From owner-freebsd-hardware Sat Jul 6 08:55:06 1996 Return-Path: owner-hardware Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA20783 for hardware-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 08:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crh.cl.msu.edu (crh.cl.msu.edu [35.8.1.24]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA20778 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 08:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from henrich@localhost) by crh.cl.msu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18849; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 11:54:57 -0400 Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 11:54:57 -0400 From: Charles Henrich Message-Id: <199607061554.LAA18849@crh.cl.msu.edu> To: henry@zoo.toronto.edu, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cable vs. ISDN Newsgroups: lists.freebsd.hardware References: <4rm15o$f5k@msunews.cl.msu.edu> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #3 (NOV) Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In lists.freebsd.hardware you write: >> >Cable has a good chance of blowing ISDN away. Much faster and cheaper. And >> >it will be available in many places this year. More, next. >> >> Cable is a pain. It works only one way. If you want to send a large file >> you still have to go slow. And, you still need to be a member of a ISP >> as you can't write to cable, from what I've read. >Depends on how good your local cable system is. The cable-data system >that Rogers Cable is introducing in the Toronto area is two-way (with >symmetrical bandwidth, amazingly enough, or at least that's the way it was >in the prototype system). >Incidentally, harking back to the original theme of this discussion :-), >the hardware used for the Rogers prototype talked to the computers by >Ethernet. I've been using Cable networking for almost a year now here in East Lansing, MI (TCI Cable), and its symmetrical 10Mbps, usually I get an effective throughput rate of about 200KBytes/sec both ways. You can keep your 11K/sec ISDN :) -Crh -- Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@msu.edu http://pilot.msu.edu/~henrich