Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by John Nava » Sun, 24 Dec 2000 23:25:02



The so-called "web hog" issue is (to steal the words of a famous writer)
greatly exaggerated (and more than a bit disingenuous) -- cable
headend's generally have "fairness" algorithms that prevent any one
subscriber from hogging a disproportionate share of bandwidth.

The real problem appears to be insufficient upstream capacity on the
shared link.  Standard TCP/IP has an unfortunate weakness on asymmetric
links: if the upstream link saturates, then downstream speed tends to
fall to about the same speed as the upstream link.  This avalanche
effect can produce a dramatic slowdown even when there is ample (unused)
downlink capacity.  For more information on this problem see IETF Draft
"TCP Performance Implications of Network Asymmetry"
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-asym-01.txt>.

This is probably why cable providers are so vehement about the issue of
subscribers running public servers (which tend to increase upstream
utilization).  The problem could of course be avoided with sufficient
upstream capacity, uplink throttling, and/or other methods described in
the paper cited above.  It's just easier and (probably more importantly)
cheaper to blame subscribers for the problem.

DSL is of course subject to the same asymmetry issue.  The difference is
that uplink saturation by one subscriber does not affect the DSL link
performance of other subscribers.  Since the network beyond the DSLAM is
usually symmetric, it's not subject to the same asymmetry issue.  In my
opinion this is the real difference between DSL and cable, but it's hard
to describe in a comprehensible sound bite.  ;-)

--
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by Boyd Willisto » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 00:21:00


The link to the article seems to be dead. The index of current drafts
(http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstrtacts.html) does not reference the article
either.


Quote:> The so-called "web hog" issue is (to steal the words of a famous writer)
> greatly exaggerated (and more than a bit disingenuous) -- cable
> headend's generally have "fairness" algorithms that prevent any one
> subscriber from hogging a disproportionate share of bandwidth.

> The real problem appears to be insufficient upstream capacity on the
> shared link.  Standard TCP/IP has an unfortunate weakness on asymmetric
> links: if the upstream link saturates, then downstream speed tends to
> fall to about the same speed as the upstream link.  This avalanche
> effect can produce a dramatic slowdown even when there is ample (unused)
> downlink capacity.  For more information on this problem see IETF Draft
> "TCP Performance Implications of Network Asymmetry"
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-asym-01.txt>.

> This is probably why cable providers are so vehement about the issue of
> subscribers running public servers (which tend to increase upstream
> utilization).  The problem could of course be avoided with sufficient
> upstream capacity, uplink throttling, and/or other methods described in
> the paper cited above.  It's just easier and (probably more importantly)
> cheaper to blame subscribers for the problem.

> DSL is of course subject to the same asymmetry issue.  The difference is
> that uplink saturation by one subscriber does not affect the DSL link
> performance of other subscribers.  Since the network beyond the DSLAM is
> usually symmetric, it's not subject to the same asymmetry issue.  In my
> opinion this is the real difference between DSL and cable, but it's hard
> to describe in a comprehensible sound bite.  ;-)

> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
>      CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>


 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by Mark Cardwel » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 00:20:34



> The so-called "web hog" issue is (to steal the words of a famous writer)
> greatly exaggerated (and more than a bit disingenuous) -- cable
> headend's generally have "fairness" algorithms that prevent any one
> subscriber from hogging a disproportionate share of bandwidth.

> The real problem appears to be insufficient upstream capacity on the
> shared link.  Standard TCP/IP has an unfortunate weakness on asymmetric
> links: if the upstream link saturates, then downstream speed tends to
> fall to about the same speed as the upstream link.  This avalanche
> effect can produce a dramatic slowdown even when there is ample (unused)
> downlink capacity.  For more information on this problem see IETF Draft
> "TCP Performance Implications of Network Asymmetry"
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-asym-01.txt>.

> This is probably why cable providers are so vehement about the issue of
> subscribers running public servers (which tend to increase upstream
> utilization).  The problem could of course be avoided with sufficient
> upstream capacity, uplink throttling, and/or other methods described in
> the paper cited above.  It's just easier and (probably more importantly)
> cheaper to blame subscribers for the problem.

> DSL is of course subject to the same asymmetry issue.  The difference is
> that uplink saturation by one subscriber does not affect the DSL link
> performance of other subscribers.  Since the network beyond the DSLAM is
> usually symmetric, it's not subject to the same asymmetry issue.  In my
> opinion this is the real difference between DSL and cable, but it's hard
> to describe in a comprehensible sound bite.  ;-)

How often do you think this is actually a problem?  How often is the
bottleneck on the HFC network?  I don't see this as being an issue in the
real world.
 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by Rob » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 01:48:00


this txt wont load for me, can anybody email it to me?

thanks
rob


Quote:> The so-called "web hog" issue is (to steal the words of a famous writer)
> greatly exaggerated (and more than a bit disingenuous) -- cable
> headend's generally have "fairness" algorithms that prevent any one
> subscriber from hogging a disproportionate share of bandwidth.

> The real problem appears to be insufficient upstream capacity on the
> shared link.  Standard TCP/IP has an unfortunate weakness on asymmetric
> links: if the upstream link saturates, then downstream speed tends to
> fall to about the same speed as the upstream link.  This avalanche
> effect can produce a dramatic slowdown even when there is ample (unused)
> downlink capacity.  For more information on this problem see IETF Draft
> "TCP Performance Implications of Network Asymmetry"
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-asym-01.txt>.

> This is probably why cable providers are so vehement about the issue of
> subscribers running public servers (which tend to increase upstream
> utilization).  The problem could of course be avoided with sufficient
> upstream capacity, uplink throttling, and/or other methods described in
> the paper cited above.  It's just easier and (probably more importantly)
> cheaper to blame subscribers for the problem.

> DSL is of course subject to the same asymmetry issue.  The difference is
> that uplink saturation by one subscriber does not affect the DSL link
> performance of other subscribers.  Since the network beyond the DSLAM is
> usually symmetric, it's not subject to the same asymmetry issue.  In my
> opinion this is the real difference between DSL and cable, but it's hard
> to describe in a comprehensible sound bite.  ;-)

> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
>      CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by Guy Schar » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 02:21:36


John,

fyi, the link has changed.  It is now
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-asym-02.txt.

Guy


Quote:> The so-called "web hog" issue is (to steal the words of a famous writer)
> greatly exaggerated (and more than a bit disingenuous) -- cable
> headend's generally have "fairness" algorithms that prevent any one
> subscriber from hogging a disproportionate share of bandwidth.

> The real problem appears to be insufficient upstream capacity on the
> shared link.  Standard TCP/IP has an unfortunate weakness on asymmetric
> links: if the upstream link saturates, then downstream speed tends to
> fall to about the same speed as the upstream link.  This avalanche
> effect can produce a dramatic slowdown even when there is ample (unused)
> downlink capacity.  For more information on this problem see IETF Draft
> "TCP Performance Implications of Network Asymmetry"
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-asym-01.txt>.

> This is probably why cable providers are so vehement about the issue of
> subscribers running public servers (which tend to increase upstream
> utilization).  The problem could of course be avoided with sufficient
> upstream capacity, uplink throttling, and/or other methods described in
> the paper cited above.  It's just easier and (probably more importantly)
> cheaper to blame subscribers for the problem.

> DSL is of course subject to the same asymmetry issue.  The difference is
> that uplink saturation by one subscriber does not affect the DSL link
> performance of other subscribers.  Since the network beyond the DSLAM is
> usually symmetric, it's not subject to the same asymmetry issue.  In my
> opinion this is the real difference between DSL and cable, but it's hard
> to describe in a comprehensible sound bite.  ;-)

> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
>      CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by John Nava » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 02:20:17


[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]




>> The so-called "web hog" issue is (to steal the words of a famous writer)
>> greatly exaggerated (and more than a bit disingenuous) -- cable
>> headend's generally have "fairness" algorithms that prevent any one
>> subscriber from hogging a disproportionate share of bandwidth.

>> The real problem appears to be insufficient upstream capacity on the
>> shared link.  Standard TCP/IP has an unfortunate weakness on asymmetric
>> links: if the upstream link saturates, then downstream speed tends to
>> fall to about the same speed as the upstream link.  This avalanche
>> effect can produce a dramatic slowdown even when there is ample (unused)
>> downlink capacity.  For more information on this problem see IETF Draft
>> "TCP Performance Implications of Network Asymmetry"
>> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-asym-01.txt>.

>> This is probably why cable providers are so vehement about the issue of
>> subscribers running public servers (which tend to increase upstream
>> utilization).  The problem could of course be avoided with sufficient
>> upstream capacity, uplink throttling, and/or other methods described in
>> the paper cited above.  It's just easier and (probably more importantly)
>> cheaper to blame subscribers for the problem.

>> DSL is of course subject to the same asymmetry issue.  The difference is
>> that uplink saturation by one subscriber does not affect the DSL link
>> performance of other subscribers.  Since the network beyond the DSLAM is
>> usually symmetric, it's not subject to the same asymmetry issue.  In my
>> opinion this is the real difference between DSL and cable, but it's hard
>> to describe in a comprehensible sound bite.  ;-)

>How often do you think this is actually a problem?  How often is the
>bottleneck on the HFC network?  I don't see this as being an issue in the
>real world.

It's actually a significant issue in the real world -- I've personally
seen quite a few cases of this behavior on both cable and DSL.

--
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by John Nava » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 02:22:17


[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]

Sorry.  The link for the updated draft is
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-asym-02.txt>.



>The link to the article seems to be dead. The index of current drafts
>(http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstrtacts.html) does not reference the article
>either.



>> The so-called "web hog" issue is (to steal the words of a famous writer)
>> greatly exaggerated (and more than a bit disingenuous) -- cable
>> headend's generally have "fairness" algorithms that prevent any one
>> subscriber from hogging a disproportionate share of bandwidth.

>> The real problem appears to be insufficient upstream capacity on the
>> shared link.  Standard TCP/IP has an unfortunate weakness on asymmetric
>> links: if the upstream link saturates, then downstream speed tends to
>> fall to about the same speed as the upstream link.  This avalanche
>> effect can produce a dramatic slowdown even when there is ample (unused)
>> downlink capacity.  For more information on this problem see IETF Draft
>> "TCP Performance Implications of Network Asymmetry"
>> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-asym-01.txt>.

>> This is probably why cable providers are so vehement about the issue of
>> subscribers running public servers (which tend to increase upstream
>> utilization).  The problem could of course be avoided with sufficient
>> upstream capacity, uplink throttling, and/or other methods described in
>> the paper cited above.  It's just easier and (probably more importantly)
>> cheaper to blame subscribers for the problem.

>> DSL is of course subject to the same asymmetry issue.  The difference is
>> that uplink saturation by one subscriber does not affect the DSL link
>> performance of other subscribers.  Since the network beyond the DSLAM is
>> usually symmetric, it's not subject to the same asymmetry issue.  In my
>> opinion this is the real difference between DSL and cable, but it's hard
>> to describe in a comprehensible sound bite.  ;-)

>> --
>> Best regards,
>> John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
>>      CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

--
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by Mark Cardwel » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 02:48:00



> >How often do you think this is actually a problem?  How often is the
> >bottleneck on the HFC network?  I don't see this as being an issue in the
> >real world.

> It's actually a significant issue in the real world -- I've personally
> seen quite a few cases of this behavior on both cable and DSL.

We have all experienced what happens if you try to use a cable or DSL
connection while saturating all of your upstream bandwidth: downloads are very
slow, ping times are high, etc.  That is a problem which affects both DSL and
cable, as you said.

But that's not what I am asking about.  I'm asking how often cable users
experience a bottleneck between them and the cable company, as in there isn't
enough bandwidth available on the coax/fiber network.

 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by John Nava » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 07:12:28


[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]




>> >How often do you think this is actually a problem?  How often is the
>> >bottleneck on the HFC network?  I don't see this as being an issue in the
>> >real world.

>> It's actually a significant issue in the real world -- I've personally
>> seen quite a few cases of this behavior on both cable and DSL.

>We have all experienced what happens if you try to use a cable or DSL
>connection while saturating all of your upstream bandwidth: downloads are very
>slow, ping times are high, etc.  That is a problem which affects both DSL and
>cable, as you said.

>But that's not what I am asking about.  I'm asking how often cable users
>experience a bottleneck between them and the cable company, as in there isn't
>enough bandwidth available on the coax/fiber network.

Asked and answered.

--
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by Mark Cardwel » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 07:44:52



> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]




> >> >How often do you think this is actually a problem?  How often is the
> >> >bottleneck on the HFC network?  I don't see this as being an issue in the
> >> >real world.

> >> It's actually a significant issue in the real world -- I've personally
> >> seen quite a few cases of this behavior on both cable and DSL.

> >We have all experienced what happens if you try to use a cable or DSL
> >connection while saturating all of your upstream bandwidth: downloads are very
> >slow, ping times are high, etc.  That is a problem which affects both DSL and
> >cable, as you said.

> >But that's not what I am asking about.  I'm asking how often cable users
> >experience a bottleneck between them and the cable company, as in there isn't
> >enough bandwidth available on the coax/fiber network.

> Asked and answered.

So you are saying the real problem with cable networks is insufficient upstream
capacity?  That doesn't seem to be the case, because you don't hear subscribers
complaining of the very slow speeds that would result in.  If the upstream
bandwidth truly were being 100% utilized wouldn't the service be incredibly slow
and unusable?  Or are you saying this *will be* a problem in the future?
 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by John Nava » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 08:53:19


[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]




>> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]




>> >> >How often do you think this is actually a problem?  How often is the
>> >> >bottleneck on the HFC network?  I don't see this as being an issue in the
>> >> >real world.

>> >> It's actually a significant issue in the real world -- I've personally
>> >> seen quite a few cases of this behavior on both cable and DSL.

>> >We have all experienced what happens if you try to use a cable or DSL
>> >connection while saturating all of your upstream bandwidth: downloads are very
>> >slow, ping times are high, etc.  That is a problem which affects both DSL and
>> >cable, as you said.

>> >But that's not what I am asking about.  I'm asking how often cable users
>> >experience a bottleneck between them and the cable company, as in there isn't
>> >enough bandwidth available on the coax/fiber network.

>> Asked and answered.

>So you are saying the real problem with cable networks is insufficient upstream
>capacity?

No.  (What I wrote speaks for itself.)

Quote:>That doesn't seem to be the case, because you don't hear subscribers
>complaining of the very slow speeds that would result in.

On the contrary, I do receive reports of this kind of problem.

Quote:>If the upstream
>bandwidth truly were being 100% utilized wouldn't the service be incredibly slow
>and unusable?  Or are you saying this *will be* a problem in the future?

I'm saying this is sometimes a problem.  I didn't say it was always a
problem, or even a problem much of the time, only that it's "a
significant issue" (as opposed to being insignificant).

Hope that helps.

--
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by Phi » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 14:07:55


On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:25:16 GMT, John Navas

Simple,

Since cable modem users *share* a connection "to the network," and DSL
users have a line for their exclusive use, the latter aren't subject
to network slowdowns caused by traffic loads.

Simple enough?  True enough?  I'm in "marketing."

I said that without once bowing down towards Redmond or invoking the
the revered name of Postel or any of the other IETF ubermenschen or of
their sacret writ.

:)

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.  Ya handed it to me!

Phil

Quote:>The so-called "web hog" issue is (to steal the words of a famous writer)
>greatly exaggerated (and more than a bit disingenuous) -- cable
>headend's generally have "fairness" algorithms that prevent any one
>subscriber from hogging a disproportionate share of bandwidth.

>The real problem appears to be insufficient upstream capacity on the
>shared link.  Standard TCP/IP has an unfortunate weakness on asymmetric
>links: if the upstream link saturates, then downstream speed tends to
>fall to about the same speed as the upstream link.  This avalanche
>effect can produce a dramatic slowdown even when there is ample (unused)
>downlink capacity.  For more information on this problem see IETF Draft
>"TCP Performance Implications of Network Asymmetry"
><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-asym-01.txt>.

>This is probably why cable providers are so vehement about the issue of
>subscribers running public servers (which tend to increase upstream
>utilization).  The problem could of course be avoided with sufficient
>upstream capacity, uplink throttling, and/or other methods described in
>the paper cited above.  It's just easier and (probably more importantly)
>cheaper to blame subscribers for the problem.

>DSL is of course subject to the same asymmetry issue.  The difference is
>that uplink saturation by one subscriber does not affect the DSL link
>performance of other subscribers.  Since the network beyond the DSLAM is
>usually symmetric, it's not subject to the same asymmetry issue.  In my
>opinion this is the real difference between DSL and cable, but it's hard
>to describe in a comprehensible sound bite.  ;-)

Phil Burton
.
 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by Mark Cardwel » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 14:17:19



> On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:25:16 GMT, John Navas

> Simple,

> Since cable modem users *share* a connection "to the network," and DSL
> users have a line for their exclusive use, the latter aren't subject
> to network slowdowns caused by traffic loads.

> Simple enough?  True enough?  I'm in "marketing."

It's a half truth.  So what happens when the DSL ISP doesn't have enough
internet backbone connectivity?  Right, I forgot, DSL users are immune to
that problem; DSL ISPs don't oversubscribe.
 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by dcpl » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 15:26:51




> > >How often do you think this is actually a problem?  How often is the
> > >bottleneck on the HFC network?  I don't see this as being an issue in the
> > >real world.

> > It's actually a significant issue in the real world -- I've personally
> > seen quite a few cases of this behavior on both cable and DSL.

> We have all experienced what happens if you try to use a cable or DSL
> connection while saturating all of your upstream bandwidth: downloads are very
> slow, ping times are high, etc.  That is a problem which affects both DSL and
> cable, as you said.

> But that's not what I am asking about.  I'm asking how often cable users
> experience a bottleneck between them and the cable company, as in there isn't
> enough bandwidth available on the coax/fiber network.

I have used Cable for several years in the Southwest. I've never seen a

from here to my actual ISP, which is 3 hops away in California.

 -dcpl

 
 
 

Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

Post by John Nava » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:07:20


[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]




>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:25:16 GMT, John Navas

>> Simple,

>> Since cable modem users *share* a connection "to the network," and DSL
>> users have a line for their exclusive use, the latter aren't subject
>> to network slowdowns caused by traffic loads.

>> Simple enough?  True enough?  I'm in "marketing."

>It's a half truth.  So what happens when the DSL ISP doesn't have enough
>internet backbone connectivity?  Right, I forgot, DSL users are immune to
>that problem; DSL ISPs don't oversubscribe.

Yup.  And pigs have wings.  <g>

--
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

 
 
 

1. Sharing on cable vs DSL and the "web hog" myth

The so-called "web hog" issue is (to steal the words of a famous writer)
greatly exaggerated (and more than a bit disingenuous) -- cable
headend's generally have "fairness" algorithms that prevent any one
subscriber from hogging a disproportionate share of bandwidth.

The real problem appears to be insufficient upstream capacity on the
shared link.  Standard TCP/IP has an unfortunate weakness on asymmetric
links: if the upstream link saturates, then downstream speed tends to
fall to about the same speed as the upstream link.  This avalanche
effect can produce a dramatic slowdown even when there is ample (unused)
downlink capacity.  For more information on this problem see IETF Draft
"TCP Performance Implications of Network Asymmetry"
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-asym-01.txt>.

This is probably why cable providers are so vehement about the issue of
subscribers running public servers (which tend to increase upstream
utilization).  The problem could of course be avoided with sufficient
upstream capacity, uplink throttling, and/or other methods described in
the paper cited above.  It's just easier and (probably more importantly)
cheaper to blame subscribers for the problem.

DSL is of course subject to the same asymmetry issue.  The difference is
that uplink saturation by one subscriber does not affect the DSL link
performance of other subscribers.  Since the network beyond the DSLAM is
usually symmetric, it's not subject to the same asymmetry issue.  In my
opinion this is the real difference between DSL and cable, but it's hard
to describe in a comprehensible sound bite.  ;-)

--
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

2. HTTP log help ... hacker???

3. "ignored", "deferred" vs "drops"

4. WTB: Dungeon Master & Bane of the Cosmic Forge

5. ??? "Unofficial IP Address" --- "Proxy Server" VS "Windows2000Server" ???

6. 8051 C compilers for the SUN

7. Help wanted!!!!********"""""""""///////

8. Right click message

9. Ethernet "CARD" vs "ADAPTER" for the Cable Modem?

10. "Data vs Voice" & "Internal vs External" advantages

11. """seeking telecom consultant per diem basis""""

12. Cheapest "RJ45 Couplers" and "RJ45 to DB9 Adapters" on the Web?

13. The MFJ, "Shared Facilities" and "Condominium Arrangements"