mhy
join:2000-08-25
Los Angeles, CA | Adam A and Speakeasy...how about bonded DSL circuits???? Hi
I notice you are now offering bonded T1's for companies that need more than 1500.
How about extending the idea to offering bonded DSL circuits? I have 1500/384 and would dearly love 3000/768 but can't get it due to distance.
You charge $56 for a 1500/384 circuit, and $96 for a 3000/768. Even if you charged full price for two 1500/384's (and maybe you'd be nice and wouldn't??), it wouldn't be all that much more than a single 3000/768 ($112 vs $96). I'd consider that a reasonable premium to pay in view of the fact that I'm lucky to get DSL at all.
In addition, I would have redundant loops, reduced risk of downtime.
Whatcha think? You'd probably be the only game in town with that offering..... |
|
|
|
bclbob
join:2000-06-23
Oak Park, IL | the problem is that they risk devaluing their premium SDSL / T1 options, since 2 ADSL circuits would give you increased redundancy...
there is no technical reason they couldnt do it. |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by bclbob:the problem is that they risk devaluing their premium SDSL / T1 options, since 2 ADSL circuits would give you increased redundancy... there is no technical reason they couldnt do it. You mean no reason other than the ILEC not wanting to provision a house with additional lines (at the risk of running out of free pairs for an area)?
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis |
|
 King PDon't blame me. I voted for Ron PaulPremium
join:2004-11-17
Franklin, TN
 ·Comcast
 ·Vonage
| reply to mhy
I would totally go for it. I would love to have 3.0 downstream, but due to my distance, I can't get it and have good enough margins. I'd totally go for bonded OneLink.
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.
»www.ind-music.com |
|
mhy
join:2000-08-25
Los Angeles, CA | reply to nixen
said by nixen:said by bclbob:the problem is that they risk devaluing their premium SDSL / T1 options, since 2 ADSL circuits would give you increased redundancy... there is no technical reason they couldnt do it. You mean no reason other than the ILEC not wanting to provision a house with additional lines (at the risk of running out of free pairs for an area)? -tom Additional lines are not an issue. Verizon will willingly install multiple one-links to a house. The significant improvement is to bond them for increased usable capacity, not merely redundancy. |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by mhy:Additional lines are not an issue. Verizon will willingly install multiple one-links to a house. The significant improvement is to bond them for increased usable capacity, not merely redundancy. That's a change, then. A couple years ago, I was living in a townhouse development. Several of my neighbors and I had each gotten DSL. A friend of mine moved in and had to get cable internet because there were no more available wires for the additional service. Then again, this was before line-share DSL.
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis |
|
bclbob
join:2000-06-23
Oak Park, IL | said by nixen  A friend of mine moved in and had to get cable internet because there were no more available wires for the additional service. [/BQUOTE :thats simply a "lack of facilities". An ILEC will not install additional lines along the poles to provide you with DSL service. However I've never heard of an ILEC refusing to install multiple DSL circuits if there are pairs available. I've had multiple occasions of having multiple active DSL circuits (ex SBC area though). |
|
bclbob
join:2000-06-23
Oak Park, IL
1 edit | reply to mhy
said by mhy:The significant improvement is to bond them for increased usable capacity, not merely redundancy.
I know what you are saying but my point is that you would also increase the reliability of the internet connection .. and thats something that the SDSL / T1 products are aimed at. |
|
King PDon't blame me. I voted for Ron PaulPremium
join:2004-11-17
Franklin, TN Reviews:
·Comcast
·Vonage
| Yes, but also, SDSL and T1 are almost always marketed toward businesses. This would be a home consumer product for those that want more speed, but can't more than 1.5/384 due to our distance away from the CO.
I know of very few home users that want a T1 or SDSL. Even with SDSL, you are still limited by distance. I can only get 768/768 SDSL in my area, but I can get 1.5/768 OneLink.
I personally think this would be a great idea, and if they were to offer it to me right now, I would take it. Even with the eventual upgrade to ADSL2+, I still won't be able to get much better than my 1.5/768 connection, and the last thing I want to do is move...that is MUCH more expensive in a lot of ways.
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.
»www.ind-music.com |
|
bclbob
join:2000-06-23
Oak Park, IL | said by King P:Yes, but also, SDSL and T1 are almost always marketed toward businesses. why? because they are more reliable and come with SLA's. A lot of that advantage would be mitigated by a bonded ADSL service. |
|
| Yep. Those extra nines of reliability are irrelevant to many SMBs when comparing 12.0/1.5 (two bonded 6.0/768 Onelink circuits) for $250/month to 1.5/1.5 for $500/month.
ISPs are used to getting fat profit margins from T1s, but they are quicky losing their long-held title of most-desired Internet connection in the SMB sector. |
|
King PDon't blame me. I voted for Ron PaulPremium
join:2004-11-17
Franklin, TN | besides, T1 lines are so 1996.  |
|
| I've done this with SE before.
Not officially with their consent but I've run 2 ADSL 6/768 lines into a Cisco router with two WIC-1ADSL cards(not their bridge) and then with some config magic, got them to load ballance.
After doing that that you would think I could have figured out my own T1 (another post), oh well...
--
Marcus G Croman
-CEO
Lazarus Networks
Silverdale: 360.447.0110
Gig Harbor: 253.238.2949
Shelton: 360.545.6605
info@lazarusnetworks.com |
|
| Load balancing isn't the same as bonding, or did you figure a way for both circuits to have the same IP? |
|
mhy
join:2000-08-25
Los Angeles, CA | Load balancing vs Bonding said by lorennerol:Load balancing isn't the same as bonding, or did you figure a way for both circuits to have the same IP? You are right. Load balancing divides bandwidth between two or more pipes. It is primarily useful when several users share a WAN connection. But if you do a big download, for example, it is still limited to the speed of one connection.
Bonding actually increased the download/upload speed for single user. Individual packets of the download go down different paths and are re-assembled at the end. |
|
| Give me a few days and I'll bond them too... Fairly certain I can get that done and test it over the weekend.
I'm 99.9% sure of it. |
|
| said by NetEngineer9:Give me a few days and I'll bond them too... Fairly certain I can get that done and test it over the weekend. There is no way you can bond them unless the equipment on the other end (SE) supports it. |
|
mhy
join:2000-08-25
Los Angeles, CA | reply to NetEngineer9
said by NetEngineer9:Give me a few days and I'll bond them too... Fairly certain I can get that done and test it over the weekend. I'm 99.9% sure of it. My understanding is that you can't do this, but if you manage, it would be a very big accomplishment.
The test would be if you can do a speed test (or even a large file download) and get a result close to the sum of the individual links.
Please keep us posted...if you can do this, sign me up!!! |
|
