Switching from DSL to cable... Am I crazy??

[Landruu]

I have a RH 6.2 box that is my gateway and email server. ATT is the cable service. Is there a way to do this with out getting caught. And would I even want to. I have a doamin and static ip that are all on the linux box. (well, the mx records are at my isp).

Is it worth it to go from $60 a month to $34??

What I want to do is get as much away from Qwest as possible. Are there any other DSL provoders in PDX. I use another ISP. So I am covered there.

Thanks...
Landruu

[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: Landruu ]

[Strogian]

Are you saying that you're considering switching from a DSL provider, which allows you to run servers in their Terms of Service, to a Cable provider, which does not allow you to run servers?

[PuterFreaK]

I love cable. Other than the 15kbps upstream I always get at least 100kbps down.

[DMR]

If AT&T is your cable service, don't even think of using them at the moment!

Aside from the fact that their TOS agreement explicitly forbids running servers, Excite@home, one of their main access providers, is going bankrupt. AT&T has been trying to buy their assets, but if that doesn't happen, many ATT@home users (myself included) could be up the proverbial creek without a paddle very shortly. You can find more information on the whole mess in this thread (http://www.linuxnewbie.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=22&t=009038).
:(

[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: DMR ]

[PuterFreaK]

Excite just so happens to be my provider. Someone is going to hear from me if my internet goes down.

Wait untill this entire thing is over and then get cable. I read that everyone using excite may be switched to road runner witch is supposed to be a little better.

At least in my area, DSL never gets over 100kbps down. Cable doesnt seem to get under that.

[Usulsuspct]

The main advantage to DSL is in a congested area of cable users. With DSL you ussually pay for an amount of bandwith and that's all you get, but it's not dependent on the number of people using cable in your area.

For example my tier that I pay for is 448k down and 168k up, which relates to about 70kbs down and 20kbs up. Not great, but at least I get that 24 hours a day.

Where as when I had cable, sometimes it was wicked fast, and other times it was wicked slow.

[fateswarm]

Originally posted by Usulsuspct:
<STRONG>The main advantage to DSL is in a congested area of cable users. With DSL you ussually pay for an amount of bandwith and that's all you get, but it's not dependent on the number of people using cable in your area.

For example my tier that I pay for is 448k down and 168k up, which relates to about 70kbs down and 20kbs up. Not great, but at least I get that 24 hours a day.

Where as when I had cable, sometimes it was wicked fast, and other times it was wicked slow.</STRONG>

Usulsuspct, I never had either but ADSL isn t
it slower when the ISP gets overcrowded? (not the area, the isp)

[teeitup]

The main advantage to DSL is in a congested area of cable users. With DSL you ussually pay for an amount of bandwith and that's all you get, but it's not dependent on the number of people using cable in your area.

A myth perpetuated by the phone companies.
Network connections, DSL or cable, meet at a common point. Both technologies are suspect to slow downs due to customer usage. In fact the Internet it self can suffer from this if one or two links in the "path" are having problems.

I use ATT and have never been hassled about my server. I use it primarily as a firewall/gateway. I turn on and off certain services, Web Server, FTP, VNC, as I need them. As long as you don't try to serve massive amounts of data they won't know the difference between a server and a workstation. The real difference between a server and a workstation in the name and function. The software and apps are the same.

Good Luck,

[Concrete Geist]

Cable rocks. In my area, downstream goes over 300kbps, and up is nearly 50.

The DSL is only a third of that.

[Icarus]

I'm using Sprint Broadband Direct (http://www.sprintbbd.com) and have been most satisfied with it. Download is unbelievable (500k-1.5M) but getting mad at the uploads (was about 200k when I got it, now down to 70k). At least download still flies! I do get a few (more then expected) bad packets that cause huge lag spikes in games. :mad:

[febisfebi]

i have @home cable on excite. 15k up sucks, but for the price of it $25 a month, i think i am getting a damn good deal. i have never seeen dsl even get past about 70kbps, down, and its upstream is hardly better than cable. dsl providers say that ypu will get 100kbps up or whatever, which you can easily divide in half or even in thirds. in @homes licence agreement, the only thing that you cant do is host an isp. i currently host a website, ftp, and have never had complaints from anyone at excite, or at&t. also i may not technically have a static ip, but i hav had cable for 3 years, and my ip hasnt changed.

[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: febisfebi ]

[proffy]

Originally posted by PuterFreaK:
<STRONG>I love cable. Other than the 15kbps upstream I always get at least 100kbps down.</STRONG>

This is strange. 100kbps is kinda slow isn't it. That's 100 kilobits per second, or, dividing by 8, 12.5 kiloBytes per second.

With my cable provider (AT&T now, was @home last week) I could sometimes get as high as 500+ kiloBytes per second, or 4 megabits/s all for only $39.99. Too bad AT&T is not putting a cap at 1.5 megabits/s. But that's still about 183 kiloBytes/s.

[paulb]

My DSL connection as adveraged by DSL Reports (http://www.dslreports.com) :

MPowered (http://www.mpoweredpc.net)
950 Downstream @ peak
1184 Downstream @ offpeak
650 Upstream

I got:

1519 Down
239 Up

Also some other adverages:

Road Runner (http://www.rr.com)
1245 Down @ Peak
1275 Down @ Off Peak
313 Up

At Home (http://www.home.com)

1838 Down
1966 Down Off Peak
209 Up

[ 03 December 2001: Message edited by: paulb ]