and don't want it going anywhere...

Actually, I'm not too picky with OS's... I work so much in networks that I keep myself familiar with:
Windows XP
Windows 2k
Windows 2003
OSX
Linux

Right here in front of me I have one AXP (Alpha Server) running a 64bit port of RedHat, OSX on a powerbook, another Alpha running RC1 of Win2k Server, an Intel box running win2k Server [SP4], an Athy-64 running WindowsXP, and a P4 running Mandrake...


Quality

In front of me I have a
p3 433 running FreeBSD [5.3]
P4 3.2 running winxp [SP2]
Dual Opteron246 machine running a dual of winxp64 and debian
G4 with os 10.3

P4 1.6 running fedora (core 3)

lol and a laptop running slackware (10.3)

:)

You sound like me ... right tool for the job ... use what you need in the situation

...there seems to be some misunderstanding here...

However, to put this as simply as possible, does traffic flow faster on a one lane street (one lane in each direction) or a 3 lane divided highway (3 lanes in each direction)?
I asked you because I wanted to clear some things up and trying not to be too technical
( I have my masters in networking and a second in comp information security) ports are a response listener not a communication channel
Opening ports that you do not need either does not improve performance or degrades it not to mention opening your computer to security risk for no reason

Ok this is better stated then I could

) In programming, a port (noun) is a "logical connection place" and specifically, using the Internet's protocol, TCP/IP, the way a client program specifies a particular server program on a computer in a network. Higher-level applications that use TCP/IP such as the Web protocol, Hypertext Transfer Protocol, have ports with preassigned numbers. These are known as "well-known ports" that have been assigned by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Other application processes are given port numbers dynamically for each connection. When a service (server program) initially is started, it is said to bind to its designated port number. As any client program wants to use that server, it also must request to bind to the designated port number.
Port numbers are from 0 to 65536. Ports 0 to 1024 are reserved for use by certain privileged services. For the HTTP service, port 80 is defined as a default and it does not have to be specified in the Uniform Resource Locator (URL).


So it is a logical communication link or listener it does not effect the actual line bandwidth

I have 28.8k. At least that way I can deny having 56k on battle.net.

I have 28.8k. At least that way I can deny having 56k on battle.net.
LOL when I had dialup the lines would only handle 19.4 if I remember right

Oh and forgot one more p4 1.6 running server 2k3

Oh and forgot one more p4 1.6 running server 2k3

This is like a substitute for a dick measuring contest, isn't it? ;)

This is like a substitute for a dick measuring contest, isn't it? ;)
Not quite … I mean the closest would be my individual machine stats
This is more of a depth of knowledge thing … having the individual machines allows us to learn simultaneously about a lot

I mean to some extent yeah but its not the same (posting the stats about your “baby” would be pretty much a “dick measuring” contest though)

Not quite … I mean the closest would be my individual machine stats
This is more of a depth of knowledge thing … having the individual machines allows us to learn simultaneously about a lot

I mean to some extent yeah but its not the same (posting the stats about your “baby” would be pretty much a “dick measuring” contest though)

Well, that sucked the hotness right out of it.

Well, that sucked the hotness right out of it.
;) hehehe

I have several layers of protection...

On the far end; there is the Paradyne ReachDSL/ADSL2 modem, which has it's own built in router and firewall.

My server(s), primarlily have all their in-use ports "stealthed"... That is, they only respons the the proper protocol of the service running those ports.

They also check access, access to services is allowed (generally); some services (such as FTP) have access controls set to only access via my internal land (I use them to distribute non-public software on my network; externally, they deny access, responding invalid credentials (even if the credentials are valid; they still deny, since while the username/pass maybe correct, the IP of the end machine isn't, nor is it comming accross a valid internal port).

Application controls are set, to only allow access from services and applications specifically set by the firewall.

_ In finality, I have to concur with Upward; multiple ports do not increase overall bandwidth of the connection. You're still limited to the bandwidth available by the stream, all streams are the same, regardless of the ports. Each port merely occupies a section of the overall "frame" being sent or recieved. The ports only differentiate, by the system, as to the service in use; and do not effect actual bandwidth.... What a multi-threaded transfer (which is what is being reffered to) does, is decrease the size of each frame, and lessen the effects of retransmits of bad data; this has far more effect on slower more error-prone connections (like dial-up) than it does on broadband connections; though has similar effects ( of allowing a "quicker" transfer)... A TCP or UDP "port" is not actually a seperate "wire" or anything different than any other, "ports" (and even protocols, like TCP and UDP) are merely assists in communications for systems and services to differentiate the destinations and sources of various data transffers... Regardless of the protocol or port, it is all sent as a "frame" over the network, the frame containing pertinent information including (in a TCP/UDP transmission)

The Ethernet Header
The IP Header
The TCP or UDP Header
The information contained.

When a computer communicates over the net; it "packets" (or encapsulates) information.... The actual Ethernet Header is used for routing, to determine source and destination of the information.

The IP header defines the version type, service type, and IP addresses of the source and destination. This is used, also, to determine what resources the information is for, and where to send it locally.

The TCP/UDP header defines the ports the information is being used for; and is used by the destination service(application) for continuing and responding along the appropriate paths.

The data contains the actual information being transmitted or received between the client and server in the transaction; including commands to the remote service.

Regardless of the # of ports in use... All of them are transmitted over the stream sequencially, in packets. Andit is the overall maximum packet size which ultimately determines the maximum speed of the data transmission between the machines. (You could almost think of the system, if you're into HAM radio, as a wired "packet" network... just much, much faster)..

This is like a substitute for a dick measuring contest, isn't it? ;)

Well, my AlphaServers double as Space-Heaters in the winter ;)

Actually, one is ancient; a monster for its time (quad 266Mhz Digitial Semiconductor, 64bit 21164 Alpha CPU's) w/ 1 GB RAM (in SIMMS no less); not much compared to present machines, but considering the machine was primo for 1995 (existing with 75Mhz-90Mhz Pentium's)... The other is a more modern machine, from 1999; with EV56 600Mhz Alpha CPU's.... Got them from a company that was going to toss them during an upgrade... [How dare they try to throw out Alpha's! What a waste!]

snip all the deliciousy accurate data

The Ethernet Header
The IP Header
The TCP or UDP Header
The information contained.

snip all the more awsome data
On the internet model you could go by OSI (with tags for reference)

Application
Presentation
Session
Transport – TCP/UDP
Network - IP
Datalink - LLC
Phisical – Fast Eithernet


But anyways just extra info

Well, my AlphaServers double as Space-Heaters in the winter ;)

Actually, one is ancient; a monster for its time (quad 266Mhz Digitial Semiconductor, 64bit 21164 Alpha CPU's) w/ 1 GB RAM (in SIMMS no less); not much compared to present machines, but considering the machine was primo for 1995 (existing with 75Mhz-90Mhz Pentium's)... The other is a more modern machine, from 1999; with EV56 600Mhz Alpha CPU's.... Got them from a company that was going to toss them during an upgrade... [How dare they try to throw out Alpha's! What a waste!]
You should see the heat that dual opterons pump out [246’s]
MY basement temp raised by 5 – 10 degrees

Well, my AlphaServers double as Space-Heaters in the winter ;)

Actually, one is ancient; a monster for its time (quad 266Mhz Digitial Semiconductor, 64bit 21164 Alpha CPU's) w/ 1 GB RAM (in SIMMS no less); not much compared to present machines, but considering the machine was primo for 1995 (existing with 75Mhz-90Mhz Pentium's)... The other is a more modern machine, from 1999; with EV56 600Mhz Alpha CPU's.... Got them from a company that was going to toss them during an upgrade... [How dare they try to throw out Alpha's! What a waste!]

Nope, sorry. UpwardThrust's post was total libido poison. I'll be limp for the rest of the hour.

Cable internet connections will always always always be faster than DSL (or ADSL) if not in reality but in potential.

I do not know the network structure that you have in States, but it has got to be similar to what we have in the UK! British Telecom basically control the ADSL market, and NTL/Telewest control the Cable broadband network.

Currently BT ADSL is running at 512Kbps, although you can get 1mbps if you are lucky. I am on NTL cable and get 3mbps ( i know the states can get higer, we are a bit backward despite a UK person actually inventing the internet...typical!), the huge difference in speeds is all down to bandwidth, a cable wire is a lot thicker than a BT copper wire and therefore has more bandwidth for signals to travel down, basically NTL has a hose pipe for transferring data and BT has a needle sized pipe. Thus, cable will win eventually cause they can fit more data down a hosepipe than BT can down a needle sized pipe. NTL also have the benefit of having fibre to the home...this is what is going to kill ADSL, with fibre you could be getting speeds of over a 50Gb a second, something which is impossible on ADSL.

BT will be getting rid of ADSL in favour of fibre in their new network, the 21st Century Network which is currently being implemented.

-snip-

Nope. Not even a twitch. :(

Cable internet connections will always always always be faster than DSL (or ADSL) if not in reality but in potential.

I do not know the network structure that you have in States, but it has got to be similar to what we have in the UK! British Telecom basically control the ADSL market, and NTL/Telewest control the Cable broadband network.

Currently BT ADSL is running at 512Kbps, although you can get 1mbps if you are lucky. I am on NTL cable and get 3mbps ( i know the states can get higer, we are a bit backward despite a UK person actually inventing the internet...typical!), the huge difference in speeds is all down to bandwidth, a cable wire is a lot thicker than a BT copper wire and therefore has more bandwidth for signals to travel down, basically NTL has a hose pipe for transferring data and BT has a needle sized pipe. Thus, cable will win eventually cause they can fit more data down a hosepipe than BT can down a needle sized pipe. NTL also have the benefit of having fibre to the home...this is what is going to kill ADSL, with fibre you could be getting speeds of over a 50Gb a second, something which is impossible on ADSL.

BT will be getting rid of ADSL in favour of fibre in their new network, the 21st Century Network which is currently being implemented.

Comcast is 6mbps down, 384kbps up here...

I have ADSL2/ReachDSL throuhg CavTel [ADSL2/Reach has more range, and faster transmission speeds over ADSL]; and get 10mbps down and 1mbps up... And I get a telephone + my DSL, which includes taxes; at what I could get Cable for BEFORE taxes... So it's no contest for me.

Stop hijacking my thread! This was supposed to generate outrage! WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE???

I'm outraged at the lack of outrage in this thread. :D

DSL's on the outs anyway, or it is once its providers switch to fiber optics...in the meantime, I don't care how much cheaper DSL is than cable; I would rather pay for my RoadRunner than get DSL for free.
DSL can leverage the dark fiber in a way other forms of access can't providing even gigabit connections.

The cable companies have content and a lot of money to pour into infrastructure. But the real competition, would be ubiquitious wimax. 99/mo is a little expensive for what one gets. But if that drops to say 12/mo, that's pretty hard to beat.

DSL can leverage the dark fiber in a way other forms of access can't providing even gigabit connections.

The cable companies have content and a lot of money to pour into infrastructure. But the real competition, would be ubiquitious wimax. 99/mo is a little expensive for what one gets. But if that drops to say 12/mo, that's pretty hard to beat.
And potentaly satalite has the ability to trump them all ... but I have gone there and done that there are other performance stats then bandwidth

Latency and reliability to name a couple

And potentaly satalite has the ability to trump them all ... but I have gone there and done that there are other performance stats then bandwidth

Latency and reliability to name a couple

Agreed..... Satalite certainly has the capacity for rather high "bandwidth".... But it's latency (mostly due to the problem of high rates of transmission errors when broadcasting over the airwaves) is horrible; and will make it virtually impossible to trump land-lines.... Bandwidth means little if you have a high rate of packet loss over the medium. (Why I've liked the ADSL2/Reach technologies being used by CavTel (with their paradyne equipment; allows for further distance along the lines, and faster speeds using existing mediums)... I used to be a die hard Comcast fan in my area for broadband; till I decided to shift to CavTel...

I tend to think that the ruling won't effect CavTel, since Verizon had to rework the local exchanges so much to facilitate the CLEC's... Would cost too much to bother to rework the system over again....

It's a good thing I don't have DSL. It's shit, anyway.

I'm stuck with 56K modem connection still. Where I am DSL/ADSL is my other alternative, ditto any other choices.

Agreed..... Satalite certainly has the capacity for rather high "bandwidth".... But it's latency (mostly due to the problem of high rates of transmission errors when broadcasting over the airwaves) is horrible; and will make it virtually impossible to trump land-lines.... Bandwidth means little if you have a high rate of packet loss over the medium. (Why I've liked the ADSL2/Reach technologies being used by CavTel (with their paradyne equipment; allows for further distance along the lines, and faster speeds using existing mediums)... I used to be a die hard Comcast fan in my area for broadband; till I decided to shift to CavTel...

I tend to think that the ruling won't effect CavTel, since Verizon had to rework the local exchanges so much to facilitate the CLEC's... Would cost too much to bother to rework the system over again....
Agreed … two years of satellite have absolutely proven it to me (direcway)

Data transmission errors are a pain in the ass and the problem is just exaggerated by TCP’s horrendous performance on a wireless/satellite connection … the slow start algorithm while great on a land line is brought into play WAY too often

Then you have to get fancy but a lot of the improvements don’t work when you don’t have total managing control of the link so split and snoop tcp is out … in the end I ended up going SACK to eek a bit more performance out of it but it only does so much.

Then DirecWay is a geosync satellite provider so the transmission delay is in the neighborhood of 800 ms just for transmission time

In the end even though I had 5 Mbps down and 1 up games and any interactive sort of internet usage (VOIP) were out (until I switched to clearwire anyways … wide range wireless network)

Agreed … two years of satellite have absolutely proven it to me (direcway)

Data transmission errors are a pain in the ass and the problem is just exaggerated by TCP’s horrendous performance on a wireless/satellite connection … the slow start algorithm while great on a land line is brought into play WAY too often

Then you have to get fancy but a lot of the improvements don’t work when you don’t have total managing control of the link so split and snoop tcp is out … in the end I ended up going SACK to eek a bit more performance out of it but it only does so much.

Then DirecWay is a geosync satellite provider so the transmission delay is in the neighborhood of 800 ms just for transmission time

In the end even though I had 5 Mbps down and 1 up games and any interactive sort of internet usage (VOIP) were out (until I switched to clearwire anyways … wide range wireless network)


Yep, 800ms (from my view) is horrible.... Considering my latency over my land-lines from here (Virginia) to California is only in the range of 5-8ms...

I've handled customers with Satalite Internet... And that was enough for me to distance myself from it.... They, however, for broadband, are stuck with it; being far out of the range of either Verizon or Cavilier's fiber; and being outside of Comcast's service area.

Yep, 800ms (from my view) is horrible.... Considering my latency over my land-lines from here (Virginia) to California is only in the range of 5-8ms...

I've handled customers with Satalite Internet... And that was enough for me to distance myself from it.... They, however, for broadband, are stuck with it; being far out of the range of either Verizon or Cavilier's fiber; and being outside of Comcast's service area.
I was also out of range for DSL and Cable so for 2 years satalite was the only broadband option

Though now clearwire moved in switched to that … ABSOLUTLY love it … general performance at or better then cable/dsl speeds in every metric I have been able to apply to it (not to mention dedicated not shared bandwidth)
Low loss low latency high bandwidth … I want to hug the thing every night before I go to bed

Edit and 800 ms was just TRAVEL time my AVERAGE latency overall was about 1100

It's a good thing my internet comes through the cable!

It's a good thing my internet comes through the cable!
Wish I had that option lol

I'm stuck with 56K modem connection still. Where I am DSL/ADSL is my other alternative, ditto any other choices.
Well you COULD do satellite lol but DSL is better

I have RoadRunner and the service is excellent. It's always fast and extremely reliable. Everyone in New York has cable, only a few have DSL and few to none have dial up. Seriously, after boradband first appeared in most areas, most people stuck with dial up. I got cable in March 2002 and the price was always good. Most people didnt get it until a year later.

I have RoadRunner and the service is excellent. It's always fast and extremely reliable. Everyone in New York has cable, only a few have DSL and few to none have dial up. Seriously, after boradband first appeared in most areas, most people stuck with dial up. I got cable in March 2002 and the price was always good. Most people didnt get it until a year later.
Too bad not an option in my area

Time Warner and RoadRunner have been kind enough to provide the following in my area for $124/month:

Digital phone service with unlimited long distance anywhere in the US and Canada;
Expanded digital cable with a "family" pak and all premium HBO and Showtime channels - about 200channels in all
Cable internet with RR, modem and AOL

Considering I live in an area where calling 10 miles away is long distance, I'm pretty happy :D