low-latency bandwidth for cheap?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

This may be the wrong forum to ask this, and if so I apologize, please just point me in the right direction!

I'm getting somewhat frustrated with the instability and high latency of residential cable and DSL offerings, but I love the T1 or greater bandwidth they offer. I'd like reasonable bandwidth with low latency without spending hundreds of dollars per month!

Anybody know a good source for near-T1 low-latency bandwidth at around $100/month? I'm in the northern VA area btw.

2

RFC 1925, 7a.

cheers,
&rw

3

Jeff Wheeler wrote:

Anybody know a good source for near-T1 low-latency bandwidth at around $100/month? I'm in the northern VA area btw.

Hi Jeff.

I don't know where you are in Northern VA, but, Skynet offers wireless access in eastern Loudoun County with coverage in Leesburg, Sterling and Ashburn. http://www.skynetaccess.com/wdsl.html

Hope this helps

Jeff

4

Thanks. I suppose then I'm looking for good, and half and half of fast and cheap, or if not then simply good and cheap and I'll accept the lesser bandwidth.

5

Unsure if you've used them, but I've been extremely pleased with Speakeasy
and their DSL offerings. We used an SDSL line for a remote office and
never had a problem with it. Currently have one of their OneLink (dry
pair ADSL) lines up, and will probably have another installed soon.

Short of that, being in Texas, I can't really help with any fixed wireless
tips.

Wes

6

Assuming your router supports it and assuming you are primarily browsing, not serving requests, you may want to try one of each. A low-end DSL and cable connection. The chances of both being flakey at the same moment are pretty low [in my experience] and your router should be able to detect fairly quickly if something is amiss.

Then again, I have seen at least 50% of the instability-with-DSL complaints in the last 1 year be related to a bad OS on a router or just a bad router that flakes periodically.

DJ

Jeff Wheeler wrote:

7

How much is "low latency"? I have 6ms RTT over my 8M/800k ADSL, it's
usually 6-8ms over an equivalent 2M g.shdsl line.

8

How much is "low latency"? I have 6ms RTT over my 8M/800k ADSL, it's
usually 6-8ms over an equivalent 2M g.shdsl line.

interesting question. i have two adsl lines. pinging the first hop
router

  verizon / lavanet (hawi to honolulu, 25 mins air time by plane)

    64 bytes from 64.65.95.73: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=20.637 ms
    64 bytes from 64.65.95.73: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=22.186 ms
    64 bytes from 64.65.95.73: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=21.965 ms
    64 bytes from 64.65.95.73: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=21.723 ms
    64 bytes from 64.65.95.73: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=21.538 ms

  qwest / iinet (30 miles from bainbridge to hellview wa us)

    64 bytes from 209.20.186.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=63 time=67.008 ms
    64 bytes from 209.20.186.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=67.700 ms
    64 bytes from 209.20.186.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=56.696 ms
    64 bytes from 209.20.186.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=60.249 ms

i do not know why and can get no useful info on provisioning.
i know iinet is redback.

randy

9

Perhaps I should point out that in both my cases the IP router is in the
CO and the ATM connection is only the actual physical DSL connection.

10

  verizon / lavanet (hawi to honolulu, 25 mins air time by plane)

    64 bytes from 64.65.95.73: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=20.637 ms
    64 bytes from 64.65.95.73: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=22.186 ms
    64 bytes from 64.65.95.73: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=21.965 ms
    64 bytes from 64.65.95.73: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=21.723 ms
    64 bytes from 64.65.95.73: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=21.538 ms

  qwest / iinet (30 miles from bainbridge to hellview wa us)

    64 bytes from 209.20.186.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=63 time=67.008 ms
    64 bytes from 209.20.186.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=67.700 ms
    64 bytes from 209.20.186.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=56.696 ms
    64 bytes from 209.20.186.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=60.249 ms

i do not know why and can get no useful info on provisioning.
i know iinet is redback.

It's more than likely interleaving which is causing the latency,
it's used in order to reduce line errors (and to increase reach)
but a side effect is that it increases latency.

The verizon connection is more than likely not using interleaving
while the Qwest connection is.

John

11

Looks like Qwest are using data interleaving on their connection, while Verizon aren't. It helps reduce dataloss at the expense of increased latency, by interleaving bits over time so that a short burst of signal destroying noise can only remove part of any given larger block. Data blocks reserve some space for error-correction data, which can salvage a partially damaged block.

I hear a lot of ISPs in the states are turning on interleaving by default these days, while in the UK I've never actually encountered it. Some ADSL modems have an option to disable it also.

Sam

12

Here in Germany interleaving is default. You may order "FastPath" as
additional "service" (~ 1.5$ extra). Mostly gamers want to have FastPath
enabled to cut down RTT.

Arnold

13

If you want low-latency you dont use ADSL.

My SDSL connection:

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.454/2.544/6.587/0.187 ms

-Dan

14

I guess this is because it uses flame delay instead of ATM?

If it wasn't for ADSL and g.SHDSL I guess nobody would still use ATM?

Let's hope the VDSL guys sort out their range problems (5.5km) so we can
all get on with our lives without ever using ATM again.

15

At least here in Germany, SDSL is much more expensive than ADSL. Hence
using FastPath may make sense ...

Arnold
btw: what does your rtt show? The *DSL path may me much shorter than
from you to the next IP hop.