 
Supafly
Premium
join:2000-07-15
Lancaster, CA
edit:
February 17th, @10:40AM
| Wow... Wow, $15 monthly for 256k DSL, and DSL without phone service? now that's what I'm talking about... | |
|
 | |
| | 
linuxoverwin
join:2002-12-31
Las Cruces, NM | Re: Wow... i enjoy my $28 up to 1.5M service... of course its only $28 cause i work for my isp so that part is free. muahahahaha.
i use mine to serve web pages »www.linuxoverwindows.com | |
|
| |
| 
GNXPower
Got Boost?
Premium
join:2003-12-18
Huntington Beach, CA
| While cable operators continue with their capping and massive price increases, more and more DSL providers are cutting theirs.
--
Don't have it?!? Demand it!!! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com | |
|
| sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA | Don't forget, this does not include the ISP. | |
|
| thunderblock
join:2004-02-10
| Naked 256/256 for $15? I'm not so sure. The reports I saw said that naked dsl would run $33. In addition to the DSL charge, I'm sure this will still be an additional fee for an ISP of your choosing.
In January I subscribed to Qwest's 256/256 for $15 for DSL + $6.99 for barebones (no email address or web hosting) "Qwest.net Broadband Basic" package. So total monthly cost is $21.99, not bad. I switched from a Comcast cable modem and while I like the DSL price, I have not been happy with the DSL latency. Pingplotter (tracert tool) usually shows an average of 80ms to the first hop outside the house and sometimes much worse (once 1700ms!). I'm about 10K to 11K feet from the CO. The DSL hasn't been much of a problem for my mostly low bandwidth data traffic, but my experiences with the 2nd line that was ported to Vonage is quite another story (won't get into it here).
Regarding Qwest's customer service, I have been very happy with it. When I complained of static on the voice line and poor pingplotter results, they sent a tech out the next day who helped clean up the inside wiring. IMO, Qwest has gotten their act together, not only with DSL but also with a good bundled local service package and competitve LD. | |
|
| damox
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| Of course you know that the $15 a month does not include ISP! The cost of an ISP is probably about $18.00 a month, so that makes the actual cost $33 ($32 if you go with MSN, but who in their right mind would do that?)! It's not quite as good as it sounds! Also, the 1.5 mbps/896 kbps will cost (at it's cheapest) around $44 if you include the ISP! I think I'll stick with cable!
--
DAMOX | |
|
| 
Transmaster
Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
| Just got my upgrade, 2 days early, I am now running
1.536 mbps down, and 864 kbps up. I have the MSN DSL 1000
modem I hooked it up per the advice of the Qwest DSL forum
using an Ethernet connection everything installed smoothly. The only real irritation I had was getting rid of the Intel DSL 2100 drivers had to go into the registry to clean them out. If you get this modem MAKE SURE YOUR PLUG AND PLAY IS TURNED ON!!!!!!!!!!!!! It will tell you to do this but save your self some time and turn in on before hand.
--
"Remember when hacking a loogy it comes not so much from the lungs but from the soul." | |
|
indigo
join:1999-08-22
Covina, CA | Heh.. and to think here we have to pay $150 per month for 1.5Mbps ADSL. Gotta love Maine. | |
|
| sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA | Re: Heh.. Is that just the loop, or does that include the ISP?
What is your upload?
1.5 / 384 from a Good ISP is about the same out here. | |
|
| | indigo
join:1999-08-22
Covina, CA
| Re: Heh.. It includes the isp. The upload is 512kbps, but they ban servers, so what's the point? Not to mention the interleaving lag. I have their 768/384 service right now and that costs $80 a month. Unfortunately, the CLECs have not deemed our state worthy of their attention, so the ILEC is the only option for DSL  | |
|
| | | sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA
| Re: Heh.. I think $150.00 is a fair price for that pipe if they should let you run servers. But $150.00 for residential class of service is a bit much. Besides, as you pointed out, what is the point of the 512 upload if you cannot run a server?
Are there NO ISP's in your that will let you run a server? | |
|
| | | | indigo
join:1999-08-22
Covina, CA
edit:
February 17th, @05:12PM
| Re: Heh.. Nope, none of the broadband choices here let you run servers (Adelphia, pivot). Only option is to get your own T1. | |
|
| | | | | sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA | Re: Heh.. That does not make any sense.
DSL is a better fit for SOHO than it is for residential. It's insane to try to force it into a res only business model.
Too bad. | |
|
| | | | | | indigo
join:1999-08-22
Covina, CA | Re: Heh.. I completely agree, but Fairpoint (the ILEC) has their little games they like to play. Since they're the only DSL provider, they suffer no ill effects from their behavior. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | indigo
join:1999-08-22
Covina, CA
| Re: Heh.. Exactly. That is all I've wanted to do with a broadband connection ever since I first heard of broadband back in the mid 1990s. Unfortunately, it has proven to always be beyond my reach. The only time I've had a decent broadband connection was for about 6 weeks back in 1999 when I first moved to Maine and got roadrunner. Their system back then was 4-5Mbps downloads, and 1Mbps uploads, and used the sprintlink backbone exclusively, so peering was top notch. After that the corporate boys at Time Warner decided to change us over to the RR public backbone and the service went into the crapper. Not to mention they decided to ban servers a month later.
I moved out of Time warner territory in 2000, and found myself with no net access at all for a month until the ILEC rolled out their DSL service. The ILEC has it setup so it is a long distance call anywhere outside of this town, so hence no dialup internet access. Their DSL service has proven to be low bandwidth and overpriced, but at least they allowed servers, up until recently.
So, as I said it's either adelphia or the ILEC, or satellite (woo hoo!) I realized that the only way I was going to get REAL broadband service that I could run my servers on was to either move to another state or get my own T1, so I priced them out, found a decent price from a tier1 provider, and it's slated to be installed on March 8th. Finally, then I will have the connection to run my servers. I've spent the last 8 months putting aside the extra money to pay for it for a year, but hopefully it will be well worth it. | |
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| I think the best part is the better latency They don't even mention that they are improving the latency with this new 1.5Mbps down / 896Kbps up $28/month package over their other DSL offerings.
Used to be that your first hop with a Qwest DMT circuit would have 32 ms added to it due to interleaving. They have reduced that to what appears to be about 16 ms, which may not sound like much until you play any FPS game on line.
Great job Qwest! 
--
System protected by Impregnable Ignorance (TM) | |
|
| attsbcisgay
join:2003-03-18
Beverly Hills, CA
| Re: I think the best part is the better latency said by AthlGrond  :
They don't even mention that they are improving the latency with this new 1.5Mbps down / 896Kbps up $28/month package over their other DSL offerings.
Used to be that your first hop with a Qwest DMT circuit would have 32 ms added to it due to interleaving. They have reduced that to what appears to be about 16 ms, which may not sound like much until you play any FPS game on line.
Great job Qwest!
896 upload!!! thats 90k/sec vs 60k/sec.. on sbc 6mb/608k upload greatly reduces latency yes but not download since its already much higher then your upload regardless.. | |
|
| | yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | Re: I think the best part is the better latency Latency goes down because they are moving to fastpath instead of interleave. It doesn't have anything to do with the upload speed. | |
|
| | |
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| Re: I think the best part is the better latency said by yabos :
Latency goes down because they are moving to fastpath instead of interleave. It doesn't have anything to do with the upload speed.
Correct, a ping will not stress even a 128Kbps upload, and increased upload will not improve the interleave induced latency one bit.
Qwest must have adjusted the interleaving.
--
System protected by Impregnable Ignorance (TM) | |
|
| | | | attsbcisgay
join:2003-03-18
Beverly Hills, CA
edit:
February 17th, @12:05PM
| Re: I think the best part is the better latency said by AthlGrond :
said by yabos :
Latency goes down because they are moving to fastpath instead of interleave. It doesn't have anything to do with the upload speed.
Correct, a ping will not stress even a 128Kbps upload, and increased upload will not improve the interleave induced latency one bit.
Qwest must have adjusted the interleaving.
huh what? confused :| so you're saying even 128k upload have better latency then my 100mb HUB/Switch etc...
god, please tell me you're pulling my legs..
btw, what ya smoking? can I have some?  | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | 
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
edit:
February 17th, @12:54PM
| quote:
Correct, a ping will not stress even a 128Kbps upload, and increased upload will not improve the interleave induced latency one bit.
On DSL, the upstream speed makes a huge impact on ping time. Going from 128kbps up to 608kbps up has halved my fast path latency, from 18ms to my gateway down to 9ms.
Though small, ping is still transmitting packets built from many bits. The server can't respond until the whole packet reaches the destination. The faster your upstream is, the faster all those bits can get completely out of your modem and onto the server that needs to reply to it. The effect is even more significant when actually transmitting some data, like playing a game. I calculated it out once before, I think at a minimum a ping packet requires two 53 byte ATM cells. That's 848 bits. Doing the math...
128kbps = 131072bps = 131 bits per millisecond.
So, at 128kbps, it takes 6.4ms to transfer that ping packet to a server.
This is of course, for fast path circuits. The same is also not true for cable, since the capping is all done on the packet level. The bits themselves all travel at a very high, fixed rate on a fat pipe.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network | |
|
| | | | |
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
edit:
February 17th, @01:01PM
| Re: I think the best part is the better latency said by djrobx :
Nope. On DSL, the upstream speed makes a huge impact on ping time. Going from 128kbps up to 608kbps up has halved my latency, from 18ms to my gateway down to 9ms.
In the case of Qwest DSL using DMT they have a 32ms interleave delay that is independent of bandwidth, which has a far larger impact on latency than does upstream saturation for most gamers using DSL. (Qwest's minimum upstream is 256Kbps for any of their DSL plans)
Sorry for the mis-statement, I was unaware that you could saturate your upstream with a ping to your first hop on a 128Kbps line.
With the new plan many people have reported a first hop of 31ms or less, which would have been impossible with the old plans as the first hop would be 32ms + all other latencies (including those in you post). | |
|
| | | | |
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
edit:
February 17th, @01:22PM
| 128 Kbps = 128000 bps = 128 bp ms
So pinging with a 32 byte packet (256 bit) it would take 2 ms (256/128)
608 Kbps = 608000 bps = 608 bp ms
So pinging with a 32 byte packet (256 bit) it would take .42 ms (256/608)
So you should have saved 1.58ms with your bandwidth improvement.
I don't think this is where your 9ms came from. | |
|
| 
w0g
Omghi
join:2001-08-30
Eugene, OR
clubs:
edit:
February 17th, @06:14PM
| Going from 50ms to 40ms sadly isn't much of an improvement. Now, 50ms to 10ms.. that would be nice.
Hopefully someday Qwest will at least offer the option of completely disabling interleave. | |
|
| | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: I think the best part is the better latency said by w0g :
Hopefully someday Qwest will at least offer the option of completely disabling interleave.
Thats where the 'Spirit of service' ends. mention interleave and thats where the service ends. they wont even listen to you on that with regular DSL. people with the VDSL have had limited success getting it turned down tho.
-
on a separate point is it just me or are those higher tiers not even close to what SBC is offering. $275 for 7mbit and SBC is offering 6mbit for like $45. and im betting that $275 dont even include the isp!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | |
w0g
Omghi
join:2001-08-30
Eugene, OR
clubs:
| Re: I think the best part is the better latency said by dvd536 :
on a separate point is it just me or are those higher tiers not even close to what SBC is offering. $275 for 7mbit and SBC is offering 6mbit for like $45. and im betting that $275 dont even include the isp!
The Professional packages are designed for business use, and include a service level agreement, better support, etc. That's why they're so expensive. | |
|
Happyrat
Google Is Your Best Friend
Premium
join:2002-07-01
Disneyland
·Look Communications
| Americans STILL pay too much... Here in Ontario I'm paying $32 CDN a month (taxes inc.) for ADSL with 1.5 Mbit down and 320 Kbit up. Sometime in the next two months everyone on the Bell Nexxia network (Ontaio & Quebec) will be upgraded, at no extra charge, to 3 Mbit Down and 800 Kbit up if their lines can handle it. I think you guys still have a long way to go before you can seriously consider the prices you're paying to be "bargain prices"
--
AFTER the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our FRIEND...»www.fuzzyrat.com | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
Smokey
I'm so much cooler offline
Premium
join:2003-05-20
Va Beach
clubs: | Not Here!! STILL MAD AT QWORST!!
The local RT has been in and running for 2 weeks, but still no dsl here. MAN DO I HATE QWORST!! | |
|
| sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA | Re: Not Here!! .
TWO WHOLE WEEKS AND NO DSL YET!
The NERVE!
Geeze... talk about the need for instant gratification. | |
|
| |
Smokey
I'm so much cooler offline
Premium
join:2003-05-20
Va Beach
clubs:
| Re: Not Here!! well two weeks after turning it on. It was supposed to be on in December. When you consider that the RT is a whole 200 feet away, thats typical Qworst service!!
--
I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.-- Thomas Jefferson | |
|
digiblur
Got Sipura?
Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana
| "Naked" DSL Finally... a company is waking up. BellSouth would be getting my broadband bucks instead of Cox but BS requires you to get a POTS line from them to get DSL. IMHO, in my area even though Cox runs a 3.0/256 connection I'd rather the stable 1.5/256 connection that BS runs here. Cox can't get their act together. I've accepted the fact that Cox = Packet Loss.
I want "naked" DSL Bellsouth!! | |
|
| attsbcisgay
join:2003-03-18
Beverly Hills, CA | Re: "Naked" DSL It will take bellsouth many years to follow up, you're looking 2006-2009 1st quarter, bs then offers 3mb/384 for those who qualify. bahahahahaha!!! | |
|
| 
kfolsom
Where the fit hits the shan
Premium
join:2003-01-31
Yucaipa, CA | I wonder if they will bundle in "The Naked News"? | |
|
shaner
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB
| Wow. Dry pair DSL? Dry pair DSL. That's the best part of this whole thing. I see it says you don't need Qwest local service, but do you need somebody's local service to get it to work? Is it truly dry pair DSL?
--
Canadian Wireless FAQ | |
|
| sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA | Re: Wow. Dry pair DSL? They are talking about running copper with no dial tone, just DSL signal. | |
|
| |
shaner
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB | Re: Wow. Dry pair DSL? So that's dry pair DSL. Nice. | |
|
lakino
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Campbell, CA
| 892 upload? is this a typo?
Is that a typo? I can't believe they get upload synch at 892kbps. That is extremely fast upload.
The SBC 6016/608 plan doesn't even come close to that 892 synch speed.
--
Why do people like .sig files so much? Baffling to me... | |
|
| attsbcisgay
join:2003-03-18
Beverly Hills, CA
| Re: 892 upload? is this a typo? said by lakino :
Is that a typo? I can't believe they get upload synch at 892kbps. That is extremely fast upload.
The SBC 6016/608 plan doesn't even come close to that 892 synch speed. 608 on sbc is only enough to support your downstream of 6mb, notice that if we are capped to 3mb, our upload is reduced to 384k! btw, i would trade half of my 6mb for 300kbps of upload speed, it sure helps alot because my upload is still lacking on most application including games and p2p. | |
|
| | SBC ST
join:2003-08-05
Strongsville, OH
| Re: 892 upload? is this a typo? said by attsbcisgay :
said by lakino :
Is that a typo? I can't believe they get upload synch at 892kbps. That is extremely fast upload.
The SBC 6016/608 plan doesn't even come close to that 892 synch speed. 608 on sbc is only enough to support your downstream of 6mb, notice that if we are capped to 3mb, our upload is reduced to 384k! btw, i would trade half of my 6mb for 300kbps of upload speed, it sure helps alot because my upload is still lacking on most application including games and p2p.
Shoot, the first company that comes out w/ 2/2, or 3/3, I would be all over, as many here would be too! Come on SBC offer it!!!49.99/mo. SOLD!:) | |
|
| |
| | |
dardin
join:2002-11-19
Tucson, AZ
| no thanks... I still wouldn't do business with Qwest ever again. They have the worse customer service I have ever dealt with. I was so happy to finally ditch them as my phone company last year after having to deal with them for the last 10yrs.
Good deals, but same horrible company still. | |
|
|
| 
chizetown
join:2003-10-19
Elizabethtown, KY
·Comcast
| Re: Word Now hopefully comcast will think more thoughtfully about giving it users an increase in upload. I mean heck DSL is the same price and with more upload. Maybe they should go as far as offering 10 megabits down and 1 megabit up to battle this. Just my thoughts though, 256 is killing me but the 3.3 is nice. | |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | Go to the QWEST Forum We have a lot of people there talking about it. Some of us have got the 1.5M and reported on it.
»Qwest
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
| 
HotRodFoto
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Denver, CO
| Re: Go to the QWEST Forum It's about time!!!!! Comcast's gig is finally up in metro denver with the outrageous prices and waiting for a speed upgrade that never comes. $33 a MONTH! That is almost 1/2 of what I pay with Comcast....Guess where I am goin!????
--
All Things Arthttp://kkart.deviantart.com | |
|
Transmaster
Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
edit:
February 17th, @04:32PM
| Qwest is dead serious I have some friends of long standing who work for Qwest.
They tell me the New CEO of Qwest is dead serious about DSL. Here in Cheyenne they are actually sending out the workers this week to place flyer's in the doors of everybody in Cheyenne that can upgrade to a DSL. Their customer support in improving at least the help is admitting they don't know. I actually pointed one of the techs to this site. I asked them about the support issue and they told me the company is moving so fast that the training is running behind, and they still haven't recovered from the loss of personal under the last CEO.
I just heard on the news some of the Qwest cook the books crooks are going on trial today.
--
"Remember when hacking a loogy
it comes not so much from the lungs but from the soul." | |
|
MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs: | Great news Seems like the new CEO is making changes, and good ones. Will Qwest finally get on the DSL train? | |
|
mezner1
join:2001-08-14
Layton, UT | will see I get my upgrade today so they say will post back when it hapenes | |
|
stateq2
J Dilla
Premium
join:2003-03-27
Jackson, MS | bye, bye dialup once stuff like this spreads, dialup is officially dead | |
|
|
Transmaster
Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: bye, bye dialup Yes a naked 15 dollar a month 256 up and down will kill dialup where it is available. the best thing is what it is going to do to AOL.
--
"Remember when hacking a loogy it comes not so much from the lungs but from the soul." | |
|
Dan A
@myeastern.com | why doesnt connecticut have this option I live in connecticut and currently i am on a 1.5/128 cable line. I checked the sbc webpage and they do not offer the good package for 45 dollars. Why not? | |
|
|
Dan A
@myeastern.com | Re: why doesnt connecticut have this option Expert Plus - S Package
1.5-6.0Mbps
384Kbps
5 Static
$74.95*
if thats the 1 , its still 75 bucks a month for first 3 months than 150 after that. | |
|
natter
join:2000-12-18
Littleton, CO | Here is what I don't get... The $40 a month for 1.5/896 is for MSN.
Then, they give a price of $28 a month for 1.5/896 but
then you have to find an ISP. Are ISP's ready to handle this? If so, what pricing have you seen? | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
TJ_665
join:2001-07-04
Fairview, OR | Verizon still laggin with 128 kbits upload Come on Verizon, get with the program here. A jump in upload bandwidth wouldn't hurt, would it? Just 256 kbits would be fine. | |
|
| nickpdx
Premium
join:2003-10-19
Portland, OR
| MSN ? Other ISP ? im really interested in switching over to qwest, i would rather go back to about the same download as i used to have with a higher upload...1500/~900 would be great i can get it for $45/mo with MSN or $46/mo with DSLNorthwest and probably a few other companys...how is msn ? any bandwidth caps at ALL ? is running servers ok ? all that stuff....and if anybody has any experience with DSLNorthwest or another ISP for qwest available in 97219 please tell me so....thanks! | |
|
| |
w0g
Omghi
join:2001-08-30
Eugene, OR
clubs: |
|
·
Re: Heh..
(most people connect between 960kbps-1044kbps)
Word