Subject: Re: Routing Question
From: SFalken (sfalken@citlink.net)
Date: Thu Oct 25 2001 - 08:21:51 MDT
I too have used both cable and dsl, and dsl wins, hands down, if you want to
do anything useful with it, cable is alright for you average home user who
just wants to d/l mp3's or Warez, or watch streaming video, but if you're
trying to run servers, or do anything even remotely technical, cable blows,
at least that's my two cents on the subject.....
--Shawn
On Thursday 25 October 2001 05:50, you wrote:
> on 10/25/01 5:08 AM, Dave Braford <braford@hanon-mckendry.com> is purported
>
> to have said:
> > I don't have personal exprience with DSL, because it sucks.
> > Can't you get cable internet in you area ??? Cheaper.
> > Just as fast in the long-run. Easier. No PPoe.
>
> 1) If you don't have any personal experience with it, you can't know
> whether it sucks or not.
> 2) I have used both Cable and DSL. DSL is much faster, average-over-time.
> 3) I don't know about your setup, but my DSL setup does not involve PPPoe.
> The DSL router gets its address from the providers DHCP pool, and my
> computers are on a private subnet. I use NAT on the router, and filter
> there. If your provider forces your computer to use DHCP, rather than the
> router, poke around in the router a bit. If it's a Cisco, email me off-list
> and I'll see if I can get you started.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu Oct 25 2001 - 07:21:29 MDT