Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default Is it hard to install DSL yourself?


"Not@home" wrote:

I've had both DSL and cable. In my opinion all the talk about sharing
service and bandwidth is, while technically accurate, absolutely useless
for the ordinary user. Unless you spend your time uploading and
downloading huge files, you will never notice whether you are using the
faster or slower service. I routinely email large jpg files, and never
saw a difference between the two services.

I had two phone lines, and dsl would not work on the newer line.
Apparently the switches at the phone company CO were more robust years
ago and could handle DSL, while the newer switches won't. Since I live
too many yards from the CO, this affected my service.

As to installation, my DSL company sent very clear instructions, and as
they were a local company they were easy to call with problems. A lot
of the difficulty with DSL installation appeared to involve coordination
with the phone company, and as my DSL provider was a local company, they
had the connections to get things done promptly and right. Alas, my
local DSL company was gobbled up by a national company, and the good
personalized tech support disappeared. When I called tech support and
their first question was what state I lived in, I saw trouble on the
horizon and after a few problems, I switched to cable.

Perhaps because my cable company was just getting into the business, I
had some problems with installation. One tech insisted that since my
cable drop ran through an underground conduit, it was getting wet, which
was affecting my service. I drained the conduit (there was some water
in it) and the cable worked, but then went out again. The next tech
pointed out that the drop was waterproof, and the problem was with the
cable modem they had installed (apparently an outdated model). He
replaced it and now for a couple of years the service has been flawless.
They even offer to come out (for a fee) and hook up a second computer,
but I was able to do that on my own easily.

So I think, unless you get DSL from a good local company, cable is the
better option, as you are then dealing with a single company, and as
they often have packages that save you a bit on your TV cable or cable
phone.


I have both cable and DSL (different locations), and both have pretty
much worked just fine after minor installation hassles on the carrier
side. The DSL did have one brief outage when a line crew managed to
change me to a bad pair, but it was resolved pretty quickly. The cable
has had about two sub hour long outages per year after major storms in
the area which seems perfectly reasonable to me. The DSL probably has
had similar short storm outages, but I don't use it all the time so I've
not noticed.

As for speed, yes, for typical use there is little practical difference.
This may change though as more full res video content is delivered over
the Internet and the difference in the download lead times before the
program you ordered is ready to view is noticeable.
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Is it hard to install DSL yourself?

Pete C. wrote:
"Not@home" wrote:
I've had both DSL and cable. In my opinion all the talk about sharing
service and bandwidth is, while technically accurate, absolutely useless
for the ordinary user. Unless you spend your time uploading and
downloading huge files, you will never notice whether you are using the
faster or slower service. I routinely email large jpg files, and never
saw a difference between the two services.

I had two phone lines, and dsl would not work on the newer line.
Apparently the switches at the phone company CO were more robust years
ago and could handle DSL, while the newer switches won't. Since I live
too many yards from the CO, this affected my service.

As to installation, my DSL company sent very clear instructions, and as
they were a local company they were easy to call with problems. A lot
of the difficulty with DSL installation appeared to involve coordination
with the phone company, and as my DSL provider was a local company, they
had the connections to get things done promptly and right. Alas, my
local DSL company was gobbled up by a national company, and the good
personalized tech support disappeared. When I called tech support and
their first question was what state I lived in, I saw trouble on the
horizon and after a few problems, I switched to cable.

Perhaps because my cable company was just getting into the business, I
had some problems with installation. One tech insisted that since my
cable drop ran through an underground conduit, it was getting wet, which
was affecting my service. I drained the conduit (there was some water
in it) and the cable worked, but then went out again. The next tech
pointed out that the drop was waterproof, and the problem was with the
cable modem they had installed (apparently an outdated model). He
replaced it and now for a couple of years the service has been flawless.
They even offer to come out (for a fee) and hook up a second computer,
but I was able to do that on my own easily.

So I think, unless you get DSL from a good local company, cable is the
better option, as you are then dealing with a single company, and as
they often have packages that save you a bit on your TV cable or cable
phone.


I have both cable and DSL (different locations), and both have pretty
much worked just fine after minor installation hassles on the carrier
side. The DSL did have one brief outage when a line crew managed to
change me to a bad pair, but it was resolved pretty quickly. The cable
has had about two sub hour long outages per year after major storms in
the area which seems perfectly reasonable to me. The DSL probably has
had similar short storm outages, but I don't use it all the time so I've
not noticed.

As for speed, yes, for typical use there is little practical difference.
This may change though as more full res video content is delivered over
the Internet and the difference in the download lead times before the
program you ordered is ready to view is noticeable.


Well, since I had Verizon at my last place and I ended up turning off my
phone entirely because they were incapable of making it work on a
reliable basis, I would never consider getting DSL unless it were from
another provider. I never even had the POTS turned on when I moved.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,103
Default Is it hard to install DSL yourself?

"Pete C." wrote in
ter.com:


"Not@home" wrote:

I've had both DSL and cable. In my opinion all the talk about sharing
service and bandwidth is, while technically accurate, absolutely useless
for the ordinary user. Unless you spend your time uploading and
downloading huge files, you will never notice whether you are using the
faster or slower service. I routinely email large jpg files, and never
saw a difference between the two services.

I had two phone lines, and dsl would not work on the newer line.
Apparently the switches at the phone company CO were more robust years
ago and could handle DSL, while the newer switches won't. Since I live
too many yards from the CO, this affected my service.

As to installation, my DSL company sent very clear instructions, and as
they were a local company they were easy to call with problems. A lot
of the difficulty with DSL installation appeared to involve coordination
with the phone company, and as my DSL provider was a local company, they
had the connections to get things done promptly and right. Alas, my
local DSL company was gobbled up by a national company, and the good
personalized tech support disappeared. When I called tech support and
their first question was what state I lived in, I saw trouble on the
horizon and after a few problems, I switched to cable.

Perhaps because my cable company was just getting into the business, I
had some problems with installation. One tech insisted that since my
cable drop ran through an underground conduit, it was getting wet, which
was affecting my service. I drained the conduit (there was some water
in it) and the cable worked, but then went out again. The next tech
pointed out that the drop was waterproof, and the problem was with the
cable modem they had installed (apparently an outdated model). He
replaced it and now for a couple of years the service has been flawless.
They even offer to come out (for a fee) and hook up a second computer,
but I was able to do that on my own easily.

So I think, unless you get DSL from a good local company, cable is the
better option, as you are then dealing with a single company, and as
they often have packages that save you a bit on your TV cable or cable
phone.


I have both cable and DSL (different locations), and both have pretty
much worked just fine after minor installation hassles on the carrier
side. The DSL did have one brief outage when a line crew managed to
change me to a bad pair, but it was resolved pretty quickly. The cable
has had about two sub hour long outages per year after major storms in
the area which seems perfectly reasonable to me. The DSL probably has
had similar short storm outages, but I don't use it all the time so I've
not noticed.

As for speed, yes, for typical use there is little practical difference.
This may change though as more full res video content is delivered over
the Internet and the difference in the download lead times before the
program you ordered is ready to view is noticeable.


some broadband ISPs are now charging by how much data you download per
month,with surcharges when you exceed some arbitrary limit.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #44   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 327
Default Is it hard to install DSL yourself?

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:52:52 -0700, Cheri wrote:

"Mike Dobony" wrote in message
...

Order the kit. Call tech support on a line not connected to where you are
hooking up the modem or after installing the modem through provided
filter/duplex plug (plugged into the correct, marked outlet).


My question always is...if it's so damned easy, why is there a tech support
number for installation problems? I buy things like floor lamps, appliances
etc., and not one of them comes with tech support for plugging it in, now
that's what I call easy.:-)

Cheri


Floor lamps don't need you identify yourself before working. You don't
really want anyone in tech support to give you a user name and password.
You need to pick that out for yourself. The software that comes with your
DSL modem is not known for it's safety to your system. Better to do it
manually and if you don't know how to do that you should call tech support.
It is not all that difficult, but you can run into problems if you don't
know what the various settings do. Many times it takes longer to talk to
someone than to actually set up your system.
  #45   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default Is it hard to install DSL yourself?

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:36:34 -0500, AZ Nomad
wrote:

I generally agree. DSL and cable run neck in neck with cable
typically two to three times as fast for downloading and one forth as
fast for uploads.

....
Nowadays DSL can do 900-1200KB/s; my cable does 2-3.5MB/s.


DSL "can do" much higher than that. In my area, AT&T offers 1.5MB/s,
3.0MB/s, and 6.0MB/s (we have the latter and get around 5.0MB/s
consistently), and I believe there are higher speed offerings in some
areas either now or planned in the future. Which tiers are available
does depend on how far you are from the DSLAM, which might be in a box
down the street or in a central office.

The cable ads that compare their "fast" service against "slow" DSL are
misleading when they compare against 1.5MB/s DSL, since in many areas
much faster DSL that's comparable in raw speed to cable is available
and cheaper than the cable service. Just because DSL offers a lower
speed at an even lower price (which is a good tradeoff for many people
that cable usually doesn't even offer) doesn't mean that it's always
"slow".

It's like going to one gas station that only has premium gas (which
you may or may not need), and then complaining that the station across
town that has all 3 grades (with their premium cheaper than the first
station) is lower octane. .

Not that cable isn't sometimes a better choice for service/speed/cost,
but not always.

Josh


  #46   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 944
Default Is it hard to install DSL yourself?

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:55:09 -0700, Josh wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:36:34 -0500, AZ Nomad
wrote:


I generally agree. DSL and cable run neck in neck with cable
typically two to three times as fast for downloading and one forth as
fast for uploads.

...
Nowadays DSL can do 900-1200KB/s; my cable does 2-3.5MB/s.


DSL "can do" much higher than that. In my area, AT&T offers 1.5MB/s,
3.0MB/s, and 6.0MB/s (we have the latter and get around 5.0MB/s
consistently), and I believe there are higher speed offerings in some
areas either now or planned in the future. Which tiers are available
does depend on how far you are from the DSLAM, which might be in a box
down the street or in a central office.


Sure you're not confusing Mb/s with MB/s?
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 664
Default Is it hard to install DSL yourself?

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

Sure you're not confusing Mb/s with MB/s?


Probably.

Is there an "authority" that decides which abbreviation is for which
measurement?

megaBITS per second

megaBYTES per second

One is VASTLY different than the other.

I believe all communication/networking throughput is rated in megaBITS
per second.
--

JR
  #48   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 222
Default Is it hard to install DSL yourself?

Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

Sure you're not confusing Mb/s with MB/s?


Probably.

Is there an "authority" that decides which abbreviation is for which
measurement?

megaBITS per second

megaBYTES per second

One is VASTLY different than the other.

I believe all communication/networking throughput is rated in
megaBITS per second.


Take your pick of authorities. The prominent ones are the ISO, IEC,
IEEE, EU, and NIST. I'll leave it to you to look all those up, but IEC
seems to be the most prominent. They all defer to each other and quote
each other in publications.

Here's a link to a Wikipedia article that discusses bitrates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate

Common measures a
bps, Kbps, Mbps, and Gbps, depending on whether you're talking about
serial printers, acoustic modems, hard drive cables, or Ethernet
routers. Tbps are not too far away.

To complicate things, there are lots of people who insist that a "K" is
1024 instead of the usual 1000. They have a legitimate point in lots of
cases, so the official name for that unit is "kibi" instead of "kilo".

p.s. Don't forget about "baud rates". :-)

--
Steve Bell
New Life Home Improvement
Arlington, TX
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,963
Default Is it hard to install DSL yourself?

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:15:48 +0000 (UTC), "SteveBell"
wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

Sure you're not confusing Mb/s with MB/s?


Probably.

Is there an "authority" that decides which abbreviation is for which
measurement?

megaBITS per second

megaBYTES per second

One is VASTLY different than the other.

I believe all communication/networking throughput is rated in
megaBITS per second.


Take your pick of authorities. The prominent ones are the ISO, IEC,
IEEE, EU, and NIST. I'll leave it to you to look all those up, but IEC
seems to be the most prominent. They all defer to each other and quote
each other in publications.

Here's a link to a Wikipedia article that discusses bitrates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate

Common measures a
bps, Kbps, Mbps, and Gbps, depending on whether you're talking about
serial printers, acoustic modems, hard drive cables, or Ethernet
routers. Tbps are not too far away.

To complicate things, there are lots of people who insist that a "K" is
1024 instead of the usual 1000. They have a legitimate point in lots of
cases, so the official name for that unit is "kibi" instead of "kilo".

p.s. Don't forget about "baud rates". :-)


And "half duplex" / "full duplex", which almost everybody gets wrong.
--
87 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The government of the United States is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

  #50   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 944
Default Is it hard to install DSL yourself?

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:15:48 +0000 (UTC), SteveBell wrote:
Jim Redelfs wrote:


In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

Sure you're not confusing Mb/s with MB/s?


Probably.

Is there an "authority" that decides which abbreviation is for which
measurement?

megaBITS per second

megaBYTES per second

One is VASTLY different than the other.

I believe all communication/networking throughput is rated in
megaBITS per second.


Take your pick of authorities. The prominent ones are the ISO, IEC,
IEEE, EU, and NIST. I'll leave it to you to look all those up, but IEC
seems to be the most prominent. They all defer to each other and quote
each other in publications.


Here's a link to a Wikipedia article that discusses bitrates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate


Common measures a
bps, Kbps, Mbps, and Gbps, depending on whether you're talking about
serial printers, acoustic modems, hard drive cables, or Ethernet
routers. Tbps are not too far away.


To complicate things, there are lots of people who insist that a "K" is
1024 instead of the usual 1000. They have a legitimate point in lots of
cases, so the official name for that unit is "kibi" instead of "kilo".


p.s. Don't forget about "baud rates". :-)



Lower case b is bits. Uppercase B is Bytes.
goofy, huh?

1000's are pretty much only used by drive manufacturers to arrive at larger
figures.


  #51   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default Is it hard to install DSL yourself?

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:24:53 -0500, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:55:09 -0700, Josh wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:36:34 -0500, AZ Nomad
wrote:


I generally agree. DSL and cable run neck in neck with cable
typically two to three times as fast for downloading and one forth as
fast for uploads.

...
Nowadays DSL can do 900-1200KB/s; my cable does 2-3.5MB/s.


DSL "can do" much higher than that. In my area, AT&T offers 1.5MB/s,
3.0MB/s, and 6.0MB/s (we have the latter and get around 5.0MB/s
consistently), and I believe there are higher speed offerings in some
areas either now or planned in the future. Which tiers are available
does depend on how far you are from the DSLAM, which might be in a box
down the street or in a central office.


Sure you're not confusing Mb/s with MB/s?


Why yes, I am; sorry about that. I'd like to say it was a single slip
of the shift key, since I design computer chips for a living
(integrated graphics controllers, not networking components,
fortunately :-), and use *B/s more often than *b/s, but then I did it
3 more times, so it's just a plain old error.

All of the above are Mb/s (Megabits per second). I won't even get
into the debate about whether they should be mebibits (Mib) instead.
:-)

Josh
  #52   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 944
Default Is it hard to install DSL yourself?

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:42:41 -0700, Josh wrote:
about mixup
Take everything I said, multiply by 8 to get Kb/s and Mb/s. :-p

All of the above are Mb/s (Megabits per second). I won't even get
into the debate about whether they should be mebibits (Mib) instead.
:-)


WTF is a mebabit? (looking it up)... ok, powers of two so as not to be
confused with K/M/G/T using powers of ten.

Goofier still.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
It is really hard ... Phil Munro Home Ownership 32 February 3rd 06 02:49 AM
Hard maple vs hard rock maple? Ron Woodworking 3 October 10th 05 07:51 PM
How hard is it to install Hardiplank + Colorplus? mattimus Home Repair 0 April 28th 05 05:57 PM
How hard is it to install a new dishwasher? giterdun Home Repair 10 February 11th 05 08:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"