BaNET price/speed sucks cable is cheper/faster.
Bellatlantic charges me $39.95/mo for 640/90 along with $10 to have them as an ISP and sold me a Westel white modem for $100.00.
I test at;
Your download speed was 492452 bps, or 492 kbps.
Your upload speed was 67340 bps, or 67 kbps.
At&t @home (cable) in this area (states it) has a 128k download cap and doesnt list a limit of their upload speed but I have tested it at;
Your download speed was 1927230 bps, or 1927
Your upload speed was 628930 bps, or 628 kbps.
AT&T @home charges $39.95 and that includes their surfboard modem and @home as an ISP.
The two things keeping me from going to cable are the investment in the DSL equipment I now own (modem)and the ease of sharing the DSL with each PC on the hub getting assigned a FREE IP address (AT&T charges $5.00 per extra IP.)
I would think that DSL prices in this area should/would be lowered soon what do you think?
I have @home service in one of the smallest neighborhoods in the entire United Stats.
You guys know of Kalamazoo Michigan, well I live in Battle Creek. I really doubt that anyone along my road even has @home but there are about 5000-8000 people in Battle Creek who are on it and there are about 100 more installs going on everyday.
Phone lines here are ameritech and can't keep a good modem connection and therefore would have to be totally rewired to support dsl.
So @home is the way to go. I usually get 600kb/s download and at least 100kb/s upload and that's just average. I've actually uploaded mp3s to someone on napster at 150kb/s. Now that's pretty amazing for my $39.95 a month. I won't get dsl ever unless they offer me more speed and free equipment.
Used to have TCI cable, ATT bought that up and Thank God they did. Everyone in Kalamazoo still has cablevison who hasn't yet realized the potential of partnering or merging with ATT and making millions.
Their loss my gain, I love my @home internet service and my ATT digital cable. I'm set.
Ok John, lets think about this... it's impractical to just use a router and randomly assign IP's to computers.
Provided that the IP's were not in use at the time you set up your router, this could work temporarily, however the first time your connection dropped, or you had to reboot your router, you would most likely lose your IPs. Secondly, if you were to do this, chances are your IP's would be assigned to someone sooner or later, which would in turn cause an IP conflict. Those problems combined make using real IP's without permission quite impractical.
One option is to use a gateway router and assign non-internet IPs to your computers. This is fine if all you do is surf the web and such, however there are many cases where non-internet Ip's can't be used. Some multiplayer games have problems with this type of setup, and you obviously couldn't run any type of server this way.
All in all, if you want more IPs, the only way to get them is pay for them,
, and even though that sucks, it's the way it is, and there's no long-term way around it.