[GRLUG] AT&T's U-verse DSL service
Bob Kline
bob.kline at gmail.com
Thu May 26 16:07:51 EDT 2011
I just installed a Motorola model SB6120
DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem. I called Comcast,
supplied the model, customer S/N, and the
MAC address. Later I power cycled the
router, and was up and going. The whole
thing took 15 minutes, including all my
running back and forth between the phone
and the setup.
Later, a "return kit" will arrive to send the old
unit back - one I've rented for 7 years.
The rental fee went from $3 a month to $5,
and shortly thereafter, to $7, for same old
modem. The new on cost about $84 from
Amazon. At the $7 a month rate, the payback
time is a year, and I have an up to date modem.
I did a quick check, and it's faster too. I'll
do some more tests during lighter traffic times
of the day, but already I'm getting faster
bit rates than ever before.
-- Bob
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Dave Brondsema <dave at brondsema.net> wrote:
> On 05/19/2011 01:18 AM, Bob Kline wrote:
> > Curious. I have the 16 Mbps residential
> > service, and the upstream rate is about
> > 3.5 Mbps up, based on speedtest.net <http://speedtest.net>.
> >
> > I'd almost think an improvement of 10X
> > is almost some kind of mistake on Comcast's
> > part - it's hard to understand an improvement
> > that big. You're in West MI?
>
> Yep
>
> >
> > Re the modem, I currently have a DOCSIS 2.0
> > cable modem owned by Comcast. What was
> > involved in setting yours up?
>
> My prior modem was owned also (not rented). I called them and told them
> I had a new cable modem. I gave them the model & mac address. It's
> possible they also optimized something on their end at that time also
> which helped the speeds.
>
> >
> > -- Bob
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Dave Brondsema <dave at brondsema.net
> > <mailto:dave at brondsema.net>> wrote:
> >
> > After upgrading my cable modem [1] I consistently get 9-10 Mbps
> upload
> > speed with comcast residential (according to speedtest.net
> > <http://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>
> > > <mailto: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> <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>
> > > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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 <mailto:grlug at grlug.org>
> > > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dave Brondsema : dave at brondsema.net <mailto:dave at brondsema.net>
> > http://www.brondsema.net : personal
> > http://www.splike.com : programming
> > <><
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> <><
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> grlug mailing list
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://shinobu.grlug.org/pipermail/grlug/attachments/20110526/7ad6177f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the grlug
mailing list