DSL, Cable or other high-speed Internet service,

[Concordia..41]

If you don’t have DSL, Cable or other high-speed Internet service, you may not want to open any topic from Margo after Monday August 4, 2003. For the trip to Maine she got a new Olympus digital camera with extra memory cards. She has also commandeered a ride in a skiff for photo shoots from another forum member.

So far everyone has been lucky since she has not mastered the camera yet, this she plans to do on the way up today. So be fore warned that not only does she plan to deplete the Maine lobster & Little Neck supply she also plans to crash the server at the Wooden Boat Forum with an excessive amount of photo’s.

Dave

[NormMessinger]

Your go girl!

ImageStation has a slight edge on Shutterfly but the latter it does allow cross linking AND it has a slide show feature that would be nice.

[R.I.Singer30]

Thanks for the warning. I guess I'll have to go the library for these. ;)

[Concordia..41]

Actually, I was thinking about a slide show tongue.gif , but as Dave says I need to master the camera (and then the software), but hey, that's what plane rides and layovers are for..right?????

[ 07-30-2003, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Concordia..41 ]

[Matt J.]

Margo,
Which Olympus did you get? I've got a C2xxx something or other. the Camedia software is OK, but I don't use it. The computer automatically recognizes the camera and does what I need with the pictures. Camera's therefore harder than the software. Have fun. I wish we were going to Maine today.

-Matt

[R.I.Singer30]

The thing I liked about my digital was you could experiment with it and not worry about wasted shots.Also I have pictures back from the WB festival in Maine that I haven't posted yet because they are on 35mm and I haven't been to CVS to digitize them.

I am the high bidder (I hope I don't jinx myself)on an ebay bid that ends at 2 pm today so I hope to be digital again soon .Even though I won a bid 3 weeks ago and didn't recieve the camera,it got lost in UPS they said. :mad:

Have a good time smile.gif ,we're waiting to see the pics.Dan L.

[Donn]

Plenty fast cable here...bring 'em on...and please to include a few stinkpots!

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

I can chime in with some experience in both DSL & Cable. At home I have cable and now in the real estate office we have DSL. I can definitely see a difference DSL is slower than cable by a bit. But either one is going to change your life once you switch from dial up to broadband, you will never ever be able to go back. Enjoy your trip take lots of photos smile.gif

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
At home I have cable and now in the real estate office we have DSL. I can definitely see a difference DSL is slower than cable by a bit.Except DSL's throughput is fixed because the line is your alone (though it may vary due to line conditions if your DSL service is rate-adaptive). With cable modems, your throughput is dependent on what your neighbors on the same line are doing.

If junior across the street is streaming porn and music down to his box, your throughput suffers when you try to upload boat porn for us.

[Nicholas Carey]

One other thought...

If your posting a message with big images (or a lot of images that total up to big), identify it in the subject line, so people with a dialup don't suffer unless they want to. A subject line something like [bigimage] Sexy Boat Pornis good.

[Wild Dingo]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
But either one is going to change your life once you switch from dial up to broadband, you will never ever be able to go back. Enjoy your trip take lots of photos smile.gif Welll I dont know about that Joe... ID LOVE TO GO BACK TO DIAL UP!!!

But Dave you let her take MANY MANY pics and then she HAS TO show US!!! :D

[NormMessinger]

"With cable modems, your throughput is dependent on what your neighbors on the same line are doing."

I thought that was the case too based on reading the PC magazines. However, Cox claims that that is not so. Perhaps newer technology has chanced things. Cox wouldn't exagerate, would they?

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

"With cable modems, your throughput is dependent on what your neighbors on the same line are doing." This is a common misunderstanding. DSL's throughput is dependent on distance from the DSL center. Cable is NOT dependent on your neighbors usage. Realize most cable is now fibrotic digital cable. There is NO log jam effect you can have millions of neighbors on the same system and not have a hick-up. The myth about cable modem logjam was created by Verizon DSL that's how they sold there system over other systems. In the RE office they have Verizon DSL and it is significantly sloooooower than my cable modem at home. And at home I have 3 computers running off of it in my house I have all the TV's (5) connected to the same cable, and my tenant's in the barn has both cable TV and modem so totally there is on my property alone 3 cable modems one off a hub that runs 3 computers and we are way faster than the Directly connected DSL in my office and were very close to the switching station just up the block.

[Doug Wood]

Margo/Dave - now that you've got that nice shiny new digital camera, and if you don't have it already, you may want to consider picking up Adobe's Photoshop.

Wow, do some folks really still use dial-up service? Sheesh, I'd kill myself.

[Leon Steyns]

Joe,

It depends on the way the cable provider chooses to offer its connections. If they're smart, they use bandwith management (software or hardware) to channel access. Optical fibre isn't implemented equally all over the world and even then the bottle-neck is usually in the last kilometer (you know, that little stretch you *your* house smile.gif ). In The Netherlands (for example) ADSL access is more reliably fast than cable access. The problem is not in capacity...

Greets, Leon Steyns.

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by NormMessinger:
"With cable modems, your throughput is dependent on what your neighbors on the same line are doing."

I thought that was the case too based on reading the PC magazines. However, Cox claims that that is not so. Perhaps newer technology has chanced things. Cox wouldn't exagerate, would they?With cable broadband, both you and your neighbor's data runs down same wire. Your neighbor's cable modem receives the exact same set of packets that yours does, just as her television set receives the exact same set of television signals as yours.

Hence, your neighbor's usage of the net affects your throughput. The problem is architected into the cable network because it was designed for one-way delivery of television signals and not as a general purpose data network.

Whether the neighbors' use of the 'Net affects you in any measurable way, of course, depends on how many people are sharing the same wire at any given point in time and what they are all doing. But the architecture doesn't scale well—at some point, as simultaneous use of the wire increases and with it congestion, throughput degrades.

From Salon (http://www.salon.com/): The argument that cable modem connections are inferior to DSL connections because the bandwidth on a cable link is "shared" is disingenuous as best. The entire Internet is based upon shared bandwidth. The bandwidth on an individual subscriber's DSL connection may not be shared; the DSL connection ultimately terminates at an Internet router, at which point the multiple streams are merged together into one or more shared upstream connections...The issue isn't whether or not a link is shared. The issue is whether or not there is enough bandwidth on the shared link to satisfy all of the users at a particular time.That last statement is key.

Upstream, the lines are shared, but they are much bigger lines just for starters, and there are more of them. Routers alter their routing to avoid congestion. Packets going from one host to another, even from the same message, are not necessarily all going to all use the same routing path through the net. Delivery is guaranteed but sequence isn't.

That's why TCP (transmission control protocol) is layered on top of IP (Internet Protocol). IP takes care of the mechanics of addressing and delivering a message; TCP provides the means to put the pieces of the message back together.

Bottlenecks in the 'net have alway been in the so-called 'last mile' — the wire between the switch and the house.

With DSL, the last mile is yours and yours alone. Any congestion in that last mile is your own responsibility (unless of course, someone is hitting you with a DoS attack.)

So, you can still bog down the wire, but it will be considerably more difficult to do so. And you have an easy fix for it—Stop serving up those sexy hi-res photos of Concordia yawls from your home machine :D

It's not that cable is 'better' or 'worse' than DSL, they have different architectures and different performance characteristics. You should be aware of what those differences are and how they might affect you when you buy the wire.

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
DSL's throughput is dependent on distance from the DSL center.Not true. DSL can run a maximum of 15,000 feet from the switch. It's speed is either fixed (DSL), or rate-adaptive (ADSL), in which case it depends on line quality.

Functionally, standard DSL is dependent on line quality, too, because a poor line means the connection may drop, or packets may be lost of damaged in transit. But ADSL automagickally negotiates a lower speed if too many errors occur.

[Donn]

But the architecture doesn't scale well—at some point, as simultaneous use of the wire increases and with it congestion, throughput degrades.
This is when you organize your neighbors, and demand that the provider upgrade your node. It only took 15 of us to get a new node added, and I'm regularly over 5Megs now.