how much difference in speed between cable and dsl?

It really all depends on the service providers. In my area, cable is faster, because BellSouth has imposed limitations on their DSL speed. You could visit people you know with one or the other and compare their speeds.

To combine the bandwidth from both dsl and cable would require a sophisticated router which will probably cost more than you want to spend.

If you choose one or the other, your simplest networking solution would be a Linksys BEFSR41 which is a router with built-in 4-port switch (or equivalent product from other manufacturers). Just plug the computers in one side, and your dsl or cable modem in the other.

can you please tell me more details about the router? for example, which is the piece of equipment call? it's specifications and the manufacturers? also, what do i need to set this network up interms of software? will win98 be enough? thanks, points will be awarded for the answers

The biggest difference is that your speed with a DSL connection generally comes with some sort of bandwidth specification/guarantee (you can get discounts/refunds if your service does not perform as specified).  With cable, it's generally a 'best-effort' sort of connection - you get whatever available bandwidth is being offered from you local node (split amongst all the current bandwidth consumers in your node).  Often this will be faster than DSL, but sometimes it will be slower.

DSL = slower, but steady (watch out for those DSL providers, though - they're going out of business faster than anyone)

Cable = potentially faster, but no guarantees (not usually going out of business, but their faceless corporate attitude can get real old, real fast if you have problems).  Just to illustrate a point - when I called my cable internet provider complaining about port filtering that they were doing, they said it was their policy not to discuss their policy (I'm totally serious).  If you want a name, it was @home (InSight) that was feeding me this spewage...

-Jon

Foxhound, check out this website for cool reviews and more info about Linksys, Netgear and other cable/DSL routers :
http://www.practicallynetworked.com

In my area, cable is faster (using AT&T which partners with @Home- $49.00/mo). I can get around 5 to 6 MB/s DOWNLOAD from the big sites like Microsoft and Download.com. DSL can't touch that unless you live really close to the Central Office and pay big bucks per month.
Also around here, yeah, you can tell some difference in the afternoons when everyone starts jumping on, but my 5 to 6 MB/s download becomes 3.5 to 5MB/s.. I would still take that over DSL any day! =)

Have fun,
Mrpoint

> most of the time, which is the better bet?

In my area, the rankings are:

(1) fastest: "business" ADSL (up to 4.5Mbits/second)
(2) middle: "cable" (up to approximately 2.0 Mbits/second)
(3) slowest: "residential" ADSL (up to 1.0Mbits/second)

Of course, "business" ADSL costs 60% more than "cable",
and, surprise, surprise, "residential" ADSL costs _EXACTLY_ the same as "cable".

The local telephone-company is the only ADSL provider,
and they're NOT going out-of-business any time soon. :-)

Both cable and ADSL are "shared" networks;
if you want a "dedicated" network, it will cost about TEN times as much per month as cable costs.

P.S. Warren Buffet just bought 10% of a Canadian cable-company.  
I guess that answers the question about which service he thinks is best.  :-)

GO HERE BEFORE READING ANY FURTHER!  Loads of info:

http://www.transgression.net/Archive/Articles/articles_11.html

MAXIMUM DSL SPEEDS from http://www.dslreports.com/information/kb/maximum+DSL+speeds
Maximum DSL speed is a function of distance, the gauge (thinness) of the phone wire used in your locale, and the DSL technology employed. The fastest DSL now commonly available is ADSL, and it offers maximum download speeds of up to 7.1mbps and around 1.1m upload. Most residential ADSL is limited to 90-680k for download, depending on the Telco. SDSL currently has a max of 1.5mbps, but that is both up and down (symmetric). Other common rates are (in k bits per second) 640k/90k, 1600k/90k, 680k/680k for ADSL.

Rule of thumb for converting speeds to something easier to understand: take the k bps, and divide by 10. This is the maximum transfer K per second you are ever likely to see in a browser download window. More accurately, divide by 8 and take off 13%, which is overhead from tcp/ip and, more importantly, ATM overhead. (DSL lines use ATM as an underlying data-transport protocol).
Modems range from 2-5k a second, DSL lines from 10-500k a second, office computer interconnections are usually either (best case) 800k a second (10mbit) or 8000k a second (100mbit switched).
A 30mb game demo download would therefore take at best, 1 minute on the fastest ADSL, 30 seconds on an office or home network, and 3 seconds on a clean switched net with top components, to download (transfer) between devices.. On a 56k modem, assuming no line drops, it would take around.. um.. er.. 2-3 hours to transfer, and thats if the modem connection doesn't drop out half way through!


Cable modem speeds have not been fully tapped out yet, but for compliance a cable modem must be able to achieve 48, yes FORTY EIGHT megabits per second download speed.  

For the most part cable modem systems today use a shared 10Mb/ps bandwidth shared connection.  While you will never see the full 10Mb/s speed, as an installer I have seen speeds as high as 7Mb/s.  That was while I was in Chicago just blocks away from the convergent point that feeds several states their cable feed to the internet backbone.  There are areas in California that were part of the first launch of @home that for about a year were experiencing this kind of speed on a daily basis.

For mor information on cable modems, DSL, T1 check with some I-Net+ study guides.  I got mine and  for info on speed standards for the various ways of connecting to the net, check these sites for more info:
http://www.thecertificationhub.com/inetplus_test_bank.htm

these are all great info, but really, no one can provide me with a instruction on what to buy and how to set up a network such that a can merge 2 internet connection together for the use of LAN? thanks again tho

You need to buy a router with 3 Ethernet connections on it. This would be something like a cisco 2611 with an ethernet port card. The cost on this is about $3000. Plus you would need the firewall feature set to do NAT, which adds another $1200.

There was someone else on EE that had a similar question, they were trying to setup a internet cafe with about 30 PCs.

But you are really just getting yourself into trouble trying to do this. The cost of the router and the setup ( since I assume you would not do this yourself) would more than pay for simply getting an upgrade to a higher speed DSL or cable service.

You asked which is better.  I gave you a lot iof info as far as what you would bneed to determine which is best for speed and dependability.  If you are trying to merge internet connections that is one thing, if you are simply looking to share a connection I woould recommend cable internet and either a router for 100.00 or a hub and share lease an additional IP address.
     I don't think anyone has yet merged the two feeds of Cable and DSL.  For one thing, the cost would be high and for what you get from cable, at least I am getting a solid 4-5 Mb/ps this week anyways it has varied from 3-5Mb/s.  What are you looking to do and why do you want to do it?

WRT:

"also, is it possible to set up a network at home such that 2 computers will use both dsl and cable.
which means that if one computer is not using the internet, the other will have the combined bandwidth
of a cable and dsl?"

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Yes, but only if you have specific routing agreements with your providers, your providers have lax routing filters (not likely), or you don't mind combining your bandwidth on a per-host basis (possible with linux, maybe cisco too), or an upload/download basis, rather than per-packet (generally not possible due to the aformentioned routing filters).

pbessman says:

"I don't think anyone has yet merged the two feeds of Cable and DSL"

I have - it's actually rather simple, but it's probably not the solution foxhound is looking for (a per-packet balancing scheme, not per-host).  It is also possible (at least with linux) to get downloads to use one provider, and uploads to use another (which may be more what he wants - to use the DSL for uploading, and the cable for downloading).  

-Jon

> Yes, but only if you have specific routing agreements with your providers

I disagree.

If you have both the cable-feed and the ADSL-feed going into one Linux system,
then you just configure the Linux host to do all the routing,
i.e., all traffic to '24.x.y.z' goes to the cable-feed
(because most IP-addresses in that range connect to cable-modems), and define other routes.

Both ISPs will, in general, deliver any IP-packet you send to them,
without any need for you to negotiate any "agreement" with the ISP.
After all, if you have just _ONE_ ISP, do you need to create an "agreement" with them?  No.
So, why would having _TWO_ ISPs be any different,
from the ISP's point-of-view?
(The ADSL-using ISP will see that you are not sending
any IP-packets to the '24.x.y.z' network, but that's
none of their business, anyway.)

my real life problem is actually that i have a LAN with 5-6 users who all use internet at the same time. then obviously, one dsl connection shared among them will not be enough. i just thought maybe adding a cable connection to the bandwidth would help. but since it's so expansive, then i presume there is no solution to the problem. in which case, i have no idea who to award the points to. by the way, if routers does not solve these kinda of problems, then what are they use for? it cant be just for commercial use, because there are loads of cheap routers out there for home use, how is it used? thanks!

OTTA said "After all, if you have just _ONE_ ISP, do you need to create an "agreement" with them?  No

You don't think you have an agreement with your ISP?  I would beg to differ where have you been using internet service?  I don't know of any ISPs that do not have a subscriber agreement.


Captain, I agree with you when you said, "I have - it's actually rather simple, but it's probably not the solution foxhound is looking for (a
per-packet balancing scheme, not per-host).  It is also possible (at least with linux) to get downloads
to use one provider, and uploads to use another (which may be more what he wants - to use the DSL for
uploading, and the cable for downloading)."  I think if you set up Windows 98 and higher to use two connections it will work like that.  Remember when Satellite internet was only downstream and you had to rely on another carrier for upstream?  That may provide foxhound with his answer.  I was looking at this question as if some kid wanted to see how fast he could download info, but with consideration for costs.

I see now based on what others are saying this is probably for business purposes and money is not the issue.  If this is simply used to download info at the fastest speed possible, and money is not an issue a special concentrator may be what is required to achieve your goal.  You can find some good concentrators here.  You want to add more than cable and DSL to your connection?  I still don't see how a system could increase the speed as the traffic would not exactly be like 1+1=2, but more like 1+1=1.75.  The downloads would have to be assembled first, but if you are looking at one for down and the other for up you may want to check these out.

http://www.coppermountain.com/products/dsl_concentrators.html

http://www.nortelnetworks.com/products/01/optera_ps/news.html

> one dsl connection shared among them will not be enough.

Huh?  Just what are those 6 users doing,
that a DSL line, with one to 4 Megabit/second of "download" speed, is not enough?

If all of them are downloading at the same time,
on a 1MBit/sec. connection, then they each get
about 16 Kbytes/second, i.e., each connection is
about 3 times as fast as a V.90 (56000 bits/second) modem.

> I just thought maybe adding a cable connection to the bandwidth would help.

It will, but it's not the "simple" solution.

How fast is your DSL connection?
1Mbit/second? 4Mbit/second?
The local ADSL provider offers 1Mbit/second for one price,
and a faster ADSL connection (4.5Mbit/secon) for about 60% more per month.

So, in my area, the speed-rankings are:
 - slow: 1Mbit/second DSL service, for 'X' dollars/month,
 - faster: cable-modem service, for (exactly!) 'X' dollars/month,
but much higher speeds
 - fastest: 4.5 Mbit/second DSL service, for 1.6 * 'X' dollars/month.

> then I presume there is no solution to the problem.

There is:
(1) tell the employees to do less Internet-access;
(2) run a second DSL line, and put half the employees
on the second line;
(3) upgrade to the more-expensive DSL service;
(4) switch from DSL to cable;

> If routers do not solve these kind of problems,
> then what are they use for?

The "commercial" quality/functionality of routers
_DO_ solve exactly this problem.

> there are loads of cheap routers out there for home use,

Correct, but they are "limited" function;
they are designed to talk, on one "side", to exactly _ONE_ high-speed provider (Cable or DSL),
and to talk, on the other "side", to 1 to 8 personal computers.

They are "cheap", because they do much less than a "commercial" router.

> You don't think you have an agreement with your ISP?

I know that I do -- you have misinterpreted what I wrote.
You don't need an "agreement" with your ISP,
as to which Internet sites you can and cannot access,
and which Internet Access Providers you can use.

> I would beg to differ where have you been using Internet service?

From my home computer!  :-)

? I don't know of any ISPs that do not have a subscriber agreement.

I do.  There's one in my location where I just gave my
name, chose an E-mail ID, and I was authorized to connect
to their modem-pool.  I signed _NO_ agreement.
I did _NOT_ agree to any acceptable-usage policy.

Adding a second DSL line and a second router/gateway,
still sounds like the "cheap" and "simple" solution.

I think a good point that is missing from this discussion is:

Why are you attempting to use multiple lines to simply increase bandwidth?  

Generally, multiple connections/providers are used for the purposes of redundancy and fault-tolarance (and many such folks enjoy the side benefit of bandwidth aggregation).  IMHO, neither DSL or cable is mature enough to be used for such purposes.  When addressing this from a purely engineering standpoint, I must concur with the other experts and recommend you simply increase your bandwidth on one of the connections up to the amount you require.

On the other hand, who can blame you for wanting to aggregate your bandwidth on your existing lines?  You should realize, however, that this will be generally impossible to do on a per-packet basis unless your cable ISP and DSL ISP are willing to play ball with regard to route announcements.  Another option to consider is policy routing/QoS - if you can prioritize your traffic by IP and/or port, you can probably get more efficient use of your bandwidth by using a router that supports such features (i.e. cisco, linux, etc).  Note: I am not attempting in any way to re-open the age-old "more bandwidth" vs "policy routing/QoS" debate, or the "linux" vs "your favorite flavour of router"...  I'm simply trying to present as many options as possible.

-Jon

P.S.  pbessman - we are definitely in agreement - most of the configs I described previously definitely require some configuration on the client side...

Hmm - just noticed this from Otta:

>> Yes, but only if you have specific routing agreements
>>with your providers
>
>I disagree
>
>If you have both the cable-feed and the ADSL-feed going
>into one Linux system, then you just configure the Linux
>host to do all the routing, i.e., all traffic
>to '24.x.y.z' goes to the cable-feed (because most IP-
>addresses in that range connect to cable-modems), and
>define other routes.
>

So we are actually in agreement - this is what I was talking about - host-based balancing (instead of packet-based).

>
>Both ISPs will, in general, deliver any IP-packet you
>send to them,

Nope. Most ISPs will only forward packets that originate from their IP block(s), unless prior specific agreements have been arranged (see below).

>without any need for you to negotiate
>any "agreement" with the ISP.  After all, if you have
>just _ONE_ ISP, do you need to create an "agreement" with
>them?  No.  So, why would having _TWO_ ISPs be any
>different, from the ISP's point-of-view?

Because if you have two ISPs, you have multiple IPs from different networks.  This means that if you want to send a packet with a source address from network A out through network B, you'd better have negotiated an agreement with network B to allow packets through from network A, or network B's anti-spoofing filters are likely to dump all such packets originating from network A into the circular file, /dev/null, etc...  I know my network would.

-Jon


P.S.  Otta - I repsect your opinions as a venerable expert, but I think you were a bit off here (perhaps we are arguing in somewhat different contexts - always possible).

Captain, I mentioned that about "why?" before.

Foxhound, if Cable is available in your area you may want to make the switch to a COMMERCIAL @Work type account provided you business is not run from your home.  If it is in your home it will save you loads of money but the speed is primarily downstream.  There have been some advances in the last few years as far as cable speeds go.  I would go with cable because the modem itself can support up to 48Mb per second.  Right now you can get five IPs from my provider for home use they can all surf simultaneously at full speed.  I have run tests on the speed from each computer AT THE SAME TIME to determine that I can get between 3 and 5 Megabits per second on each computer.  That should be enough for your employees.  I have been using a router and have set up myself as well as a few others with cable modems and Linksys routers.  For 199.00 you can buy an 8 port 10/100 router and that should do fine for you.  Of course there has to be the feed in your area.  I have set up people with networks in their basement for their online stock trading, they wanted cable because of its speed.  Some of these people have hired on help to man the computers they have.  I don't know what your business is because it is your business, not mine.  I presume however that your business is in a business district, rather than a residential neighborhood, but I could be wrong.

Check here:  http://www.home.com/index_flash.html

"Captain, I mentioned that about "why?" before"

pbessman - sorry about that.  This thread is getting so long my vision starts to blur.

I agree with your comments.

-Jon

YES Captain, but we still have yet to see an answer.
(I actually sold my dedicated Linux machine on Ebay and bought this PIII-1000 with the proceeds.  It was only a k6-II 550, but it got some really big bills)



Why are you attempting to use multiple lines to simply increase bandwidth?  

Maybe, he will see it this time.

Why are you attempting to use multiple lines to simply increase bandwidth?  

FOXHOUND  WHY? WHY is this such a problem what are your people doing?

Why are you attempting to use multiple lines to simply increase bandwidth?  Why are you attempting to use multiple lines to simply increase bandwidth?  Why are you attempting to use multiple lines to simply increase bandwidth?  Why are you attempting to use multiple lines to simply increase bandwidth?  Why are you attempting to use multiple lines to simply increase bandwidth?  Why are you attempting to use multiple lines to simply increase bandwidth?  

LOL - even though you made me fall out of my chair laughing, I do agree.

Why?
What?

-Jon

If you are really using more bandwidth than your DSL can provide you either really depend on the Internet for your business, in which case buying more bandwidth seems the logical choice. Or your users are spending all their time downloading warez, mp3s and porn. Unless you do a lot of uploading, your can get a 1.5 MB DSL, which should be plenty fast. I work at a lot of schools that share a T-1 among 200 workstations.

sorry for the confusion but the reason why i want to use mulitple lines to increase bandwidth is simply because in my area does not provide a faster version of DSL(the current one is a 1M/sec), and both just dsl and cable will not be enough for 5-6 users. also, this is residencial use i'm talking about, i never mentioned anything about business. We are actually 5-6 university students living together with high internet usage. thanks

> >Both ISPs will, in general, deliver any IP-packet you send to them,
> Nope. Most ISPs will only forward packets that originate
> from their IP block(s), unless prior specific
> agreements have been arranged.

I still disagree.
Each IP-packet has a "source" and a "destination" IP-address.
To rephrase what I wrote, the ISP's responsibility is to deliver each IP-packet to the "destination" IP-address,
This happens "automatically" -- you do not need any special arrangement with the ISP -- the fact that you are a client of the ISP is the _ONLY_ arrangement which is needed.

But, "one-way" connectivity is useless.
As you implied, when the computer at the "destination" IP-address sends a "response" IP-packet, to the IP-address listed in the "source" field of the original IP-packet, then that packet has to be routed over the Internet, and eventually back to one of the two ISPs, and that ISP has to route that IP-packet back to the computer that sent the IP-packet.

Since the author of this question is using a router, the IP-address in the "source" field of the outgoing IP-packet will be an IP-address assigned by the ISP, and the "gateway/router" in the author's home will send/receive packets from any one of the computers in the building, and will substitute the IP-address assigned by the ISP for the IP-address used by one of the computers.
As a result of this "network address translation", all "outgoing" IP-packets _WILL_ have the "correct" IP-address, and there will not be any "one-way connectivity" problem.

Since the multiple-users are "independent", rather than being a "work-group", order a second DSL line, and use a second router, and then connect three computers to the "new" DSL-line, and leave the other three computers connected to the "old" DSL-line.

Just a tidbit.  Cable is stable, DSL uses telephone wiring to your home, if that wiring is older or trashy, you will get very poor connection.  DSL is also dependant on how far you are away from the node or substation.  The further away, the slower the connection.

Cable is also user friendly, especially if you intend on using a router to hook-up other PC's in the home.  I tried DSL and cancelled it after two months of argueing with the phone co. because I had a connection prob. and they said it wasn't their falut????

Then I tried Direct PC, Too expensive and if cloudy or raining the signal goes out.

Cable has been in my home now for over a year, and am completly satisfied.

wlennon

Otta - once again, it appears we are actually in agreement.

You say:

"Since the author of this question is using a router, the IP-address in the "source" field of the outgoing IP-packet will be an IP-address assigned by the ISP..."

Indeed - however, this subverts the functionality of true packet-based load balancing (where each packet alternates which oubound line is used), making only host-based balancing possible.

I'm getting the feeling that all this is moot, anyway...  Such per-packet schemes generally only help improve outbound bandwidth, anyway.  A connection-based aggregation sounds fine for what foxhound is wanting, and there is a fair amount of somewhat inexpensive equipment out there that will do that.

foxhound - did you read my comments about policy routing/QoS?  If all you really want to do is divide up your available bandwidth a little more fairly (i.e. so one roommate cannot kill the speed for everyone else), this may be what you're looking for.  If not, see my latest comments (BTW, I agree with Wesley - Cable [at least around here] is slightly more mature than DSL [which should tell you just how crappy DSL can be].  On the flipside, getting more than one cable line may not do much for you if both lines pull from the same overloaded pipe, which is a commonly employed architecture in cable systems).

-Jon

> if both lines pull from the same overloaded pipe,
> which is a commonly employed architecture in cable systems).

Overloaded?  Common?  I disagree.

I think that cable-modem providers are just as aware of
"quality-of-service" issues, such as "busy" connections,
as the "traditional" ISPs are.  Fortunately, the cable-companies
have an architecture which enables them to easily add capacity.


               

Taken from http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?prid=155&grid=5

This should do it as I doubt you will ever have a problem.  I have seen people with setups like this one and this way you don't need an additional switch.  The older setups I had seen were STOCK BROKERS who relied on these for their fast transactions.
Simple solution! the BEFSR81 - EtherFast 8-Port Cable/DSL Router


Built-In 10/100 8-Port Switch!
Supports up to 253 users!

Do you find Internet sharing software to be nothing but a hassle? Can?t find a simple and inexpensive way to share your one Internet IP address over your entire network? If so, then the Linksys Instant Broadband Cable/DSL Router is exactly what you?re looking for.



The Linksys Instant Broadband EtherFast Cable/DSL Router is the perfect solution for connecting up to 253 of your PCs to a high-speed Broadband Internet connection or to a Fast Ethernet or Ethernet backbone. Configurable as a DHCP server or client, the EtherFast Cable/DSL Router acts as the only externally recognized Internet gateway on your local area network (LAN). The Router can be configured via SNMP to filter internal users? access to the Internet and serve as an Internet firewall against unwanted outside intruders.

The Cable/DSL Router features such advanced functions as dynamic and static port routing, DMZ hosting, filtering and forwarding, and Quality of Service capabilities. And all of these functions can be easily configured through any net-worked computer?s web browser.

BTW these routers do the same thing as if you had purchased additional IP addresses, it is just done on YOUR equipment not THEIRS.  They basically use a router to assign multiple IPs to your Modem for use.  This way you divide the signal on your end.  If you use 10/100 NICS in your systems you will not be able to tell the difference between the additional IP from the service or the Masquerading effect from the router.  If you need a  web server for internet use cable is not the solution.  If you are just using the net to surf, play games, email, FTP, then the router will work for you.  Web servers violate the acceptable use policies of every cable provider I have worked with as they are intended for recreational use which would be as described for what would work best for you.  If that is the case use the same router for your DSL connection.

Sure cable may have been throttled down from what it once was(Old "normal" speeds were7-10Megabits/second now it is about half of that, at least @Home from Chicago to Denver running anywhere from 2-7Megabits/second) now that DOCSIS compliance has become a standard.  However, DOCSIS modems still provide substantial speed over DSL dollar for dollar.  Most DSL services are nothing more than high-dollar phone lines and still require an ISP.  As I mentioned previously, some phone companies will include their ISP services as an option.

Call your Cable company, order the service.  You will have to pay an installation charge, which you would have to do with ADSL, sometimes there are specials for no intall charge if you sign a one year contract.

They Supply the Cable Modem, then to proceed to hook other PC's use the BESFR41 4 port Router by LinkSys, or the BESFR81 for 8 wired ports.  

Or you can look at Linksys for the wireless routers that need no Cat 5 cabeling betweeen PC's.

www.linksys.com

wlennon

> Most DSL services are nothing more than high-dollar phone lines and still require an ISP.

@Home is an ISP,too -- it gives you a mailbox and USENET access and an SMTP-server.

Around here, DSL comes in two flavours:
. * "slow" -- capped at a maximum of 1Mbit/second,
.    for exactly the same monthly-fee as cable-modem
. * "fast" -- for 60% more per month, up to the
.    physical-capability of the line, e.g., 5Mbits/second.

and cable-modem speeds around here are "between"
the speeds of these two services.

"@Home is an ISP,too"  Legally they're not they are an internet access provider.

PBESSMAN,

please classify as ISP or IAP:

1. AOL (http://WWW.AOL.COM)
2. @Home (http://WWW.HOME.COM)
3. Look (http://WWW.LOOK.CA)
4. XO (http://WWW.CONCENTRIC.NET)

Please compare and contrast, to justify your answers.

foxhound - this thread is getting insane.

To summarize - cable will almost certainly be better than DSL (which you said is capped at 1Mb/s in your area).  Yes you can get both cable and DSL and see some improvements in aggregate bandwidth, but per-packet load-balancing will be almost certainly impossible.

Anyone that disagrees with the above either does not know what they are talking about, or is talking about something else.

Now, do you have any other questions?  I think it is time to close this one.

-Jon

> just dsl and cable will not be enough for 5-6 users.
> this is residential use i'm talking about,
> We are actually 5-6 university students living together
> with high internet usage.

What's the probability of more than two students
using the Internet at the same time ??
(rather than partying/studying/partying/sleeping/partying/eating/partying/attending_class/partying)

I think that one cable-modem, and a proper Cable/DSL switch (Linksys or NetGear or SMC or DLink) will be
plenty fast for "residential" usage.

ISP you can dial in from anywhere.  IAP access restricted to location.  Sure you can call in to @home but the service they provide is internet access through cable and since your cable modem is configured for a specific location you cant just hook up from anywhere.

Otta, did you write this???  http://members.bellatlantic.net/~csteel/classes/SWENG-564/class2.htm

"       IAP vs. ISP differences (none!)

?         POTS Modem (56K, 28.8, etc?)

?         Broadband

-         ISDN (64K, 128K, lower overhead)

-         Bonded modems/ISDN

-         Fractional T1 (64K leased lines, etc?)

-         Cable Modems

o       300 to 500 Kbps up / up to 1.5 Mbps down

o       shared bandwidth

o        

-         DSL/ADSL/SDSL

o       16 to 640 Kbps upstream / 1.5 to 9 Mbps down

 

o        

-         T1 lines : 1.544 Mbps

o       1950?s technology

o       Regenerated signal, not amplified!

-         T3 lines:   44.736 Mbps

An internet access provider is a company who provides a you with a way to get onto the internet.  Sometimes they can be called ISPs which is a MISNOMER since service mostly comes secondary.  Prices for internet access providers are very competitive, so costs should not be a big concern when shopping for a provider.

> An internet access provider is a company who provides a you with a way to get onto the internet.

Since @Home provides "content", through http://WWW.Home.Com ,
does that make @Home a "service" or an "access" provider?

Since @Home provides "accounts" and "mailboxes",
does that qualify it as being a "service" provider?

> Sure you can call in to @home,
> but the service they provide is ...

Oops!  You used the word "service" and "provide"
in your definition of "access provider".  :-)
It must be lonely for you, trying to sit on both sides of
the fence, and like the cat Garfield, trying to fend off
projectiles from your critics.   :-)

foxhound - are you going to provide some input here (or maybe close this) before this question drifts even further off the subject?

Thanks,
-Jon

listening (even to a new thread;-) ...

Question(s) below appears to have been abandoned. Your options are:
 
1. Accept a Comment As Answer (use the button next to the Expert's name).
2. Close the question if the information was not useful to you. You must tell the participants why you wish to do this, and allow for Expert response.
3. Ask Community Support to help split points between participating experts, or just comment here with details and we'll respond with the process.
4. Delete the question. Again, please comment to advise the other participants why you wish to do this.

For special handling needs, please post a zero point question in the link below and include the question QID/link(s) that it regards.
https://www.experts-exchange.com/jsp/qList.jsp?ta=commspt
 
Please click the Help Desk link on the left for Member Guidelines, Member Agreement and the Question/Answer process.  Click you Member Profile to view your question history and keep them all current with updates as the collaboration effort continues, in the event new items have been created since this listing was pulled.

https://www.experts-exchange.com/jsp/cmtyHelpDesk.jsp

To view your open questions, please click the following link(s) and keep them all current with updates.
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/Q.20129614.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/Q.20137917.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/Q.20139553.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/Q.20139820.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/Q.20140531.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/Q.20140543.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/Q.20140949.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/Q.20141688.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/Q.20143098.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/Q.20146578.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/Q.20174252.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/Q.20192563.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/Q.20196328.html


PLEASE DO NOT AWARD THE POINTS TO ME.  
 
------------>  EXPERTS:  Please leave any comments regarding this question here on closing recommendations if this item remains inactive another three days.
 
Thank you everyone.
 
Moondancer
Moderator @ Experts Exchange


P.S.  For any year 2000 questions, special attention is needed to ensure the first correct response is awarded, since they are not in the comment date order, but rather in Member ID order.