Poor Babies in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r11085677 en Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:48:50 EDT Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:48:50 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11213852 NicNitro : I live in portland and rr.
when it is 8pm at night, good luck...it will be around dsl or less quality.

day time it blazes because every residential user is at work. GWI is a nice maine company. Time Warner is being a bully.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11213852 Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:53:05 EDT Re: TWC response to GWI lies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11129314 crackbarrel : »www.aroundmaine.com/04/082004/default.asp]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11129314 Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:44:27 EDT Re: Technical limitations to qualifying for DSL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11120435 anon : --------------
First: DSL services can only run over straight copper phone lines with no digital conversions.
This means that an office location using a PBX phone system wouldn't qualify for DSL. A PBX system is digital, and thus prevents the DSL conversion from happening.
--------------
Another big culprit is older phone wiring (either in the home or somewhere between the home and Qwest's central office). The older wiring causes increased signal loss and could disqualify a line that is within the distance limit otherwise.
--------------

The line will qualify if a PBX is used, you just can't use DSL through a PBX system. A POTS splitter will solve this issue. You install the splitter before the PBX system and it is bypassed.

Internal wiring issues is the same thing. You install a POTS splitter bypassing all internal wiring.

GWI offers free service calls to install these devices. Now thats customer service.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11120435 Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:56:50 EDT Re: Technical limitations to qualifying for DSL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11111144 BizFinancing : Yes, Qwest is very famous for using SLC's to increase the capacity of "voice" services to an area with out having to add additional copper trunks which does pose a problem for DSL availability.

Fortunately, Qwest has been adding RT's to many areas that are serviced by SLC's to bypass this problem as well as the distance limitations.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11111144 Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:03:31 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11109538 3SGTE : Yes.
I cannot speak to the exact technical reason, but it was explained in detail by a network admin in the Cogeco forum a while back.
(I couldn't find the link)
--
»www.fiberal.ca/ We need Arnie!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11109538 Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:53:13 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11109125 Hot_Rats :
said by wentlanc See Profile:
You could find that 2 of your 3 megs on your cable provider is unusable becaus of all of the broadcast, multicast, and normal unicast traffic.


You could, but so far, I'm finding that I can maintain a steady 2.7-2.9 Mb down, at virtually any time of day/night/week, just like two years ago when it was 2 Mb down and I could maintain 1.7-1.9 Mb consistently.

I had DSL; 768/128. It was OK, and I did get the advertised speed (heck, I'm within 2000 feet IIRC) but after dealing with Ameritech through lie after lie after billing f*ckup after billing f*ckup, well, let's just say we parted ways and I'm far happier with my provider these days. The only way I'd go back to DSL is for a business account, because RR's business class stuff is a ripoff.
--
"I'm downloading with a 56k modem. Can you give me step by step instructions on how to install x86 Solaris?? Please reply back. Thanks."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11109125 Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:53:24 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11105985 tiger72 :
said by gondola_fry See Profile:
Yes, 2.5 miles you can still get 3/768. Have you ever used this kind of service (Lucent Stinger DSLAMs)? Do you know anything about it? Again, I reiterate that cable has had too big of an influence on the perception of DSL. Yes, cable (depending on the provider) is really good, but so is this, and it costs less. May want to do a little research before you just dismiss the possibility based on your media-influenced opinions.

Yes i've had DSL. Been rated at 3mbps, but couldn't top 1.2mbps. Good ol DSL. It's good that you can get 3/768 at 2.5 miles. Most cant. Until it's the norm and not the exception, i'll repeat: 2.5 miles my ass. OTOH, i don't think the consumer should have to be concerned if Lucent Stinger DSLAMs are used, or whatever else. It shouldn't be the consomers duty to go find out what DSLAMs are used, what modems are used, what kind of quality telephone wire was used, the wire-distance from the CO, etc... Provide what you advertise, or GTFOtheway. You may want to get your head out of your ass and stop ASSuming you know what i have/haven't done. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11105985 Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:52:42 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11105060 ruscorp :
said by 3SGTE See Profile:
Those are ARP requests.
Perfectly normal, and harmless.


All the time and never happening with DSL? Are you sure?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11105060 Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:37:47 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11102629 3SGTE : Yes, that is the technical way of looking at things.

I look at the speed test archive here at dslr:
»/archive

Judge for yourself.
Theory vs execution!

(As was said earlier, either DSL or Cable can be done well, or done poorly.)
--
»www.fiberal.ca/ We need Arnie!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11102629 Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:51:15 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11102555 rolande :
said by ruscorp See Profile:
It's all shared at some point.


That IS the general idea of how networks operate. But, for those of you who are protocol challenged, a protocol like CMTS that is shared at layer 2 without any deterministic qualities like a TDM network makes a whole connection act like garbage when enough other stations on the segment are busy. Most DSL providers on the other hand are typically using ATM at layer 2 with either PPPoA or PPPoE for the client connectivity. This provides a whole different class of connection quality that is scalable and fully manageable by the providers. Cable providers don't have that flexibility on their networks and have little ability to control the congestion in their networks at the edge except to enforce harsh ToS agreements to limit upstream traffic. DSL's downfall is usually the physical limitations of the wire to the customer's premises. Luckily for the cable companies this is something they don't have to worry about. Everyone can connect just the same. They just have to try and control upstream bandwidth usage without a technical way to do it with the access protocol to avoid upstream congestion within their nodes.

Shared interfaces at aggregation points like 100Meg or Gig or OC-3, OC-12, OC-48 etc. are a complete world apart from the shared technology behind the DOCSIS standard. You are trying to compare shared service within an access technology versus shared service within a core network technology. So you can't even begin to compare these apples and oranges. Obviously speed of those technologies is a factor. But, aside from the speeds, the methods of traffic queueing that can occur on those types of interfaces, depending on the layer 2 protocol, is like comparing a Ferrari to a Pinto. When you aggregate thousands of broadband connections into upstream network connections that are shared in this manner, that is whole different kind of shared connection than cable uses.
--
Ignorance is temporary...stupidity lasts forever!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11102555 Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:43:55 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11102531 3SGTE : Those are ARP requests.
Perfectly normal, and harmless.
--
»www.fiberal.ca/ We need Arnie!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11102531 Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:41:26 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11094817 ruscorp :
said by Freezone See Profile:
Yes, but I am annoyed by all the traffic on my cable con when my dsl is silent. When the lights flash on my dsl modem chances are i know what is going on. My cable modem is constantly going.


I've had both cable and dsl as well. I've always wondered why that was.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11094817 Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:30:47 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11094336 Freezone : Yes, but I am annoyed by all the traffic on my cable con when my dsl is silent. When the lights flash on my dsl modem chances are i know what is going on. My cable modem is constantly going. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11094336 Thu, 19 Aug 2004 05:25:14 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11094330 Freezone : I have both dsl and cable and I can honestly say"THEY BOTH SUCK" There :)

Oh and my dsl (I have 2) are 6.0 down and my cable is 3.3 down (On a good day).

But then if it rains too hard my dsl like to go down. So I chose to keep 3 providers and two technologies. This way I do not lose money when one hits the crapper. And even a T1 can not provide this type of internet uptime, becuase you only get 1 back bone where I have access to 3. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11094330 Thu, 19 Aug 2004 05:22:30 EDT Re: Technical limitations to qualifying for DSL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11093344 MrBentor : I am a just shy of 19,000 feet from my CO. I did have regular DSL at 1500/128 but it kept dropping and stuff. It worked about 85% of the time. (Covad told the DSL reseller they thought I was 13,000 ft from the CO so they gave me service thinking it would be ok.) Well, after I started to have irregular problems I had them check i8t out and they "remeasured" and found I was way past 15,000 feet. How they got me on and stable was they raised my upstream to 400k and lowered my downstream to ~800k and locked the line in “Safe Mode.” Worked fine ever since, Only at to reboot the modem twice in the last 10 months or so. But I probably can never get those super speed lines – like 3m or 8m. Oh – well.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11093344 Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:50:44 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11092179 Skippy25 : 100's of thousands of people can come here and make a stupid broad statement as you have for either service.

I have had DSL for a few years now and love it. I support people using both cable and DSL neither having any more or less issues then the other. When asked about broadband options I simply state you probably wont go wrong with either one so get the one that is cheaper and provides what you need. HOWEVER, DSL is generally cheaper for comparible speed.

Basically this will come down to the market and the company. Some markets will have great DSL and crap cable, where as others it may be the opposite way, and the remaining will have equal services where it won't matter which one you get.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11092179 Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:34:14 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11091323 koveman : I've used dsl. I've been a subscriber and I've done tech support for other subscribers.

dsl SUCKS!

Could be bad service by the bells, but I've witnessed poor performance in at least three markets. My opinion is definitely "media-influenced" as in if your transmission media is a copper phone line and it's not a T1, then it sucks.

dsl makes me want to puke.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11091323 Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:06:52 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11090687 gondola_fry : Yes, 2.5 miles you can still get 3/768. Have you ever used this kind of service (Lucent Stinger DSLAMs)? Do you know anything about it? Again, I reiterate that cable has had too big of an influence on the perception of DSL. Yes, cable (depending on the provider) is really good, but so is this, and it costs less. May want to do a little research before you just dismiss the possibility based on your media-influenced opinions.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11090687 Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:55:49 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11090519 BonezX : well what's 4500 of 5000, that's over 40%]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11090519 Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:34:31 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11090396 tiger72 : ...if you live next door. 2.5 miles my ass.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11090396 Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:21:56 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11089462 ruscorp : It's all shared at some point.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11089462 Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:25:16 EDT Re: Technical limitations to qualifying for DSL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11089430 BIGMIKE : Technical limitations to qualifying for DSL
Unfortunately, ordering the service isn't the only obstacle between you and DSL. There are a few stumbling blocks, especially prevalent in the Clovis area, that prevent a number of people from qualifying.

First: DSL services can only run over straight copper phone lines with no digital conversions.

This means that an office location using a PBX phone system wouldn't qualify for DSL. A PBX system is digital, and thus prevents the DSL conversion from happening.

(The location might qualify if a straight analog phone line from Qwest was run to the location, but there are no promises that even that would qualify.)

Also, if fiber optic cable is used anywhere between your house and Qwest's central office, the line cannot be converted to DSL. Some newer housing areas have used fiber optic cable for the housing units. While this is great for voice, it means no DSL.

Second: You need to be within about 15,000 feet of a phone company's central office to get the service. In testing the circuits, Qwest has found that some people as far as 18,000 feet away from a central office can get DSL service.

The 15,000 foot limit is because of signal loss. Typically, if you are over 15,000 feet away from the central office serving your location, too much data will be lost to make the service usable.

Third: Even if you are within 15,000 feet, you still might not qualify because of line conditions and signal loss.

Certain devices and wiring may prevent a line that would otherwise qualify from doing so.

For example, Qwest commonly uses "pair gain" devices like SLCs. An SLC is like DSL in that it converts a line to use digital instead of analog. However, the increased capacity is then used to carry more phone lines instead of enhancing the one. Such areas in Clovis are North half of Colonial Park, Country Medows, Sandsen, and Mariposa Dr.

Qwest commonly uses these devices where they have run out of wires for new lines. (It costs a lot less to setup an SLC than it does to run more copper wires from the central office to the home/business.)

These devices can have a detrimental affect on modem connections and automatically disqualify you for DSL.

Also, there are some older devices used to boost voice quality that will disqualify a line.

Another big culprit is older phone wiring (either in the home or somewhere between the home and Qwest's central office). The older wiring causes increased signal loss and could disqualify a line that is within the distance limit otherwise.

Note: When you order DSL you should be aware that Qwest equates signal loss to distance. Thus if you order DSL, you may be told that you are too far away from the central office when you are not. This result typically means that there is something on the line that is causing excessive signal loss.




Why is distance important with DSL?
If you have heard even something about DSL, you will have heard about distance. Your phone lines normally terminate at a telco office, usually nearby. This distance, (the length of your line between your location and the telco office), is a very important factor in whether or not you can get DSL, and what speed you can get.
Here are some rules of thumb for distance ranges. Please be aware that especially with non Telco ADSL lines, distance limits for speeds can vary widely from company to company. There are cases where it is policy for "residential" DSL lines not to be offered as far out as functionally identical "business" products!

My neighbor has DSL, why don't I?
DSL is a technology where distance really matters.

Most Telcos limit ADSL lines to 15,000 ft from the CO (not as the crow flies, but how long the actual circuit is). If you're lucky, it may be 18,000 ft.

If your neighbor across the street has DSL and the phone company will not qualify you, there are several possible reasons why.

A. Your neighbor may have gotten lucky and he caught the loop before it went around the ENTIRE block.

B. The telco's records may be out of date.

C. Your telephone service could be served out of a different CO than your neighbor's (this is rare but is possible, especially in metropolitan areas where the COs are over-crowded).

In any case, if your neighbor has DSL, odds are you'll get it soon.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11089430 Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:21:19 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11087278 Count Hogula3 :
said by PhoenixDown See Profile:
I am not knocking the study since I dont know anything about it, or Maine for that matter, but if Cable is 3 meg down and dsl is barely 1 meg down - how is it faster?!?


That's like saying if cable is 1 meg down and DSL 3 meg down, how is cable faster. The point is that they're offering DSL that is faster than cable.
--
»www.scaryjohnkerry.com »media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11087278 Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:20:56 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11087206 wentlanc : Bacause with cable you have to share the bandwidth with your neighbors. With DSL, you have dedicated bandwidth to you. You could find that 2 of your 3 megs on your cable provider is unusable becaus of all of the broadcast, multicast, and normal unicast traffic. When you get a web page, everyone on the network has to get it and then subsequently drop it. That chews up bandwidth. The old rule of traditional unswitched ethernet was that 40% utilization is almost too much. Cable operates in exactly the same fashion.

puritan]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11087206 Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:13:41 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11086222 k_mumm : Try 8 meg down.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11086222 Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:38:27 EDT Re: Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11086099 PhoenixDown : I am not knocking the study since I dont know anything about it, or Maine for that matter, but if Cable is 3 meg down and dsl is barely 1 meg down - how is it faster?!?
--
Final Fantasy]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11086099 Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:27:02 EDT Poor Babies http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11085677 dks7 : Meh bunch of babies. I love competition, without it we'd still be stuck at 14.4k.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11085677 Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:43:44 EDT