heard something interesting today about DSL vs cable

[apac]

This was at my CS research internship, so they're not novices when it comes to hardware & networking. I was suprised to hear one guy and his roommates were spending ~$100 a month on 1.5mbit/1.5mbit DSL (speakeasy I think he said) when comcasts 3mbit local internet is only $40-50 a month.

Why exactly is DSL so much more expensive? I personally have no issues with comcast except that it goes down every once in a while.

 

[jjyiz28]

upstream baby costs a bundle

 

[apac]

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
upstream baby costs a bundle

Well either way, another guy there was spending $70+ on 1.5/768. It really jumps $30 for half the downstream but increased upstream?

 

[Sid59]

gotta pay the premium if you want that premium upload

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: apac
This was at my CS research internship, so they're not novices when it comes to hardware & networking. I was suprised to hear one guy and his roommates were spending ~$100 a month on 1.5mbit/1.5mbit DSL (speakeasy I think he said) when comcasts 3mbit local internet is only $40-50 a month.

Why exactly is DSL so much more expensive? I personally have no issues with comcast except that it goes down every once in a while.

In your example, it is clearly because of the upload bandiwdth.

Cable may only be ~50$/mo, but we also only get 256k of upload bandwidth.

Then again, we get twice the download bandwidth(3.0mbps).

Originally posted by: apac

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
upstream baby costs a bundle

Well either way, another guy there was spending $70+ on 1.5/768. It really jumps $30 for half the downstream but increased upstream?

Yes, easily. Upstream bandwidth is expensive.

 

[Linflas]

I don't think it is the upstream bandwidth. 1.5/1.5 implies business class SDSL rather than the common consumer grade ADSL which is why it is more expensive.

 

[apac]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: apac
This was at my CS research internship, so they're not novices when it comes to hardware & networking. I was suprised to hear one guy and his roommates were spending ~$100 a month on 1.5mbit/1.5mbit DSL (speakeasy I think he said) when comcasts 3mbit local internet is only $40-50 a month.

Why exactly is DSL so much more expensive? I personally have no issues with comcast except that it goes down every once in a while.

In your example, it is clearly because of the upload bandiwdth.

Cable may only be ~50$/mo, but we also only get 256k of upload bandwidth.

Then again, we get twice the download bandwidth(3.0mbps).

Originally posted by: apac

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
upstream baby costs a bundle

Well either way, another guy there was spending $70+ on 1.5/768. It really jumps $30 for half the downstream but increased upstream?

Yes, easily. Upstream bandwidth is expensive.

Hm. Well the only thing he really stressed to me was "1.5 mbit constant instead of comcrap". I didn't really hear anything extremely useful for that large upstream except that he runs an FTP server (nice but definitely not worth the expense to ME, IMHO).

Guess I was just wondering why 1.5 mbit dsl downstream would be considered more valuable than 3mbit cable downstream.

 

[apac]

Originally posted by: Linflas
I don't think it is the upstream bandwidth. 1.5/1.5 implies business class SDSL rather than the common consumer grade ADSL which is why it is more expensive.

Perhaps. This isn't for a business though, its for a house of 4-6 guys, which is why I thought it was so strange.

edit: he mentioned that he and a friend needed to convince his other roommates to pay the high price, because they weren't CS students and wouldn't really care.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: apac

Originally posted by: Linflas
I don't think it is the upstream bandwidth. 1.5/1.5 implies business class SDSL rather than the common consumer grade ADSL which is why it is more expensive.

Perhaps. This isn't for a business though, its for a house of 4-6 guys, which is why I thought it was so strange.

edit: he mentioned that he and a friend needed to convince his other roommates to pay the high price, because they weren't CS students and wouldn't really care.

You can get business class SDSL to a house. One of the things that drives the cost up is that SDSL requires a seperate line rather than sharing the voice pair. They are also allowed to run servers etc which is generally forbidden by most cable TOS agreements.

 

[vi edit]

DSL as a whole is a much more complicated technology than cable.

 

[Wahsapa]

i live within 5000 feet of my CO and at one point the only thing you can get from speakeasy was sdsl when you live within that range, maybe they wanted speakeasy but got scewred because when your within so many feet you HAVE to get sdsl. and with speakeasy sdsl starting at 348/348(or whatever it is) might have been the only option, and them being a couple guys(guys with servers no less) 300k up/down doesnt look so hot, so the 1.5/1.5 sdsl from speakeasy was prolly best bang for buck due to their CO distance and speakeasy not offering adsl within 10000 feet(they just recently with their naked dsl option changed up the service so that i, living 5000 feet from the CO, dont have to go with sdsl but can opt for less expensive adsl)

 

[Pandamonium]

DSL's primary advantage over cable is that it is a dedicated line. You will always have your entire bandwidth available to you.

Cable is, unless otherwise specified, a shared line. I pay $45/mo for 10mbit/10mbit cable, but I don't come close to getting 10mbit/10mbit speeds- I top out around around 6/2 and average 4/1.5. The reason for this is mainly attributed to the other cable users in my area- the bandwidth available to all of us is purportedly 10/10. (Although I suspect it is something more like 10/5)

For the urban user, DSL typically provides much more speed than cable. More importantly, urban DSL users never have to deal with peak traffic slowdowns.

For a suburban user, it's a hit or miss deal. Areas can be better suited for DSL or cable.

IMHO, your colleague was trying to brag about how he pays more for a marginally better service. I seriously doubt he runs any kind of personal server worth mentioning on a SDSL line. Then again, I'm biased towards cable...

 

[apac]

Originally posted by: xjedimasterx
DSL's primary advantage over cable is that it is a dedicated line. You will always have your entire bandwidth available to you.

Cable is, unless otherwise specified, a shared line. I pay $45/mo for 10mbit/10mbit cable, but I don't come close to getting 10mbit/10mbit speeds- I top out around around 6/2 and average 4/1.5. The reason for this is mainly attributed to the other cable users in my area- the bandwidth available to all of us is purportedly 10/10. (Although I suspect it is something more like 10/5)

For the urban user, DSL typically provides much more speed than cable. More importantly, urban DSL users never have to deal with peak traffic slowdowns.

For a suburban user, it's a hit or miss deal. Areas can be better suited for DSL or cable.

IMHO, your colleague was trying to brag about how he pays more for a marginally better service. I seriously doubt he runs any kind of personal server worth mentioning on a SDSL line. Then again, I'm biased towards cable...

Yeah I really didn't see the point to it either.

I'm actually biased towards cable too because OptOnline in suburban NY was fantastic. ~$50 a month, and almost always 5+mbit downstream according to speed tests(no idea what they claimed). Here in a town with a campus of 30,000 people comcast is ~2-3mbit and serves all my internet needs quite well.

I really can't imagine what a personal user needs 1.5mbit upstream for. At that rate you might as well get a dedicated T1 line.

 

[Trygve]

Originally posted by: apac

I really can't imagine what a personal user needs 1.5mbit upstream for. At that rate you might as well get a dedicated T1 line.

A T1 line is a bit more than $100/month. When you include all the bells and whistles, I'm paying a few hundred a month for mine.

 

[Gurck]

Verizon offers 1.5 / 384 DSL for $30 a month... As has been stated, the price is so high in your example because of the upload bandwidth.

 

[yukichigai]

DSL and Cable have advantages and disadvantages.

Cable usually has the same up and down speed, or close. The problem is that when you have a large number of people in the area also on cable you tend to get lower speeds and higher pings.

DSL typically has a minimum 2:1 ratio of download speed to upload speed, at least at the reasonable prices. (For example, I'm on 1.5M/384k) However it isn't screwed when a bunch of people in the area have it, though DSL is notorious for Packet Loss.

Now me, I didn't care about upload speed so much, and SBC had much better deals here than Charter did. I'm glad I went DSL. Hasn't let me down.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: apac
This was at my CS research internship, so they're not novices when it comes to hardware & networking. I was suprised to hear one guy and his roommates were spending ~$100 a month on 1.5mbit/1.5mbit DSL (speakeasy I think he said) when comcasts 3mbit local internet is only $40-50 a month.

Why exactly is DSL so much more expensive? I personally have no issues with comcast except that it goes down every once in a while.

The telecomm world is about as mucked as possible.

there are tariffs, laws, reselling, who can own what and how much they can charge, what the minimum is, what the maximum is, etc.

Its fargin' ridiculous.

that's why. running networks aren't cheap and you generally (most times) get what you pay for. with customer service being the premium. Bandwidth is at the bottom of the scale on total operating costs for networks.

 

[boomdart]

We pay $40/month for 1.5 up and 1.5 down

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
DSL and Cable have advantages and disadvantages.

Cable usually has the same up and down speed, or close. The problem is that when you have a large number of people in the area also on cable you tend to get lower speeds and higher pings.

DSL typically has a minimum 2:1 ratio of download speed to upload speed, at least at the reasonable prices. (For example, I'm on 1.5M/384k) However it isn't screwed when a bunch of people in the area have it, though DSL is notorious for Packet Loss.

Now me, I didn't care about upload speed so much, and SBC had much better deals here than Charter did. I'm glad I went DSL. Hasn't let me down.

biggest misconception about broadband ever and isn't an issue anymore.

It all depends on the network...NOT the technology.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: yukichigai
DSL and Cable have advantages and disadvantages.

Cable usually has the same up and down speed, or close. The problem is that when you have a large number of people in the area also on cable you tend to get lower speeds and higher pings.

DSL typically has a minimum 2:1 ratio of download speed to upload speed, at least at the reasonable prices. (For example, I'm on 1.5M/384k) However it isn't screwed when a bunch of people in the area have it, though DSL is notorious for Packet Loss.

Now me, I didn't care about upload speed so much, and SBC had much better deals here than Charter did. I'm glad I went DSL. Hasn't let me down.

biggest misconception about broadband ever and isn't an issue anymore.

It all depends on the network...NOT the technology.

I didn't say it had anything to do with the tech. I said that was usually the case. It certainly has been in my experience.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: apac
This was at my CS research internship, so they're not novices when it comes to hardware & networking. I was suprised to hear one guy and his roommates were spending ~$100 a month on 1.5mbit/1.5mbit DSL (speakeasy I think he said) when comcasts 3mbit local internet is only $40-50 a month.

Why exactly is DSL so much more expensive? I personally have no issues with comcast except that it goes down every once in a while.

In your example, it is clearly because of the upload bandiwdth.

Cable may only be ~50$/mo, but we also only get 256k of upload bandwidth.

Then again, we get twice the download bandwidth(3.0mbps).

Originally posted by: apac

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
upstream baby costs a bundle

Well either way, another guy there was spending $70+ on 1.5/768. It really jumps $30 for half the downstream but increased upstream?

Yes, easily. Upstream bandwidth is expensive.

upstream bandwidth is the same cost as downstream. there is no difference. the upstream is limited (in software) in effort to curb overall usage and to prevent serving.

a few joes playing games or hitting pages doesn't hurt a network. A server, globally accesible serving thousands with a constant load, is.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: apac
This was at my CS research internship, so they're not novices when it comes to hardware & networking. I was suprised to hear one guy and his roommates were spending ~$100 a month on 1.5mbit/1.5mbit DSL (speakeasy I think he said) when comcasts 3mbit local internet is only $40-50 a month.

Why exactly is DSL so much more expensive? I personally have no issues with comcast except that it goes down every once in a while.

In your example, it is clearly because of the upload bandiwdth.

Cable may only be ~50$/mo, but we also only get 256k of upload bandwidth.

Then again, we get twice the download bandwidth(3.0mbps).

Originally posted by: apac

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
upstream baby costs a bundle

Well either way, another guy there was spending $70+ on 1.5/768. It really jumps $30 for half the downstream but increased upstream?

Yes, easily. Upstream bandwidth is expensive.

upstream bandwidth is the same cost as downstream. there is no difference. the upstream is limited (in software) in effort to curb overall usage and to prevent serving.

a few joes playing games or hitting pages doesn't hurt a network. A server, globally accesible serving thousands with a constant load, is.

That was exactly my point.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: yukichigai
DSL and Cable have advantages and disadvantages.

Cable usually has the same up and down speed, or close. The problem is that when you have a large number of people in the area also on cable you tend to get lower speeds and higher pings.

DSL typically has a minimum 2:1 ratio of download speed to upload speed, at least at the reasonable prices. (For example, I'm on 1.5M/384k) However it isn't screwed when a bunch of people in the area have it, though DSL is notorious for Packet Loss.

Now me, I didn't care about upload speed so much, and SBC had much better deals here than Charter did. I'm glad I went DSL. Hasn't let me down.

biggest misconception about broadband ever and isn't an issue anymore.

It all depends on the network...NOT the technology.

I didn't say it had anything to do with the tech. I said that was usually the case. It certainly has been in my experience.

Gotcha, I'm just trying to bring the "big picture" into play in effort to shed light on the overall operation of a net.

 

[spidey07]

Oh - one last thing.

DSL is NOT a dedicated line, no more than cable is a dedicated line.

DSL is singular from a layer1 perspective. Cable is singular from a layer2 perspective.

 

[Deadtrees]

I use xDSL because of that "dedicated line" issue. I, now, live in Canada and watch Korean TV programs over the net. If I use Cable, I'd get that annoying "freeze" thing once in a while.

Hmm...I just miss unlimited 100/100 xDSL line that I used in Korea. Hell, even 10/10 VDSL is considered to be a slow connection in Korea, not to mention both of them only cost 30 dollars per month.

EDIT : It's true that xDSL isn't really a dedicated line. However, when compared to cable connections, I'd say it, indeed, is a dedicated line