🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 15:53:55 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:

>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>
>In <3a8e05ac.30306009@news1.news.adelphia.net>, bubba@bubbanet.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:26:16 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>You're missing my point -- the Cacheflow reaches the Internet over a fat
>pipe that is probably an order of magnitude faster than your cable
>connection.  That gives it a big advantage when pulling content.  
>
Not in my experience and I tested it extensively.  Don't underestimate
my ISP's ability to mess up a one car funeral.

>Your own speed is of course the same to the Cacheflow as to most places
>on the Internet (i.e., limited by your cable connection).  The advantage
>of the Cacheflow is in latency and in avoidance of other bottlenecks (on
>the Internet or remote server).  The Cacheflow will generally be faster
>even when content is not in cache.

Again, according to my tests no.  I think it's the config/setup on the
cacheflow, but I obviously can't control that.
>
>>>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.
>
>Other possibilities include ISDN
 
$100/month vs. $40 + $300  modem (you can't use your own) for 1/10th
the speed 

, IDSL
Not available

, terrestrial wireless, 

Not avialable

>satellite.
One way and loaded with latency plus they won't tell you what the
limit is before they throttle you down...I use it alot so it wouldn't
work for me.

>
>-- 
>Best regards,
>John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
>     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

Bubba