🚀 go-pugleaf

> I downloaded a shareware demo program from this site and checking the
> Download speed I'm getting from ATT @home.

I don't understand the commercials that ATT@Home is running. in which they
scornfully point out that ADSL is "shared bandwidth" -- as if they're offering a
service that isn't...

the website sucks!!!!!!!
mr_bigmoney <bigmoney@home.com> wrote in message
news:RjGp5.100013$6y5.68689404@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> I downloaded a shareware demo program from this site and checking the
> Download speed I'm getting from ATT @home.
>
> http://www.broadbandwizard.net
>
> My connection speed sucks.  The graph can show 56K bandwidth, Cable, DSL,
T1
>
> My downloads are avg of 100kbps.  Just above a 56K bandwit\dth speed.  Not
> what I was promised.
> If you have ATT @home, (I'm in Plano Texas(near Dallas))
> What are you getting .
>
> ~bigmoney
>
>

Try:  http://members.home.com/whr/speed


"mr_bigmoney" <bigmoney@home.com> wrote in message
news:RjGp5.100013$6y5.68689404@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> I downloaded a shareware demo program from this site and checking the
> Download speed I'm getting from ATT @home.
>
> http://www.broadbandwizard.net
>
> My connection speed sucks.  The graph can show 56K bandwidth, Cable, DSL,
T1
>
> My downloads are avg of 100kbps.  Just above a 56K bandwit\dth speed.  Not
> what I was promised.
> If you have ATT @home, (I'm in Plano Texas(near Dallas))
> What are you getting .
>
> ~bigmoney
>
>

mr_bigmoney <bigmoney@home.com> wrote:

>I downloaded a shareware demo program from this site and checking the
>Download speed I'm getting from ATT @home.
>

Try http://www.dslreports.com

Look for speed tests.

-- 
Thought for the day:
<http://mysite.directlink.net/matthews/smiles/started.htm>

I have the AT&T Digital Broadband phone service, I had originally signed up
for the internet service, when the install got it in the first thing I  did
was check the speed on MSN it was about 60K, I told him sorry that ain't
gonna fly, and along with i having to connect each time and dymanic IP, I
had him to take it out.
I like the phone service from them, it is crisp and clear.

mr_bigmoney <bigmoney@home.com> wrote in message
news:RjGp5.100013$6y5.68689404@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> I downloaded a shareware demo program from this site and checking the
> Download speed I'm getting from ATT @home.
>
> http://www.broadbandwizard.net
>
> My connection speed sucks.  The graph can show 56K bandwidth, Cable, DSL,
T1
>
> My downloads are avg of 100kbps.  Just above a 56K bandwit\dth speed.  Not
> what I was promised.
> If you have ATT @home, (I'm in Plano Texas(near Dallas))
> What are you getting .
>
> ~bigmoney
>
>

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 14:25:35 GMT, "Barry Adair" <Barry@Adair.net>
wrote:

www.houston.rr.com has a spped meter that works well...
roadrunner service(in NC is kick ass)

>I have the AT&T Digital Broadband phone service, I had originally signed up
>for the internet service, when the install got it in the first thing I  did
>was check the speed on MSN it was about 60K, I told him sorry that ain't
>gonna fly, and along with i having to connect each time and dymanic IP, I
>had him to take it out.
>I like the phone service from them, it is crisp and clear.
>
>mr_bigmoney <bigmoney@home.com> wrote in message
>news:RjGp5.100013$6y5.68689404@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>> I downloaded a shareware demo program from this site and checking the
>> Download speed I'm getting from ATT @home.
>>
>> http://www.broadbandwizard.net
>>
>> My connection speed sucks.  The graph can show 56K bandwidth, Cable, DSL,
>T1
>>
>> My downloads are avg of 100kbps.  Just above a 56K bandwit\dth speed.  Not
>> what I was promised.
>> If you have ATT @home, (I'm in Plano Texas(near Dallas))
>> What are you getting .
>>
>> ~bigmoney
>>
>>
>
>

If you're talking about the download speed as indicated in the
download window, it's in K bytes not K bits.  So a download speed of 100
Kbps would equate to a download speed of 800 kilo bits per second. 
That's a bit slow compared to ADSL and a good internet connection, but
still considerably better than a 56k modem, which is 56 kilo bits (not
bytes) per second.
   Also, keep in mind that internet congestion, and the speed of the
service to which you're connected and how many other computers are
downloading from that site, are just some of the factors that will
affect your download speed.
   Yet another factor that can affect your download speed, and is seldom
mentioned, is any data compression taking place in the download
protocol, which is why you can sometimes get download speeds seemingly
higher than your actual data rate.
   As to the shared bandwidth issue: ADSL is not shared until you get
onto the ATM pipe out of your central office.  Cable bandwidth is shared
on your local node.  As far as I'm concerned this issue is moot, since
all internet connections involved shared bandwidth somewhere along the
connection.  I'd say it's all marketing hype, but if your local cable
provider isn't quick enough to breakdown the local nodes into smaller
ones as more users come online, it's not just marketing hype.

					Bill

> DSL fans at work har-har over my pathetic little shared-bandwidth cable
> modem. They turn green when I tell them I'm getting 5 Mbps downloads (over
> two modems) and static IPs. It costs me $50/month.
> 
> A friend of mine pays $69/month for 768 Kbps down and 128 Kbps up. His
> "always on" circuit times out every few minutes (even in mid-download),
> forcing him to do a PPPoE redial that sometimes doesn't connect. When he
> gets on-line, his throughput to the Internet only approaches 768 Kbps
> weekdays at 4 AM. At all other times, he hovers between 200 and 500 Kbps.
> Meanwhile, I'm over here in the DSL ghetto (too far from the CO) and I get
> consistent 2.5 Mbps downloads from external sites, any time of day.
> 
> I know not everybody has such success with cable modems. I went through
> months of hell before it worked properly, but it was worth it. I longed for
> DSL until friends and co-workers got it and shared their stories with me. To
> the person, they're paying more money for, at best, 1/3rd of my throughput.
> 
> So they can have DSL. I'm quite happy limping along with my nasty little
> shared-bandwidth toy.
> 
> Unless you've got telco fiber-to-the-curb, DSL's superiority over cable is a
> myth. I guess that's why the vast majority of U.S. broadband users are on
> cable.

   Just wait until more of your neighbors get cable service.  You'll no
longer be getting 5Mbps downloads.

					Bill

"William Oertell" <oertell@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:39A9C048.E4D@pacbell.net...
>    As to the shared bandwidth issue: ADSL is not shared until you get
> onto the ATM pipe out of your central office.  Cable bandwidth is shared
> on your local node.  As far as I'm concerned this issue is moot, since
> all internet connections involved shared bandwidth somewhere along the
> connection.  I'd say it's all marketing hype, but if your local cable
> provider isn't quick enough to breakdown the local nodes into smaller
> ones as more users come online, it's not just marketing hype.

DSL fans at work har-har over my pathetic little shared-bandwidth cable
modem. They turn green when I tell them I'm getting 5 Mbps downloads (over
two modems) and static IPs. It costs me $50/month.

A friend of mine pays $69/month for 768 Kbps down and 128 Kbps up. His
"always on" circuit times out every few minutes (even in mid-download),
forcing him to do a PPPoE redial that sometimes doesn't connect. When he
gets on-line, his throughput to the Internet only approaches 768 Kbps
weekdays at 4 AM. At all other times, he hovers between 200 and 500 Kbps.
Meanwhile, I'm over here in the DSL ghetto (too far from the CO) and I get
consistent 2.5 Mbps downloads from external sites, any time of day.

I know not everybody has such success with cable modems. I went through
months of hell before it worked properly, but it was worth it. I longed for
DSL until friends and co-workers got it and shared their stories with me. To
the person, they're paying more money for, at best, 1/3rd of my throughput.

So they can have DSL. I'm quite happy limping along with my nasty little
shared-bandwidth toy.

Unless you've got telco fiber-to-the-curb, DSL's superiority over cable is a
myth. I guess that's why the vast majority of U.S. broadband users are on
cable.

from the server in the early AM I get speeds in excess of 2.6 megabits.
During the day and primetime hours it slows to between 500kbps and 1.2
megabits but it still blows away any dial-up 56k I ever used.
mr_bigmoney <bigmoney@home.com> wrote in message
news:RjGp5.100013$6y5.68689404@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> I downloaded a shareware demo program from this site and checking the
> Download speed I'm getting from ATT @home.
>
> http://www.broadbandwizard.net
>
> My connection speed sucks.  The graph can show 56K bandwidth, Cable, DSL,
T1
>
> My downloads are avg of 100kbps.  Just above a 56K bandwit\dth speed.  Not
> what I was promised.
> If you have ATT @home, (I'm in Plano Texas(near Dallas))
> What are you getting .
>
> ~bigmoney
>
>

In article <7elq5.91646$oj6.1888113@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com>,
	"Schnauzer" <fnerk@poobeezler.com> writes:
> "William Oertell" <oertell@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:39A9C048.E4D@pacbell.net...
>>    As to the shared bandwidth issue: ADSL is not shared until you get
>> onto the ATM pipe out of your central office.  Cable bandwidth is shared
>> on your local node.  As far as I'm concerned this issue is moot, since
>> all internet connections involved shared bandwidth somewhere along the
>> connection.  I'd say it's all marketing hype, but if your local cable
>> provider isn't quick enough to breakdown the local nodes into smaller
>> ones as more users come online, it's not just marketing hype.
> 
> DSL fans at work har-har over my pathetic little shared-bandwidth cable
> modem. They turn green when I tell them I'm getting 5 Mbps downloads (over
> two modems) and static IPs. It costs me $50/month.

When did @home start offering MPP? Or are you just adding the numbers from
two sessions together?

Paul
 
> A friend of mine pays $69/month for 768 Kbps down and 128 Kbps up. His
> "always on" circuit times out every few minutes (even in mid-download),
> forcing him to do a PPPoE redial that sometimes doesn't connect. When he
> gets on-line, his throughput to the Internet only approaches 768 Kbps
> weekdays at 4 AM. At all other times, he hovers between 200 and 500 Kbps.
> Meanwhile, I'm over here in the DSL ghetto (too far from the CO) and I get
> consistent 2.5 Mbps downloads from external sites, any time of day.
> 
> I know not everybody has such success with cable modems. I went through
> months of hell before it worked properly, but it was worth it. I longed for
> DSL until friends and co-workers got it and shared their stories with me. To
> the person, they're paying more money for, at best, 1/3rd of my throughput.
> 
> So they can have DSL. I'm quite happy limping along with my nasty little
> shared-bandwidth toy.
> 
> Unless you've got telco fiber-to-the-curb, DSL's superiority over cable is a
> myth. I guess that's why the vast majority of U.S. broadband users are on
> cable.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
The lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now.
Modular furniture is cruel and unusual.

Comcast is the Best!

mr_bigmoney wrote:

> I downloaded a shareware demo program from this site and checking the
> Download speed I'm getting from ATT @home.
>
> http://www.broadbandwizard.net
>
> My connection speed sucks.  The graph can show 56K bandwidth, Cable, DSL, T1
>
> My downloads are avg of 100kbps.  Just above a 56K bandwit\dth speed.  Not
> what I was promised.
> If you have ATT @home, (I'm in Plano Texas(near Dallas))
> What are you getting .
>
> ~bigmoney

They are pointing out that ADSL is also shared bandwidth, because DSL
promoters have been using "shared bandwidth" to scare off Cable customers
for some time now, and it's been wildly successful.

"Hank Mishkoff" <Hank@AddisonWeb.com> wrote in message
news:39919E0D6FD3C3E5.0B686DB361EC8AEC.97EEC082EF6EAB7D@lp.airnews.net...
> > I downloaded a shareware demo program from this site and checking the
> > Download speed I'm getting from ATT @home.
>
> I don't understand the commercials that ATT@Home is running. in which they
> scornfully point out that ADSL is "shared bandwidth" -- as if they're
offering a
> service that isn't...
>
>

On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 01:42:34 GMT, Zachary Souder <zachary80@home.com>
wrote:

>Comcast is the Best!
preach it i constantly get up to 5mbps with comcast
=)

>
>mr_bigmoney wrote:
>
>> I downloaded a shareware demo program from this site and checking the
>> Download speed I'm getting from ATT @home.
>>
>> http://www.broadbandwizard.net
>>
>> My connection speed sucks.  The graph can show 56K bandwidth, Cable, DSL, T1
>>
>> My downloads are avg of 100kbps.  Just above a 56K bandwit\dth speed.  Not
>> what I was promised.
>> If you have ATT @home, (I'm in Plano Texas(near Dallas))
>> What are you getting .
>>
>> ~bigmoney

>    Just wait until more of your neighbors get cable service.  You'll no
> longer be getting 5Mbps downloads.

There's nearly T3 bandwidth available to the NODE.   If he has speed
problems, it'll probably be because the back end doesn't have enough speed
to support all of the nodes, not problems at the neighborhood level.

If you read some other threads about average bandwith usage, you'd be
*astonished* how little bandwidth a group of average people typically soak
up.    I've read several claims of *hundreds* of ACTIVE, residential
BROADBAND customers run off a pair of *T1*s, who "rarely max them out".

That in mind, I truly fear the day when something like the Olympics is
broadcast with streaming media.  It would crumble companies relying on this
"typical usage" scenario.

-- Rob

> They are pointing out that ADSL is also shared bandwidth, because DSL
> promoters have been using "shared bandwidth" to scare off Cable customers
> for some time now, and it's been wildly successful.
> 
   At what point is ADSL bandwidth shared?  Not in the local loop.  Once
on the ATM backbone, yeah, but that's true of anything "internet".

				Bill

> They are pointing out that ADSL is also shared bandwidth, because DSL
> promoters have been using "shared bandwidth" to scare off Cable customers for
> some time now, and it's been wildly successful.

Right, but they're implying that cable is *not* shared bandwidth, so the ad is
misleading, at best.

In article <C3D74073D45AF382.CF2D5B0393BBCF9D.C8CD34AF5DC67C62
@lp.airnews.net>, Hank@AddisonWeb.com crafted the following using only a 
keyboard and a mouse...

> 
> Right, but they're implying that cable is *not* shared bandwidth, so the ad is
> misleading, at best.
> 
> 
> 

No they aren't.

Scott
-- 
==================================
I want to have an open mind, but
not so open that my brains fall out

> > Right, but they're implying that cable is *not* shared bandwidth, so the ad is
> > misleading, at best.
> >
> >
> >
>
> No they aren't.

The commercial basically says something like: You shouldn't believe the
"high-bandwidth" claims of the phone company because it's *shared* bandwidth -- so
you should use AT&T Cable for Net access instead. (Obviously, that's not a direct
quote.) Are you saying that you don't feel that that statement contains an
implication that AT&T Cable is *not* shared bandwidth?

Well written..it is easily the most lucid and objective explanation of the
differences between DSL and cable I have read to date. I agree 100%...both
DSL and cable are shared, the only difference is where the sharing occurs
down the pipe. Anyone who believes one is more secure over the other has
been fed bad information. As long as the IP addressed is fixed and you leave
you PC on all the time, you are ripe for probing (even with DHCP, you
machine is suspectible to IP sweeps).

I would only add that, at this time, neither DSL or cable has an overall
advantage over the other. Rather, if you are lucky enough to have both
available in your area, it is the provider who has done a better job of
network implementation, support and upgrade.

In CO, we are blessed with both offerings. However, US West/Quest has been
unable to keep up with demand and their price structures for comparable
cable modem speed would make it tough to afford execpt for the most avid
internet junky. AT&T/TCI on the other hand, appears to have benefited from
their sister company's growing pains in other regions and has done it right.
From day one (going back to Jan, 99), I have had a total of 4 days outage
(over two separate incidences) and it turned out that a damn squirrel chewed
through my line to the hub on one of them. I have had solid bandwidth that
averages out to over 1.2 mbps (400 kbps low, 2+ mbps high). Even during peak
I am typically at 800 kbps.

At least for now it seems that cable modem in the Denver Metro area is
winning the battle for the home user.

--

Matt Y.
SFL@nospam.com
Change SFL to "schwagfl and nospam to "home"


"Dakai" <dakai2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X1zr5.4639$kI2.86979@nntp1.onemain.com...
> Any connection to the internet is going to be shared, once past the telco
> switch, whether you are using dial up, DSL, cable or even a T1.  Why do I
> say that?  It's like this; at some point of your connection, you are going
> to hit a router, and beyond that router you will find shared bandwidth no
> "if's, and's or but's about it."
>
> I have DSL service at my home, my connection to the not shared to my home
to
> the telco CO switch, that is to say that my DSL is private to the telco.
> From the CO switch however that connection is shared.  Do you honestly
> believe that by having DSL service you are going to have a dedicated
circuit
> to your ISP?  If that is the case, why then when the telco has DSL
problems
> and my link goes down am I unable to make the link to my ISP?  Think about
> it people.  Your circuit is private from the demark (point of service at
> your home or office) to the CO, not from the demark to your ISP.  It just
> takes an understanding of telecommunications and routing to understand how
> it all works.
>
> A cable modem is a bit different.  I look at cable service (in theory) as
> going from my house, to a hub which then goes to a router and from there
> onto the Internet.  From everything that I have read, cable modem service
is
> private from your PC to the point of service, from there it is shared with
> other users in the local area.  The more persons that are online as the
same
> time as you does in fact decrease your bandwidth capability.
>
> I heard a commercial the other day for DSL that compared cable service to
> dsl, and claimed that dsl service was more secure than that of cable
> service.  I disagree with that claim and I think any knowledgable user
would
> disagree.  No internet connection is that secure, just ask any company who
> has had their firewall hacked.
>
> "Hank Mishkoff" <Hank@AddisonWeb.com> wrote in message
> news:0426843E64EE021B.8B9EAFA49A11AD1A.E86675C9889250A4@lp.airnews.net...
> > > > Right, but they're implying that cable is *not* shared bandwidth, so
> the ad is
> > > > misleading, at best.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > No they aren't.
> >
> > The commercial basically says something like: You shouldn't believe the
> > "high-bandwidth" claims of the phone company because it's *shared*
> bandwidth -- so
> > you should use AT&T Cable for Net access instead. (Obviously, that's not
a
> direct
> > quote.) Are you saying that you don't feel that that statement contains
an
> > implication that AT&T Cable is *not* shared bandwidth?
> >
> >
>
>

In article <xmBr5.116256$6y5.77660182@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, 
SFL@nospam.com crafted the following using only a keyboard and a 
mouse...

> 
> In CO, we are blessed with both offerings. However, US West/Quest has been
> unable to keep up with demand and their price structures for comparable
> cable modem speed would make it tough to afford execpt for the most avid
> internet junky. AT&T/TCI on the other hand, appears to have benefited from
> their sister company's growing pains in other regions and has done it right.
> From day one (going back to Jan, 99), I have had a total of 4 days outage
> (over two separate incidences) and it turned out that a damn squirrel chewed
> through my line to the hub on one of them. I have had solid bandwidth that
> averages out to over 1.2 mbps (400 kbps low, 2+ mbps high). Even during peak
> I am typically at 800 kbps.
> 
> At least for now it seems that cable modem in the Denver Metro area is
> winning the battle for the home user.
> 

Sounds exactly like the situation here in my part of Oregon with 
AT&T@Home vs. the phone companies (GTE/Verizon and US West/Qwest).

Scott
-- 
==================================
I want to have an open mind, but
not so open that my brains fall out

> I heard a commercial the other day for DSL that compared cable service to
> dsl, and claimed that dsl service was more secure than that of cable
> service.  I disagree with that claim and I think any knowledgable user would
> disagree.  No internet connection is that secure, just ask any company who
> has had their firewall hacked.
> 
   I have to disagree with this.  As I understand cable modems, my local
node is nothing more than a local ethernet LAN.  The box my cable
connects to and routes my packets to the Internet is directly analogous
to a bridge or router. If my packet is intended for another computer on
my local node, the bridge doesn't route my packet out to the Internet. 
(I realize this isn't the way most people use their computer, but the
analogy holds).
   Like an ethernet LAN every computer on the network sees every packet
on it. Like an ethernet LAN there are some commands that every NIC card
will respond to.  One of them is a broadcast ARP.  I could take down the
entire node by constantly ARPing the whole local network.  Or if I had
it in for a neighbor, I could continually ARP his board.  Yeah, this
would tie up my machine, too, but most crazy people don't really care
about the small stuff.

					Bill

"William Oertell" <oertell@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:39AF0CDD.424A@pacbell.net...
> > I heard a commercial the other day for DSL that compared cable service
to
> > dsl, and claimed that dsl service was more secure than that of cable
> > service.  I disagree with that claim and I think any knowledgable user
would
> > disagree.  No internet connection is that secure, just ask any company
who
> > has had their firewall hacked.
> >
>    I have to disagree with this.  As I understand cable modems, my local
> node is nothing more than a local ethernet LAN.  The box my cable
> connects to and routes my packets to the Internet is directly analogous
> to a bridge or router. If my packet is intended for another computer on
> my local node, the bridge doesn't route my packet out to the Internet.
> (I realize this isn't the way most people use their computer, but the
> analogy holds).
>    Like an ethernet LAN every computer on the network sees every packet
> on it. Like an ethernet LAN there are some commands that every NIC card
> will respond to.  One of them is a broadcast ARP.  I could take down the
> entire node by constantly ARPing the whole local network.  Or if I had
> it in for a neighbor, I could continually ARP his board.  Yeah, this
> would tie up my machine, too, but most crazy people don't really care
> about the small stuff.

Whether your disagree with what I said or not, you proved my point about
security.  In fact, what was your point?

enough of the shared bandwidth bullshit!

check the ping times on DSL and Cable and you tell me which is faster??

For me it is cable

"Hank Mishkoff" <Hank@AddisonWeb.com> wrote in message
news:0426843E64EE021B.8B9EAFA49A11AD1A.E86675C9889250A4@lp.airnews.net...
> > > Right, but they're implying that cable is *not* shared bandwidth, so
the ad is
> > > misleading, at best.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No they aren't.
>
> The commercial basically says something like: You shouldn't believe the
> "high-bandwidth" claims of the phone company because it's *shared*
bandwidth -- so
> you should use AT&T Cable for Net access instead. (Obviously, that's not a
direct
> quote.) Are you saying that you don't feel that that statement contains an
> implication that AT&T Cable is *not* shared bandwidth?
>
>

I had US West/Qwest for three month before I switched to AT&T @home
cablemodem service.
I wish I never wasted my time and money with US West/Qwest(paid for the DSL
modem and high priced activation fee).
Ever tried to understand your phone bill? It get a lot worse when you add
services like Megabit services(fancy and false name for their DSL service).
I did get good download speed at first compared to my old 56k modem(I
thought).
US West/Qwest tried to tell me that I won't get DSL service back, if I were
to cancel my existing DSL due to not having enough phone line in my
area(sounded like a bullshit threat to me).
I'm so glad that I did not listen to US West/Qwest's bull crap(I would have
never found out how wonderful AT&T @home is, if I stick with US West/Qwest).
I get much much faster download speed with Cable service than DSL service.
I didn't even have to pay for installations nor activation fee, plus I get
50% off for the first 6 month.
I'm going to put my Intel dsl modem up on auction since I'll never go back
to Qwest ever again.
Can't wait till AT&T to offer local phone service in my area(I'm so tired of
being screwed by US West, now "Qwest").



"Scott Willsey" <Scott.Willsey@nospam_thelostweb.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1418a584eb0ddfbc989726@news...
> In article <xmBr5.116256$6y5.77660182@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
> SFL@nospam.com crafted the following using only a keyboard and a
> mouse...
>
> >
> > In CO, we are blessed with both offerings. However, US West/Quest has
been
> > unable to keep up with demand and their price structures for comparable
> > cable modem speed would make it tough to afford execpt for the most avid
> > internet junky. AT&T/TCI on the other hand, appears to have benefited
from
> > their sister company's growing pains in other regions and has done it
right.
> > From day one (going back to Jan, 99), I have had a total of 4 days
outage
> > (over two separate incidences) and it turned out that a damn squirrel
chewed
> > through my line to the hub on one of them. I have had solid bandwidth
that
> > averages out to over 1.2 mbps (400 kbps low, 2+ mbps high). Even during
peak
> > I am typically at 800 kbps.
> >
> > At least for now it seems that cable modem in the Denver Metro area is
> > winning the battle for the home user.
> >
>
> Sounds exactly like the situation here in my part of Oregon with
> AT&T@Home vs. the phone companies (GTE/Verizon and US West/Qwest).
>
> Scott
> --
> ==================================
> I want to have an open mind, but
> not so open that my brains fall out

In article <39AF0CDD.424A@pacbell.net>, oertell@pacbell.net wrote:

> > I heard a commercial the other day for DSL that compared cable service to
> > dsl, and claimed that dsl service was more secure than that of cable
> > service.  I disagree with that claim and I think any knowledgable user would
> > disagree.  No internet connection is that secure, just ask any company who
> > has had their firewall hacked.
> > 
>    I have to disagree with this.  As I understand cable modems, my local
> node is nothing more than a local ethernet LAN.  The box my cable
> connects to and routes my packets to the Internet is directly analogous
> to a bridge or router. If my packet is intended for another computer on
> my local node, the bridge doesn't route my packet out to the Internet. 
> (I realize this isn't the way most people use their computer, but the
> analogy holds).

You understand wrong.

The Motorola "Wave" modem that ATT@Home uses here in Seattle* encrypts
all data between it and the head-end box. I assume that DOCSIS modems
do likewise. Further, the modem sends and receives on different
frequencies - only the head-end box "listens" to the frequency sent
by the cable modem.

Even if one was able to "hack" a cable modem of this type into
promiscuous mode, you *still* wouldn't be able to "sniff" packets,
as they would all be encrypted. There is _no_ provision for direct
modem-to-modem communication in such a system. You basically have
no more access to your next-door neighbor's machine than you do
to someone's on the other side of the world. All communication
is through the head-end box, regardless of destination.

For the vast majority of cable modem systems, your "network 
neighborhood" is NOT a LAN in any meaningful way, other than
physically sharing a wire. Broadcast packets, etc. do NOT go
to other cable modems in the area. An analogy to a VPN between
you and the head-end box is a lot closer than the LAN model.

The "DSL is more secure" claim is just more F.U.D. against cable,
IMHO. Looks like it's fooling some people, just as the "sharing"
issue has.

P.S. Referring to a network neighborhood (all boxes which share
a cable and a single head-end box) as a "local node" is exceedingly
confusing terminology.

* I see that this is also posted to some Dallas - Fort Worth groups -
I have no idea what the cable system is like down there...

-- 
Jim Glidewell
My opinions only

Same here in my area(Marietta, GA-near ATL). I can't even get DSL yet
because they say my house "is behind a fiber loop." Anyway, I'm getting
AT&T/MediaOne Roadrunner tomorrow! Good byeee Mindspring/Earthlink's POS
dialup service!!

G


Mike <mikeslc@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ozTr5.157750$i5.2291358@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
> I had US West/Qwest for three month before I switched to AT&T @home
> cablemodem service.
> I wish I never wasted my time and money with US West/Qwest(paid for the
DSL
> modem and high priced activation fee).
> Ever tried to understand your phone bill? It get a lot worse when you add
> services like Megabit services(fancy and false name for their DSL
service).
> I did get good download speed at first compared to my old 56k modem(I
> thought).
> US West/Qwest tried to tell me that I won't get DSL service back, if I
were
> to cancel my existing DSL due to not having enough phone line in my
> area(sounded like a bullshit threat to me).
> I'm so glad that I did not listen to US West/Qwest's bull crap(I would
have
> never found out how wonderful AT&T @home is, if I stick with US
West/Qwest).
> I get much much faster download speed with Cable service than DSL service.
> I didn't even have to pay for installations nor activation fee, plus I get
> 50% off for the first 6 month.
> I'm going to put my Intel dsl modem up on auction since I'll never go back
> to Qwest ever again.
> Can't wait till AT&T to offer local phone service in my area(I'm so tired
of
> being screwed by US West, now "Qwest").
>
>
>
> "Scott Willsey" <Scott.Willsey@nospam_thelostweb.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1418a584eb0ddfbc989726@news...
> > In article <xmBr5.116256$6y5.77660182@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
> > SFL@nospam.com crafted the following using only a keyboard and a
> > mouse...
> >
> > >
> > > In CO, we are blessed with both offerings. However, US West/Quest has
> been
> > > unable to keep up with demand and their price structures for
comparable
> > > cable modem speed would make it tough to afford execpt for the most
avid
> > > internet junky. AT&T/TCI on the other hand, appears to have benefited
> from
> > > their sister company's growing pains in other regions and has done it
> right.
> > > From day one (going back to Jan, 99), I have had a total of 4 days
> outage
> > > (over two separate incidences) and it turned out that a damn squirrel
> chewed
> > > through my line to the hub on one of them. I have had solid bandwidth
> that
> > > averages out to over 1.2 mbps (400 kbps low, 2+ mbps high). Even
during
> peak
> > > I am typically at 800 kbps.
> > >
> > > At least for now it seems that cable modem in the Denver Metro area is
> > > winning the battle for the home user.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds exactly like the situation here in my part of Oregon with
> > AT&T@Home vs. the phone companies (GTE/Verizon and US West/Qwest).
> >
> > Scott
> > --
> > ==================================
> > I want to have an open mind, but
> > not so open that my brains fall out
>
>

bingo...

with DSL ping to my gateway was 25 to 30 ms and varied based on
utilization of the shared ATM network that got me to that gateway
(sometimes it spiked to 50ms) with cable its 13ms at all times.


With Bell Atlantic DSL I got download as high as 508Kbps and as low as
270Kbs during peek times.  With Cable it varies from 1.8M to 1.6M
......


Will


"Kevin" <cable@modem.com> wrote:

>enough of the shared bandwidth bullshit!
>
>check the ping times on DSL and Cable and you tell me which is faster??
>
>For me it is cable
>
>"Hank Mishkoff" <Hank@AddisonWeb.com> wrote in message
>news:0426843E64EE021B.8B9EAFA49A11AD1A.E86675C9889250A4@lp.airnews.net...
>> > > Right, but they're implying that cable is *not* shared bandwidth, so
>the ad is
>> > > misleading, at best.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > No they aren't.
>>
>> The commercial basically says something like: You shouldn't believe the
>> "high-bandwidth" claims of the phone company because it's *shared*
>bandwidth -- so
>> you should use AT&T Cable for Net access instead. (Obviously, that's not a
>direct
>> quote.) Are you saying that you don't feel that that statement contains an
>> implication that AT&T Cable is *not* shared bandwidth?
>>
>>
>

I think the question is whether one would rather share the 30mbps available
bandwidth on the cable, or the available 0bps bandwidth available here on
DSL.  Not too difficult to work out in my case.  Sigh.

-- 
Ron Hunter  rphunter@home.com

Kevin wrote:
> 
> enough of the shared bandwidth bullshit!
> 
> check the ping times on DSL and Cable and you tell me which is faster??
> 
> For me it is cable
> 
> "Hank Mishkoff" <Hank@AddisonWeb.com> wrote in message
> news:0426843E64EE021B.8B9EAFA49A11AD1A.E86675C9889250A4@lp.airnews.net...
> > > > Right, but they're implying that cable is *not* shared bandwidth, so
> the ad is
> > > > misleading, at best.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > No they aren't.
> >
> > The commercial basically says something like: You shouldn't believe the
> > "high-bandwidth" claims of the phone company because it's *shared*
> bandwidth -- so
> > you should use AT&T Cable for Net access instead. (Obviously, that's not a
> direct
> > quote.) Are you saying that you don't feel that that statement contains an
> > implication that AT&T Cable is *not* shared bandwidth?
> >
> >

Let us know how your installation goes, and how your service works.

-- 
Ron Hunter  rphunter@home.com

Gaines Hillix wrote:
> 
> Same here in my area(Marietta, GA-near ATL). I can't even get DSL yet
> because they say my house "is behind a fiber loop." Anyway, I'm getting
> AT&T/MediaOne Roadrunner tomorrow! Good byeee Mindspring/Earthlink's POS
> dialup service!!
> 
> G
> 
> Mike <mikeslc@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:ozTr5.157750$i5.2291358@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
> > I had US West/Qwest for three month before I switched to AT&T @home
> > cablemodem service.
> > I wish I never wasted my time and money with US West/Qwest(paid for the
> DSL
> > modem and high priced activation fee).
> > Ever tried to understand your phone bill? It get a lot worse when you add
> > services like Megabit services(fancy and false name for their DSL
> service).
> > I did get good download speed at first compared to my old 56k modem(I
> > thought).
> > US West/Qwest tried to tell me that I won't get DSL service back, if I
> were
> > to cancel my existing DSL due to not having enough phone line in my
> > area(sounded like a bullshit threat to me).
> > I'm so glad that I did not listen to US West/Qwest's bull crap(I would
> have
> > never found out how wonderful AT&T @home is, if I stick with US
> West/Qwest).
> > I get much much faster download speed with Cable service than DSL service.
> > I didn't even have to pay for installations nor activation fee, plus I get
> > 50% off for the first 6 month.
> > I'm going to put my Intel dsl modem up on auction since I'll never go back
> > to Qwest ever again.
> > Can't wait till AT&T to offer local phone service in my area(I'm so tired
> of
> > being screwed by US West, now "Qwest").
> >
> >
> >
> > "Scott Willsey" <Scott.Willsey@nospam_thelostweb.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1418a584eb0ddfbc989726@news...
> > > In article <xmBr5.116256$6y5.77660182@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
> > > SFL@nospam.com crafted the following using only a keyboard and a
> > > mouse...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In CO, we are blessed with both offerings. However, US West/Quest has
> > been
> > > > unable to keep up with demand and their price structures for
> comparable
> > > > cable modem speed would make it tough to afford execpt for the most
> avid
> > > > internet junky. AT&T/TCI on the other hand, appears to have benefited
> > from
> > > > their sister company's growing pains in other regions and has done it
> > right.
> > > > From day one (going back to Jan, 99), I have had a total of 4 days
> > outage
> > > > (over two separate incidences) and it turned out that a damn squirrel
> > chewed
> > > > through my line to the hub on one of them. I have had solid bandwidth
> > that
> > > > averages out to over 1.2 mbps (400 kbps low, 2+ mbps high). Even
> during
> > peak
> > > > I am typically at 800 kbps.
> > > >
> > > > At least for now it seems that cable modem in the Denver Metro area is
> > > > winning the battle for the home user.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sounds exactly like the situation here in my part of Oregon with
> > > AT&T@Home vs. the phone companies (GTE/Verizon and US West/Qwest).
> > >
> > > Scott
> > > --
> > > ==================================
> > > I want to have an open mind, but
> > > not so open that my brains fall out
> >
> >

> For the vast majority of cable modem systems, your "network 
> neighborhood" is NOT a LAN in any meaningful way, other than
> physically sharing a wire. Broadcast packets, etc. do NOT go
> to other cable modems in the area. An analogy to a VPN between
> you and the head-end box is a lot closer than the LAN model.
> 
   Thanks for the enlightenment.  I stand corrected.

				Bill

In article <RjGp5.100013$6y5.68689404@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
  "mr_bigmoney" <bigmoney@home.com> wrote:
> I downloaded a shareware demo program from this site and checking the
> Download speed I'm getting from ATT @home.
>
> http://www.broadbandwizard.net
>
> My connection speed sucks.  The graph can show 56K bandwidth, Cable,
DSL, T1
>
> My downloads are avg of 100kbps.  Just above a 56K bandwit\dth
speed.  Not
> what I was promised.
> If you have ATT @home, (I'm in Plano Texas(near Dallas))
> What are you getting .
>
> ~bigmoney
>
>

Here at COX@HOME in Omaha, off the news server, I get an almost
constant 3mbps (i.e., 375 KB/s (yes, KiloBytes/second)) according to DU
meter.  It used to be about 7 mbps a few of months ago until
they "upgraded" the city to 3mbps down/256kbps upload.  I'm still very
happy with the speed.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.