DSL vs. Cable

[Alias]

: Airman Thunderbird wrote:
: > Our local cable provider limits downloads to 5GB total per month. This
: > is sometimes unacceptable to me. Do other providers do the same?
:
: Yes.
:
: --
: <- Shenan ->

And some don't. The cable ISP I have in Spain has unlimited downloads.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.

Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Our local cable provider limits downloads to 5GB total per month.
This is sometimes unacceptable to me. Do other providers do the
same?

Shenan Stanley wrote

Yes.

And some don't. The cable ISP I have in Spain has unlimited downloads.

Very true. Neither my DSL or Cable Modem provider have limits. However, I
know others who have these limits and I know both of the companies providing
me with service have discussed it in the past.

 

[Leythos]

Cable is OK, but on that same job yesterday a customer got a
static IP Time-Warner setup and we tested his speed. Amazingly
it was 440 Down & 339 Up. Not too good. Suggested he check
with his Telco and see if DSL is available and compare speeds.

You should have had the installer check the signal levels. I've been
doing RR all over Ohio and never seen anything like that unless there
was a signal problem. That's one reason I have my lines checked every 6
months.

If you are on residential, then 256k is about the norm on upstream,
business class will go to a solid 2mbps upstream.

In my area there are about 60 homes on our amplifier, and I have
business class service. I'm seeing 330m/Bytes/Sec download speeds and
never varying.

 

[Leythos]

at some extreme point, isn't talking about 3 Mega bps vs. 1.5 Mega bps
very similar to talking to the audio expert at the home theater store
who says, "If you can afford it, it would better to buy ABC brand
speakers than XYZ brand speakers, because XYZ brand has 0.005% THD and
ABC brand has less than 0.003% THD." It is totally hilarious from the
perspective of an outside observer who knows what THD means, and knows
that neither one of them can hear a 3000 hertz frequency, much less hear
the difference between 0.005% THD and 0.003% THD.

No, it's more like talking about DOLBY or 8-Track tape. A DSL connection
is a best guess connection, it's only as fast as it can be at the moment
they install it, and often has problems as the lines get wet, contacts
get corroded, etc... Sure cable suffers too, but in the years that I've
owned cable I've always got the performance they said I would get. Most
of the DSL people I work with experience several outages per month, have
to work with two or three companies when a problem occurs, and get no
where near the performance the Cable people see.

Anyone working with a T1 based install knows the difference between a T1
performance and a 1.5mbps DSL connection. Anyone that's been on an
average cable connection will notice a difference on high-speed DSL also
(meaning they will notice the slower DSL connection).

 

[Terry]

On 1/8/2005 10:25 AM On a whim, JW pounded out on the keyboard

at some extreme point, isn't talking about 3 Mega bps vs. 1.5 Mega bps
very similar to talking to the audio expert at the home theater store
who says, "If you can afford it, it would better to buy ABC brand
speakers than XYZ brand speakers, because XYZ brand has 0.005% THD and
ABC brand has less than 0.003% THD." It is totally hilarious from the
perspective of an outside observer who knows what THD means, and knows
that neither one of them can hear a 3000 hertz frequency, much less hear
the difference between 0.005% THD and 0.003% THD.

the point in this case how much does 3 Mega bps vs. 1.5 Mega bps really
affect any result that i care about ? if i spend hours playing online
war games, or often download files that take over 2 minutes to download,
then i would want the fastest speed possible. but if i spend most of my
time with a word processor, email program, online chat, and surfing web
pages, like over 90% of home users do, then i have to ask myself, "How
much does download speed even matter ? Does it matter if the web page
takes a whopping 0.2 seconds to display instead of the much faster 0.02
seconds to display ?"

if it really mattered to me, then i would fork up the extra $20 a month,
in order to kill my enemies online faster than they can kill me. but
since i don't use my PC like a PlayStation, i save $20 a month, and can
barely see the difference in how fast the web page displays. and when i
play music, what does it matter if my JBL speakers have 0.001% greater
THD, if i cannot hear the difference ?

For the most part I agree. I think it comes down to $$ for most of us. I
have DSL since it was brought into our area. I have clients that have
cable and at times I'm impressed with the speed, and other times I'm
not. I haven't had any "disconnects" as some others have mentioned.

I have satellite for TV (after the DSL). I got rid of cable years ago
because they kept raising the prices. But for someone who has cable for
TV, it makes sense to stay with it. I wouldn't see any advantages in
having cable for TV and DSL for computing other than one persons comment
about the cable service taking a while to get repaired. I have had one
stoppage in service and a quick phone call to Earthlink and they were
able to tell it was the outside wiring and a repair man was out the same
day, so I was pleased with that. But I'm sure others have had different
experiences that tilt their opinion one way or the other.

But as far as your speaker analogy, I can hear 3000 hertz as almost
everyone can. And I'm thinking you meant .05% THD possibly for an
amplifier (which is excellent) since speakers have a much higher
distortion percentage. I have had JBL L300 studio monitors for 27 years
and they're still one of the finest sounding speakers I have heard.

--
Terry

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Andrew]

Stick with CABLE and you'll find it to be a lot easier. You might
also
consider having you line/signal levels checked every 6 months for
quality - I do and have never had a problem.

How do you do that? And is there a link to show me what it's
suppose to be?
Thanks

 

[Lem]

I totally agree with JW and Crusty. For the most part, the higher
speeds touted by Cable are illusory -- your perceived performance is
limited, more often than not, by the crowded state of the Net today, and
in particular the capability and net connection of the server to which
you are trying to connect, rather than your own broadband connection. I
have DSL at home and a T3 line at work, and there are plenty of websites
that load just as slowly from both locations.

To me, service and reliability are far more important than theoretical
download speeds. I realize that neither local telco's or cable
operators have particularly sterling reputations, but I'd rather deal
with the phone guy than the cable guy.

As usual, it all depends on what you're likely to use your service for.
If you're going to be downloading a lot of very large files from
servers with very fast, reliable, and uncrowded connections to the web,
then go for the fasted connection you can get, which almost certainly is
cable. Otherwise, go for the ISP that offers the best combination of
price and reliability.

 

[D.Currie]

I hope this is the right group or someone can point me. I am trying to get
some accurate information on this choice I have. I see TV adds that say
Verizon DSL is faster than cable. What would be the benefits of one over
the other for a home PC and home network of maybe 4 or 5 systems. I have a
cable modem and wireless-G BB router W/SpeedBooster(whatever that means) on
Comcast BB now. I am looking for a package including cell and cable TV and
ISP that could possibly save me a few dollars a month. I have the Verizon
DSL package here and can install it for a evaluation period but I am
hesitating is this installation will be more trouble than it is worth. I
don't want to waste time and screw up my BB configuration and wonder if one
system can be used with both connections at once and make comparisons or
should I just forget about DSL and stick with Comcast BB.
Thanks for any insight.

J.

You've got a few things to consider:

1) Speed. I mean actual speed, not what they advertise.
Whether you need that much speed or more is up to you.

2) Price. Does it matter to you how much it costs? If so, how much is it
worth to get "better"? And do they charge extra for the hardware, service
calls, etc? That may or may not matter to you. Do you get good hardware for
the price?

3) Reliability. First you have consider the reliability of the hardware
itself. Are the phone lines good? Are the cable lines good?

Then you've got to consider the reliability of the particular ISPs. Around
here, I can get DSL from a multitude of ISPs, some of which offer terrible
service, while others are much better. All of them are using the same phone
lines, it's just the ISP that differs. With cable, there's one choice.

I use DSL because it was the first thing available, and I see no big need to
make any changes. The speed is fine and I've never had a disconnect since I
started using it. When I have a customer's computer in for service,
generally all I need to do is connect them to my network, and we're online.

Recently I had a customer who used cable. The network connection to my DSL
was immediate and flawless here; at their location, it wouldn't connect. I
ended up having to call the cable company from their location to go through
some troubleshooting steps. The tech was verging on rude, and the solution
was like a Rubik's cube of plugging and unplugging and turning things on and
off in a specific sequence to reset everything, along with the cable company
resetting something on their end. Good thing they only had one computer. If
there were several on a network, it would have been a nightmare.

The worst problems I have with my DSL is when I'm mucking around near the
cables and I manage to unplug something. Usually all I need to do is plug
the line back in. Maybe once or twice I had to power the router off and on
again.

In another area, with different companies, the situation could easily be
reversed. Best bet would be to talk to neighbors and see what service they
have and what speed and if they're happy.

 

[JW]

i think some of you are missing the point, and some of you "get it".
allow me to restate in simpler terms, since i have been told i have
problems communicating clearly, and some other readers later might miss
the point too. the point is not which technology has more Mega bps,
more Mega hertz, or fewer microseconds response time. the point is not
whether somebody can hear 3000 hertz, whether 0.005% THD is less
appropriate than 0.05%, or even if you spend $1000 a month to have T1
piped in. and i'm certainly not talking about the worst case DSL
scenario (corroded connections, phone line submerged in a marsh, 5 miles
from the nearest central office) versus the best case cable scenario (a
dedicated cable, protected in underground PVC, that nobody else in the
neighborhood shares). What an unrealistic comparison. the point (that
a few are picking up on) is

99% of home users only care about whether they can perceive a
significant difference or not in how fast the web page displays. now to
state this even more simply for those who still might not understand,
if it takes less than a second for a web page to fully display, then 99%
of home users really don't care whether the technology is 1.5 Mbps, 1.5
MByte per sec, T1, T3, DSL, LSD, cable, twisted-pair, or Twisted Sister.
All the talk about specs is just a bunch of techno-gibberish. A
factor i have found 1000 times more important than techno-gibberish is
that some ISPs i signed up with did not have sufficient resources to
handle rush hour congestion, not to mention gridlock on the shared cable
when Victoria Secret had their online-only lingerie show.

99% of home users don't understand techno-gibberish and don't care to
learn, so for 99% of home users (and 90% of managers), you have to
translate that into something visible, tangible and meaningful (it's
called end-results). An example of translating techno-gibberish into
meaningful terms is by saying "Cable will allow XYZ.com home page to
display in 0.02-0.08 seconds. Because DSL is 10 times slower, the same
home page from the same web site will take DSL a whopping 0.2-0.8
seconds to fully display, Not factoring in rush hour congestion on the
web server or ISP. Furthermore, Cable will allow you to kill 20%-50%
more online enemies per minute than DSL, when playing Mercenary 7.
However, Cable will cost you $240-$300 more per year, Cable will take
72-96 hours longer to get service, and if your neighbor has the right
cable gadgets, he can Eavesdrop on your every activity because you all
share the same cable."

 

[Leythos]

How do you do that? And is there a link to show me what it's
suppose to be?
Thanks

It depends on the hardware you have, many Cable modems provide a webpage
at the IP of the device for monitoring, same with some routers. If you
don't know, call your ISP and ask them. I can't guess for you.

 

[JW]

yes, i do have DSL, and my brother has cable. yes, my brother can kill
more online enemies faster than i can. no, i don't really care.

yes, web pages and Email download faster on my brother's PC using cable.
no, i don't really care. Since it takes me 30-60 seconds to peruse a
web page or Email message, i don't really care that it takes 0.5-0.8
seconds longer using DSL for a web page to fully display. yes, i
probably would care, if i often received huge Email attachments, or
spent much of my time downloading giant files from KaZaa, music sites,
or porn sites.

no, my brother does not mind spending $240 more per year than i do.
yes, my brother hates waiting 48-96 hours to get his cable problem
fixed. every time i had a DSL problem, it was fixed while on the phone.

Should you get cable or DSL ? it all depends. if you are like 99% of
average home users, and spend 99% of your Internet Time using a web
browser, Email program, instant messaging / voice conversation program,
or listening to internet radio, then $240-$300 more per year probably
will not make a difference.

if you spend 99% of your Internet Time downloading giant files from
KaZaa, online music stores, or porn sites, and often receive large Email
attachments, then definitely spend the extra $240-$300 per year for Cable.

 

[Alias]

: yes, my brother hates waiting 48-96 hours to get his cable problem
: fixed. <<

Depends on your cable service. If mine can't fix it on the phone, they're
here in two or three hours max.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.

Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

i think some of you are missing the point, and some of you "get it".
allow me to restate in simpler terms, since i have been told i have
problems communicating clearly, and some other readers later might
miss the point too. the point is not which technology has more Mega
bps, more Mega hertz, or fewer microseconds response time. the point
is not whether somebody can hear 3000 hertz, whether 0.005% THD is
less appropriate than 0.05%, or even if you spend $1000 a month to
have T1 piped in. and i'm certainly not talking about the worst case
DSL scenario (corroded connections, phone line submerged in a marsh,
5 miles from the nearest central office) versus the best case cable
scenario (a dedicated cable, protected in underground PVC, that
nobody else in the neighborhood shares). What an unrealistic
comparison. the point (that a few are picking up on) is

99% of home users only care about whether they can perceive a
significant difference or not in how fast the web page displays. now
to state this even more simply for those who still might not
understand, if it takes less than a second for a web page to fully
display, then 99% of home users really don't care whether the
technology is 1.5 Mbps, 1.5 MByte per sec, T1, T3, DSL, LSD, cable,
twisted-pair, or Twisted Sister. All the talk about specs is just a
bunch of techno-gibberish. A factor i have found 1000 times more
important than techno-gibberish is
that some ISPs i signed up with did not have sufficient resources to
handle rush hour congestion, not to mention gridlock on the shared
cable when Victoria Secret had their online-only lingerie show.

99% of home users don't understand techno-gibberish and don't care to
learn, so for 99% of home users (and 90% of managers), you have to
translate that into something visible, tangible and meaningful (it's
called end-results). An example of translating techno-gibberish into
meaningful terms is by saying "Cable will allow XYZ.com home page to
display in 0.02-0.08 seconds. Because DSL is 10 times slower, the
same home page from the same web site will take DSL a whopping 0.2-0.8
seconds to fully display, Not factoring in rush hour congestion on the
web server or ISP. Furthermore, Cable will allow you to kill 20%-50%
more online enemies per minute than DSL, when playing Mercenary 7.
However, Cable will cost you $240-$300 more per year, Cable will take
72-96 hours longer to get service, and if your neighbor has the right
cable gadgets, he can Eavesdrop on your every activity because you all
share the same cable."

Everything is relative.

Where I am I have both DSL and Cable Modem.. Not because one is more
reliable than the other, but because I like to have zero downtime. Not
everyone cares about zero downtime this much. (It helps that someone else
pays for my DSL as well.)

Many of my friends here have played the "switching game" because they think
"anything has to be better than the crap they have now" - whenever I have
not seen any major outages or been that greatly affected by problems. Six
months later, they play the game again and switch back to the other
service - claiming the same problems that made them switch before.

Are they really seeing the issues? I don't know. I don't see them on
either connection and in some cases, I am in the same nodes as them. So why
are they switching? Attitude.. Point of View.. Perceived value. That's
why.

I have two family members who would waste anything but their dial-up
accounts. There would be so much unused bandwidth, it would not even be
funny. Yet I personally routinely use my 5Mbps/downstream and 768Kbps
upstream. As for reliability - again that will be based off location. SOme
cable companies react faster than others - some areas of the same cable
company react faster than others. Some DSL tech support people are, in
reference to their technology they are supporting, inadequate (as are some
cable modem techs.) It's all a crap shoot.

I have gone through dial-up, ISDN, leased line, cable modem and DSL - I am,
at the current time, very satisfied with the latter two. My DSL speeds do
NOT compare with my Cable Modem speeds (1.5Mbps/512Kbps) but they get the
job done when needed and for the systems I routinely use them on. Someday
perhaps 10MBps will seem slow and be as cheap as dialup - maybe someday so
much data will be sent by simple transactions that much bandwidth is needed.
I am doubting it. My grandmother needs dial-up, I need 5Mbps downstream.
Different strokes for different folks. The only way to know (on an
individual basis) which is better is to:

1) Figure out how you will be using the Internet.
2) Look at available packages from all sources to compare prices, service
and speeds.
3) Ask friends and neighbors, contact the Better Business Bureau or some
other local authority tracking complaints in your area. Get to know the
companies.
4) Get one.. Try it out. Try to do it with no long-term contract and if it
sucks, get the other and cancel the first. If that one sucks as well -
either look for another alternative or live with the less sucky of the two.

Asking for opinions on a world-wide forum on something that will be
different everywhere.. Just not helpful. heh

 

[JW]

very good point. thanks for your response.

even with companies that use the same technology, one DSL provider might
stink (have insufficient resources to handle the demand, causing server
delays, or maybe weak service and support), while another DSL provider
might be greater than the average Cable ISP. there's no doubt and i
certainly agree that the best Cable ISP provides faster speed than the
best DSL provider. it's indisputable.

but i would be willing to bet that around 99% of average home users
spend 99% of their time using programs (e.g. Email, web browsing, word
processing, online chat, voice conversation, internet radio) which
demand so little network bandwidth, that the difference in total
delivery Time (not speed) between DSL and Cable could only be measured
in fractions of a second. is it worth the $240-$300 per year ? as you
say, they perceive that they do, in spite of the fact it takes 100 times
longer to read the Email message or web page, than the fraction of a
second it took to be delivered through the wires.

are there exceptions ? of course. there will always be a remaining 1%
of the PC population who have a cable modem so hot you could boil water
on top of it. they often download large binary files, music files,
Email attachments, and instead of waiting in a mentally idle state, they
prefer to pass the time killing a slew of online enemies. for them, the
$240-$300 per year is definitely worth it.

as i said from the beginning. it all depends on the specific user and
the specific needs. thanks again for your response.

 

[Guest]

ive had both and they both have there flaws and pluses.cable is great threw
storms ,where dsl falters .and dsl seems to have a erractic rate due to
lines.cable has its whim of if there server is crappy or busy that day its
a dimished service day then .dsl is cheaper then cable as well.just my
thoughts.

 

[Rich]

I agree and also watch out for companies that make you sign a long term
contract (like I did with DSL) I couldn't wait to get cable back after the 1
year was up! Comcast in my area at least has been fantastic.

Rich

 

[Dan]

I had dial-up originally, then Sprint DSL which sucked because of pauses and
timeouts and also stuck with a 1-year contract -- imo even with dial-up I
had less frustration because I did not expect much performance -- now with
Cox Cable and all is well :>

 

[John]

Ok then I guess this matter is then settled and I thank everyone for a
great and helpful thread. I still have this unused Verizon DSL package that
I will be returning.

J.

 

[Dan]

I am glad you have made a decision and that we could help in some small way.

: Ok then I guess this matter is then settled and I thank everyone for a
: great and helpful thread. I still have this unused Verizon DSL package that
: I will be returning.
:
: J.
:
: