If I get two comcast internet subscriptions into my home, will I get double performance?

No matter what you have, you cannot load balance over two completely independent connections, without cooperation of the two ISPs. At best, you can attempt to forward traffic to the two routes as a form of balancing, but you won't get proper balancing. That is one a TCP connection starts on one path, it has to stay on that path. You cannot, for example, split a large transfer over the two paths.

???

The only note I see from him, is the one about the ToS.

Comp-U-Plus has the 'NETGEAR FVS124GNA PROSAFE VPN FIREWALL 25 WITH 4 GIGABIT LAN AND DUAL WAN PORTS' for $140.

Then perhaps you should look at the Cisco stuff or even here:

it can be done and quite well, remember we are talking about downloading and uploading files here. They come from and go to a specific point on the net. The order they are received makes no difference just that the whole file is sent or received.

How much of your traffic is going to be VPN ?

From: "James Knott"

| $Bill wrote: |

| | ??? | | The only note I see from him, is the one about the ToS.

Why ?

I posted twice in this thread ? { this makes 3 times }

From: "$Bill"

| | Comp-U-Plus has the 'NETGEAR FVS124GNA PROSAFE VPN FIREWALL 25 | WITH 4 GIGABIT LAN AND DUAL WAN PORTS' for $140. | |

All looks great on the Netgear except... Performance Features: · Throughput: Up to 11.5 Mbps WAN-to-LAN, up to 2.1 Mbps for 3DES throughput

I know some cable companies are upto 10Mb/s already.

f/fgeorge wrote:

Yes it can be done and quite well, remember we are talking about

Perhaps you'd better take the time to understand how TCP works. When you use TCP, for file transfer, telnet, ssh, etc., all communication is done according to IP address & port pairs, commonly known as sockets. This means that you cannot arbitrarily change the source or destination addresses of packets within a TCP stream. Assume you have two internet connections "A" with an address of 1.1.1.1 and "B" with 2.2.2.2. Now, if you open a TCP connection from A, all packets for that connection must go through A, in order to maintain the proper address for the TCP connection. Also, there is no way for a computer at the other end to even know about the B address, so it cannot even send a packet to it. Such limitations do not occur with UDP data, though the application may choke on a different address. Now as for those devices you linked to. You'll notice they talk a lot about VPN and VoIP. Those are two systems that generally use UDP or other connectionless protocol, so they can make use of the split path, including TCP connections, via VPN, between two points, where those boxes are located. Those boxes will not work for TCP traffic, from a single point, to the internet at large. You need one of those boxes at each end of the redundant paths. So, if you have two offices and want to have two links between them, sure those boxes will work. On the other hand, if you have only one box and two connections, your TCP traffic will get absolutely no benefit, other than if you can force traffic over the different paths. Even that will require that the computers on your local network are configured to work with one or the other ISP.

Take a look at the description. It talks about using it's own DNS to get inbound connections to use one path or the other. It will not, for example, split a large file transfer over both paths in that situation. So, if you get one DNS request that tells the remote site, to use path "A" and then start a large transfer. the next request will be told to use path "B". And the 3rd request will point back to A again. Now if both the connections to A are large transfers and the single one to B is small, you'll wind up with most of the data going via A. This is not true load balancing, which should equally spread the traffic across the two paths (assuming equal bandwidth). You can also use this sort of device between two points to load balance, provided you have one of those boxes at each end.

At the time I posted the above, I could only see the one entry from you. Now there are multiple.

From: "$Bill"

| | How much of your traffic is going to be VPN ? |

I'm not thinking about the VPN part. I'm thinking w/o VPN.

11.5Mb/s may be OK Today, but Tomorrow ??? Two 6Mb/s cable WAN links would max. it out.

You can get a business account for about $100/mo. However, I think for this application it would be considered a bulk residential account, and, while still cheaper than setting up individual accounts for all the tennants, will be much more. I know Comcast offers such a service, usually bundling tv service as well, but I have no idea how much it is, and I'm sure it requires a contract.

Doesn't sound like fraud to me - you're paying for two services and getting two. If you used the neighbor's name, there could be some sort of an issue, but otherwise I don't see it.

If it's not fraud, then why not be open about it, instead of using some deceptive move like registering the service at a different address?

This is no different than using a front man to allow a felon to get a liquor license. The argument that "it's a bar, and it has a license" is irrelevant if that license was obtained by deception. That's fraud. Yes, in this case two services are being received, and two are being paid for, but there was the same deception involved. It's obviously fraud.

The "ends" are not the only issue. The "means" are germane. Reaching the desired ends by deceptive means is fraud.

Do it the right way, or don't do it.

What part is supposedly deceptive ? Was the plan to use the neighbor's name as well as the address ? Or just the address ? Or neither - just the drop ?

The only reason I can think of is because the provider may have some stupid rule to prevent it which has no basis in actuality - wouldn't be the first time someone made up a rule 'just in case' and then everyone is stuck with it when it has no rationale in the first place.

That's not a proper analogy since he was able to get his own line all by himself - in your analogy, he wouldn't be able to.

There's right, legally right and morally right. It's up to you to decide which of these fits and which you are comfortable with.

Do it the right way or be prepared to endure any consequences.

This really doesn't matter. The cable into the house has plenty of bandwidth, more than you'll get out of a single connection. It's possible to hook two different modems up to common cabling in a single household.

All the cable company cares about is that they recognize the MAC address of the modem, it's possible to move it to a completely different house serviced by the same company and get service. This is without changing your "address" as far as they know. I've take a modem to a location several miles away in the same city, plugged it on a cable from the same provider and fired it up, no problems, as long as there are no signal/quality issues on the cabling.

So, why not order service at your address and your neighbor's then stick both modems in one house if they need to be located together?

From: "B.M. Wright"

| | This really doesn't matter. The cable into the house has plenty | of bandwidth, more than you'll get out of a single connection. It's | possible to hook two different modems up to common cabling in a single | household. | | All the cable company cares about is that they recognize the MAC | address of the modem, it's possible to move it to a completely different | house serviced by the same company and get service. This is without | changing your "address" as far as they know. I've take a modem to a | location several miles away in the same city, plugged it on a cable from | the same provider and fired it up, no problems, as long as there are no | signal/quality issues on the cabling. | | So, why not order service at your address and your neighbor's | then stick both modems in one house if they need to be located together?

Maybe, but that's fraud.

From: "$Bill"

| | Doesn't sound like fraud to me - you're paying for two services and | getting two. If you used the neighbor's name, there could be some | sort of an issue, but otherwise I don't see it. |

Ok, But there is certainly a Grey area there concerning the law.