Internet Sharing w/Network?

[stepchild]

We have three computers in our home. It seems everyone wants on the internet at the same time. We're using a dial up modem for connection. With a network could we all be on the internet at the same time? Or am I dreaming?

[hiredgoonz]

Yes, you can share the connection, but it will be SLOW, probably to the point of being unusable...

Internet connection sharing, built into Windows 98SE and XP allows you to do it.

If you upgrade to broadband, then sharing the connection is done the same way, but would actually be useful...

[sleddog]

Originally posted by hiredgoonz
Yes, you can share the connection, but it will be SLOW, probably to the point of being unusable...


Ah, spoken by a true broadband user :)

Internet connection sharing can be setup on a dialup connection and can be quite useful. It's important however that the users understand the constraints imposed by limited bandwidth.

I share a (gasp!) 28.8kbps dialup connection amongst three machines. (Though I do it with Linux not Windows.) Works great and is extremely useful.

For example:

- It requires only one modem to provide Internet access to three machines
- Physical problems of available phone jacks and phone lines are eliminated
- Users can check mail on any machine without the hassle of getting someone to disconnect, and then connecting him/herself
- Scheduled (Internet) tasks can proceed while someone else is browsing or emailing

The limited bandwidth does mean that two people can't hammer away at the web simultaneously. Though the use of Squid on the Linux box helps immensely with repeat-visit sites.

If stepchild has a 56kbps dialup connection, and actually achieves a connection speed of ~50kbps, then two simultaneous users may indeed be workable. Web-browsing uses bandwidth sporadically -- intensive use while a page is being loaded, then little or nothing while the person reads the page. There would need to be some house rules, however: for example, no downloads (which would hog the bandwidth) and no online gaming while two users online :)

Squid provides shared caching of web pages. Which means if machine A visits a page, and then later machine B goes to the same page, then machine B gets a locally cached version (if the page hasn't been updated in the meantime). This is a huge bandwidth saving. I believe a Windows version of Squid is now available.

And try the Opera Web Browser (http://www.opera.com) which, amongst its many wonderful features, provides a very useful image display toggle (off/on/cached only) that greatly speeds low-bandwidth browsing.

Bandwidth is like water -- live in a desert and you learn to get along nicely on a quart a day :)

[Rick]

After using ICS with dialup connection
I can say with ALL honesty that I will NEVER do it again

It was so aggravating ..............
Turn off what you will..
No matter what you do it will be slow and a hassle.

[stepchild]

Thanks to all who provided info. It looks like we wait till we can get DSL. Not sure how long that will be. Just have to make an in house schedule, where Dad rules. I'm Dad so things should be fine.

[sleddog]

Originally posted by Rick
After using ICS with dialup connection
I can say with ALL honesty that I will NEVER do it again

It was so aggravating ..............
Turn off what you will..
No matter what you do it will be slow and a hassle.

I think it's safe to say that you missed the point.

[stepchild]

I guess I did. How about telling me what I missed. But keep in mind I'm a simple person so keep it simple.

[sleddog]

I was quoting rick, not you stepchild :)

The point is, is that sharing an internet connection doesn't slow it down. You can share a connection amongst 50 computers and it's just as fast as if only one computer was using it. Users slow a shared connection down if they don't recognize the limitations and abide by some rules.

Imagine a shared 50kbps connection shared by three fictional users, Tom, Dick and Harry, each working on his own computer:

Tom is doing web research for a project. He is browsing with Opera with images toggled off, enabling him to quickly peruse many pages. Occasional he hits a page where he has to see paricular images, so he selectively does a right-click/load image on the image placeholder.

Dick is writing a report in his word-processor. Occasional he want to put a question or suggestion to a colleague by email. He composes a message (in plain text, not HTML), clicks send and returns to his report. It takes a little while for the 2kb message to find a little bandwidth, but Dick doesn't really mind; he's busy. Twenty minutes later he does an email check to see if there's a response. Again it takes a little time to connect to his mail server, but he continues with his work rather than sitting there waiting for mail :)

Harry is revising his web site. Lots of HTML editing required to bring many pages up to date. He works on local files, and previews them in his browser from his hard drive. When he's got a particular group of files done, he uploads them to his web server. The FTP tranfer of that 50kb of HTML files takes a little time as it gets slotted into Tom's bandwidth usage, but that's okay, 'cause Harry has moved on to editing the next set of files. And Tom probably doesn't even notice.

This probably sounds silly to all the broadband users accustomed to blasting away over a 512kbps pipe. Bandwidth is a resource that should be respected and managed. Properly managed you can accomplish a lot without a lot.

[stepchild]

:(Sorry for miss understanding who you were refering to. Thanks for the info it has been a big help.:)

[hiredgoonz]

Seems like an awful lot of work, plus a dedicated machine to cache the files and run the connection. If you don't have an option, then I guess you do what you can, but I prefer to spend my time online doing something other than waiting.

In the scenario sleddog presented, the users, if patient, would be fine for their uses. However, I like to look at pictures (I kinda thought that was the point of having them on websites ;) ) and I don't want to wait several minutes for a webpage to load...

I see your point, sleddog, but I think you're painting a VERY idealistic picture of a VERY specific scenario. Most people who want to be online are actively uploading/downloading or browsing websites. In my opinion, this is slow enough on a 56K connection without trying to share the bandwidth.

Yes, it can be done. However, the actual usefulness of a modem connection shared by 3 users is questionable. In practice, one of the users would probably be using kazaa to download mp3s, someone else could be doing research, and someone could be checking their mail.

Under these circumstances, I think the experience would be an exercise in frustration...

[sleddog]

Well, in my case the dedicated machine that shares the connection and does caching is a Pentium 100MHz with 32mb RAM. It also serves as a firewall, runs junkbuster (an ad-blocking proxy) manages webcam uploads, stores nightly backups, plus a few other odds and ends. I can't think of a better use for such a fine old machine :)

I never said that a dialup connection could be shared by 3 users intent on web browser. I said that a solid ~50kbps could be functional for two browsers, or could accommodate one browser plus two other users making occasional light use of it (the connection). Now, what you and I consider "functional" may differ dramatically :)

And consider this. If Tom, Dick and Harry were each equipped with a modem (so they could enjoy the full benefit of that 50kbps connection), but shared a phone line, how would they then manage their tasks?

Dick: "Tom! Get the h*ll off the line, I need to send an email!"

Harry: "Dick, are you done sending that email yet? I need to upload some files!"

Tom: "Harry, are you off yet? I gotta get movin' with this reasearch!!"

Dick: "Tom! Get the h*ll off the line, I need to check my email!"

.... did someone say "frustration"? :rolleyes:

[sleddog]

And pictures on webpages? Ha. I'd estimated that 70% of web images contain text because the web author thinks its groovy or because he/she doesn't understand HTML, CSS and some basic communications fundamentals of the web.

For the other 30%, yes, a picture is worth a thousand words. And takes exactly that much longer to download :)

[Rick]

Originally posted by sleddog


I think it's safe to say that you missed the point.

I Didn’t Miss anything

I have been there and done that..
This is Not the age of 2400 baud modems and Compuserv setting up pages for text menu navigation.

Visit a support site with Java Turned off and see where you get.
Try USR for example with No Graphics and/or No Java

The Number of sites that Do NOT include Text style links is growing
Is it because they Don’t know how to create the link?
Or is just the way their software is designed? ( MS web design software)

For the Average User today to navigate the web in text mode is Near to impossible

Regardless It is a Hassle

[hiredgoonz]

That's pretty much where I sit on the issue...except in some very specific cases, sharing a dial-up connection (whether you do it by networking or by having three users take turns connecting independently) is not going to be fun.

It's easy for me to say this because I have cable, which I can share with up to 18 computers, thanks to some government surplus network hardware (although the most I've ever had connected is 6).

It doesn't even cost me any more money than when I used dialup either. I had a second phone line at almost $20 a month, and unlimited access at $17 a month (which would now cost me $22) so when I first got cable I was paying $3 more per month than I was for dial-up, and now I'm saving 2 bucks...

[sleddog]

Originally posted by Rick

Visit a support site with Java Turned off and see where you get.
Try USR for example with No Graphics and/or No Java


I did, with Java disabled and images off. From their support home page I had no difficult making selections and navigating. Here, for example, is their support page for the USR8000A broadband router (images off, java disabled):

http://www.labradorstraits.net/temp/usr-support.gif

For the Average User today to navigate the web in text mode is Near to impossible

As an old professor of mine used to say: "donkey dust!". As the above illustrates.

Regardless It is a Hassle

Perhaps you should say "In my opinion it is a hassle".

Because it is not a hassle for me, therefore your generalized statement is incorrect :)

[ps. I think you are confusing java and javascript.]

[pps. Each page on the USR support site loads for me in 4-6 seconds with images off. And my current dialup connection is 26400.]

[Rick]

They have made some major changes ..

I stand corrected on the usr site

Maybe Now Pete will be able to get around on the site..

[Rick]

Ops I spoke a little to soon

http://home.wi.rr.com/nasons/usr_site.gif

Now Lets see If My browser doesn't display the map.
The Java and or Java script at right doesn't work
The Only thing I get out of the Text version of this page is ?

A Large RED screen, A Line of text, and a selection box that doesn't work..
NO Text Links ANYWHERE on the very first screen


BTW.. Just for grins and giggles I asked My wife to visit this page
Being the Average computer user in the house
She was lost.
Unable to move in the site and frustrated as the screen would not change

Now if you follow a link into the site you can move
But from this screen .. No Way

[sleddog]

You haven't provided the URL so I can't really comment on the page. Judging from the text at bottom, I'd say it's a probably an image map. In a case like that I'd right-click, load that image, make a selection and continue. No big deal.

If the page doesn't work with the image loaded then there is a useability issue, which has nothing to do with this discussion.

[Rick]

www.usr.com

first time ever visited with that system

Your correct it is the world map


But I have Maria, Jennifer and Ann
all sharing a connection.
Jennifer doing research for her class at UW
Ann cleaning out here Mail box at Hotmail and Gowhatever
and Maria surfing E-Bay

Two of the three working at one time on line.
Now Who do you think is going to get frustrated ?
(all Of the Above)

Who is going to use text only ?
(None Of the Above )

How Long will this setup last?
(It lasted One session )

Again speaking from Personal Experience
It is slow, It is a Hassle
and IMHO Not worth the effort with anyone in the group who isn’t experienced with the web
above the average user level

You are an above average user

[sleddog]

Originally posted by Rick
www.usr.com
Jennifer doing research for her class at UW
Ann cleaning out here Mail box at Hotmail and Gowhatever
and Maria surfing E-Bay


But you have broken the first two House Rules :)

HOUSE RULES

1. Obey all rules.
2. Only one person at a time making continuous and/or intensive bandwidth usage.

[Rick]

Your Welcome to Try enforcing those rules.. (FYI. Both Girls are/were TEENS)

But I can tell you
It will NOT happen ..
Each person will use all the bandwidth they can grab

[sleddog]

Won't obey the rules, hey? Hmmmmm....

Maybe three diferent firewall scripts on the Linux box, to allow/deny different types of access for the various machines, rotated by a cronjob on a posted schedule. That should keep those rascals in line! ;)

Seriously, I understand your point. And perhaps I should clarify something. Earlier in this thread hiredgoonz made an excellent point regarding the cost of cable access compared to dialup. And I started off in this thread under the (probably mistaken) assumption that the original poster (stepchild, are you still with us?) did not have the option of broadband.

If stepchild does have the option of broadband connectivity in his area, then I would encourage him to certainly go for it. It would be a vastly better solution for three users.

I don't have a broadband option. In fact given that I live in a remote community with a population of about 150, I consider myself fortunate to have a dependable dialup connection. If a broadband option became available here, I'd be the first to signup (well maybe the second; my neighbour is pretty quick off the mark!)

What I've tried to do here is illustrate how a scarce resource (bandwidth) can be used effectively -- provided that the users agree to use it effectively :) If the means are available to increase that resource, then by all means go for it!

It's been fun debating with you!

[Rick]

I also live in one of the last areas to get DSL in my area.
I had to take the High priced Option and get Cable

Then the world changed.
The Kids Moved Out :)

Now it’s just the wife and I and we found how fast Cable can really be.
I also found out how slow it can be when 3:00 pm comes around

So even broadband has it’s faults