Router

On 04/18/2018 2:00 PM, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 17/04/2018 17:10, Ken Blake wrote:
snip
Thanks for that clarification, which I also didn't know.

I've long known that there are three different kinds of devices:
switches, hubs, and routers, but if it's ever been clear to me what
the differences are, I had forgotten.

Here router is a common shorthand for something that, at least if we're
talking about the normal IPv4 internet will contain a something to do
NAT (network address translation) possibly with extra firewall features,
and optionally a switch, one or more Wi-Fi access point(s) and in some
cases a modem.

A better name for it in my opinion is "gateway" or "residential gateway".

The trouble with calling this a router is that "a router" is also the
name of the "nodes" that form part of the Internet infrastructure and
accept packets and direct them each onward down the correct connection
to get the their destinations efficiently.


And I don't think I ever knew that a switch was part of a router.
If it accepts multiple wired connections on the LAN side there will be a
switch (or effectively be) a switch inside it, unless it's really
ancient and has a hub instead.


Can you point me to a web site that clearly explains the differences
between these devices?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_hub
(hubs are obsolete technology, everyone uses switches now)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_gateway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Networ...ss_translation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Router_(computing)


OK, Mine is a *Cisco dpc3848v Residential Wireless Gateway*.
right from the Cisco manual.

Rene

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
[]
There's no question about language changing. It always has. To take a
single example related to the points under discussion, what almost all
of us call a modem these days wouldn't have been called a modem just a
few years ago. A modem was a device that converted analog signals to
digital and vice versa. So a DSL or cable "modem," both of which are
all digital, isn't really a modem.

I think the device that connects to my 'phone line is still (or still
contains) a modulator/demodulator; I think the signals that are on the
'phone line are not digital signals. They don't extend down to DC or
even below a few kHz, since the ordinary 'phone still uses that part of
the band. What form of modulation is used, I'm not su I think it is
some sort of multi-carrier multiphase, but it isn't pure digital.

For a while, I resisted, and refused to call such things modems, but
I've given up. The change has happened, and almost everyone, including
me, now call them modems.

I'm perhaps in the minority, but even though I know it's going to
happen, I always try to resist language change happening too fast; it
results in people getting confused.

Me too. I still call an AA or AAA a cell, for example. I don't _really_
know why I bother though.
[]
Indeed. And you also remind me of the time when one or two printer
manufacturers sold a head, that could be fitted to their printer instead
of the print head, and turned it into a scanner!



Interesting. I don't think I have ever seen or heard of such a device.

Here's one https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/323207097387
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_f...+cartridge&_sa
cat=0

(I've recently obtained a _mouse_-like device - actually it works as
just a mouse without the special software - that can scan; you basically
scribble with it on whatever you're trying to scan. LG smart scan. I was
expecting the results it produced to be very poor, full of lines and
mismatches [I bought it just because of its extreme portability], but
I'm actually very impressed with the results.)



A couple of weeks ago, while I was at his home taking a guitar lesson,
my guitar teacher "scanned" a page of music for me--with his smart
phone. Actually he took a photo of it, but the result was almost
indistinguishable from a scanned page.

The cameras in even the better smartphones these days are capable of
excellent such results: my cousin who was over here for a couple of
months doing genealogical research imaged several documents with her
'phone, and I was most impressed with the results.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Everybody's throwing dinner parties, cooking this, baking that... Food has
eaten television here. - Sam Neill (RT 2014/10/11-17)

In message , Brian
Gregory writes:
[]
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have
trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will get
it going again.

Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that wasn't
quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it couldn't
decode anything because there was too much line noise for the speed it
had initially negotiated when conditions were better.

Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely
it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once a
week.

My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely requiring
any action on my part, and has for many years.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

He who prides himself on giving what he thinks the public wants is often
creating a fictitious demand for low standards which he will then satisfy.
- Lord Reith

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 12:49:03 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:


BTW, flatbed scanners are becoming rare. That's because they all-in-ones
do a better job than the older flatbeds.



Not in my experience. And it's hard to copy a page in a book with one.
I use and like my Canon flatbed.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:25:11 -0700, "David E. Ross"
wrote:

Not only do I avoid integrated hardware but also (to a lesser extent)
integrated software.



I don't *avoid* integrated software, but I never choose to use a
program just because it's integrated. I know that many people want to
use a single program both as an e-mail client and a newreader, but
I've never understood the logic behind that choice. I chose and use
what I consider to be the best in each category--two different
programs.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:48:12 -0700, David E. Ross wrote:

How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.

FSVO of "last". :-) I am still using the one I got about a decade
ago. I thought I had to reboot it frequently, but it turns out that
my Dell laptop's wireless is a bit shaky, so turning wireless off and
on on the Dell fixes problems. I discovered this when I bought an
Asus laptop, which has no problems with the wireless.

If you're sure that the fault is in the router and not the computer,
I guess you could replace it. But it depends on how often you have to
reboot it and how annoying that is. An occasional reboot is really
standard operating procedure for any router, I think.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 04/18/2018 01:03 PM, Tim Slattery wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 04/18/2018 08:44 AM, Wolf K wrote:

The FM band is located between TV channels 6 and 7

Is that still true in the digital era? In the pre-digital era, there
were FM radio receivers that would tune right through the TV bands as
well as FM broadcast, and be able to get TV channel sound, since the
sound was broadcast in FM. That certainly wouldn't work anymore. I was
under the impression that the digital TV frequencies were not the same
as the analogue ones - bit I'm not at all sure.

AFAIK, they are the same frequencies (other than that them seem to be
dropping those above channel 36.

Channel 7 here used 10 for digital broadcast as long as they could do
analog too, then went back to 7.

BTW, we seem to have lost a local COZI station.

In 1978 I lived in an area that had a TV channel 6. I knew some people
who would listen to it on their FM radios (low end of the dial).

Another thing about frequencies, cable midband (14-22) fills up the hole
between the FM band and channel 7. I used to get cable channel 22 on an
old non-cable-ready TV by setting it to 7 and misadjusting the fine tuning.

[snip]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"What shall we do with...the Jews?...I advise that safe-conduct on the
highways be abolished completely for the Jews." [Martin Luther]

In message , Mark Lloyd
writes:
On 04/18/2018 01:03 PM, Tim Slattery wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 04/18/2018 08:44 AM, Wolf K wrote:

The FM band is located between TV channels 6 and 7

Except in UK, unlike the rest of EU (and I think USA), we haven't had
VHF TV (bands I and III; FM, 88-108 MHz, is Band II) since they stopped
the 405-line transmissions. Our TV is UHF only, starting at channel 21;
originally about 470-850 MHz, but they keep giving away large chunks at
the top end to the mobile industry, so we've lost a couple of 100-MHz
chunks from the top end.

Is that still true in the digital era? In the pre-digital era, there
were FM radio receivers that would tune right through the TV bands as
well as FM broadcast, and be able to get TV channel sound, since the
sound was broadcast in FM. That certainly wouldn't work anymore. I was
under the impression that the digital TV frequencies were not the same
as the analogue ones - bit I'm not at all sure.

In UK, it's still divided into the same 8-MHz-wide channels; a DTV
multiplex occupies one of those, where a single analogue channel
(including its sound) did before. (Used to be a 6 MHz video channel,
transmitted as VSB - vestigial sideband - so somewhat over 6 MHz from
the bottom of the vestigial sideband to the top of the main one, then an
FM sound channel 6 MHz away, then latterly a NICAM channel a bit further
up. A DTV multiplex is many individual carriers, but occupy about the
same spectrum; for convenience they're still referred to by the original
channel numbers.) I'm not sure about the rest of EU or the USA; I know
the EU sound carrier was 5.5 rather than 6 from the video one, but I
_think_ the overall UHF bandplan was still divided into the same 8 MHz
channels and still is.

AFAIK, they are the same frequencies (other than that them seem to be
dropping those above channel 36.

Channel 7 here used 10 for digital broadcast as long as they could do
analog too, then went back to 7.

The LCNs (logical channel numbers) now used on DTV now bear no relation
to the actual frequencies - the UHF channels - the multiplexes - being
used for broadcast. (For a start, one DTV multiplex carries about half a
dozen channels, in one old UHF channel. And in UK at least, the five or
so national multiplexes are actually on different UHF
channels/frequencies in different parts of the country.)

BTW, we seem to have lost a local COZI station.

In 1978 I lived in an area that had a TV channel 6. I knew some people
who would listen to it on their FM radios (low end of the dial).

Another thing about frequencies, cable midband (14-22) fills up the
hole between the FM band and channel 7. I used to get cable channel 22
on an old non-cable-ready TV by setting it to 7 and misadjusting the
fine tuning.

[snip]

I think those will be VHF.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Who came first? Adam or Eve?" "Adam of course; men always do."
Victoria Wood (via Peter Hesketh)

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mark Lloyd
writes:
On 04/18/2018 01:03 PM, Tim Slattery wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 04/18/2018 08:44 AM, Wolf K wrote:

The FM band is located between TV channels 6 and 7

Except in UK, unlike the rest of EU (and I think USA), we haven't had
VHF TV (bands I and III; FM, 88-108 MHz, is Band II) since they stopped
the 405-line transmissions. Our TV is UHF only, starting at channel 21;
originally about 470-850 MHz, but they keep giving away large chunks at
the top end to the mobile industry, so we've lost a couple of 100-MHz
chunks from the top end.

Is that still true in the digital era? In the pre-digital era, there
were FM radio receivers that would tune right through the TV bands as
well as FM broadcast, and be able to get TV channel sound, since the
sound was broadcast in FM. That certainly wouldn't work anymore. I was
under the impression that the digital TV frequencies were not the same
as the analogue ones - bit I'm not at all sure.

In UK, it's still divided into the same 8-MHz-wide channels; a DTV
multiplex occupies one of those, where a single analogue channel
(including its sound) did before. (Used to be a 6 MHz video channel,
transmitted as VSB - vestigial sideband - so somewhat over 6 MHz from
the bottom of the vestigial sideband to the top of the main one, then an
FM sound channel 6 MHz away, then latterly a NICAM channel a bit further
up. A DTV multiplex is many individual carriers, but occupy about the
same spectrum; for convenience they're still referred to by the original
channel numbers.) I'm not sure about the rest of EU or the USA; I know
the EU sound carrier was 5.5 rather than 6 from the video one, but I
_think_ the overall UHF bandplan was still divided into the same 8 MHz
channels and still is.

AFAIK, they are the same frequencies (other than that them seem to be
dropping those above channel 36.

Channel 7 here used 10 for digital broadcast as long as they could do
analog too, then went back to 7.

The LCNs (logical channel numbers) now used on DTV now bear no relation
to the actual frequencies - the UHF channels - the multiplexes - being
used for broadcast. (For a start, one DTV multiplex carries about half a
dozen channels, in one old UHF channel. And in UK at least, the five or
so national multiplexes are actually on different UHF
channels/frequencies in different parts of the country.)

BTW, we seem to have lost a local COZI station.

In 1978 I lived in an area that had a TV channel 6. I knew some people
who would listen to it on their FM radios (low end of the dial).

Another thing about frequencies, cable midband (14-22) fills up the
hole between the FM band and channel 7. I used to get cable channel 22
on an old non-cable-ready TV by setting it to 7 and misadjusting the
fine tuning.

[snip]

I think those will be VHF.

We use 6MHz here, and perhaps that's a difference between PAL and NTSC ?

This is our old band plan. It now apparently stops at channel 50, the rest
being given away. And these are physical channels, which are not the same
as virtual channel numbers that the TV set might use. These frequencies are
very valuable, due to their building penetration properties. And the "cellphone
people" are willing to pay more for this than the "TV people" :-) In Canada,
I'm not aware of the government auctioning off channel 51+, but our band
plan is unified with the US one (due to populations along the border).

UHF TELEVISION FREQUENCIES (new usage starts at 700MHz or so...)

CH # FREQUENCY CH # FREQUENCY CH # FREQUENCY

14 470-476 Mhz 38 614-620 Mhz 62 758-764 Mhz
15 476-482 Mhz 39 620-626 Mhz 63 764-770 Mhz
16 482-488 Mhz 40 626-632 Mhz 64 770-776 Mhz
17 488-494 Mhz 41 632-638 Mhz 65 776-782 Mhz
18 494-500 Mhz 42 638-644 Mhz 66 782-788 Mhz
19 500-506 Mhz 43 644-650 Mhz 67 788-794 Mhz
20 506-512 Mhz 44 650-656 Mhz 68 794-800 Mhz
21 512-518 Mhz 45 656-662 Mhz 69 800-806 Mhz
22 518-524 Mhz 46 662-668 Mhz 70 806-812 Mhz
23 524-530 Mhz 47 668-674 Mhz 71 812-818 Mhz
24 530-536 Mhz 48 674-680 Mhz 72 818-824 Mhz
25 536-542 Mhz 49 680-686 Mhz 73 824-830 Mhz
26 542-548 Mhz __50 686-692 Mhz__ 74 830-836 Mhz
27 548-554 Mhz 51 692-698 Mhz 75 836-842 Mhz
28 554-560 Mhz 52 698-704 Mhz * 76 842-848 Mhz
29 560-566 Mhz 53 704-710 Mhz 77 848-854 Mhz
30 566-572 Mhz 54 710-716 Mhz 78 854-860 Mhz
31 572-578 Mhz 55 716-722 Mhz 79 860-866 Mhz
32 578-584 Mhz 56 722-728 Mhz 80 866-872 Mhz
33 584-590 Mhz 57 728-734 Mhz 81 872-878 Mhz
34 590-596 Mhz 58 734-740 Mhz 82 878-884 Mhz
35 596-602 Mhz 59 740-746 Mhz 83 884-890 Mhz
36 602-608 Mhz 60 746-752 Mhz
37 608-614 Mhz 61 752-758 Mhz

BAND CH # FREQUENCY BAND CH # FREQUENCY

VHF LOW 02 54-60 MHz VHF HIGH 07 174-180 MHz
VHF LOW 03 60-66 MHz VHF HIGH 08 180-186 MHz
VHF LOW 04 66-72 MHz VHF HIGH 09 186-192 MHz
VHF LOW 05 76-82 MHz VHF HIGH 10 192-198 MHz
VHF LOW 06 82-88 MHz VHF HIGH 11 198-204 MHz
VHF HIGH 12 204-210 MHz
(88MHz to 108MHz FM) VHF HIGH 13 210-216 MHz

In VLC, if using the TV tuner feature, I type in the higher
of those two numbers (for "210-216", I would type in 216000000).
But that only works in Linux (the Windows side doesn't work).
In Linux, you use w_scan to find what frequencies are active,
then type the number into VLC :-) Kooky or what ? But it is
possible to watch TV that way, with a DTV tuner card or tuner dongle.

*******

There's a picture here, of VHF usage versus the FM band. Our FM
band is still in service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Televi...el_frequencies

Paul

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 17:21:56 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 04/17/2018 01:54 PM, Stephen wrote:

[snip]

I have given up on WiFi off the routers as I need other access points
because of the cable entry point and now use a separate access point.

Is this another router used as just an access point (no WAN connection)?
That's what I would do if I needed another AP (with no cable modem).

No dedicated Ubiquiti Unifi device
- roughly double the range on the best router I tried
- partly down to location (now on ceiling of 1st floor landing in the
centre of the 3 floor house since it is PoE)
- partly down to better WiFi implementation.....

I tried the router as an AP setup on a few different devices.
- they all could be persuaded do the basic AP stuff (although every
one had some basic wierdnesses, and functions such as stats tend to
break), but none that i tried can do handoff / roam very well (or at
all).

--
Stephen

On 18/04/2018 20:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Brian
Gregory writes:
[]
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have
trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will
get it going again.

Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that
wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it
couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for the
speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better.

Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely
it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once a
week.

My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely requiring
any action on my part, and has for many years.

The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more reliable,
or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at the max speed
with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a long way from
the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies are virtually
unused by the modem.

What speed do you get?

--

Brian Gregory (in England).

On 18/04/2018 22:59, Wolf K wrote:
snip
My DSL modem, 2-Wire brand, supplied by Bell Canada, has never had to be
rebooted for electrical reasons. When the power goes out, it will reboot
nicely on its own. It's wi-fi, and has 4 Ethernet ports, so it looks
like a router+modem to me.


What speed do you get?

--

Brian Gregory (in England).

On 4/21/2018 7:19 PM, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 18/04/2018 20:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Brian
Gregory writes:
[]
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have
trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will
get it going again.

Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that
wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it
couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for
the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better.

Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely
it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once
a week.

My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely
requiring any action on my part, and has for many years.

The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more reliable,
or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at the max speed
with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a long way from
the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies are virtually
unused by the modem.

Exactly right, I worked for an ISP and we 'capped' (limited the higher
frequencies used by the connection) on problematic lines. In our spare
time we'd look for really slow connections (using a google map that
showed the connection speeds with different color markers for speed
ranges) and tried optimizing them for speed and stability.

Mike S wrote:
On 4/21/2018 7:19 PM, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 18/04/2018 20:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Brian
Gregory writes:
[]
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have
trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will
get it going again.

Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that
wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it
couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for
the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better.

Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely
it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once
a week.

My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely
requiring any action on my part, and has for many years.

The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more
reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at
the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a
long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies
are virtually unused by the modem.

Exactly right, I worked for an ISP and we 'capped' (limited the higher
frequencies used by the connection) on problematic lines. In our spare
time we'd look for really slow connections (using a google map that
showed the connection speeds with different color markers for speed
ranges) and tried optimizing them for speed and stability.

That's a function of architecture though.

The old system used 18000 feet (or optionally 36000 feet) of
wire, to connect subscribers all the way back to the CO. On large
operations, the operator simply applied a "blanket cap" and didn't
give a crap. They took 8Mbit/sec max ADSL1 and sold a service
advertising 5Mbit/sec, and then capped it at 3Mbit/sec without
ever examining the statistics. They had the option of selling
it as 3Mbit/sec service, but they didn't, and... they got away
with it too.

The new system uses fiber-to-the-corner, the wire length (final hop)
is closer to 500 feet, as the wire runs from the box on the
corner of your street, to your house. And when they sell
you a service at "X", they actually deliver "X". Shurely
a miracle. No more cap, except for the cap of the
advertised service of X. No more laddling SNR margin
randomly and at their discretion, on top.

Some customers here, used to use DMT and file a trouble
ticket with the ISP, to "fix" the first case. And actually
have the link adjusted properly. Some of those people,
hanging out at DSLReport :-)

There are still areas of the country operating the old
way. And the operator in that case, has absolutely no plan
to fix any infrastructure. It'll take a slap from the government
to keep the physical plant functional. There's a guy in the WinXP
group who is getting the old fashioned "service", complete
with "horse, buggy, and excuses".

Paul

On 4/22/2018 2:42 AM, Paul wrote:
Mike S wrote:
On 4/21/2018 7:19 PM, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 18/04/2018 20:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Brian
Gregory writes:
[]
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often
have trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on
will get it going again.

Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that
wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it
couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for
the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better.

Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's
likely it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe
about once a week.

My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely
requiring any action on my part, and has for many years.

The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more
reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at
the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are
a long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher
frequencies are virtually unused by the modem.

Exactly right, I worked for an ISP and we 'capped' (limited the higher
frequencies used by the connection) on problematic lines. In our spare
time we'd look for really slow connections (using a google map that
showed the connection speeds with different color markers for speed
ranges) and tried optimizing them for speed and stability.

That's a function of architecture though.

The old system used 18000 feet (or optionally 36000 feet) of
wire, to connect subscribers all the way back to the CO. On large
operations, the operator simply applied a "blanket cap" and didn't
give a crap. They took 8Mbit/sec max ADSL1 and sold a service
advertising 5Mbit/sec, and then capped it at 3Mbit/sec without
ever examining the statistics. They had the option of selling
it as 3Mbit/sec service, but they didn't, and... they got away
with it too.

The new system uses fiber-to-the-corner, the wire length (final hop)
is closer to 500 feet, as the wire runs from the box on the
corner of your street, to your house. And when they sell
you a service at "X", they actually deliver "X". Shurely
a miracle. No more cap, except for the cap of the
advertised service of X. No more laddling SNR margin
randomly and at their discretion, on top.

Some customers here, used to use DMT and file a trouble
ticket with the ISP, to "fix" the first case. And actually
have the link adjusted properly. Some of those people,
hanging out at DSLReport :-)

There are still areas of the country operating the old
way. And the operator in that case, has absolutely no plan
to fix any infrastructure. It'll take a slap from the government
to keep the physical plant functional. There's a guy in the WinXP
group who is getting the old fashioned "service", complete
with "horse, buggy, and excuses".

Â*Â* Paul

We're getting fiber installed (Santa Cruz, CA) in the city center areas
now. I stopped using DSL because where I live, even though I'm less than
..75 mile from the CO and got great DSL speeds, the phone wiring is so
old that when it rained I saw frequent slowdowns, lost conn's, or loss
of service, no problems with cable. The fiber will be a lot faster for
the same cost with much lower latency, something like 2 mS if I
understand it correctly, so that will be great and probably feel more
responsive, click and stuff happens faster. The ISP includes a required
fiber-modem rental service where they can monitor or control the modem.