DSL vs. Cable...which broadband is better in your opinion?

[urbantechie]

I use cable and I have not experienced any "shared" slowdown. From a good server at ANY time, I will download 3mbps consistently. I dont think DSL would ever even reach 2mbps. I think cable is much better.

 

[Goi]

I think under optimum conditions, cable is better than DSL as it usually provides higher bandwidth.
However, in real world conditions, it really depends on a lot of factors, so there's really no "better" solution in general, just what's "better" for your uses, in your area.

 

[Goi]

double post

 

[linuxboy]

another thing to consider with dsl:
how oversubscribed is the ISP?



<< I dont get it, isnt DSL also shared, just at the DSLAM >>


exactly !

as an example, I'm going to use the network dsl sctructure of my metro area ( Portland, Oregon)
This setup is very common and exists in many settings.

Here, there is a core network of ATM switches that are all intermeshed. The ISP's connect to this with routers. Point-to-pint circuits run from it to every CO in the area and are plugged into the DSLAMS. Here's we use the cisco 61** series that can have 24-200 ports per unit. From those dslams come the individual dsl lines. The loss and bad quality associated with dsl can come from a few factors. First, the quality of the lines between the CPE and CO. Second, the dslam. The cisco dslams usually have 256 dsl lines at 256 k apiece (usual, cheapest setup). That is about 65 Mbt of data. The problem is that the dslam is plugged into a ds3. If everyone was using the network at 100 %, 30 % of all the packets are dropped. Then you have the loss at the ATM switches and the loss from the core to the ISP.
so....

Consider this: If the telco were to not oversubscribe, it would need to charge a good amount of money to stay in business. But it does oversubscribe. By as much as 1000 %. So if, the network use for dsl subscribers approached 100 %, the packet loss would be 100 %. Cable is similar but it splits off the bandwidth at different points.

The problem with broadband is that in the beginning when nobody is on, it's blazing fast. But as more and more users join the pipe is oversubscribed and you get less speed unless you pay more. By making dsl a low priority, the telco can keep the businesses using expensive frame relay/T1's and make more money because businesses can't afford a day of downtime.

so to sum it up, you have to see what works for you. But what works now, may not be so great as more and more people join. I would look into a wireless connection because it will still have few users in the next year until companies advertise more. But wireless has the same problem because you are only guaranteed the speed to the base. Then, you have whatever connection is available or if alot is available and you are choked, you have whatever you are allowed to have.

I would ask around and get people's opinions and then make a decision. : )

 

[oldfart]

linuxboy, your understanding of how DSL and DSLAMs work is pretty decent except for the ATM oversubscription. In your example of 256 users @ 256k each = 65 meg for example. There would only be a bandwidth requirement of 65 Meg if every user on every circuit was simultaneously downloading a STEADY stream of data. Never happens. Even say at peak times with all 256 users on, its not a problem. Data traffic is bursty in nature. ATM arranges all of the packets from different streams and lines them up &quot;filling in the gaps&quot; sort of. No packets would be dropped. Your example would be an oversubscription ratio of about 1.5:1. A very good provider does about 20:1. Some go 80 even 100:1.

 

[Viperman]

I have had my cable modem(Time Warner's Road Runner) for over 2 years now and I am completely satisfied with it. It has great download speeds and is extremely reliable.

 

[narciarz]

I have SDSL from Phoenix Networks via Northpoint, so far not a single problem since I got it (March, 18th). $39.99 per month for 416/208 KB.
Cable here in Chicago sxxxs since it is not digital (you need phone for upload)and they want $49.99. So Dsl is the only choice for me, also I'm about 1 mile from switch so this limits my speed.

 

[linuxboy]

oldfart, correct

I was exaggerating to make a point 🙂

 

[cparker]

It really depends on the services available locally. In my case I wound up with cable (TW-RoadRunner). At first I tried getting DSL but after several months of trouble getting an installation (via Covad and Bell Atlantic) I gave up. The problem was that there were too few phone lines available in my apartment line for an additional line. Other people I know with dsl have had better luck although horror stories abound. Since RR was available in my building, I called them up and had a working installation in less than a week. No problems. A pleasure. Inexpensive. In general, I'd say that if you have a tv cable service installed that also offers a cable modem and if the cable modem service is good in your area, it's generally worth getting that first and see how it operates. If it's good, keep it. If it's questionable, get dsl and see if it's better. Then cancel the one that's least desirable. Usually you get a free month trial with no penalty for cancellation, so it's an easy decision path.