On Thursday 27 February 2003 20:02, Robert Eanes wrote:
> I was intrigued by your description of DSL vs Cable.
> erroneous. the cheapest solution from DSL has a
> stated speed of 768 bits per second down and 128 bits
Odd, when I last checked it was 384 down. Where did you see this?
> To be fair though... verizon DSL seems to have a poor
> record with technical support, and customer service.
> To each his own, I've never needed them, so I can't
> say for sure.
I could tell you stories... (I used to be quite involved in TELCO
(telephone company) business as a systems integrator.
> I did notice however that everyday at around
> 5:00pm the system would slow to a crawl.. better than
> dailup, but still not what I paid for. That's mainly
> why I changed to DSL when we bought our house.
Today I'd be surpriced to see that. As I said TW knows it's theirs
for the taking as long as they don't mess it up again. In the last
four years I've been at two different locations and never seen less
than just shy of 2K down.
> On
> the other hand, if you wish to have a static IP and
> run servers then Verizons business dsl at 69.99 is the
I pay $70 for a fixed IP under cable.
> way to go. Generally speaking, business users will
> have some knowledge above what an end-user would, so
> would be able to ask the right questions and get the
> service they paid for( frankly, I put many linux users
> in this category). Also, DSL offers a more stable
> connection (not speaking to downtime here, but more in
> to the peaks and valleys of speed).
True, DSL is generally more stable than cable. But it usually takes
longer to fix when it does go down, in my experience.
At one point I had a DSL down for 12 days. My longest cable outtage
has been three hours. At one point I saw it go down for short
periods every two to four weeks, but not anymore.
--Steve ______________________________________________________ (This sig has been left open for your imagination.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 15:56:23 EDT