Callin all nerds and geeks!!!!

waz up?

i need advice from the smart ppl

we have moved to new city and the only broadband connection options r either cable modem (capped at 512) and wireless high speed.

here is my question: i will be using 2 SL accounts simultaneously for Paris and myself. is it better for me to get 2 separate cable modems for each account (btw tech support is saying average download is 400) or should i consider wireless high speed. i am waiting for a quite on 1.2 down, however they r telling me the latency can range at times between 20 and 80 ms. how does SL deal with latency?
is anybody else using line of site wireless connect?

any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
thank u in advance from the Cartel de Juarez (Da Boom).

You should avoid cable internet like the plague. In the worst areas of the country, cable internet dips below 56K connection speeds at peak usage times, because EVERYONE on the network is sharing the same amount of bandwidth. So the more people on and using bandwidth, the slower your connection will be.

'Average' connection speed figures in the several hours around 2AM where no one is connected and the speeds really ARE high.

(And don't sign ANY contracts! Ever!)

And a latency between 20 ms and 80 ms is so low, even my DSL has problems hitting it. If it were 200+, I'd worry about it, since that's average for a 56K. (MY GOD! 20ms?! )

Actually, 80 is about average for a non-loaded 56k.

20-80 isn't really bad, though that's a lot of fluxuation. The things I would find out about the wireless is more the medium. Most current wireless ISPs use equipment which is very susceptible to both trees and rain. You'd want to find out about that.

You'd also want to find out how the bandwidth they provide actually works. A lot of wireless is "up to X speed", much like DSL is. Depending on your distance from the tower, you may be limited to a fraction of that speed. You need to dig an honest answer out of them on that one.

That being said, your best options there are either the 2 cable modems (make sure EACH is capped at 512k, not both, definitely something to drill them on), or if the wireless is decent bandwidth even at your real location, I would probably go that route.

For a 'semi technical' comparison, here is my DSL and a wireless 1.5mb wireless connection I have compared to LL:

DSL:

traceroute to www.secondlife.com (63.211.151.3), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
 1  gw.darkness.nu (207.246.201.1)  3 ms  2 ms  2 ms
 2  209-145-162-1.interface.dsl.accessus.net (209.145.162.1)  11 ms  10 ms  10 ms
 3  stl-gsr-1-vlan-214.accessus.net (207.206.148.113)  14 ms  23 ms  11 ms
 4  at-1-2-092.usstls6b-j20c.savvis.net (64.240.159.117)  12 ms  12 ms  18 ms
 5  at-1-2-901.uschcg2-01.j20c.savvis.net (64.240.34.90)  22 ms  19 ms  20 ms
 6  so-1-2.core1.Chicago1.Level3.net (209.0.225.1)  19 ms  21 ms  20 ms
 7  so-11-0.core2.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.112.194)  20 ms  21 ms  48 ms
 8  so-4-1-0.bbr2.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.112.197)  20 ms  21 ms  20 ms
 9  unknown.Level3.net (64.159.1.38)  69 ms  69 ms  71 ms
10  so-10-0.ipcolo1.SanFranciso1.Level3.net (4.68.112.234)  68 ms  72 ms  70 ms
11  arachnid.lindenlab.com (63.211.151.3)  69 ms  68 ms  69 ms

Wireless:

traceroute to arachnid.lindenlab.com (63.211.151.3), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  roberts-cisco.browndognetworks.com (69.44.5.1)  3.917 ms  6.267 ms  3.708 ms
 2  cont-2611.browndognetworks.com (69.44.4.233)  6.195 ms  6.572 ms  6.142 ms
 3  bdnhq-7206.browndognetworks.com (69.44.4.225)  7.207 ms  7.339 ms  7.206 ms
 4  kscymo1wce1-port4-0.wcg.net (65.77.99.61)  25.244 ms  25.351 ms  25.290 ms
 5  stlsmo1wcxa-pos6-3.wcg.net (64.200.210.233)  64.366 ms  64.625 ms  64.445 ms
 6  stlsmo1wcxb-pos6-2.wcg.net (64.200.246.70)  64.728 ms  64.653 ms  64.454 ms
 7  brvwil1wcxb-pos10-0.wcg.net (64.200.240.170)  65.817 ms  64.770 ms  64.744 ms
 8  brvwil1wcx3-pos14-0.wcg.net (64.200.210.81)  63.903 ms  64.668 ms  64.087 ms
 9  washdc5lcx1-pos5-0.wcg.net (64.200.240.194)  62.688 ms  63.776 ms  61.955 ms
10  so-0-0-0.edge2.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.127.25)  62.726 ms  63.773 ms  63.161 ms
11  so-1-1-0.bbr2.Washington1.Level3.net (64.159.3.65)  63.291 ms  63.212 ms  62.491 ms
12  unknown.Level3.net (64.159.1.38)  108.875 ms  107.947 ms  108.996 ms
13  so-10-0.ipcolo1.SanFranciso1.Level3.net (4.68.112.234)  108.297 ms  109.043 ms  108.827 ms
14  arachnid.lindenlab.com (63.211.151.3)  108.410 ms  109.115 ms  108.712 ms

Note in the above, the wireless connection itself has less latency than my DSL, but from the actual wireless tower to the upstream ISP is higher. However, the difference is negligable.

thank u si and moleculor. i really appreciate u taking the time to respond...most helpful.
with ur help i hope to be back on within the week. thanks again for the education!

CHOLOS POR VIDA!

btw...i love nerds and geeks, in fact when i grow up i want to be a nerd and/or a geek!

Suprise! YOU ARE

Is this a huge problem in places? I thought it was a myth from the olden days when cable internet was just starting and companies weren't allocating bandwidth.

I've been on two different cable companies (Charter in northern MI, and Comcast near Detroit). The first was 1.5Mbps and never once dropped below that in the time I had it. The second is 3Mbps, and during peak times can occasionally drop to 2.5Mbps-ish. The slowdown generally only depends on the bandwidth used by your node (aka your neighbors) as the network is essentially the same as any other setup once you hit the cable company.

DSL on the other hand has always been a pain in the butt for me.

In any case, it's really probably just dependent on where you are, what's offered, and how scary the contracts are (which Moleculor had exactly right - avoid contracts). Any of the standard services can be crappy or surprisingly excellent.

I thought one of the problems with satelite, aside from that darn cloud messing up the connection, is that upload speeds are terrible, slower than 56k modems.

I don't know for sure, this is just something I read about a year ago.

Satellite is not particularly good for gaming due to the high latency of the connection.

I have never had a problem with cable internet access. I did have an issue with DSL, due to my distance from the CO. However, I do prefer DSL due to its increased security. Anything you send out over a cable modem can be sniffed by your neighbors.

thank u all!

ok we went with line of sight wireless! we had to use a 30' pole to clear tree line (45' TALL TOTAL i will post pics when i can if i don’t forget ) but it works. we r pulling down 768 now and will be in world tonight to see if latency is an issue.

if i could i would use cable modem but they r capped off at 512 here and average only 400. we have 2 machines that we use off the single connection so it is too slow.

for everyone who is paying like $40 usd and getting blazing cable speeds...plz realize how fortunate u r. our hands r cut up from helping put up damn antenna, the install cost $300 usd and my monthly bill will easily be over $120 usd and that is only for 768/128

but we r dedicated to SL so we do what we have to do!