[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: consumer grade circuits vs pro grade circuits



I too am in Verizon territory. For $5 to $20 per month (depending on speed, which depends mostly on distance from the CO) more than a residential DSL service, you can buy a "business tariff" DSL. I had the business DSL on a residential phone line. Business DSL offers 24-hour tech support.

For about 10 years, all T-1 services have been provisioned using a form of DSL (Symmetrical DSL). The only difference is the price and the response time--T-1 definitely gets the truck to roll sooner.

Of course, if you can, go for FIOS, fiber to the premises. Best deal: get a DSL line, then convert to FIOS--saves you $10/month for the first year :-) FIOS is at least as fast as an E-1 (2 Mbit/s each way; actually 5 M/s down, 2 up, minimum). No dependency on distance--if the fiber reaches you, the speed is there (up to 15 M/s down, for more money).

wf



Ted Cabeen wrote:
"Dan M. MacNeil" <dan@thecsl.org> writes:


The recent multi-homing discussion had a few disparaging remarks about "consumer grade" circuits.

I've heard people (particularly sales people) express the opinion that a T1 was much better than DSL in terms of quality.

However, it is difficult to pin people down on specifics and several evenings of googling have not brought me clarity.

In our case, one of our spaces is within a few hundred meters of the central office. We can get very high quality 6M/785K DSL for $150/month

Theoretically (3) fast DSL connections would give us more bandwidth and redundancy than one $400 T1 (we get non profit pricing)


As the prior posters have noted, the only real difference is in your
SLA and in the telco's responsiveness in outages.  Here in Verizon
land, we can usually get a repair commit time on a T1 or higher outage
of 3-4 hours or less.  DSL trouble must be submitted through a web
form (no phone calls) and they won't even talk to you about repair
status until at least 24 hours have passed.




Reply to: