On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 01:06:00PM -0600, Vidiot wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 11:34:51AM -0500, Hal Burgiss wrote:
> >> Just a general observation that probably applies to DSL
> >> implementations from all the baby bells and telcos...it is
> >> inherently more complicated setup when you start adding the
> >> necessary hardware layer at the telco CO. It is just one more
> >> thing that can go wrong, and the technology there is still very
> >> new. I find DSL not quite as reliable as dialup. While they
> >> advertised 'always on', doesn't mean 'always up'. BS does give a
> >> free dialup account so when DSL is down, you are not out in
> >> woods.
> >>
> >
> >Hugh? DSL should be inherently much more reliable than modem
> >dial-up. I've never heard of consistend outages that couldn't be
> >traced to the line or other faulty equipment. Once replaced, it
> >should work rock solid. I'd be contacting someone and complaining.
> >J. Scott Kasten
>
> J. is correct. I have a DSL circuit that i run my web server on.
> It is up 24x7x365.26. The only time it has failed is because of
> line problems. I'm in an old area that is now short of pairs. The
> first pair went bad over July 4th, which took forever to get fixed.
> But that when I was just getting started and it didn't affect my web
> site yet. The "new" pair was marked bad, but thery couldn't find a
> problem. Wekk it showed up a few weeks ago. But, here is the neat
> part, the DSL portion worked, but the voice portion failed. I was
> without phone service for a couple of days and didn't discover it
> until I went to make a call and didn't have dial tone.Long story
> short, the pair partially shorted out. At least 600 ohms so that it
> siezed dial tone. Of course dial tone was terminated after a while.
> Not being shorted enough, DSL kept working. I knew it was shorted
> when I used my cell to pick up messages and I was put into voicemail
> immediately. The tech verified the short and they used my original
> line pair, which still had battery. I've been operating without
> problems since.
>
> So, here is a case where voice died but DSL kept working. In Buffy
> speak; fire bad, DSL good.
I have BS FastAccess DSL running 24/7 since August. I have been down
probably 7-8 times. At least 5 due to packet storms on the subnet,
and twice because the DHCP server was not responding. These are
relatively minor inconveniences mostly. The longest was about 36 hours
one time on the DHCP server. I was able to plug in a static IP and
keep going, but I doubt most BS customers know how to do this. Of
course, residential service has a 'best effort' guarantee. Business
users pay for more, and should get more. I can dig up many other
reports of types of outages that just don't happen with traditional
dialup type networks, which is where this started. There is a thread
now from a BS customer on comp.dcom.xdsl who was down for 3 weeks
because of a problem in the DSLAM. He logged 30 hours of phone calls
to BS tech support to get this straightened out. This was a one person
outage. Another one from a guy who had voice phone problems, phone guy
fixes problem outside somewhere and customer immediatley looses sync
on his 'modem'. The phone guy was clueless to DSL, and had moved the
wire pair. It took a number of days to get this straightened out. You
don't get these kinds of problems on dialup. The point being that the
DSLAM/telco DSL does add a hardware layer that makes for a more
complex network. You've got BS.net responsible for one side of the
connection, and BS.telco the other.
Of course, it may be like Father Sarducci's weather report, 'its
either gonna be rainin tomorrow or not, just kinda depends on where
you are'. ;)
--
Hal B
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Linux helps those who help themselves
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
