From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Apr 14 2002 - 04:41:08 MDT
SDSL and other DSL companies keep dying ignoble deaths or being
eaten by AT&T and other big and relative conservative concerns.
We have SDSL at 780K bi-directional but it is a bit pricey and
took forever to get installed. When soemthing goes wrong the
ISP (a very good one actually) checks there in then calls up
Covad (who we are not allowed to talk to) and if they can't find
a problem then they talk to the phone company who doesn't
exactly have a lot of incentive to move quick to make some other
player's customers happy. All in all though, its been pretty
stable. Only once did it go down for a few days. Someone had
ripped a line digging up a tree. A couple of other times it
went down for a few hours. But those turned out to be other
acts of morons outside the three organizations mentioned.
- samantha
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Alfio Puglisi wrote:
>
>
>>I routinely got 100 KB/s on my DSL, and that was the cheap one. After
>>the dot-com bomb (some effects also here), I have a 30 KB/s line and
>>I'm hitting the limiter all the time, so there's no bandwith shortage.
>>
>
> Actually, it's the uplink bandwidth that matters here, since you're
> sending, not receiving. SDSL has not been rolled out widely, and it's
> mostly cable modems which offer you more or less symmetrical bandwidth.
>
> The current Internet is still largely a producer/consumer model. It's a
> tree, not a mesh. The residential links are assymetric, because the
> assumption is the residents never generate more outgoing traffic than the
> normal download requires (about 1:10).
>
> Old habits die slow.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:30 MST