[Tfug] why not cable?

[Brian Masur]

That is one problem I see about Cox, they filter ports, as where comcast 
might filter port 23 (telnet) and nothing else that I know of.  If you live 
on the border between comcast and cox coverage,  comcast is much better than 
cox for internet access, same price gets you faster bandwidth with comcast 
and no port filtering.

Is Cox Premier business or consumer?  Their business accounts shouldn't be 
port filtered... (80, 21, 25, etc. etc.)


>From: "Garrett Hoxie" <shoegoo at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Tucson Free Unix Group <tfug at tfug.org>
>To: "Tucson Free Unix Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
>Subject: Re: [Tfug] why not cable?
>Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 03:37:33 -0700
>
>I recently switched from DSL to Cox Premier and I haven't looked back.
>  From my experiences cable is available in more areas than DSL.  My
>best guess at the reason why is the distance requirements for DSL
>between the user and the CO/RT.  Anyway, our cable service is
>advertised at 9Mbps/1Mbps, but we are able to sustain speeds higher
>than that often (i.e. from http://mirror.espri.arizona.edu/gentoo/
>... thanks to whomever runs that).  We get stable 1.1 MBps downloads
>from there.  We also got a letter from Cox a couple days ago saying
>the service is being bumped to 12 Mbps down soon and the price is
>being dropped $5 to $60/month now (only about $8 more than we were
>paying for DSL on a dry line).  Unfortunately they didn't mention
>anything about the upstream bandwidth being increased, but we have our
>fingers crossed.  Cox also still forces you to use their SMTP servers
>and blocks a few ports.  One of the reasons DSL used to be attractive
>to me was the fact that the upstream was so much better than cable's.
>My parent's Comcast connection still has a painfully slow upload (384
>Kbps I believe).  The Cox upstream is pretty nice though.  I still
>wish the up and down speeds were closer together, but to my knowledge
>this is the best we can do here.
>
>-Garrett
>
>On 9/12/06, Judy Hayes <judylynn at tomatothyme.com> wrote:
> > Also cable isnt available everywhere DSL is... I just moved but I was 
>living
> > in Vail, my choices (exit 281 south) were DSL or satellite... no cable 
>at
> > all much to my dismay, so gaming sucked... although I hate living in the
> > city I can game again, so it was a fair trade moving back I suppose ;p
> >
> > The satellite for me sucked, 1.5 second relay, so vpn, gaming etc was
> > impossible, might as well dial up. As for the DSL the latency kicked my 
>ass
> > too... not NEARLY as awful, but not great. Cable from my experience 
>provides
> > the best gaming solution... again, only my personal experience.
> >
> > Judy Lynn
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chad Woolley" <thewoolleyman at gmail.com>
> > To: "Tucson Free Unix Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 12:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Tfug] why not cable?
> >
> >
> > >I always heard cable had more latency, thus contributing to higher
> > > pings (or more deaths in first person shooters).  I've always wondered
> > > if this was true, or only true in some cases...
> > >
> > > On 9/11/06, Brian Masur <bcmasur at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Hey everyone.  I'm always seeing articles about DSL on tfug.org.  Why
> > >> don't
> > >> you want cable?  I see DSL, at roughly the cheapest of $25/month like
> > >> qwest.
> > >>   Cox and Comcast is roughly $40 per  month and 4 times faster or 
>even
> > >> more
> > >> faster.  $50 per month if you do not have cable TV, which would 
>likely be
> > >> my
> > >> situation if I wasn't getting a neighbor's wifi-g link for free.
> > >>
> > >> Even then, many parts of the inner city businesses of Tucson, (you 
>might
> > >> think Qwest would care of them) can't even get 256kbps (may as well 
>use
> > >> dial-up)...
> > >> 1.5mbps is SLOW.  I often get faster on comcast cable than DSL's 
>physical
> > >> limit of 7mbps.  Cable's physical limit is roughly 40+ X faster than 
>DSL.
> > >>
> > >> I ask again, why pay for DSL in tucson when cable is at least four 
>times
> > >> faster for only twice the cost or less?  Same for everywhere else in 
>USA
> > >> I
> > >> have ever lived.  And cable is available wherever DSL is, and 
>further.
> > >> Cable has a longer range as a standard from CO, by about 3x.
> > >>
> > >> Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm probably right for everyone I've 
>lived in
> > >> USA.  Cable is better than DSL short of being free.
> > >>
> > >> Interested in seeing your responses!
> > >> Brian
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> > Subscription Options:
> > http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>Subscription Options:
>http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org