Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Surviving the Internet On Low Speed DSL 277

Posted by timothy
from the why-when-I-was-a-boy dept.
toygeek writes "Earlier this year my family and I moved out into the woods, where high speed is simply not available. We traded in high speed for high latency, clean air and peace and quiet. We've made it work, and can even watch Netflix and Hulu while I'm off in another room working from home full time. Read along as I share some tips about how we've made it work, and the compromises we've had to make." It can be done; low-end DSL from AT&T is also what I somehow muddled through with for most of the last 18 months; though the connection often failed and the followup support was terrible, it worked well enough most of the time, and sure beat a 56K modem.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Surviving the Internet On Low Speed DSL

Comments Filter:
  • Usenet & Gmane (Score:3, Informative)

    by wispoftow (653759) on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @02:40PM (#45716957)

    I have found enjoyment reading the (text!) news groups and RSS feeds via Usenet, gmane, and gwene. (I prefer emacs and gnus)

    Although they are no match for the information of the entire web, I find that there are more than enough high quality posts on different topics to keep me entertained during my personal "surfing" time, and the text groups load in an instant and can be easily browsed and responses written in "unplugged" mode.

  • Re:You poor baby (Score:5, Informative)

    by MBGMorden (803437) on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @02:46PM (#45717021)

    Amen. Until I moved 7 months ago I was on 1Mbps for the last 10 years, and actually - it ain't that bad. File downloads go a bit slower naturally and some video streaming stuff didn't work great (Youtube worked fine though), but in general web browsing was absolutely fine at that speed and online gaming wasn't an issue either.

    When I moved to my current home my local ISP has a host of plans available - from a minimum of 10Mbps to a max of 110Mbps. I took the bottom plan at 10Mbps and I've still not found any major reason to go faster. Don't get me wrong I'm a big techie and spend tons of time on my computer, but I haven't yet found a need for some of the crazy internet speeds available these days.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @02:48PM (#45717049)

    Annoying ads, annoying plugins, and annoying ajax crap are the major slowdowns when browsing the web.

    So much faster without them - and I'm on a fast fiber connection :)

  • I weep tears (Score:5, Informative)

    by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @02:48PM (#45717057) Homepage Journal

    Tears that used to weep at the blinding speed of 300 baud modems after my early 110 baud modem days.

    You poor poor thing.

    Hint: use the mobile website and turn off images.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @03:25PM (#45717497)

    AT&T says we can't get anything faster where I live. I only have DSL with AT&T. To get faster I'd have sell my soul to them for UVerse shit or get ComCast shit. There may be some other ripof...cable company where I can get overcharged.

    Well, my wife has to use a program called OptiTime in Paris. We're in GA. When she is on there for work, ALL internet activity has to cease or she'll get a bunch of time-outs. So having only 2.0/0.2 (according to SppedTest [speedtest.net]) limits our use.

    Streaming video has to have its quality lowered to show many times.

    Although, hats off to NetFlix! You guys did a nice job.

    Youtube is just atrocious.

    See the thing is, bandwidth is like memory and other computer resources - developers and content makers assume all of us have top of the line hardware and bandwidth.

    I can go on a rant here about how every damn piece of software and its updates has to install shit to 'C:' drive and I'm running out of space - no matter how much clean up I do.

    And the fact that content providers seam to think we all have First World internet access. I'm in that States! I have shit access!

  • Re:How is this news? (Score:1, Informative)

    by EmagGeek (574360) <gterich@aol.cTWAINom minus author> on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @03:43PM (#45717679) Journal

    It's not news. It's a guy trying to generate click revenue on his blog.

    His solutions aren't even that good. They are overcomplicated and unelegant.

  • Re:You poor baby (Score:5, Informative)

    by bloodhawk (813939) on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @05:06PM (#45718669)
    nothing much has changed in 5 years that would make working from home any harder on such a link. Unless he is into high end photo or video editing it just means it is slow to surf utube during breaks. I CURRENTLY regularly work via a 500kbps link and it is perfectly fine, most people have an overinflated view of what you actually require for bandwidth which has come from multimedia intensive sites and streaming video.
  • Re:How is this news? (Score:4, Informative)

    by toygeek (473120) on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @07:04PM (#45720003) Homepage Journal

    I was afraid folks would think that. I removed the ads, they're all but ineffective for revenue anyway. I'm sorry you didn't like my solutions, but that's how it goes. If one person benefits from something I wrote, that's enough for me. Plus, I just like getting my stuff out there and being *read*.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @08:53PM (#45721233)

    Anyone who does internet work of any kind should try to do their daily browsing or w/e you do on a 56K modem at least once.

    Except that the author of TFA says he's using 1.5Mbps, which is twenty-five times the bandwidth of 56K (and twice the low end DSL bandwidth I have). It doesn't really stretch the boundaries of anything other than the author's patience, unless maybe he's trying to maintain a high-volume content site.

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Working...