[XCSSA] Once again, cable vs DSL, and also Grande

[X-otic Computer Systems of San Antonio]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 07:48, X-otic Computer Systems of San Antonio <
xcssa at xcssa.org> wrote:

> As for the Linksys and DD-WRT, I know of no way to set an IP in the
> firmware image <SNIP>
>
> On Mar 17, 2009, at 4:08 AM, X-otic Computer Systems of San Antonio
> wrote:
>
> > Side note, has anyone had any luck flashing DD-WRT or similar to a
> > Linksys WRT54Gv6? I need to figure out a way to make the Linksys
> > accept a local 10.10.x.x IP, and with its default firmware it will
> > only do 192.168.1.x.
>

I cannot speak to 54Gv6 (I have v3, GSv1.1, GLv1), but all my WWRT54G's have
DDWRT v23 use 10.135.x.  Granted, I am not using them for DHCP, but I am
positive that non-192.168 are supported.

RE: Speed

> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:23 AM, X-otic Computer Systems of San
> > Antonio <xcssa at xcssa.org> wrote:
> >> My friend has a 6mbps connection and he's probably getting around 5,
> >> although he's in a pseudo rural area so it's pretty good. I use
> >> standard AT&T DSL and have had amazingly few problems. The only major
> >> issues I've had is that their 2Wire DSL Routers suck. Avoid those or
> >> even buy one on your own and hook it up to a Linksys W54G (preferably
> >> with DD-WRT flashed onto it :) and call it done.
>

Agreed.  I use M0n0walls at my locations, and then have actual WAP's rather
than using ISP "wireless gateways"

>> On Mar 17, 2009, at 12:17 AM, X-otic Computer Systems of San Antonio
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> AT&T Elite DSL claims to get 6mbps.  Is that true?  Price seems
> >>> slightly cheaper than cable modem, but as usual I'll have to get the
> >>> second bill to be sure of that.  It's close.  One friend of mine
> >>> says
> >>> "DSL is slow" but 6mbps is fine for me now.
> >>>
> >>> Non-turbo cable (what I have now) claims 7mbps and turbo cable
> >>> claims
> >>> to get 15mbps, but online reviewers are very critical of the claim
> >>> for Turbo.
>

I get 15M down/1M up on my non-good customer Turbo (I am told that those
with "bundles" can get 15M/2M Turbo)

I was going to go with "naked" ATT DSL, but uploads were maxed at 768, and I
needed more than that for my job, so TWC was the only option, and this was
before the "good customer/bundle Turbo with 2M up"


> >>> I can also get Grande, they were out a couple of years ago setting
> >>> up my neighborhood.  How is that?  They claim 8mbps for $39.95 and
> >>> 12mbps for $49.95.  I know the neighborhood was hooked up with fiber
> >>> but I don't know if they run fiber to each house.  I might get the
> >>> 12mbps package if it actually delivers that, also gives twice the
> >>> upload speed (useful for media sharing stuff like Orb and VNC, I'm
> >>> not doing any hosting).
>

You don't have to be a server to saturate upload speeds.  I work with large
files (ISO, VMWare Images, etc) and uploads with 512K take a really long
time.  Lately, I have also discovered the wonders of BitTorrent, and having
that "extra" 512K up makes me less of a leach, and hence get better download
speeds.  I am also of the opinion that a 10:1 Down:Up ratio is silly.  I am
thinking that 4:1 or 5:1 on the outside is more realistic.  Simple TCP
protocol overhead required to drive the max download saturates the upload.
So if I am in the middle of an un-governed upload, my download speeds drop
to <3M, since the ACKs and other control traffic gets congested at the
firewall (M0n0Wall).

I have also heard good things about Grande, despite the fact that I cannot
use them either ;)

John Pappas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://xcssa.org/pipermail/xcssa/attachments/20090318/5ae78a50/attachment.html