Some X-Box troubles

[Mr. Cow]

to mods: if this should go in other games sorry and feel free to move it

So i'm probably getting an X-box 360 shortly but i have hit a problem. X-Box live. I have DSL and the modem is in my kitchen, while i want to have the 360 in my room. I was wondering if anyone knew if it would work to get another modem and hook it up in my room to hook the 360 into while the one in the kitchen was still hooked up. Would i be able to just plug it into the phone line in my room and plug the 360 into it?

If that wont work does anyone have any ideas on how i could go about fixing this problem without having a wire running all the way across my house on the floor and without going wireless.

[Reepicheep]

Spend as much money as you can until it works.

[captainspud]

My usual suggestion is to get a wireless router and bridge. It'll run you about $150 for the pair. Pricey, but zero hassle.

If you don't want to run a cable "on the floor" as you said, try drilling. Get a 1/4" bit and you can bury wires in your ceilings and walls. A personal favorite of mine-- dropping wires through your cold air return, no holes required.

I don't know how DSL works, I've been on Cable for a decade. If it just plugs into a phone jack, you *should* be able to plug a second modem in somewhere else. In theory, based on no information on how it works.

*shrugs*

[Panther_Gunn]

If DSL works basically here like it did in Norway, it's highly doubtful that you could just install a second modem.  The DSL modem acts like a small router, and without anyone getting inside & doing some programming on one (or most likely both) devices, they would both be fighting for supremacy on the "network", usually ending up in whichever was turned on first being the one that works, while the other can't find a signal (at best), or slowing down the connection speed of the first due to all of the extra traffic overhead it's putting on the network.  You should also check your current modem to see if it's even got two ethernet connections on the back or not.  Since it's in the kitchen, I take it that there's a computer in the kitchen (or nearby) that it's feeding.

The good news is that plugging the DSL modem into any phone outlet in the house should work (depending on if the phones in the house have been wired in a normal fashion), as long as the DSL splitter that comes with it makes the move along with it (if the US is using the splitter).

btw, the word I hear was that the companies that offer DSL (usually local phone companies) are in cahoots with the cable companies, and are *purposely* keeping DSL speeds down far below what they're capable of delivering.  When I got my DSL hooked up in Norway back in '02, it was about 740kb.  By the time I left in mid '05, it had moved up to 1.8 Mb, and that was the basic speed, with no extra money being spent.  From what I've heard, DSL here has been stalled at anywhere between 620-740kb.  Doesn't take a real genius to see the disparity there.

[stumpy]

The best answer is going wireless. I'm sure you are like many others (e.g. myself) who is waiting for the full 802.11n spec in July (or whenever it's been pushed back to), but you should probably take your chances with "draft n" stuff or go for the cheaper 802.11g systems until the n spec is finalized. IMO, the only really good reason not to do this is if your house is too big (too much distance between the two rooms) or there is too much metal in your walls for it to work.

As to your question, if you buy another DSL modem, you might be able to hook it up to the phone line in your room. But, it almost certainly won't be a standard setup, because most of them are set up by default to "log in" to your DSL provider when turned on. Since your other modem is doing that, too, there is a likely conflict. You may be able to turn off the password login for one modem or the other, but I haven't tried that. In addition, there is the whole issue of dynamic IP allocation, etc. Since, without some other router, neither modem knows about the other, I'm not sure the second one will know how to assign IPs.

I agree with captainspud that getting a wired router and adding wires is generally easier than it looks, with minimal carpentry skills. But I caution that the last time I did this (for my uncle's small office), I ended up wishing I had spent the extra forty bucks and just went wireless instead of crawling around behind furniture all afternoon.

Another, "sort of wired" option is to use your house's AC wiring as your LAN wiring. I don't know the bandwidth on those systems but, essentially, you get a wall wart that lets you plug your router/modem into an AC socket and then another one for the other end and data can be sent over your electrical system.

Something similar is available to network over your phone lines. Since your DSL is also on them, I don't know if that is a problem or not.

I am still recommending wireless, but see http://www-personal.umich.edu/~csev/hng/book/07nowires/index.htm for a brief description of the last two.


[ninja'd by Panther_Gunn. BTW, I think the reason some of the base bandwidths for DSL are lower in some areas is related with line and switch testing, as well as the usual attempt to get people to pay whatever the market will bear. If the provider thinks it is going to have to upgrade land lines to handle the expected bandwidth, then they may raise rates, both to pay for the upgrades and to lower the number of people who opt for the higher bandwidths and keep the overall load down.]

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

About the bandwidth being less thing--yes, I have heard repeatedly that internet connections in the U.S. are among the slowest and most expensive in the world.  Lack of any real competition has effectively stalled progress here.  It's not just a technical matter, it's a business one.

And I wouldn't say they're in cahoots necessarily, but each has found a comfortable niche, and neither is willing to break up the status quo for fear that they will be the ones who will lose out.

[stumpy]

Obviously, the providers aren't anxious to lower their margins, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they aren't in a hurry to enter the same markets and start up price wars.

But, keep in mind that many of the articles on broadband pricing ignore actual prices and use "baseline" prices (no promotions, no discounts) that are higher than the prices US consumers often pay. Such baseline prices are largely fiction for residential broadband customers and aren't really valid for comparison. For example, AT&T's residential broadband goes from $15/mo for 768Kb/s, $20/mo for 1.5 Mb/s, $25/mo for 3Mb/s, and $30/mo for 6 Mb/sec - no contract required for any of those. Of course, one could claim that those are "promotional" or "temporary" prices, but I have basically been on the same deal for over three years now, since a new promotion starts up as soon as the old one ends, even though their baseline price is almost double what I pay.

Meanwhile, I live out in the country (outside the city limits of a town of 25 thousand, nearest city of over a quarter million is more than an hour away), but I can choose from AT&T, Comcast, or ClearWire for broadband service and there are subcarriers as well, along with PDMA/cellular broadband via Verizon and so on.

Nevertheless, I agree that things would be better with more competition. The US has a highly regulated market for broadband services and part of the competition problem has to do with the regulatory landscape. As an example, many municipal governments have (probably well-intended, for what little that's worth) deals with utilities like the cable companies that grant them local monopolies in exchange for "consumer benefits" like cable access channels, cummunity calender stations, and so on. There may be some value to that, but it does decrease any chance that another cable company is going to try and lure customers away with lower prices.

[Mr. Cow]

just a little update.

I got my 360 and am on live now. add me if you want to play sometime, i mainly play gears of war. my name is Nick Jowns