[GRLUG] AT&T's U-verse DSL service
Mike Nicholas / The Personal Connection
nicholas at iserv.net
Thu May 26 16:47:39 EDT 2011
On Thu, May 26, 2011 4:07 pm, Bob Kline wrote:
> 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.
I want to say a DOCSIS 2 will only carry the speed through about 10 Meg.
You need to have a DOCSIS 3 to go beyond the 10 Meg (and see the rated
performance gains.)
>
> 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.
Agreed. I did the same math and conclusion. Even if it gets hit my a power
surge or component failure, anything beyond a year is a cost/benefit gain.
They will tell you about the "free replacement and upgrade", but
technology doesn't move that fast (to necessitate an annual upgrade) and
the replacement is offset by the non-rental savings.
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
More information about the grlug
mailing list