Well, that was annoying

[dreamshark]

Spent an hour on the phone with Qwest, trying to find the most cost-effective way to upgrade my creaky old DSL service from 640Mbps to 1.5M. It costs one thing if you just order the service, something else if you have a "phone package," something else if you sign a 2-year contract guaranteeing Rate for Life, and so on. I actually DID have a "phone package" (basic phone plus 3 extra services) which had been monkied around with by Qwest so many times over the years that it was now listed in their records as ala carte service with a mysterious discount. Even if I want to keep the same 3 services I have now, it appears that I have to cancel the ala carte services and reenroll for the same services in a new marketing package. Oh, and for the same price as the new 3-service package I can have a 3-month trial of the Home Choice Package with ALL the services, but then I have to call in 3 months and change it if I don't want the price to go up. And all of this interacts with the Long Distance service in ways too complex to think about.

But I really did need to update my service, so we slogged on through while Jennifer found what she thought was the best combination. Then a long, long pause ensued while she waited for her computer to tell her when the service change could be scheduled and we chatted about the weather. At the penultimate moment, her computer spit out the information that I would need to upgrade the piece of equipment that the phone company persists in calling a "momem" to handle the new speed. Now this is not entirely unreasonable - I've had my little Cisco 675 DSL router for as long as I've had DSL, which must be about 9 years now. But since my poor saleswoman has no idea what any of this equipment is, communication broke down at this point.

Qwest will sell you one of two connection devices, both of which they call "modems." I want a router with one DSL connection and one or more Ethernet ports. Jennifer had no idea what I was talking about. She had only heard the word "router" in connection with wireless routers. I want a device that I can use to manage my network directly (NAT, DHCP, etc.), preferably via telnet (I hate hate hate those GUI interfaces). Jennifer had no idea what I was talking about. She went off to look for a tech support person, but all she came back with was the model numbers of the two devices Qwest sells. Since I don't want to buy a device that the salesperson can't describe, and I don't want my network to stop working abruptly when the order goes through, I cancelled the order, much to Jennifer's disappointment. As a courtesy to Jennifer, who had spent a lot of time with me, I asked if I could contact her directly when I was ready to order so she would get the commission, but apparently it doesn't work that way. Oh well. Maybe she'll take the opportunity to learn a little more about how their equipment works and she'll get the next sale.

And after all that time, I have nothing to show for it except a new task: upgrade my network so it will work with the higher DSL speeds. Apparently I need something called a "DMT modem." The models that Qwest sells are a Motorola M1000 and M3347. I also should look into alternatives for long distance service. Currently I am paying $5 or $6 per month to Qwest just to provide long distance (plus $.05/minute or something). This is probably silly, since I don't make a lot of long distance calls. I'd be better off with one of those 3rd-party services that you just dial when you need them, but I no longer know what's available. And we'd probably be better off with an external answering machine instead of voice mail. That way we'd have a flashing light to let us know there's a message.

Comments

[quadong.livejournal.com]

We have Qwest long distance on the plan that is cheapest per month and most expensive per minute. It's $1.99 plus $0.42 of taxes per month and $0.15/minute. That's quite a lot per minute, but I did the math on our actual usage for the previous year and it came out about the same either way. If anything, I think we are now making less long-distance calls than when I did that analysis. At these prices, I prefer having it with Qwest (even though I despise them) than using a third-party, because it is easier.

long distance

[dsgood.livejournal.com]

Take a look at http://onesuite.com.

[quadong.livejournal.com]

I strongly recommend Speakeasy for DSL, by the way. It's what we have. You will almost certainly pay more with them than with Qwest, but it is made up by their excellent customer service, policies and reliability.

[ckd]

I also like Speakeasy, and it doesn't seem like Best Buy has managed to ruin them yet. (My biggest gripe remains their disinterest in IPv6 support, which as things go is pretty low on the scale.)

[quadong.livejournal.com]

I was very worried about the Best Buy thing when it happened, but it's been a good while and I haven't noticed any change either.

[buttonlass.livejournal.com]

Don't you have a cell phone? I thought you did, but I could be mistaken. Does it not automatically have nationwide calling or whatever your provider calls it? David and I never got long distance (and in fact have canceled home phone all together) because it was on our phones as part of the basic package.

[guppiecat]

This is what I was going to recommend.

My life got a lot simpler when I cut Qwest out entirely. I get DSL from a local provider and use my cell for all calls.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

You can't really cut Qwest out, they own the copper and it goes to their switching centers. I don't get my IP from Qwest, I use IP House, but I can't escape dealing with Qwest some anyway.

[guppiecat]

My ISP (which sadly isn't in MSP yet) leases the copper from Qwest and resells it to me. I don't have to deal with Qwest at all, as the line contract doesn't involve me.

I'd be surprised if no one in MSP is using a similar business model.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

My ISP is VISI, but they use Qwest DSL service. Qwest bills me directly for the DSL. I suppose I could check with VISI and see if it is possible to change the billing to run through them. It's possible they might be able to cut a better deal, or at least a deal where the DSL price isn't inextricably tied to other phone packages.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

I have a cell phone, but I use a prepaid plan where every minute costs money whether local or long distance. I only have it for travel and emergencies and that occasional call you make when you get lost on the way to someplace. I don't really like using a cell phone. If the phone is small enough that I will actually carry it anywhere the sound quality isn't that good. Consequently, I use less than 1000 minutes per year, which makes monthly services spectacularly costly on a per-minute basis.

I'm afraid that my phone mentality is still very 20th century. I can't imagine not having a land line. Cell phones seem so unreliable to me.

[buttonlass.livejournal.com]

Fair enough.

The bonus we have with our phones currently is that they still have a 612 area code. So technically all the calls I make to Mpls are local. I refuse to become a chicagoan by any identifiable means. Our plates on our car are from MN and so is my license.:)

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

*heh*

It seems like there should be some way to reword all that so it ends up with, "Still having a 612 phone number even if you do have to live in Chicago: priceless!" but I'm afraid my brain was pretty much worn to a nubbin by that marathon call with Qwest. Left as an exercise for the reader.

[kaustin.livejournal.com]

The M1000 is the Actiontec M1000. Looking at the information I see a web based interface but no CLI. The Motorola M3347 has two models both of which have CLI instructions in their manuals so I'd say if you're choosing between the two go for th M3347.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

Thanks. Just what I was looking for in an LJ reply. :-)

Not that all the other replies aren't informative and entertaining, of course. Yeah, the M3347 looks like a pretty capable device, actually. It's a wireless router, but it also has FOUR Ethernet ports. Cool. And since the Netgear Wireless thing I just bought is an Access Point rather than a router, I could use the new router as the main wireless access and move the WAP to the attic, thus giving me a full-strength signal up there.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Yep, the Cisco 675 is long past EOL. It's a "CAP" DSL modem, and no new service is being provisioned as CAP (even minor changes they use to force to DMT -- as of a year or so ago).

Certainly the device they give you is a router, even if their sales people don't understand that :-). But calling it a modem makes some sense -- it moves packets of digital data to and from the analog wire; that's kind of modulating and demodulating (though not of an audio signal).

We've got the Actiontec 701. It's marginally okay, but the DHCP is really simple-minded (just a range to control; can't reserve IPs for specific MAC addresses), and it has no SNMP support so there is no obvious way to monitor any details about it. I made a brief try to find a "better" device with DSL on one side and Ethernet on the other, and never really did find anything I liked. If you do please let me know!

[guppiecat]

I've had some luck connecting an Actiontec or 2Wire (cheap modems) to an IPCop box, so I can do all the complex network stuff that I may need. I know it's not what you asked for, but it does work.

Biggest drawback: yet another device to deal with.
Biggest strength: maximal flexibility.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Another device, and one that brings down the whole network if it dies, too. I've always avoided making computers mission-critical on the household network, except for my fileserver (which is rather expensive hardware).

But yeah, that does look like it would do everything+ quite easily.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

"Certainly the device they give you is a router, even if their sales people don't understand that :-). But calling it a modem makes some sense -- it moves packets of digital data to and from the analog wire; that's kind of modulating and demodulating (though not of an audio signal)."

Yeah, you're right. I should just accept the fact that "modem" no longer means ModulatorDemodulator and stop getting annoyed when the people who sell the devices call them by the wrong name. I guess I can accept the definition that it's a wireless/Ethernet router with a modem interface. But calling the entire device a "modem" is just WRONG.

[fmsv.livejournal.com]

Part of the reason, I suspect, that Jennifer was confused is that Qwest had stopped using the 675 as of 2001 (when we moved here, I had to upgrade to a 678), and has probably had several other changes of equipment for customers since then. The little Cisco routers do just keep chugging along, don't they?

[sraun]

Yeah, they do - I'm still using my 675!

At some point I'll need to upgrade my DSL service - my current year expires in a couple of months, maybe I'll ask Visi about it then.

[carbonel]

You probably know this know, but in case Jennifer didn't convey it properly:

The DSL service you have with the Cisco 675 is one type (CAP), and is the older type -- slower and harder to work with. The newer type is DMT, and requires the Actiontec router (which, as you say, they keep calling a modem).

You can get said router either from Qwest or at a computer store. I got mine from CompUSA, but they're defunct, so probably MicroCenter is the logical next place to look. If you buy your own, you'll have it in hand when the change order goes through, and you can switch over.

You're with Visi, right? You'll have to coordinate with them as well. They'll send you the information you need to get the router set up. The nice thing is that you won't have to futz with HyperTerminal the way I, at least, had to with the Cisco. It all gets done through the computer -- you use a URL to talk to the router.

Yes, it's all a pain, but the bump in speed was definitely worth it for me.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

"The nice thing is that you won't have to futz with HyperTerminal the way I, at least, had to with the Cisco. It all gets done through the computer -- you use a URL to talk to the router."

You think that's NICE? Words cannot describe how much I hate neworking equipment that can only be communicated with via browser interface. What I really want is a CLI interface through a serial port (which is probably what you meant by futzing with HyperTerminal). Unfortunately, I don't think any small networking devices these days even come with a serial port. However some of them still support telnet. It is my fervent hope to find a compatible device that does that.

[carbonel]

I don't think I've used any other networking equipment that can only be communicated with via browser except the Actiontec.

I hated HyperTerminal because half the time I went through the whole rigmarole of initializing the Cisco router and I'd lose the connection when I was most of the way through.

And I'd never get any feedback that what I was doing was working.

It's not HT itself that I hated with a passion beyond words, but the way it interacted with those damn routers -- which kept failing. The first one Qwest sent me was DOA, though it took way too long to figure that out, and two others died over the years that I was using them.

And I remember one very hot day where it was absolutely impossible for me to get the damn Cisco working, and I ended up taking it to the Visi offices to have them configure it directly. The tech there mentioned something about "monitor mode" that he could walk me through using, but if something went wrong during the process, the entire router would become a very small boat anchor.

I'm only on my second ActionTec, and while I sneered at it to begin with, it's been much less trouble than those Cisco routers ever were.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

All the Wireless Router/Access Points that I have tried unsuccessfully over the years have been HTTP-only devices. In order to set them up you have to temporarily reconfigure your computer to either DHCP or a specific static IP address so you can bring up the browser interface on the default address. I just can't believe that people find that more convenient than using a terminal interface.

Hyperterm IS a little awkward to configure, but doesn't normally drop connections. I used it at work on all sorts of equipment (before I discovered friendlier options, like TeraTerm and Putty). Not that it matters now, but you probably had a flaky serial port on your computer. I had a serial port go bad on my old computer, which is when I discovered that telnet worked fine for communicating with the Cisco.

I'm surprised you had so much trouble with the Cisco routers. I wonder if they were fried by power surges? I've come to the belated conclusion that dirty power was a large part of the problem I had with my wireless devices. After a tipoff from a friend, I've started making sure that my networking devices are plugged into the most expensive surge protector in the room, never directly into an outlet. So far so good with the Netgear WAP. :-)

[carbonel]

All the Wireless Router/Access Points that I have tried unsuccessfully over the years have been HTTP-only devices. In order to set them up you have to temporarily reconfigure your computer to either DHCP or a specific static IP address so you can bring up the browser interface on the default address.

I don't remember having to do that with the ActionTec. I just put the right DNS into the browser, and it connected to the device.