🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:26:16 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:

>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>
>In <3a8cc16c.217150752@news1.news.adelphia.net>, bubba@bubbanet.com
>wrote:
>
>>>The Cacheflow is almost certainly on a much faster pipe than you are,
>>>and is able to pull full pages faster from remote servers (due to
>>>efficiency as well as pipe size) when those pages aren't in cache.
>>
>>If it did that it would be ducky, but it sends me old pages instead
>>and it's not my browser cache.
>>
>>I wish it was...but it's not.  My MSO has one DS3, everyone uses it.
>>There's no second pipe.
>
>The Cacheflow may be (probably is) on the DS3, but as a DSL subscriber
>you are not -- you're on a DSL connection limited to much lower speeds.
>That your DSL connection transits the same DS3 doesn't change the fact
>that you are on a much thinner pipe (your DSL connection).

I'm on a  cable modem, not DSL.  I've found that without the proxy, my
modem cap is more limiting than anything else.  For sure, I've tested
it both ways and the proxy isn't any faster than a direct Internet
connection.  If it was, I'd opt in (of course now they force everyone
onto it...wanna see yesterdays weather models?).  I know it sounds
unlikely, but my ISP stretches the bounds of the willing suspension of
disbelief.
>
>p.s.  I personally would avoid any ISP so clueless as not to have
>redundant/backup transit.

This is a classic case of a working, if not technical monopoly.  I'm
almost 3 miles form the nearest switch so DSL is out of the question.
My only other option is dial up (can only connect @28.8..."alls we
havta do is provide voice quality lines" is what the telco says) and
that's worse, IMHO.
>
>-- 
>Best regards,
>John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
>     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

Bubba