RE: Wireless routers...

["Phil Harris" <phil@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Rob Iles
> Sent: 09 April 2007 04:02
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Wireless routers...
>
> Phil,
>
> IMHO, BT have been pretty good. (not sure what I'm paying,
> but I get a good 8MB downstream, 600Kish upstream).

That sounds like it'd do for what I need.

> VERY reliable - if t'internet drops out, I kick my router,
> and things come back to life.

Good - working from home nowadays so if I lose my 'net connection I am
kinda
buggered. (But not so buggered as to justify a leased line or anything as
silly as that.)

> The only issue I've had with them is DNS occasionally goes
> wonky - so I've setup my router to use my manually selected
> server as primary, and dynamically assigned DNS as secondary
> and tertiary.

Fairy snuff ... Sounds like what I do anyway.

> Dynamic DNS - though as you've suggested, it tends not to
> change unless router is rebooted. I use no-ip.com to overcome this.

Already have a dyndns account set up which I use with my NTL service... ;-)

> Apparently I'm capped at ~30GB transfer/month - but having
> spoken to tech support about this on many occasions, they've
> been unable to provide me with any usage stats (I keep my
> own, thanks to MRTG) - and have admitted that, at present,
> they have no way of keeping track what one uses!!

LOL - That was the case with NTL ... My best mate is on one of their
development teams and they were going to spend a huge amount of money
developing a system for tracking usage (and allowing the user to keep tabs
on usage and - if necessary - buy additional usage credits etc.) and my
understanding is that in a project meeting where they were trying to
justify
the cost of the project (any changes they implement involve hugely complex
and expensive rollout and emergency fallback procedures) he suggested that
they saved the several hundred grand and hundreds of man-hours of
development and testing because by the time they got it implemented and
ready for rollout other companies would be doing unlimited services and by
not investing the money to do it they could not only save themselves a huge
wadge of change but also make themselves look good to the customers.
Win-win
all round. :-D

> I've frequently exceeded 30GB/month - backups/other legit
> purposes, with no consequence.
>
> So, BT as an ADSL provider get my vote.

Sounds like a recommendation then...

Ta...

Phil