HaizmanBrain
join:2001-04-23
San Diego, CA
| Reasons To Stay with DSLX
Given the recent pricing promotions and upload speed increases, I wanted to hear from some of you guys the main reasons to stay with DSLX over SBC/AT&T?
My impression is that support is superior with DSLX, but what about performance? Would I get the exact same experience with SBC (speed, routing, etc). Usenet completion seems to be vastly superior via DSLX vs SBC; although I wish they would allow faster connections.
I guess I'm asking for factual differences between the two, not opinions. Thanks!! |
|
noktekniq
join:2004-01-26
Millbrae, CA
 ·AT&T Yahoo
 ·Comcast
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
1 edit | so recent pricing came out and there were big fusses on this forum such as the below
»new promotional pricing does not satisfy current customers.
»Updated Price on 6000/768
»dslx not outsourcing. but service is degrading.
»New 6000/768 Package with 1st Month Free + San Antonio
»NEW pricing: A SLAP in the face of existing customers!
»SBC offering 6000/768 for $27.99/month -sbc side
»What is the best way to 'renew' at promo rate? -sbc side
»Elite upgrade results - Good speeds or problems? -sbc side
so if you read the links above, bunches of people are complaining how sbc/att allow people to rerate to the elite plan paying the same price as new customers even if ur an existing customer. |
|
Lanik
Lab-nik
Premium,ExMod 2002-03
join:2001-06-25
Bay Area
| reply to HaizmanBrain
I get much better routing with DSLX then I ever did with AT&T. It used to be 20+ hops to DSLR now with DSLX I'm down to 15 or less. Other then that I haven't noticed any real difference. Oh and I don't get spamed like I used to with AT&T. All in all things are better now so I'm sticking around for time being. Next year who knows. 
--
"If it works don't fix it."
Computer Consulting for the Next Generation. |
|
lakino
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Campbell, CA
| Tracing route to dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 9 ms 7 ms 8 ms adsl-69-105-xxx-xxx.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [69.105.xxx.xxx]
2 9 ms 15 ms 8 ms dist1-vlan50.pltn13.pbi.net [64.164.97.66]
3 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms bb1-g3-0.pltnca.sbcglobal.net [151.164.43.54]
4 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms bb1-p4-0.crsfca.sbcglobal.net [151.164.41.5]
5 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms core1-p4-0.crsfca.sbcglobal.net [151.164.240.133]
6 23 ms 22 ms 25 ms core1-p3-0.crskut.sbcglobal.net [151.164.243.237]
7 32 ms 33 ms 40 ms core1-p2-0.crdnco.sbcglobal.net [151.164.243.242]
8 43 ms 43 ms 43 ms core1-p3-0.crkcmo.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.34]
9 54 ms 54 ms 54 ms core2-p5-0.crchil.sbcglobal.net [151.164.191.199]
10 54 ms 54 ms 64 ms core1-p8-0.crchil.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.42]
11 61 ms 61 ms 61 ms core1-p3-0.crcloh.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.182]
12 69 ms 77 ms 68 ms core1-p3-0.crhnva.sbcglobal.net [151.164.240.122]
13 68 ms 68 ms 68 ms bb1-p4-0.hrndva.sbcglobal.net [151.164.191.98]
14 68 ms 68 ms 68 ms bb2-p6-0.hrndva.sbcglobal.net [151.164.243.22]
15 71 ms 70 ms 69 ms ex2-p11-0.eqabva.sbcglobal.net [151.164.40.53]
16 80 ms 69 ms 69 ms eqix.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ash.nac.net [206.223.115.69]
17 78 ms 80 ms 79 ms 0.so-2-2-0.gbr2.nwr.nac.net [209.123.11.29]
18 78 ms 78 ms 91 ms 0.so-0-3-0.gbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.11.233]
19 78 ms * 79 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
Trace complete.
---------------
19 hops for me. It does seem a bit excessive.
--
In an uncertain world, there is absolutely no security in banding together. -- Robert X. Cringely |
|
sded
Premium
join:2002-11-04
San Diego, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to HaizmanBrain
I have had excellent responses from George, Aldo, and Ari to problems and just questions on how to use DSLX. I think they are negotiating the best deal they can with SBC, but recent FCC rulings (and greed, of course) make it unlikely that SBC will give up their advantages to their DSL ISP customers. And I don't expect DSLX to lose money to save me a few $/month.
As far as speed, the local loop is in common between DSLX and SBC, so the synch rate should be the same. That said, the routing and peering are quite different (see all the postings of speed problems on the ATT forum) and that actually determines the latency and net throughput. You can find a number of postings from those who left SBC because of the severity of these problems. Some went to DSLX, some to Sonic, some elsewhere.
The other thing I get from DSLX that I use a lot is the 250MB of real personal webspace-not some hokey Geocities web stuff. I sponsor a users group website, post pictures for various groups, and really get something out of it without a great deal of effort. And secure email, including secure IMAP. I often use public wireless when traveling, and DSLX lets me use SSL for both sending and receiving email. I am not an expert on SBC, but when I switched from Earthlink there was no comparison between the services and support offered by SBC and that offered by DSLX.
Those who don't mind some link congestion, speed and access problems, learning Hindi, changing email addresses frequently, Usenet issues, and low utility personal websites should switch ISPs on an annual basis based on price alone-there seems to always be someone out there with a lower rate for new customers. I think DSLX is giving its customers the best deal it can in a competive market where the FCC does not really support competition and lets relationships like SBC/ASI be winked at. |
|
Lanik
Lab-nik
Premium,ExMod 2002-03
join:2001-06-25
Bay Area
| reply to lakino
This is mine right now looks good to me. 
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms linksys [192.168.1.1]
2 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms netblock-68-183-65-1.dslextreme.com [68.183.65.1]
3 8 ms 8 ms 7 ms SJC1.CR1.Gig7-0-10.dslextreme.com [66.218.44.49]
4 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms sjc-a00-ge-2-0-700.cpp.wvfiber.net [63.223.20.105]
5 9 ms 9 ms 11 ms sjc-c00-pos-1-24-1.lan-ajc-a00-pos-3-0.wvfiber.net [63.223.20.33]
6 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms lax-c00-pos-1-36-1.OC48-sjc-pos-1-6-1.wvfiber.net [63.223.0.178]
7 71 ms 71 ms 71 ms dal-c00-pos5-0.OC48-law-c00-pos.wvfiber.net [63.223.0.86]
8 72 ms 71 ms 71 ms atl-c00-pos-1-14-1.OC48-dal-c00-pos4-0.wvfiber.net [63.223.0.81]
9 85 ms 85 ms 85 ms 66.216.1.10
10 86 ms 86 ms 85 ms eqix.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ash.nac.net [206.223.115.69]
11 92 ms 93 ms 92 ms 0.so-2-2-0.gbr2.nwr.nac.net [209.123.11.29]
12 91 ms 90 ms 90 ms 0.so-0-3-0.gbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.11.233]
13 91 ms 91 ms 92 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
--
"If it works don't fix it."
Computer Consulting for the Next Generation. |
|
lakino
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Campbell, CA
| reply to Lanik
Re: Reasons To Stay with DSLX
But it's interesting to note, Lanik, that my actual last hop to www.dslreports.com is faster than yours.
Mine:
17 78 ms 80 ms 79 ms 0.so-2-2-0.gbr2.nwr.nac.net [209.123.11.29]
18 78 ms 78 ms 91 ms 0.so-0-3-0.gbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.11.233]
19 78 ms * 79 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
Yours:
11 92 ms 93 ms 92 ms 0.so-2-2-0.gbr2.nwr.nac.net [209.123.11.29]
12 91 ms 90 ms 90 ms 0.so-0-3-0.gbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.11.233]
13 91 ms 91 ms 92 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
Even though ATT/SBC is using a lot of hops, it's passing the info through them very quickly and I end up to the destination faster than you.
--
In an uncertain world, there is absolutely no security in banding together. -- Robert X. Cringely |
|
det427
Premium
join:2004-01-31
Santa Rosa, CA
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to Lanik
I have even one less hop! Great peering!
1 9 ms 8 ms 9 ms netblock-66-159-231-1.dslextreme.com [66.159.231
.1]
2 8 ms 9 ms 9 ms SJC1.CR1.Gig6-0-20.dslextreme.com [66.218.44.57]
3 9 ms 9 ms 8 ms sjc-a00-ge-2-0-700.cpp.wvfiber.net [63.223.20.10
5]
4 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms sjc-c00-pos-1-24-1.lan-ajc-a00-pos-3-0.wvfiber.n
et [63.223.20.33]
5 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms lax-c00-pos-1-36-1.OC48-sjc-pos-1-6-1.wvfiber.ne
t [63.223.0.178]
6 72 ms 71 ms 72 ms dal-c00-pos5-0.OC48-law-c00-pos.wvfiber.net [63.
223.0.86]
7 72 ms 72 ms 72 ms atl-c00-pos-1-14-1.OC48-dal-c00-pos4-0.wvfiber.n
et [63.223.0.81]
8 88 ms 87 ms 87 ms 66.216.1.18
9 87 ms 87 ms 87 ms eqix.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ash.nac.net [206.223.115.69]
10 91 ms 91 ms 91 ms 0.so-2-2-0.gbr2.nwr.nac.net [209.123.11.29]
11 177 ms 192 ms 135 ms 0.so-0-3-0.gbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.11.233]
12 93 ms 93 ms 92 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175] |
|
shortman
Premium
join:2000-12-27
Garden Grove, CA
clubs:
| reply to HaizmanBrain
My reason for staying with DSLExtreme is their network. My apartment and my place of work both connect to the same CO and both places are about the same distance from it but in opposite directions. The work place uses SBC. The performance at work(SBC) has been noticeably worse lately. I'm talking about the general responsiveness of internet requests (all sites, not any particular one). At work(SBC) we are capped at 384k because of our distance but it feels like we are capped at 128k because everything is so sluggish during the business day. I don't see the same sluggishness on my DSLExtreme at home.
As long as DSLExtreme keeps their great SoCal network going and providing Static IP with custom PTR for reasonable pricing then I'll continue to be a customer. I want great service and for the last few years DSLExtreme has always provided it to me. |
|
HaizmanBrain
join:2001-04-23
San Diego, CA
| reply to HaizmanBrain
One thing that is not too savory to me is PPPoE. I know that routers seem to handle it pretty good, but there's no substitute for the simplicity of DHCP. Is SBC using DHCP yet?
Thanks for the responses so far. I am trying not to be too price myopic when considering jumping to SBC. If I get the energy I will shortly switch to SBC or cancel DSLX for a few weeks and then sign up again to a year contract at the promo pricing. I'm trying to convince the wife that a few weeks without Internet access will be worth it (especially considering that I would be going from $60/static to $27/DHCP per month).
I'm usually not much of a brand loyalist, but I may just live with a few weeks of downtime to stick with DSLX - especially if I can hold onto the modem through the cancellation period. Can anyone from DSLX confirm that this can be done (my account number is 90369)?
Thanks! |
|
deblin
Dark Side of the Moon
Premium,MVM
join:2001-09-01
Middletown, DE
| said by HaizmanBrain  :One thing that is not too savory to me is PPPoE. I know that routers seem to handle it pretty good, but there's no substitute for the simplicity of DHCP. Is SBC using DHCP yet? No, and they don't plan to. Even their "static" IPs are just statically-assigned PPPoE addresses.
Which is the reason I'm with DSLX - static IPs.
--
"Talk is cheap because the supply is greater than the demand" - Shelby Friedman |
|
masterdave23
Premium
join:2002-11-21
Satellite Beach, FL
3 edits | reply to HaizmanBrain
dam lol |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to HaizmanBrain
Well, simply taking a gander at SBC's page, their only static IP solutions are offered via business packages. These packages run you approx. $80-$100 (new vs. old deals) for the same $50-65 package DSLX will offer you. That, and I recall SBC not being receptive at all in their EULAs about you running server functions on your line. So as a static IP & light webserver usage customer, DSLX is still the cheapest way to go, and friendliest in terms of EULAs. |
|
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
| said by Thaler :Well, simply taking a gander at SBC's page, their only static IP solutions are offered via business packages. These packages run you approx. $80-$100 (new vs. old deals) for the same $50-65 package DSLX will offer you. That, and I recall SBC not being receptive at all in their EULAs about you running server functions on your line. So as a static IP & light webserver usage customer, DSLX is still the cheapest way to go, and friendliest in terms of EULAs. SBC only frowns upon running a "Commercial" server on residential dsl. I have been running 2 webservers, 1 ftp server, Ultr@VNC, and logmein for years with no issues.
Terms: »sbc.yahoo.com/terms/
AUP: »help.sbcglobal.net/article.php?item=441
--
huh? | AIM | Utopia does not exist. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by manfmmd :SBC only frowns upon running a "Commercial" server on residential dsl. I have been running 2 webservers, 1 ftp server, Ultr@VNC, and logmein for years with no issues. Guess they changed their tune then. It used to be that they explicitly said that server-ing anything was a violation of AUP/EULA, but never took any stances to stop it. (ie. port blocking)
I did find this funny though, apparantly it is not okay to be running a server off a dial-up account:
With respect to Dial-up accounts, using any software or device designed to defeat system time-out limits or to allow your account to stay logged on while you are not actively using the SBC Service(s) or using your account for the purpose of operating a server of any type  |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to HaizmanBrain
quote:
Guess they changed their tune then. It used to be that they explicitly said that server-ing anything was a violation of AUP/EULA, but never took any stances to stop it. (ie. port blocking)
Yes, there used to be a "no server on dynamic IP plan" clause in the SBC AUP. It was removed a couple years ago I think.
--
Rabble, rabble, rabble! |
|
theguy
join:2003-10-04
Santee, CA | My contract is ending this month. I am paying 14.95, but if I renew the contract I would need to pay 21.95 what is my motivation to renew.
yeah, existing customers are not worthy i guess. |
|
