I received a postcard from Time Warner Cable today informing me that as
of November 1, I can either pay $3.95 per month to lease my modem from
them or I can purchase my own.

I started a chat session with TWC to ask some questions about how
troubleshooting would be handled if I purchased my own equipment.

Here's a excerpt from that chat session. Something tells me Jean hit the
wrong key before transferring the session.

*** Begin Chat Excerpt ***

Jean: It seems that this issue needs to be escalated to National Road
Runner Chat support. We will transfer you to that support group. Do you
have any further questions before I transfer you?

Me: No, thanks.

Jean: Trouble call charges are determined on site by the technician
depending on the circumstances surrounding the work to be done. If the
issue is our lines or equipment, no charge will be assessed.

Use the above statement only if a customer asks about the charge, do not
provide the statement proactively.

Jean: Please be online while I transfer your chat to the right department.

*** End Chat Excerpt ***

I do hope Jean doesn't get into any trouble. ;-)

On 10/23/2012 7:15 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


I do hope Jean doesn't get into any trouble. ;-)


So why did you publish this private chat then?

On Oct 23, 7:15*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

Use the above statement only if a customer asks about the charge, do not
provide the statement proactively.

I do hope Jean doesn't get into any trouble. ;-)

No worries, "Jean" is a 'bot. Software or administrator glitch.
-----

- gpsman

DerbyDad03 wrote:

Use the above statement only if a customer asks about the charge, do not
provide the statement proactively.

Oops! Lol...

I would have had fun with her on that one.

Lerry the Cable Guy wrote:

On 10/23/2012 7:15 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


I do hope Jean doesn't get into any trouble. ;-)


So why did you publish this private chat then?


Probably to demonstrate how ****ed up Time Warner is.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
I received a postcard from Time Warner Cable today informing me that as of
November 1, I can either pay $3.95 per month to lease my modem from them
or I can purchase my own.

With projected additional $350 Million more in their coffers because of
this _lease_ fee, I wonder when they will start leasing the cable to us,
which runs to the house!

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:14:03 -0400, "Jeff" wrote:


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
I received a postcard from Time Warner Cable today informing me that as of
November 1, I can either pay $3.95 per month to lease my modem from them
or I can purchase my own.

With projected additional $350 Million more in their coffers because of
this _lease_ fee, I wonder when they will start leasing the cable to us,
which runs to the house!


Rogers cable has been "renting" the modems for years. They are trying
to get everyone to buy them so when they fail YOU need to replace
them, instead of the cable company.

Lerry the Cable Guy wrote:
On 10/23/2012 7:15 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


I do hope Jean doesn't get into any trouble. ;-)


So why did you publish this private chat then?

Holy cow...you're right! I should realized that her supervisors are more
likely to find that excerpt here in a.h.r than in their own chat logs. What
was I thinking?

wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:14:03 -0400, "Jeff" wrote:


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
I received a postcard from Time Warner Cable today informing me that as of
November 1, I can either pay $3.95 per month to lease my modem from them
or I can purchase my own.

With projected additional $350 Million more in their coffers because of
this _lease_ fee, I wonder when they will start leasing the cable to us,
which runs to the house!


Rogers cable has been "renting" the modems for years. They are trying
to get everyone to buy them so when they fail YOU need to replace
them, instead of the cable company.

Actually, once they finally got me to someone who actually made sense (the
third person I chatted with) he made sure that I was aware that any modem
that I purchased from the approved list would work with the *current*
features and speeds. However, should TWC upgrade their hardware and/or
programming, those of us who own on our modems would have to purchase
another.

The tone of his chat was decidedly leaning towards the lease option.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:




Actually, once they finally got me to someone who actually made sense (the
third person I chatted with) he made sure that I was aware that any modem
that I purchased from the approved list would work with the *current*
features and speeds. However, should TWC upgrade their hardware and/or
programming, those of us who own on our modems would have to purchase
another.

The tone of his chat was decidedly leaning towards the lease option.

Sure, they get $48 a year from you. Most modems will cost less than
that and last 10 years. I had the same offer from the phone company
for DSL and chose to buy. Never needed tech support either.

On Oct 24, 5:53*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03

wrote:

Actually, once they finally got me to someone who actually made sense (the
third person I chatted with) he made sure that I was aware that any modem
that I purchased from the approved list would work with the *current*
features and speeds. However, should TWC upgrade their hardware and/or
programming, those of us who own on our modems would have to purchase
another.

The tone of his chat was decidedly leaning towards the lease option.

Sure, they get $48 a year from you. *Most modems will cost less than
that and last 10 years. *I had the same offer from the phone company
for DSL and chose to buy. * Never needed tech support either.

Cablevision used to charge for modems too. Now they are
free. I don't see why anyone would pay $4 a month to lease
one. You can buy your own and as you say, in a year or so
it's paid for itself.

I have a Tivo instead of Cablevision's DVR/cable box too.
They charge $10 a month for their DVR. And instead of
a cable box, the Tivo uses a CableCard, which you get
from Cablevision. The CableCard has a monthly fee that
is $3 less than they charge for a regular cable box. So,
I'm saving $13 a month. At that rate the Tivo with lifetime
service is paid off after about 3.5 years. And the best part
is that the Tivo, with it's advanced features, is an order of
magnitude better than the crappy cable company DVR.

On 10/23/2012 9:14 PM, Jeff wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
I received a postcard from Time Warner Cable today informing me that as of
November 1, I can either pay $3.95 per month to lease my modem from them
or I can purchase my own.

With projected additional $350 Million more in their coffers because of
this _lease_ fee, I wonder when they will start leasing the cable to us,
which runs to the house!




Comcast has jacked their modem rental fee up to $7 earlier this year. I
bought a cable modem when they first started the rental fee @ $3. I
could have purchased four more since then with the money we saved.

On 10/24/2012 5:53 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:




Actually, once they finally got me to someone who actually made sense (the
third person I chatted with) he made sure that I was aware that any modem
that I purchased from the approved list would work with the *current*
features and speeds. However, should TWC upgrade their hardware and/or
programming, those of us who own on our modems would have to purchase
another.

The tone of his chat was decidedly leaning towards the lease option.

Sure, they get $48 a year from you. Most modems will cost less than
that and last 10 years. I had the same offer from the phone company
for DSL and chose to buy. Never needed tech support either.

In the case of comcast the modem rental is $84 a year. So not even after
the first year you are ahead.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:53:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:




Actually, once they finally got me to someone who actually made sense (the
third person I chatted with) he made sure that I was aware that any modem
that I purchased from the approved list would work with the *current*
features and speeds. However, should TWC upgrade their hardware and/or
programming, those of us who own on our modems would have to purchase
another.

The tone of his chat was decidedly leaning towards the lease option.

Sure, they get $48 a year from you. Most modems will cost less than
that and last 10 years. I had the same offer from the phone company
for DSL and chose to buy. Never needed tech support either.

I generally lose a DSL modem every couple of years. No ESD or lightning
strike, it just stops working. AT&T no longer rents them. They do spread the
cost ($75, IIRC) over three months, if you want.

I never understood the rationale for renting a router or buying one from the
ISP, though. They want a lot of money for something that's dirt cheap online.

" wrote in
:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:53:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:




Actually, once they finally got me to someone who actually made sense
(the third person I chatted with) he made sure that I was aware that
any modem that I purchased from the approved list would work with the
*current* features and speeds. However, should TWC upgrade their
hardware and/or programming, those of us who own on our modems would
have to purchase another.

The tone of his chat was decidedly leaning towards the lease option.

Sure, they get $48 a year from you. Most modems will cost less than
that and last 10 years. I had the same offer from the phone company
for DSL and chose to buy. Never needed tech support either.

I generally lose a DSL modem every couple of years. No ESD or
lightning strike, it just stops working. AT&T no longer rents them.
They do spread the cost ($75, IIRC) over three months, if you want.

I never understood the rationale for renting a router or buying one
from the ISP, though. They want a lot of money for something that's
dirt cheap online.

It's my understanding that Verizon uses some kind of modified proprietary
software. There is no modem rental - you get a router as part of the
package. My ActionTec MI424-WR has functioned since the very beginning
of FiOS (well, the first one's radio quit in a week, but the second one
has worked ever since). The radio of the router is now weak and doesn't
get everywhere, so I have wired a DLink in the living room from the
upstairs router to give us WiFi and more ports here. Some time Ineed to
upgrade to a gigabit router and wiring, though.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 24 Oct 2012 15:27:38 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:53:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:




Actually, once they finally got me to someone who actually made sense
(the third person I chatted with) he made sure that I was aware that
any modem that I purchased from the approved list would work with the
*current* features and speeds. However, should TWC upgrade their
hardware and/or programming, those of us who own on our modems would
have to purchase another.

The tone of his chat was decidedly leaning towards the lease option.

Sure, they get $48 a year from you. Most modems will cost less than
that and last 10 years. I had the same offer from the phone company
for DSL and chose to buy. Never needed tech support either.

I generally lose a DSL modem every couple of years. No ESD or
lightning strike, it just stops working. AT&T no longer rents them.
They do spread the cost ($75, IIRC) over three months, if you want.

I never understood the rationale for renting a router or buying one
from the ISP, though. They want a lot of money for something that's
dirt cheap online.

It's my understanding that Verizon uses some kind of modified proprietary
software. There is no modem rental - you get a router as part of the
package. My ActionTec MI424-WR has functioned since the very beginning
of FiOS (well, the first one's radio quit in a week, but the second one
has worked ever since). The radio of the router is now weak and doesn't
get everywhere, so I have wired a DLink in the living room from the
upstairs router to give us WiFi and more ports here.

AT&T gives the option of a modem or router+modem. Actually, the third option
is to use your own modem. I bought their modem to minimize problems (the
installation in my AL house is a PITA and I have to call them if I touch
anything). Adding a router is usually pretty easy (though in the above
case...).

Some time Ineed to
upgrade to a gigabit router and wiring, though.

Why? AFAIC, 100Base-T is plenty. Actually my WiFi is enough for what I do
over the network. DSL is way slower than it.

On 10/24/2012 4:53 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Actually, once they finally got me to someone who actually made sense (the
third person I chatted with) he made sure that I was aware that any modem
that I purchased from the approved list would work with the *current*
features and speeds. However, should TWC upgrade their hardware and/or
programming, those of us who own on our modems would have to purchase
another.

The tone of his chat was decidedly leaning towards the lease option.

Sure, they get $48 a year from you. Most modems will cost less than
that and last 10 years. I had the same offer from the phone company
for DSL and chose to buy. Never needed tech support either.


In my area, the cable company and the phone company are engaged in a
broadband subscriber war. Result: phone company is providing a free
modem, free install, and a bunch of other freebies. No price increase
for five years guaranteed with no contract required.

They made it easy to choose them over Comshaft.

On Oct 24, 5:53*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03

wrote:

Actually, once they finally got me to someone who actually made sense (the
third person I chatted with) he made sure that I was aware that any modem
that I purchased from the approved list would work with the *current*
features and speeds. However, should TWC upgrade their hardware and/or
programming, those of us who own on our modems would have to purchase
another.

The tone of his chat was decidedly leaning towards the lease option.

Sure, they get $48 a year from you. *Most modems will cost less than
that and last 10 years. *I had the same offer from the phone company
for DSL and chose to buy. * Never needed tech support either.

Actually, the cheapest modem on their "approved" list is $54. I'm sure
the $3.95 x 12 has some taxes and "surcharges" added, so it may end up
being about 1 year wash. Even if I had to buy a new modem every year
to stay up to date with any new features they add (which won't happen)
it makes sense to buy, which is my plan.

" wrote in
:

On 24 Oct 2012 15:27:38 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:53:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:




Actually, once they finally got me to someone who actually made
sense (the third person I chatted with) he made sure that I was
aware that any modem that I purchased from the approved list would
work with the *current* features and speeds. However, should TWC
upgrade their hardware and/or programming, those of us who own on
our modems would have to purchase another.

The tone of his chat was decidedly leaning towards the lease
option.

Sure, they get $48 a year from you. Most modems will cost less than
that and last 10 years. I had the same offer from the phone company
for DSL and chose to buy. Never needed tech support either.

I generally lose a DSL modem every couple of years. No ESD or
lightning strike, it just stops working. AT&T no longer rents them.
They do spread the cost ($75, IIRC) over three months, if you want.

I never understood the rationale for renting a router or buying one
from the ISP, though. They want a lot of money for something that's
dirt cheap online.

It's my understanding that Verizon uses some kind of modified
proprietary software. There is no modem rental - you get a router as
part of the package. My ActionTec MI424-WR has functioned since the
very beginning of FiOS (well, the first one's radio quit in a week,
but the second one has worked ever since). The radio of the router is
now weak and doesn't get everywhere, so I have wired a DLink in the
living room from the upstairs router to give us WiFi and more ports
here.

AT&T gives the option of a modem or router+modem. Actually, the third
option is to use your own modem. I bought their modem to minimize
problems (the installation in my AL house is a PITA and I have to call
them if I touch anything). Adding a router is usually pretty easy
(though in the above case...).

Some time Ineed to upgrade to a gigabit router and wiring, though.

Why? AFAIC, 100Base-T is plenty. Actually my WiFi is enough for what
I do over the network. DSL is way slower than it.

At the moment things are OK. I now have FiOS, and the speedtest just now
on speedtest.net says 40/33 Mbps up/down. Some time those speeds are
going to increase further (I think I started with 5/.75 or so). Then the
traffic between computers here is going to get more intense, so I expect
that I am getting close to occasionally get to the limits of 100BaseT.
Not this year or next, perhaps, but I need to keep my eyes open for an
upgrade to my ActionTec MI424-WR .

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 24 Oct 2012 20:32:13 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 24 Oct 2012 15:27:38 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:53:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:




Actually, once they finally got me to someone who actually made
sense (the third person I chatted with) he made sure that I was
aware that any modem that I purchased from the approved list would
work with the *current* features and speeds. However, should TWC
upgrade their hardware and/or programming, those of us who own on
our modems would have to purchase another.

The tone of his chat was decidedly leaning towards the lease
option.

Sure, they get $48 a year from you. Most modems will cost less than
that and last 10 years. I had the same offer from the phone company
for DSL and chose to buy. Never needed tech support either.

I generally lose a DSL modem every couple of years. No ESD or
lightning strike, it just stops working. AT&T no longer rents them.
They do spread the cost ($75, IIRC) over three months, if you want.

I never understood the rationale for renting a router or buying one
from the ISP, though. They want a lot of money for something that's
dirt cheap online.

It's my understanding that Verizon uses some kind of modified
proprietary software. There is no modem rental - you get a router as
part of the package. My ActionTec MI424-WR has functioned since the
very beginning of FiOS (well, the first one's radio quit in a week,
but the second one has worked ever since). The radio of the router is
now weak and doesn't get everywhere, so I have wired a DLink in the
living room from the upstairs router to give us WiFi and more ports
here.

AT&T gives the option of a modem or router+modem. Actually, the third
option is to use your own modem. I bought their modem to minimize
problems (the installation in my AL house is a PITA and I have to call
them if I touch anything). Adding a router is usually pretty easy
(though in the above case...).

Some time Ineed to upgrade to a gigabit router and wiring, though.

Why? AFAIC, 100Base-T is plenty. Actually my WiFi is enough for what
I do over the network. DSL is way slower than it.

At the moment things are OK. I now have FiOS, and the speedtest just now
on speedtest.net says 40/33 Mbps up/down. Some time those speeds are
going to increase further (I think I started with 5/.75 or so). Then the
traffic between computers here is going to get more intense, so I expect
that I am getting close to occasionally get to the limits of 100BaseT.
Not this year or next, perhaps, but I need to keep my eyes open for an
upgrade to my ActionTec MI424-WR .

I get 3Mb/.3Mb on a good day (much better than .7Mb/.02Mb I get in my other
house), so a string and a tin can is good enough. But wireless can easily get
to 30Mb. What do you do that you need 100Mb between computers? I don't
think I've even connected mine together more than a half dozen times.

" wrote in
:

On 24 Oct 2012 20:32:13 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 24 Oct 2012 15:27:38 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:53:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:




Actually, once they finally got me to someone who actually made
sense (the third person I chatted with) he made sure that I was
aware that any modem that I purchased from the approved list
would work with the *current* features and speeds. However,
should TWC upgrade their hardware and/or programming, those of us
who own on our modems would have to purchase another.

The tone of his chat was decidedly leaning towards the lease
option.

Sure, they get $48 a year from you. Most modems will cost less
than that and last 10 years. I had the same offer from the phone
company for DSL and chose to buy. Never needed tech support
either.

I generally lose a DSL modem every couple of years. No ESD or
lightning strike, it just stops working. AT&T no longer rents
them. They do spread the cost ($75, IIRC) over three months, if
you want.

I never understood the rationale for renting a router or buying
one from the ISP, though. They want a lot of money for something
that's dirt cheap online.

It's my understanding that Verizon uses some kind of modified
proprietary software. There is no modem rental - you get a router
as part of the package. My ActionTec MI424-WR has functioned since
the very beginning of FiOS (well, the first one's radio quit in a
week, but the second one has worked ever since). The radio of the
router is now weak and doesn't get everywhere, so I have wired a
DLink in the living room from the upstairs router to give us WiFi
and more ports here.

AT&T gives the option of a modem or router+modem. Actually, the
third option is to use your own modem. I bought their modem to
minimize problems (the installation in my AL house is a PITA and I
have to call them if I touch anything). Adding a router is usually
pretty easy (though in the above case...).

Some time Ineed to upgrade to a gigabit router and wiring, though.

Why? AFAIC, 100Base-T is plenty. Actually my WiFi is enough for
what I do over the network. DSL is way slower than it.

At the moment things are OK. I now have FiOS, and the speedtest just
now on speedtest.net says 40/33 Mbps up/down. Some time those speeds
are going to increase further (I think I started with 5/.75 or so).
Then the traffic between computers here is going to get more intense,
so I expect that I am getting close to occasionally get to the limits
of 100BaseT. Not this year or next, perhaps, but I need to keep my
eyes open for an upgrade to my ActionTec MI424-WR .

I get 3Mb/.3Mb on a good day (much better than .7Mb/.02Mb I get in my
other house), so a string and a tin can is good enough. But wireless
can easily get to 30Mb. What do you do that you need 100Mb between
computers? I don't think I've even connected mine together more than
a half dozen times.

I have a network attached storage system for backup. An older system, My
Book World Edition from Western Digital. It's nice to have it accessible
at speed.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/24/2012 12:34 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

[snip]

Why? AFAIC, 100Base-T is plenty. Actually my WiFi is enough for what I do
over the network. DSL is way slower than it.


Very few internet connections are fast enough that you need a gigabit
ROUTER. If you transfer large files on YOUR network, you may want a
gigabit network SWITCH. In that case, there's no need to replace the
router. Just add a switch.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Imagine there's no heaven; It's easy if you try; No hell below us;
Above us only sky." -- Imagine, John Lennon

On 10/24/2012 06:08 AM, George wrote:
On 10/23/2012 9:14 PM, Jeff wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
I received a postcard from Time Warner Cable today informing me that
as of
November 1, I can either pay $3.95 per month to lease my modem from them
or I can purchase my own.

With projected additional $350 Million more in their coffers because of
this _lease_ fee, I wonder when they will start leasing the cable to us,
which runs to the house!


Comcast has jacked their modem rental fee up to $7 earlier this year. I
bought a cable modem when they first started the rental fee @ $3. I
could have purchased four more since then with the money we saved.

I bought my current modem used from the local e-recycler for two bucks,
and it's been running just fine for the last year.

Modem rental is for suckers.

Jon

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:28:32 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 10/24/2012 12:34 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

[snip]

Why? AFAIC, 100Base-T is plenty. Actually my WiFi is enough for what I do
over the network. DSL is way slower than it.


Very few internet connections are fast enough that you need a gigabit
ROUTER. If you transfer large files on YOUR network, you may want a
gigabit network SWITCH. In that case, there's no need to replace the
router. Just add a switch.

Another Usenet pedant. Most people use the switch that come with their
router. Han may be a loony lib, but I'm quite sure there was no information
lost in the shorthand.

" wrote in
:

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:28:32 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 10/24/2012 12:34 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

[snip]

Why? AFAIC, 100Base-T is plenty. Actually my WiFi is enough for
what I do over the network. DSL is way slower than it.


Very few internet connections are fast enough that you need a gigabit
ROUTER. If you transfer large files on YOUR network, you may want a
gigabit network SWITCH. In that case, there's no need to replace the
router. Just add a switch.

Another Usenet pedant. Most people use the switch that come with
their router. Han may be a loony lib, but I'm quite sure there was no
information lost in the shorthand.

Mark is wrong and right, and so is Keith (I think). The 100baseT
ActionTec router is still doing the DHCP, although my gigabit DLink is
doing some of the switching. So I believe the whole shebang is really
working at 100baseT. But I'm going by inference. I don't know for sure.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/25/2012 08:21 PM, Han wrote:

[snip]

Mark is wrong and right, and so is Keith (I think). The 100baseT
ActionTec router is still doing the DHCP, although my gigabit DLink is
doing some of the switching. So I believe the whole shebang is really
working at 100baseT. But I'm going by inference. I don't know for sure.


True about the DHCP (and some do DNS too), although that shouldn't
require much speed. That's why I didn't mention that before. You would
get gigabit speed between devices connected to that switch.

BTW, I recently replaced my router. The old one was limited to about
12Mbps for interent, and my ISP got faster than that. The new router
will abow the up to 20Mbps I can get now. It also has 802.11n WiFi and a
gigabit switch. The old router is still there just as an additional
switch for slow devices.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"The moment you alter your perception of yourself and your future, both
you and your future begin to change." -- Marilee Zdenek

Mark Lloyd wrote in
:

True about the DHCP (and some do DNS too), although that shouldn't
require much speed. That's why I didn't mention that before. You would
get gigabit speed between devices connected to that switch.

BTW, I recently replaced my router. The old one was limited to about
12Mbps for interent, and my ISP got faster than that. The new router
will abow the up to 20Mbps I can get now. It also has 802.11n WiFi and
a gigabit switch. The old router is still there just as an additional
switch for slow devices.

This just shows I don't know how things work:

If I sent a file between two laptops wired to the switch, isn't the
router/DHCP server needed to tell the switch which is which laptop? Or
is it so that once the switch is told by the DHCP server that the blue
wire on port 1 goes to the blue laptop and the black wire on port 4 to
the black laptop, that the DHCP server isn't needed anymore? For how
long does that work?

Or does the switch send the whole file (in packets) to the router/DHCP
server, which then sends it back with the port #/DHCP address of the
other machine?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/26/2012 03:17 PM, Han wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote in
:

[snip]

This just shows I don't know how things work:

If I sent a file between two laptops wired to the switch, isn't the
router/DHCP server needed to tell the switch which is which laptop?

DHCP is used by each computer when the PC is first booted or connected
to the network. This is how your computer gets a network address. If is
not used for individual transfers.

Or
is it so that once the switch is told by the DHCP server that the blue
wire on port 1 goes to the blue laptop and the black wire on port 4 to
the black laptop, that the DHCP server isn't needed anymore? For how
long does that work?

The DHCP server does not control the switch. As far as I can tell, the
switch creates a table associating devices with physical ports. It does
this by examining the data passing through it.

Or does the switch send the whole file (in packets) to the router/DHCP
server, which then sends it back with the port #/DHCP address of the
other machine?


A file transfer between computers does not in any way go through your
internet router. It is sent directly to it's destination. Like mail, the
data has a destination address on it. The switch knows where it goes,
and the PC you're sending it to knows it's own address and accepts it.

In most cases, the router never sees it (the switch doesn't send it to
the router).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"The moment you alter your perception of yourself and your future, both
you and your future begin to change." -- Marilee Zdenek

Mark Lloyd wrote in
:

On 10/26/2012 03:17 PM, Han wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote in
:

[snip]

This just shows I don't know how things work:

If I sent a file between two laptops wired to the switch, isn't the
router/DHCP server needed to tell the switch which is which laptop?

DHCP is used by each computer when the PC is first booted or
connected to the network. This is how your computer gets a network
address. If is not used for individual transfers.

Or
is it so that once the switch is told by the DHCP server that the
blue wire on port 1 goes to the blue laptop and the black wire on
port 4 to the black laptop, that the DHCP server isn't needed
anymore? For how long does that work?

The DHCP server does not control the switch. As far as I can tell, the
switch creates a table associating devices with physical ports. It
does this by examining the data passing through it.

Or does the switch send the whole file (in packets) to the
router/DHCP server, which then sends it back with the port #/DHCP
address of the other machine?


A file transfer between computers does not in any way go through your
internet router. It is sent directly to it's destination. Like mail,
the data has a destination address on it. The switch knows where it
goes, and the PC you're sending it to knows it's own address and
accepts it.

In most cases, the router never sees it (the switch doesn't send it to
the router).

Thanks, I think. But if I turn my router off, how long before the switch
"forgets" the destination addresses?

There have been a few (thankfully just a few) instances were things got
totally muffed up in the sense that I couldn't "go" anywhere anymore
(mostly the internet), and I got things right again by turning everything
off, then turning them on again, starting with the router, then the
switch, then the computers.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[snip]

Thanks, I think. But if I turn my router off, how long before the switch
"forgets" the destination addresses?

The switch should never forget as long as it has power. This might be a
problem when you're rearranging connections. In that case, reset the switch.

DHCP is needed ONLY when a computer first connects to a network, unless
you manually renew a lease (seldom needed) or a lease expires (often 24
hours later).

There have been a few (thankfully just a few) instances were things got
totally muffed up in the sense that I couldn't "go" anywhere anymore
(mostly the internet), and I got things right again by turning everything
off, then turning them on again, starting with the router, then the
switch, then the computers.


DNS could have gotten confused. Restarting everything clears the cache
(memory) and usually fixes it.

You probably don't need DNS for local connections (on your own network).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Faith is to the human what sand is to the ostrich"

Mark Lloyd wrote in
:

[snip]

Thanks, I think. But if I turn my router off, how long before the
switch "forgets" the destination addresses?

The switch should never forget as long as it has power. This might be
a problem when you're rearranging connections. In that case, reset the
switch.

DHCP is needed ONLY when a computer first connects to a network,
unless you manually renew a lease (seldom needed) or a lease expires
(often 24 hours later).

There have been a few (thankfully just a few) instances were things
got totally muffed up in the sense that I couldn't "go" anywhere
anymore (mostly the internet), and I got things right again by
turning everything off, then turning them on again, starting with the
router, then the switch, then the computers.


DNS could have gotten confused. Restarting everything clears the cache
(memory) and usually fixes it.

You probably don't need DNS for local connections (on your own
network).

Thanks again! Now everything is clear ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid