Well, you know, I'm just doin' my part :)
John is correct, the 678's will work with 1.5M. See my home DSL:
pak-chooie# show int wan0
wan0 ADSL Physical Port
Line Trained
Actual Configuration:
Overhead Framing: 3
Trellis Coding: Enabled
Standard Compliance: T1.413
Downstream Data Rate: 1536 Kbps
Upstream Data Rate: 1024 Kbps
Sexy! I did some tests FTPing from Sihope and am able to get pretty
close to what I would execpt on a 1.5M ATM DSL.
I called to make a change in service a few months ago, and buddy at
Qwest tried to get me into a CraptionTec. He said "I see you have a 678
(actually I have 2 because their shipping department smokes too much
crack). We're now using ActionTec's. They're much better, I'll ship
one out to you." (I asked if this was going to cost me $5/month(?)
modem rental - of course). I told him that actually I thought the
ActionTec's were junk, and the 678's were much better, despite being
twice the cost. He made some ridiculous claims about it being stable
and easier to setup (BS), and finally shut up when I told him that I was
perfectly happy with my functioning 678, thank you very much.
Mark, if you get billed for modem rental, call the order center and get
that thing shipped back to them. Your 678 should work fine, and it
won't cost you $$$. Plus, the 67x's get hot and you can use them to
keep your coffee warm, or start a fire in your home office.
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 23:27, Mark Courtney wrote:
> I'd like to thank Mr. Adam Maloney for this valuable info. I called qwest
> and did the old switcheroo, dropped the phone number that never gets used
> (treos rock), upgraded to the 1.5 line, and I'm gonna be saving some
> dough. They're even sending me a new Actiontec to boot (for free). They
> claim that the Cisco 678 won't handle the 1.5 line. Does anybody know if
> this is true?
>
>
> Thanks again, Adam.
>
>
>
> Mark Courtney
>
> http://www.MarkCourtney.com
>
> __
> +|oo|+
> +|oo|+
> ||
> ||
> ||
> ||
> ||
> ||
> _ || _
> \\_||_//
> | [] |
> | || |
> / [] \
> \______/
>
> > The rumors are true. I'm assuming the other MegaCentral's on this list
> > got the same notification from Qwest.
> >
> > New DSL tarrif (pending FCC approval 28-Feb-04) is DSL service without
> > phone service (well, without dialtone). $33/month plus ISP charge, the
> > "Deluxe" 1.5M service only, $99 install. Address loop-qual process (no
> > phone number).
> >
> > This is one of those things that 5 years ago I said would be awesome,
> > and then decided Qwest would never do so I paid my $75 to get a
> > "XXX-XXX-BOFH" number (LART was taken for every exchange at Front St),
> > so now I'm rather tied to my POTS service. I've even grown dependent on
> > all that crap that I said I would never have, like call waiting and
> > caller ID.
> >
> > If all it takes for something to happen, is for me to say it will never
> > happen, then:
> >
> > "Qwest will never have an option to activate additional PVC's to other
> > DSL hosts/subscribers on a DSL line."
> >
> > "Qwest will never credit my home account $10,000"
> >
> > "AOL will never go the @#$* away"
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org
> https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list
>
_______________________________________________
TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org
https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list