 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Verizon / May 2004Terminal Client via Verizon Broadband
Hi, I'm considering purchasing Verizon Broadband Access. The plan is $80/mo for 300kbps downstream and 50kbps upstream. It's offered here in San Diego and I think DC as well. The only app that I would be using with this service is Terminal Client ("remote desktop"), but as you know, terminal type apps don't work so well if latency is poor. Any comments on the latency of this service? Verizon has a demo laptop running Broadband Access in each of their stores, but the machine is so locked down that I can't even run a 'ping' test. I asked the sales rep if he could temporarily login to this demo laptop with an account that could run 'ping.exe'... I might as well have been talking to a wall. He says the only way to get my question answered is to purchase the card and try it in my own laptop [there is a 15 day trial period]. Before going down that road, I wanted to check with you to get your comments re: latency on the broadband plan. If latency sucks, I don't want to waste my time signing up for a 15day trial. keep on flowin', I.P. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > plan. If latency sucks, I don't want to waste my time signing up for a 15day > trial. I'd consider it expectable for RDP/Terminal Server, and I'm connecting my laptop to i600 Smarphone through it's IR port. Typing lags somewhat but it's expectable depending on what you want to do. I use this all the time to do administrative task etc. BTW I'm in the DC area.  SignatureRob Q: "What did the redneck say right before he died?" A: "Hey ya'all watch this!!" > > Hi, > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > BTW I'm in the DC area. If you are using a samsung i600, you are using 1xRTT, not EV-DO. > Rob > Q: "What did the redneck say right before he died?" > A: "Hey ya'all watch this!!" > > > Hi, > > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > If you are using a samsung i600, you are using 1xRTT, not EV-DO. This is correct and what I hoped to demonstrate is that even with 1xRTT RDP/TS works acceptably. I would assume that if it works acceptably on 1xRTT it would be more the acceptable using the faster EV-DO. Maybe that's not a good assumption. In addition, based on my experience, maybe it's not worth the $80 a month just for RDP/TS. SignatureRob Q: "What did the redneck say right before he died?" A: "Hey ya'all watch this!!" On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:23:19 -0400, "Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything: > acceptable Thank you. I was about to flame you for all the "expectable"s in your previous post. So consider this to be just a general rant and not directed at you: It is really a shame that we can no longer EXPECT people to know the difference between EXCEPT and ACCEPT. ... We now return you to your regularly-scheduled bitching and whining about VZW. SignatureDavid Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time. "One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important." - Bertrand Russell > Thank you. I was about to flame you for all the "expectable"s in your > previous post. I think what happened is he ran a spell checker and did a "replace all" using the wrong replacement word. I've done that before. Honest mistake. I remember I wrote a post one time that had some unusual word like "grep" and I accidentally had the spell checker replace all instances of "grep" with "grandma"... honest mistake, but made for a very confusing post since I used the word like seven times... > > Thank you. I was about to flame you for all the "expectable"s in your > > previous post. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "grandma"... honest mistake, but made for a very confusing post since I used > the word like seven times... Thank You. Some people have nothing better to do but rag on others. SignatureRob Q: "What did the redneck say right before he died?" A: "Hey ya'all watch this!!" From my experience 1xEVDO latency is relatively high, like 100 - 200ms ping times, but I have used it for Laplink remote desktop control and it's acceptable. Terminal Server performs much better than Laplink so I think you will be satisfied. FYI, when I was in San Diego a couple weeks ago, I was getting more like 400k down / 128k up. Web browsing and e-mail is no problem. -- Paul > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I.P. I'm writing this reply using TS from my laptop in San Diego to control my desktop in Austin, using the 5220 EVDO card. Latency is certainly noticeable, but its also very usable. - Reed MS MVP Thanks, everyone, for your input. Based on your recommendation, I purchased the wireless card. It works acceptably for Terminal Services. As far as latency goes: average ping of 250ms, spiking up to 600ms on occasion. One thing I'm not quite used to is having a public IP address exposed directly to the Internet. The built-in XP firewall is turned OFF by default after the new network connection is created. I imagine that it's pretty essential to turn this ON since the interface is exposed. David > Thanks, everyone, for your input. Based on your recommendation, I > purchased the wireless card. It works acceptably for Terminal Services. As > far as latency goes: average ping of 250ms, spiking up to 600ms on occasion. With my 1XRTT connection my pings average around 600ms and TS still performs acceptably. I wouldn't want to type a large document in word but it works great for system administration and so on. > One thing I'm not quite used to is having a public IP address exposed > directly to the Internet. The built-in XP firewall is turned OFF by default > after the new network connection is created. I imagine that it's pretty > essential to turn this ON since the interface is exposed. > > David You should turn it on. IMO it's all you need. Don't get suckered into installing something line ZoneAlarm, especial with the upcoming XP SP2 (IIRC The firewall is greatly enhanced in SP2). The overhead of something like ZA just isn't worth it IMO. SignatureRob Q: "What did the redneck say right before he died?" A: "Hey ya'all watch this!!" > You should turn it on. IMO it's all you need. Don't get suckered into I don't feel comfortable running TS over the Internet unless there is additional protection such as a VPN. Some of the TS stuff is sent in the clear and there are too many exploits against MS software to use it "naked" > installing something line ZoneAlarm, especial with the upcoming XP SP2 (IIRC > The firewall is greatly enhanced in SP2). The overhead of something like ZA [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Q: "What did the redneck say right before he died?" > A: "Hey ya'all watch this!!" > > You should turn it on. IMO it's all you need. Don't get suckered into > > I don't feel comfortable running TS over the Internet unless there is > additional protection such as a VPN. Some of the TS stuff is sent in the > clear and there are too many exploits against MS software to use it "naked" I love these posts. 1) Run a packet sniffer and then post the data sent "in the clear". 2) If MS is so full of exploits what makes you thing MS's implementation of VPN makes you any safer? Mind you I'm not arguing that exposing a port to the public internet for any application is ideal nor and I denying that communicating over a secured tunnel isn't safer then not, I'm just tired of reading post that make blanket comments about any software or OS with out offering up proof of their claims. We all know MS is loaded with vulnerabilities but can you name one that is relevant to this conversation. If so do it otherwise you are just stating the obvious. JMO. SignatureRob Q: "What did the redneck say right before he died?" A: "Hey ya'all watch this!!" <snip> > 2) If MS is so full of exploits what makes you thing MS's implementation of > VPN makes you any safer? <snip> We use Secure ICA ( Citrix ) on top of Checkpoint VPN @ 3Des for our RAS users. I even have a client running on my PocketPC. Certain VPN vendors also have a firewall built in to the VPN client. Rules are pushed down to the user so when there is a major outbreak and such, it checks to see if they have the latest virus data files, etc. before they connect. It's not a free VPN from Microsoft though. I am not sure if I would trust Microsoft VPN stuff either. Somehow the word "Microsoft" is not synonymous with security nowadays. ;-) Scotty > I love these posts. > > 1) Run a packet sniffer and then post the data sent "in the clear". I have, do a little research to find out exactly how TS authentication works. > 2) If MS is so full of exploits what makes you thing MS's implementation of > VPN makes you any safer? I never indicated that I use or advocate MSs VPN. > Mind you I'm not arguing that exposing a port to the public internet for any > application is ideal nor and I denying that communicating over a secured [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Q: "What did the redneck say right before he died?" > A: "Hey ya'all watch this!!" > > I love these posts. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I never indicated that I use or advocate MSs VPN. Obviously you didn't read the rest of my post. Typical. SignatureRob Q: "What did the redneck say right before he died?" A: "Hey ya'all watch this!!" > Thanks, everyone, for your input. Based on your recommendation, I > purchased the wireless card. It works acceptably for Terminal Services. As > far as latency goes: average ping of 250ms, spiking up to 600ms on occasion. > > One thing I'm not quite used to is having a public IP address exposed > directly to the Internet. You should not feel comfortable. Typically you don't expose ports but send the traffic thru a VPN tunnel. The built-in XP firewall is turned OFF by default > after the new network connection is created. I imagine that it's pretty > essential to turn this ON since the interface is exposed. On or off will do nothing for what you are doing. > David > Hi, > > I'm considering purchasing Verizon Broadband Access. The plan is $80/mo <snip> Citrix ( Secure ICA encrypted ) works fair over speeds as low as 9600bps and with speedscreen latency enabled, it takes the edge off of the high latency in wireless. I use it on my PocketPC with Verizon and T-Mobile stuff. FWIW Scotty |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.