[GRLUG] AT&T's U-verse DSL service

Thu May 19 00:04:05 EDT 2011

After upgrading my cable modem [1] I consistently get 9-10 Mbps upload
speed with comcast residential (according to speedtest.net).  It was
only ~1 Mbps before that.  The download speed increased a little bit too
- but not nearly so significantly.

[1] upgraded to Motorola SB6120 SurfBoard
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001UI2FPE

On 05/18/2011 09:43 PM, Brad Becker wrote:
> Running a web server favors more upstream bandwidth, so why
> would download bandwidth be all that important when my guess is 2 Mbps
> is around the best upstream anyone can get around here short of
> commercial/business grade.  Frankly I'd gladly give back 1/2 my download
> bandwidth (most of it wasted) for 1 Mbps more on the upside.  Few
> servers can dish out the download bandwidth capability most people have,
> but then again providers know this as their own form of throttling.
>  
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com
> <mailto:mikemol at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     It'll really depend on if you're doing things like running a web
>     server, if you're making your own files available to yourself from
>     elsewhere (and where a service like DropBox is less appropriate), etc.
> 
>     For example, I might run rosettacode.org <http://rosettacode.org>
>     from home if I had a
>     reasonable Internet connection for it. It'd be nice to not need to pay
>     twice as much per month just to have twice as much RAM available to
>     me.
> 
>     On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Jonathan Jesse <jjesse at gmail.com
>     <mailto:jjesse at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > Perhaps a silly question but why the need for such high bandwidth?
>      I am a uverse customer with middle of the road level of Internet
>     connection and I don't notcie the lag getting my workmdone from
>     home, watching the occasional video on vimeo or YouTube.  Netflix
>     runs fine as well for me.... Trying justify the cost of increased
>     bandwidth when I mostly do some streaming, lots of email and web
>     browsing and chatting on irc
>     >
>     >
>     > Sent from my iPad
>     >
>     > On May 18, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Adam Tauno Williams
>     <awilliam at whitemice.org <mailto:awilliam at whitemice.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     >> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 16:29 -0400, Dan Pilcheck wrote:
>     >>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Matthew Seeley
>     <matthew at threadlight.com <mailto:matthew at threadlight.com>>
>     >>>>> wrote:
>     >>>>>> I have the 24m Uverse service in Jenison.
>     >>>>>> At first, it was excellent. Got 22m down on off hours, and
>     18m down on
>     >>>>>> peak times. Was that way for the first two - three months.
>     >>>>>> Then, AT&T went door-to-door and signed up everyone in the
>     apartment
>     >>>>>> complex.
>     >>>>>> Now I only get 10m down on peak times, and 14m down on off
>     hours. (Even
>     >>>>>> when paying for the '24m' plan though)
>     >>> Bob (Et al.), Sorry if I'm taking this to far off topic for the
>     thread;
>     >>> What about Comcast Business at the home?
>     >>> IIRC its been touched on here, but I couldn't dig up anything
>     relevant.
>     >>
>     >> I had AT&T business class DSL to my home for a long time (this
>     includes
>     >> static IPs, a router, etc...).  Performance was very good.
>     >>
>     >> But U-verse (which also includes TV) and a Linode is actually
>     cheaper.
>     >> You still get an always-on static IP hosts (the Linode) that isn't on
>     >> your power bill - and you can run server's without violating your
>     >> EULA.
>     >>
>     >> It is also quite handy to OpenVPN from
>     whatever-crappy-network-I'm-on to
>     >> the Linode.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> --
>     >> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>     >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>     >> believed to be clean.
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> grlug mailing list
>     >> grlug at grlug.org <mailto:grlug at grlug.org>
>     >> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>     >
>     > --
>     > This message has been scanned for viruses and
>     > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>     > believed to be clean.
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > grlug mailing list
>     > grlug at grlug.org <mailto:grlug at grlug.org>
>     > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>     >
> 
> 
> 
>     --
>     :wq
> 
>     --
>     This message has been scanned for viruses and
>     dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>     believed to be clean.
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     grlug mailing list
>     grlug at grlug.org <mailto:grlug at grlug.org>
>     http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> grlug mailing list
> grlug at grlug.org
> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug


-- 
Dave Brondsema : dave at brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
http://www.splike.com : programming
               <><

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://shinobu.grlug.org/pipermail/grlug/attachments/20110519/de82bc4e/attachment-0001.pgp>