Personally I use a linux box as a gateway and server. My network comprises three different types of OS and two different types of hardware. Linux represents the best method of getting all these technoliges working together. It also means that my network only uses the TCP/IP protocol, as it's standards based it means that anyone can come round to my house and plug in no matter what OS/Hardware they are using, no nsaty NetBIOS here. Security is also good and I can use the massive Library of GNU software which means I can add server technology for no cost whatsoever, a big plus.
The only problem I find is that MSN services do not play very nicely behind NAT and a Firewall, doesn't really bother me because I don't use windows..
My other half on the other hand...
If I was to use a hardware router I would be limited in what I can achieve with it. Plus I would be stuck with the Firewall technology that company chose to use. I find my setup incredibly flexible and future proofed.
However getting it all to play nicely in the first place was not easy at all. Requied months of learning and fiddling, if you just want to be up and running then the majority of users are going to use ICS with a windows box. However this doesn't offer you that much flexibility without extra cost, so it may be more effective to use a hardware router. However since I got it working it has required no maintenance whatsoever.
I should also point out that if I was not using the Linux box I could plug the modem into both the Mac and PC and be running a shared internet connection in the time it took for the modem to connect to the ISP. Was the first thing I did to check the connection. I should point out that in the UK, at least, you have to wait about 5 days for your connection to be activated once you have bought the service.
DSL/Cable -
Here in the UK we have different market conditions to those in the US. Cable services here are not nearly as widespread as in the US. Having essentially free to air TV, there is a TV license fee, means that take up of cable by the consumer is nowhere near the scale of the US, so although you can theoretically achieve much higher throughput with a cable connection you have to install and buy the cable TV services which depends very much on what area you live in and also represents an extra cost of buying TV that I don't really want to watch, most of the good stuff is shown free to air,why pay a premium to watch unfettered crap all day?
Secondly the telephone network in this country is run and owned almost exclusively by one company, BT. Where's the competition you may cry, well coverage is very nearly 100% and it just works. Outages are very rare indeed, your garrunteed that technology you buy will just work and BT has developed world leading technology in terms of phone networks and their implementation. So until it stops just working I'm not going to lose much sleep over it.
DSL service here is quite expensive, but is getting cheaper. Also choosing the right ISP is an important factor. But as the phone network is so stable, ISP's that exploit the technology well, provide an excellent service. My connection is 1Mb down 256k up. This costs about £50-£60 pounds, about $110 a month. However you need to take in to account cost of living over here before making a direct comparison with cost in the US. Also we just don't get the economies of scale you guys do. However I do get a connection that never goes down, well it did once but that was because there was a huge fire in one of BT's networks exchanges (left it very slow or impossible connecting to the US however much of the network was still available if at crap speeds), and where contention is just not a factor. My contract promisies a contention of 20:1. However I have found that I always have full bandwidth available and my download speeds rely only on the server I am connecting to. I should also point out that I didn't have to pay any extra for a static IP or mail services. Plus I have no 'download limit', ie. it doesn't cut out when I have downloaded a gig of data in a week or something equally silly like that. This to me smacks of another way to get round the contention issue. From a customer point of view what do you want, a connection that is always up and available but is maybe a little slow at times, or a connection that just stops working on you in the middle of something important and that you have to pay more for to get working again? Upfront clear cost implicatons are the way to go here...
The most promising network technology I have seen is one based on the electricty grid thats supplies power to your house. Network coverage is alomst total and the bandwidths they talk about are just silly. Anyway, it doesn't exist commercially yet so this is a no go.
Here in the UK, unless you've already got cable, the best choice is DSL, or more accurately, Asynchronos DSL, do you not wonder why your up speeds are much lower?
If your in the UK I recomend Eclipse as an ISP, yes it's slightly more expensive, but like anything life you get what you pay for....
As for speed. I downloaded a 650Mb Half life 2 demo in 1 hour 23 mins. Not too shabby, maximum theoretical speed gives a time of about 1 hour 17mins, but the server
was in the UK. The only need for more speed that I can see is if you are constantly downloading DVD material off the net. But then you wouldn't be doing that would you? For most websurfing you don't need more than about 256k down. I have more so that there's not a notciable slowdown when 2 or more people are surfing and for the occaisional larger download of course
