Certainly the whole internet is a shared resource but when internet
speeds to the node were fairly slow, you could tell when the kids got
home from school because your cable feed dropped to a crawl. I haven't
been on cable for quite a while but based on how often my cable
subscriber neighbors want to skim my wifi, it is still not that
I keep my DMZ router turned off unless someone asks me to turn it on
or the kids are here. It sits in the front window with clear line of
sight to the 3 neighbors who want to skim.
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 11:45:12 AM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
I'd like to see the actual claim.
A claim that DSL is "better" because you don't share your connection means
nothing unless you back that up with some numbers.
If I take an isolated back road to Grandma's house, I don't have to
share the road with anyone. However, if I take a shared highway, I can
get there in half the time. Is the back road "better" merely because
I didn't have to share it?
The claim made sense when cable speeds were very close to DSL speeds.
If DSL was 3 mb and cable was 5 mb sharing would cut it back quite a bit
at peak times. Potentially it could be slower than DSL
Now that DSL is 6 mb and cable is 60 mb or more, sharing cuts it down
just a tiny be that you'd not notice or care about.
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:06:46 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
I use DSL because a 10 meg connection that is working beats the hell
out of a 50 meg connection that is down.
I understand Comcast may be OK in other places but they suck here and
that is the only other wired option.
It is a Surfboard 6121. A DOCSIS 3.0 from the docs. Should be able to do
172 Mbps download. That is over 3 times the speed of 50 Mbps that I am
suspose to be getting.
It must be something between the modem, router, and computer. I just got a
Win 10 computer and it will show 50 mbps downlink while another 2 computers
will only give 10 to 25 mbps plugged into the same eithernet cable. The old
and new computers both have a 3 Ghz processor and are almost identical in
most things such as memory and processor.
On 04/08/2016 11:51 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
The same model I have. The wikipedia article actually has both numbers
(152 and 172). Apparently, the higher number includes overhead.
I used to have one laptop that wouldn't ever get full download speed
(IIRC it got 38M instead of the 50M the others got). The problem was
with WiFi. It was getting a 72.2M (802.11n) WiFi connection. I found a
way to double that and now get the full 50M.
I wanted to keep my dialup, but was in a hurry. Now I figure I'll dig
out a modem when the time comes, and hope I haven't forgotten how to
do the initializing string.
I found dial-up fast enough for email and newsgroups, and audio. Slow
for the web and too slow for video.
Last night I got my friend's computer working and downloaded 5000
emails, representing 78 days since January 19. It took over an hour,
and it seemed very slow. This was DSL but wifi, with a big CRT
monitor right between the router and the wifi receiver. Would that
make a difference? I know at 80 feet wifi is slower than Cat5, but
what about at 18". Is it any faster than, maybe because of fewer lost
packets? Anyhow, I did other things during the hour.
I had dial-up as a backup for the first few years after getting cable
internet. Now, I use a 4G device (https://yourkarma.com /).
BTW, we got cable internet in 2003, but DSL won't be available until
this summer (IIRC). Maybe that's because the cable has been so good.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.