| Subject | RE: [ib-support] Hypothetical Situation |
|---|---|
| Author | Dean Anderson |
| Post date | 2001-07-13T19:23:19Z |
I recommend staying away from DSL and DSL providers, if you are a company
and don't want to be stranded without service for 60 days. End/Home users
usually can get by with dialup or have cable right there, so losing service
doesn't really matter too much.
DSL has shown itself to be high maintenance, and therefore very expensive.
Providers offering cheap DSL services will eventually either raise the price
steeply, or go out of business. Going out of business (chapter 11--where
they don't pay their bills, then resume operation at some point) is what
they have been doing. Some DSL providers are now re-labeling their service
as 'T1' with a higher price ( eg. T1 for 899/mo including loop). For
example, HarvardNet was a DSL provider in Boston that went under last
winter, stranding all their DSL customers. Now they are back at it with a
different name "Allegiance", offering "T1" on DSL equipment.
DSL also has much higher latency than real T1. For a home user, its still
better than dialup. But for a company, its really all about the latency, not
just in the local loop, but in the connection to the rest of the internet.
Most DSL installations have one or more DSL hubs in a central office with 24
to 192 ports with a single (real) T1 back to the ISP's core. I've seen many
multitenant installations with 1 24 port DSL hub, and a single T1. Usually
the 192 port hubs have a T3 (28 T1's). You can kind of see the bottleneck
that creates.
Leased line providers usually give you dedicated bandwith back to a POP or a
Core, which isn't oversold 24 to 1, or sometimes 192 to 1 at the hub. This
kind of bottleneck is fine for home users. They usually aren't at home
anyway, and aren't on for long when they are. It does let you sell one real
T1 (costing about $1200/mo to 24 people for 75/mo.)
Basically, there is no free lunch. If you aren't paying 1200 - 1500/mo for
T1 service with local loop, you aren't really getting T1 service. It was
bad enough trying to explain these things to non-technical people wondering
why T1's cost 1200 and DSL at the same speed went for only 75. Now we have
DSL providers saying that what they are selling is T1...
Sorry, touchy subject for me...
--Dean
and don't want to be stranded without service for 60 days. End/Home users
usually can get by with dialup or have cable right there, so losing service
doesn't really matter too much.
DSL has shown itself to be high maintenance, and therefore very expensive.
Providers offering cheap DSL services will eventually either raise the price
steeply, or go out of business. Going out of business (chapter 11--where
they don't pay their bills, then resume operation at some point) is what
they have been doing. Some DSL providers are now re-labeling their service
as 'T1' with a higher price ( eg. T1 for 899/mo including loop). For
example, HarvardNet was a DSL provider in Boston that went under last
winter, stranding all their DSL customers. Now they are back at it with a
different name "Allegiance", offering "T1" on DSL equipment.
DSL also has much higher latency than real T1. For a home user, its still
better than dialup. But for a company, its really all about the latency, not
just in the local loop, but in the connection to the rest of the internet.
Most DSL installations have one or more DSL hubs in a central office with 24
to 192 ports with a single (real) T1 back to the ISP's core. I've seen many
multitenant installations with 1 24 port DSL hub, and a single T1. Usually
the 192 port hubs have a T3 (28 T1's). You can kind of see the bottleneck
that creates.
Leased line providers usually give you dedicated bandwith back to a POP or a
Core, which isn't oversold 24 to 1, or sometimes 192 to 1 at the hub. This
kind of bottleneck is fine for home users. They usually aren't at home
anyway, and aren't on for long when they are. It does let you sell one real
T1 (costing about $1200/mo to 24 people for 75/mo.)
Basically, there is no free lunch. If you aren't paying 1200 - 1500/mo for
T1 service with local loop, you aren't really getting T1 service. It was
bad enough trying to explain these things to non-technical people wondering
why T1's cost 1200 and DSL at the same speed went for only 75. Now we have
DSL providers saying that what they are selling is T1...
Sorry, touchy subject for me...
--Dean
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Chamberlin [mailto:dchamberlin@...]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 2:46 PM
> To: ib-support@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [ib-support] Hypothetical Situation
>
>
> At 7/13/2001 02:39 PM (Friday), Paul Schmidt wrote:
> >Put a big server into the Toronto office, put a fraction of a T1 from
> >each office, to the Internet Backbone. Then use a VPN tunnel to
> >connect Vancouver to the server in Toronto.
>
> What's the alternative? Even if you had a server and database in each
> office they would have to be cross-updated at some point, right?
> Therefore,
> you still need the Internet+VPN connection for that so you have not saved
> much.
>
> I would look into DSL as an alternative to fractional T1. Also, companies
> like www.yipes.com are offering very cheap IP bandwidth (above a certain
> minimum) with managed networks and bandwidth-on-demand features.
> With their
> product you could arrange for 128KB/sec bandwidth during the
> working day to
> cover net browsing and 2MB/sec bandwidth for 2 hours each night
> to cover an
> intense database replication exchange.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>