[NTLUG:Discuss] Linux Friendly DSL

[brian@pongonova.net]

On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 11:49:46AM -0500, Fred James wrote:
> Has anyone on this list experienced both DSL and Cable hi-speed Internet 
> service?  Can anyone give me a basic comparison?

Comparison based on what?  Download capacity?  Upload capacity?  Onerous usage
restrictions?

I use AT&T at Home, because I'm about 1000 feet shy of the CO in Garland for DSL, and
Verizon shows no inclination towards rectifying the situation.  But I've helped
others get their Linux boxen up and running with DSL, so I'm pretty familiar with
both.

I'm also assuming you've done your research as to how cable and DSL differ in terms
of available capacity, etc.  One thing you might not be aware of is that as @Home
sinks deeper and deeper into bankruptcy, and AT&T showing no move towards taking on
the technical details handled by @Home, you may find yourself unable to get cable
*or* DSL.  My suggestion to you is that if you *know* you can't get DSL, you better
start working on cable, because @Home has already said they'll stop taking new
orders.

Other than that, from the technical side of things, cable is much easier to set up
than DSL.  The cable modem looks like a hub to your internal network, so you just
plug your firewall machine (you *do* have one, don't you?) into your cable modem --
no special setup, no fuss, no muss.  Hint:  If you can convince AT&T to hook you
up, tell the technician that shows up that you have a multi-node LAN set up in your
home (do NOT mention Linux!).  They won't touch it, will leave everything for you
to set up (which is what you want), and provide you with a static IP address.  

DSL is somewhat more difficult to get going, as most DSL providers force you to use
PPPoE, which requires a separate PPPoE driver.  Fortunately, these are readily
available, and are even shipping on the most up-to-date Linux distros.  You'll find
some more demand on your CPU thanks to this protocol, so if you're on a slow
machine already, don't expect blazing DSL speeds, regardless of what PR folks (or
misinformed friends) tell you.

Finally, remember that @Home's TOC does not permit any type of service to be run in
conjunction with the cable service.  Surprisingly, AT&T's contract doesn't
explicitly prohibit servers, and in fact warns you that servers you set up are your
own responsibility. What contract do you trust?  I look at it this way: If I set up
a firewall, and am simply routing packets taking off the network to some interior
network, then I'm not running a service "in conjunction with" the cable service.
Still, I'm careful to filter out the probes AT&T at Home sends out, looking for
various open ports.  

The bottom line here (and I'm sure I'll hear wailing and gnashing of teeth on this
one) is that both cable and DSL are viable alternatives to run under Linux.  In
your case, the choice appears pretty simple:  I'd go with cable, since DSL isn't
available.   

Hope this helps.

  --Brian