Question about DSL

[geezer]

I am using cable, and so do not know much about DSL. But I have a
friend (who lives 100 miles away) that just subscribed to DSL
(Verizon), and he wonders if he can really do what he wants to do.

He has three machines, co-located in one house. Each machine will
have what he says is a DSL modem, each of which apparently will have
its own serial number which he says he can register with Verizon.

He wants to connect each machine to a hub (USB I think), thence to the
outside world. He then wants to move two of the machines to two of
his other homes (God he is rich!), and use those machines there. Can
he do this? What problems will he have?

Thanks


Geezer

 

[Jan Alter]

I don't know if things have changed since I signed up with Verizon, but they
sent me an external DSL modem along with filters that connect to the wall
connection before connecting telephones. If one obtains a router and plugs
the modem into it one can connect 3 or four more computers and also get the
DSL. Additionally, if one were to purchase a wireless router then one could
pick up the DSL throughout the house. If your friend's homes are within
close proximity to the first house; maybe 100 feet then he could possibly
have them achieving DSL through that one account, but most probably those
homes are a lot farther away and your rich friend will most likely have to
spring for two more additional DSL accounts and two additional dsl modems.

 

[geezer]

I don't know if things have changed since I signed up with Verizon, but they
sent me an external DSL modem along with filters that connect to the wall
connection before connecting telephones. If one obtains a router and plugs
the modem into it one can connect 3 or four more computers and also get the
DSL. Additionally, if one were to purchase a wireless router then one could
pick up the DSL throughout the house. If your friend's homes are within
close proximity to the first house; maybe 100 feet then he could possibly
have them achieving DSL through that one account, but most probably those
homes are a lot farther away and your rich friend will most likely have to
spring for two more additional DSL accounts and two additional dsl modems.

Makes sense to me!
Thanks
I passed your post along to Daddy Warbucks

Geezer

 

[Oralist]

Frankly,I'd tell him to go with cable,I have Verizon DSL,and it's far from
perfect.Constant interupts,if the phone rings while I'm downloading,it
screws everthing up.The speed is great one minute,lousy the next.

 

[Kurt]

It all depends on where you live. DSL here (Qwest, not Verizon) gets 300 -
400K downloads from Symantec on a 5Mb connection ($79.95). 1 Meg is $21.95.
Both are less than the full pipe, but compare favorably to cable. Cable is
cheaper if you understand that "up to 5 Mbps" also means "down to 20 or
30KB" (less than 256K) during peak times, and far slower upload speeds.

....kurt

 

[Bob]

It all depends on where you live. DSL here (Qwest, not Verizon) gets 300 -
400K downloads from Symantec on a 5Mb connection ($79.95). 1 Meg is $21.95.
Both are less than the full pipe, but compare favorably to cable. Cable is
cheaper if you understand that "up to 5 Mbps" also means "down to 20 or
30KB" (less than 256K) during peak times, and far slower upload speeds.

Bullshit.

 

[kony]

It all depends on where you live. DSL here (Qwest, not Verizon) gets 300 -
400K downloads from Symantec on a 5Mb connection ($79.95). 1 Meg is $21.95.
Both are less than the full pipe, but compare favorably to cable. Cable is
cheaper if you understand that "up to 5 Mbps" also means "down to 20 or
30KB" (less than 256K) during peak times, and far slower upload speeds.

...kurt

That's not comparing favorably to cable, cable can easily
exceed 700K down on a basic lowest-cost plan. HOWEVER, DSL
often has a higher upload cap which can be very important to
some users (but is also more often limited in a tiered
pricing plan for ADSL).

Cable is never even close to as low as 20 or 30K, that is
not a matter of load but would be a malfunction or an
unscrupulous company overextending their network
capabilities. In other words it is not at all likely to
ever be that low. Not even likely to be 100K or less.

 

[Kurt]

I was talking about where I live. I'm sure cable is perfect where you are.
But I just did a speed test (at y boss's house) and downloaded at 30KB.
You're entitled to your opinion and to be as rude as you see fit.

....kurt

 

[kony]

I was talking about where I live. I'm sure cable is perfect where you are.
But I just did a speed test (at y boss's house) and downloaded at 30KB.
You're entitled to your opinion and to be as rude as you see fit.

Momentary download speeds are not necessarily a reliable
indication of speed at the receiver's end. Better to use a
'site set up to do the test, actually not one but from
several locations like those listed at
http://www.dslreports.com/stest

 

[Bob]

I was talking about where I live. I'm sure cable is perfect where you are.
But I just did a speed test (at y boss's house) and downloaded at 30KB.
You're entitled to your opinion and to be as rude as you see fit.

Quit top posting - and quit bullshitting people.

There is no way a cable connection is going to test at 30KB/sec. I can
get faster transmission from 2 tins cans and a long string. <g>

The only speed test that is valid is the one that is between your
computer and a network computer at the cable company. If you attempt
to perform a test that traverses the Internet, it is not a valid test
of the speed of the ISP connection.

 

[Bob]

Momentary download speeds are not necessarily a reliable
indication of speed at the receiver's end. Better to use a
'site set up to do the test, actually not one but from
several locations like those listed at
http://www.dslreports.com/stest

Those tests require traversing the Internet and therefore do not
provide meaningful results of the speed of the ISP connection.

If you want to report the speed of Internet connections, then it is
not appropriate to reference the ISP connection as long as it is
substantially faster than the Internet in general.

My cable connection in Houston is with Warner Cable and Road Runner. I
live not too far from the main HQ for Warner. When I run a speed test
I use the one provided by RR that connects from my computer to a
network computer at RR. I am getting around 5,000 kilobits/second.
There is no way I am getting that if I traverse the Internet in
general.

 

[Bob]

That's not comparing favorably to cable, cable can easily
exceed 700K down on a basic lowest-cost plan. HOWEVER, DSL
often has a higher upload cap which can be very important to
some users (but is also more often limited in a tiered
pricing plan for ADSL).

Cable is never even close to as low as 20 or 30K, that is
not a matter of load but would be a malfunction or an
unscrupulous company overextending their network
capabilities. In other words it is not at all likely to
ever be that low. Not even likely to be 100K or less.

The reason for the poor readings is his test traverses the Internet,
where slow speeds are typical.

 

[kony]

Those tests require traversing the Internet and therefore do not
provide meaningful results of the speed of the ISP connection.

They are still meaningful, because there is a database and
one can compare their results to those attained by others.

Further, those tests are deliberately set up with servers on
fat pipes, meant to not have the bottlenecks.

If you want to report the speed of Internet connections, then it is
not appropriate to reference the ISP connection as long as it is
substantially faster than the Internet in general.

Usually that's somewhat true, BUT if you are doing a test
where there is no bandwidth limit, it can be useful. One
really need not know their maximum download speed though,
rather, a median value will suffice since there is no need
to know how the system can download from only the ISP if
that box is never downloading from the ISP in regular use.

My cable connection in Houston is with Warner Cable and Road Runner. I
live not too far from the main HQ for Warner. When I run a speed test
I use the one provided by RR that connects from my computer to a
network computer at RR. I am getting around 5,000 kilobits/second.
There is no way I am getting that if I traverse the Internet in
general.

If that was an accurate test, not deliberately (or not)
skewed by using text that can be compressed for example, you
should approach that same speed in a test with one of the
choices in the link I provided. I have seen them provide at
rates higher than the 5000Kbps you mentioned.

 

[kony]

The reason for the poor readings is his test traverses the Internet,
where slow speeds are typical.

Maybe, or just the particular server connected to was the
limit. I've never seen any cable internet connection that
was working properly and was at 20-30K. The internet may
be congested but generally not THAT congested.

 

[Bennett Price]

To use 3 computers in one house, he won't need 3 DSL (or cable)
accounts. Just a modem and router (wired and/or wireless)to which all 3
machines are connected. To use computers in 3 different homes, each
home will need its own DSL (or cable) connection (unless they are in
shouting distance of one another in which case a wireless card in the
computers can talk to one wireless hub.

 

[Ken Maltby]

My cable connection in Houston is with Warner Cable and Road Runner. I
live not too far from the main HQ for Warner. When I run a speed test
I use the one provided by RR that connects from my computer to a
network computer at RR. I am getting around 5,000 kilobits/second.
There is no way I am getting that if I traverse the Internet in
general.

That's funny, I had RR from Time Warner (was Paragon) here
in San Antonio, and it's a shared connection, in that your bandwith
is shared with whoever is also on your leg of the cable (Fiber
actually). It was down much of the time and throttled back most
of the rest of the time. When I pointed out the deficiencies they
would say they only had to supply a certain minimum speed and if
I got any more I was lucky so there was no problem.

The second tier DSL I got from SBC is rock solid, practically never
down, my downloads are seldom limited by my connection but by
the site I'm downloading from. If I switch to a different site I'll get a
much faster download, so it's not my connection that is slowing the
process. I'm not sure what the fastest download I've done with the
DSL but I sometimes get near 600KBps, most of the time it's between
~160KBps and ~300KBps for real downloads not a ping of my IP
(DNS) [Which really means very little.].

Luck;
Ken

 

[Ken Maltby]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:57:34 GMT, (e-mail address removed) (Bob) wrote:

I've never seen any cable internet connection that

was working properly .

I know mine seldom did.

Luck;
Ken

 

[Bob]

I had RR from Time Warner (was Paragon) here
in San Antonio, and it's a shared connection, in that your bandwith
is shared with whoever is also on your leg of the cable (Fiber
actually). It was down much of the time and throttled back most
of the rest of the time. When I pointed out the deficiencies they
would say they only had to supply a certain minimum speed and if
I got any more I was lucky so there was no problem.

Move to Houston.


--

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw

 

[Bob]

I know mine seldom did.

I have had Warner Cable Road Runner for several years and it has been
very reliable. But then I waited until they worked out the problems,
which took several years.

I suppose it all depends on where you are and what phase of the growth
cycle you are in. While my service has been very reliable, there were
others in Houston who were plagued with problems, especially people in
high density area - apartments and such.

Maybe I am getting reliable service because I live next to the county
line and there are not many people living in the area. Also, the
headquarters for Warner Cable is not far away so I have a direct path
to the "heads".


--

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw

 

[geezer]

To use 3 computers in one house, he won't need 3 DSL (or cable)
accounts. Just a modem and router (wired and/or wireless)to which all 3
machines are connected. To use computers in 3 different homes, each
home will need its own DSL (or cable) connection (unless they are in
shouting distance of one another in which case a wireless card in the
computers can talk to one wireless hub.

The question really is: Can he install DSL in a second home 100 miles
away but in Verizon's service area with one account? Alternatively,
would this work if he carried the modem back and forth? Or carried
computer and modem (this would certainly be an incentive
to get a laptop) back and forth?

Thanks

Geezer