Cable vs. DSL

[PrinceofWands]

Can this be right?!? What am I missing? Why would anyone get DSL (other than being lazy/stupid like me)?

MotionMan

Some of us find Comcrap (the only cable option in this area) so wretchedly evil that we can't do business with them for any reason. It doesn't help that in the time we had them we experienced constant issues. Of course, Qwest/DirecTV have managed to be even worse, so now we have absolutely no options at all for TV or internet.

This country DESPERATELY needs to obliterate the existing tv/telecom companies and let somebody else give it a whirl. At least Comcast & Qwest need to go, no idea about others.

 

[Homerboy]

Not trying to start any flame war but just wondering which part of his statement isn't true. I can honestly say I get very constant low pings on my DSL and it doesn't fluctuate much (from my knowledge). I do like that AT&T gives you a modem which has multiple ethernet ports and you don't have to pay rental charges on the modem. They even let me keep my old ones ( I have 2 old 2wire modems from them). I remember having to pay to rent a cable modem from Charter and I had to hand it back to them once I cancelled service.

Going back to Homerboy's statement, It just depends on area I suppose. AT&T DSL is better all-around in my area.

Same with me. He's just trying to make a blanket statement saying "its slower" when its not. Some places offer faster cable packages for the same price as the highest available DSL in the area. Sure, in that case 100Mbps cable is going to blow the doors off 24Mbps DSL. But that is not offered in many, and certainly not MOST areas.

In the OP he is being offered 15Mbps cable $40 compared to what I can only assume is supposed to be 1.5Mbps DSL for $30. Which would you take?

 

[guyver01]

Same with me. He's just trying to make a blanket statement saying "its slower" when its not.

Re-read what i said.

I said "its cheaper = its slower"


Most DSL ads are along the lines of the following:

Don't pay $50/month for cable internet... pay $9.95 for our DSL!!!


What they dont tell you... $50/month gets you 20Mb/2Mb on cable. $9.95/month gets you 200kb/1kb on DSL*

 

[Homerboy]

Re-read what i said.

I said "its cheaper = its slower"


Most DSL ads are along the lines of the following:

Don't pay $50/month for cable internet... pay $9.95 for our DSL!!!


What they dont tell you... $50/month gets you 20Mb/2Mb on cable. $9.95/month gets you 200kb/1kb on DSL*

I'm not sure how this relates to the OP though... the thread is WAY off target isn't it?

EDIT: and what you said was "DSL = cheaper because its SLOWER."
It's NOT slower. Its the same speeds. If you are comparing the same speeds. The way you stated it, it makes it sound like DSL is intrinsically a slower technology than cable. That your bits will fly through the tubes more slowly. Which, we know is false.

When you compare 15Mbps to 15Mbps of either service, the speeds are going to be negligibly different.

 

[guyver01]

When you compare 15Mbps to 15Mbps of either service, the speeds are going to be negligibly different.

No they wont.

15Mbps on Cable is THE SAME as 15Mbps on DSL.

The price will also be similar as well.


That's like saying 60mph in a Ferrari is different than 60mph in a pinto.

60mph is 60mph.

 

[guyver01]

It's NOT slower. Its the same speeds. If you are comparing the same speeds. The way you stated it, it makes it sound like DSL is intrinsically a slower technology than cable. That your bits will fly through the tubes more slowly. Which, we know is false.

Correct.

What i'm saying... is if they're advertising CHEAPER dsl... its going to be SLOWER speed DSL.

It's not going to be 15Mbps DSL... it's going to be 1.5Mbps DSL.

I think we're saying the same thing. :sneaky:

 

[Homerboy]

No they wont.

15Mbps on Cable is THE SAME as 15Mbps on DSL.

The price will also be similar as well.


That's like saying 60mph in a Ferrari is different than 60mph in a pinto.

60mph is 60mph.

I guess I was more referring to the latency etc. Not the "speed" itself.
Obviously if you are pulling 15Mbps on DSL and 15Mbps on cable the TOTAL throughput is identical. Speeds identical, but latency could be different. I should not have used those words.

My point still is A) we're WAY off topic from the OP B) your comment of "DSL = cheaper because its SLOWER." could easily be mistaken from what you meant.

 

[Homerboy]

Wait... did we just settle an argument on ATOT, let alone the internet, amicably?
Has anyone witnessed this before?

 

[MotionMan]

Wait... did we just settle an argument on ATOT, let alone the internet, amicably?
Has anyone witnessed this before?

Man 1: "SO, WHY ARE WE YELLING?!?"
Man 2: "I DON'T KNOW!!!"

(What is that from?)

MotionMan

 

[Homerboy]

No clue what that is from.
But did we help out your OP at all?

 

[Fritzo]

wow. you fell for the hype, didnt you?

next, you'll spout the standard DSL bullshit.. "Cable is shared, DSL is not"


DSL = cheaper because its SLOWER.

less latency = false.

LOL @ hype. I freakin' worked on building ATT's DSL network in Ohio, Indiana, and Michican, and also Cablesystem's cable network in NW Ohio. I do this stuff for a living.

Cable has higher top speeds because they're able to push more bandwidth through coax than through the unshielded copper used in phone lines. That "shared vs. dedicated" thing is actually true, but not in the way you think:

- Cable has higher bandwidth connections on the far end, but their backbones don't have nearly enough bandwidth available for everyone to be using their connection flat out at the same time. They count on everyone maintaining 10% or less utilization. There are only 2-3 sources for this bandwidth (in this area, it's supplied by Sprint and Level 3). Therefore, if utilization goes above that 10% threshold, the whole network attached to that particular node will slow down.

- DSL maxes out around 7-10mb/s, but most DSL providers plan for 30% or higher utilization. Therefore more people can use the network without a slowdown. Also since DSL is limited on it's coverage area (it bleeds off after 15000ft from the source), there are more nodes set up---meaning more aggregate bandwidth is available, so speeds are more stable. This also results in lower latency connections.

I could write a whole chapter on this subject, but that deals with the point you were speaking of.

 

[zanejohnson]

where i live cable is better than DSL..

at my house i have the choice between 5mbps/1mbps DSL, or 10/2 cable... and the cable is cheaper if i bundle it with cable TV service..which i do..

 

[MotionMan]

No clue what that is from.
But did we help out your OP at all?

Now I am concerned that I was not comparing apples to apples.

Can any one confirm?

MotionMan

 

[Fritzo]

where i live cable is better than DSL..

at my house i have the choice between 5mbps/1mbps DSL, or 10/2 cable... and the cable is cheaper if i bundle it with cable TV service..which i do..

This is the most level headed comment here. Congrats!

 

[Homerboy]

Now I am concerned that I was not comparing apples to apples.

Can any one confirm?

MotionMan

I'm pretty sure of it as I have pointed out several times in this thread.

What I recommend is just going to each provider's site and comparing their apples to each other.

 

[BeauJangles]

Man 1: "SO, WHY ARE WE YELLING?!?"
Man 2: "I DON'T KNOW!!!"

(What is that from?)

MotionMan

Anchorman.

You're welcome.

 

[Homerboy]

Anchorman.

You're welcome.

Ugh. How could I not know that.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

This is the most level headed comment here. Congrats!

Its from zane, how is this possible?

 

[Fritzo]

Its from zane, how is this possible?

I checked my charts, I think it has to do with a planetary alignment:

 

[kami333]

Some of us find Comcrap (the only cable option in this area) so wretchedly evil that we can't do business with them for any reason. It doesn't help that in the time we had them we experienced constant issues. Of course, Qwest/DirecTV have managed to be even worse, so now we have absolutely no options at all for TV or internet.

This country DESPERATELY needs to obliterate the existing tv/telecom companies and let somebody else give it a whirl. At least Comcast & Qwest need to go, no idea about others.

I had DirecTV/Qwest in my old apartment because it was the only option, the complex had signed with Qwest to have them provide the inside wiring in exchange for exclusive contracts. Can't complain about the speeds/reliability but the billing was horrible. Qwest did the billing for DirecTV but I think they were having massive communication issues. I had to call every month to fix something with our bill, they kept bundling and unbundling our service for some reason and I got a collections call twice for a non-existent DirecTV account when my bundled DirecTV/Qwest account was current. After I moved I did the math and I'm pretty sure I only paid for 2months total out of the 11months that I had service. Best part was at the end of it all they couldn't find a record of us leasing our DVR and extra receiver so we ended up keeping them for free.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I had DirecTV/Qwest in my old apartment because it was the only option, the complex had signed with Qwest to have them provide the inside wiring in exchange for exclusive contracts. Can't complain about the speeds/reliability but the billing was horrible. Qwest did the billing for DirecTV but I think they were having massive communication issues. I had to call every month to fix something with our bill, they kept bundling and unbundling our service for some reason and I got a collections call twice for a non-existent DirecTV account when my bundled DirecTV/Qwest account was current. After I moved I did the math and I'm pretty sure I only paid for 2months total out of the 11months that I had service. Best part was at the end of it all they couldn't find a record of us leasing our DVR and extra receiver so we ended up keeping them for free.

Had the same issues here. Got most of our first year free, which is good since DirecTV has raised rates 3 times this year alone, and dropped a ton of channels.

The DSL was out nearly 1/3 of the year. Averaged 3 calls a week for the entire year. They seem to finally have it jury-rigged, but it's so slow it's not much better than dialup really.

Hell, just the basic, no frills local phone line through Qwest is over $40/mo now once taxes and everything get added on.

 

[Moonbeam]

I had comcast cable and would get disconnected regularly. I almost never lose my dsl ATT line. I have all the speed I need and seldom a headache. The constant brief disconnects with Comcast seemed intentional to me.

 

[bruceb]

In some areas, DSL is the best choice. I have cable available here, but the price from Cablevision is insane at about $40 per month after the initial 6 months / 1 year discount and you usually only get that if you do TV / Internet / VoIP Phone service. I get 1.7Mbs download on my DSL and that is because I am at the distance limit from the CO and can't get the full 3MBS from Verizon that far away. I pay $29.95 / month for it.

 

[zanejohnson]

I checked my charts, I think it has to do with a planetary alignment:

for the next 48-72 hours im like the oracle, ask me anything, you'll get a grade A, possibly semi-clairvoyant answer. go!

 

[Svnla]

Why I get DSL and not cable?

DSL = $20/month for 6Mb and no cost self installation.

Cable = More speed but can't just get broadband only ($50 for 15Mb bundle), have to pay for installation and wait for the tech to show up.