Which internet pipe would you rather have?

[Damn Dirty Ape]

Which would you rather have..

Verizon Online DSL 3.0/768 (tests to 2780kbps/700kbps) for $33 (taxes incl)

or

Mediacom Cable 5.0/256 (tests to 4750/230) for $53 (taxes incl.)?


Modem for both is included (wireless gateway/modem/router), 1yr committment for both. No setup fee for either. There are no other choices available except dialup. We have a dish so I can't get a lower price for the cable by getting video service or any other package.

I don't do much online gaming, so it's about 85% or so just d/l stuff (I don't do the file sharing stuff) and visit websites)..

 

[Rip the Jacker]

Cable, Cable, Cable.

DSL is horrible.

 

[JoeKing]

the upload of the dsl looks sweet.

 

[Shawn]

with those two choices, DSL. faster upload and cheaper.

 

[Johntk5]

I have never heard of a cable company wanting a 1 year contract.

 

[potato28]

The upload seems too tantilizing...

 

[Azndude2190]

I would go with DSL...faster upload speeds...more reliable connection.

And plus were talking about $20 dollars more for the cable.

 

[GML3G0]

DSL. Save $20/mo. I have Verizon and the last time the connection went down was 3 years ago. They were right on the problem and it was fixed the same day.

 

[Damn Dirty Ape]

Originally posted by: Johntk5
I have never heard of a cable company wanting a 1 year contract.

To get the wireless modem/gateway/router for free you have to do a 1 year.. Same with the DSL here.

 

[Sukhoi]

DSL unless you're going to be downloading a LOT.

 

[shoRunner]

one that doesn't get clogged with poker chips so I don't have to keep throwing the lottery balls through it

 

[Falloutboy]

you said you mainly want the speed for dling (non ptp) so the cable is the better choice. but the dsl isn't bad for the money but I lie cable better personaly

 

[KK]

I'd go DSL if they don't require you have a phone line.

 

[xanis]

Looks like this thread is abount with stupidity and arrogance.

Originally posted by: Rip the Jacker
Cable, Cable, Cable.

DSL is horrible.

Ok, mind explaining WHY you say cable instead of just bashing DSL?

Originally posted by: KK
I'd go DSL if they don't require you have a phone line.

You do realize that DSL is piped through phone lines, right?

 

[Fenixgoon]

my parents have had verizon DSL and it's been rock solid, so i'd go w/ them

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: KK
I'd go DSL if they don't require you have a phone line.

You do realize that DSL is piped through phone lines, right?

Yeah, but if they require you have phone service to get DSL, then I'd go cable. I think it's bullsh1t that most DSL companies do require it.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: Xanis
Looks like this thread is abount with stupidity and arrogance.

Originally posted by: Rip the Jacker
Cable, Cable, Cable.

DSL is horrible.

Ok, mind explaining WHY you say cable instead of just bashing DSL?

Originally posted by: KK
I'd go DSL if they don't require you have a phone line.

You do realize that DSL is piped through phone lines, right?

KK was probably implying naked DSL... meaning that while you have to have the copper for a phone line, your line does not technically have to be lit up for phone service.

I personally prefer DSL to cable, as of late. I used to *hate* DSL, and loved cable, but that was back when "cable was the thing to have, and DSL sucked". After I gave it a chance, I realized that it was as reliable, if not moreso, than cable; the speeds didn't fluctuate nearly as much on DSL as they did with cable, either.

I would personally pick the Verizon DSL option without hesitation, of those two. The price is obviously better, and the DSL has more than enough speed for me (and most other users).

<edit>

Also, KK, I believe that some (many?) local governments have input as to whether lines are allowed to be naked or not.

 

[aloser]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: KK
I'd go DSL if they don't require you have a phone line.

You do realize that DSL is piped through phone lines, right?

Yeah, but if they require you have phone service to get DSL, then I'd go cable. I think it's bullsh1t that most DSL companies do require it.

Au contraire; it's pure genius. Name any phone company that would, in their right mind, let you use their phone service with someone else's DSL service when you can get their DSL instead...

Vonage/Packet8/<insert VOiP provider here> are other companies that I don't understand the point of; they require high-speed internet, which is cable, DSL or satellite. DSL includes phone service (see previous comment). Cable companies are offering their own phone service as well. Satellite for internet is great download-wise, but terrible for uploading (uploading, in every case I've seen, has been dialup btw - and dialup, like DSL, means you have preexisting phone service). So why would you go with one of those exactly???

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: Sukhoi
DSL unless you're going to be downloading a LOT.

Here are my personal up/down stats. If you look at 2005-07 through now, that is on a 1.5mb/796k DSL. Before that, I was on 6mb/768k Comcast cable.

You might want to remember that with cable internet, you share a node with a few neighbors. If they are bandwidth hogs, you might not get great performance.

Dsl is your own connection. You share with no one.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: Xanis
Looks like this thread is abount with stupidity and arrogance.

Originally posted by: Rip the Jacker
Cable, Cable, Cable.

DSL is horrible.

Ok, mind explaining WHY you say cable instead of just bashing DSL?

Originally posted by: KK
I'd go DSL if they don't require you have a phone line.

You do realize that DSL is piped through phone lines, right?

Some DSL service is available without landline phone service. The signal still comes through the phone lines, but there are no inbound or outbound calls on that number.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: aloser

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: KK
I'd go DSL if they don't require you have a phone line.

You do realize that DSL is piped through phone lines, right?

Yeah, but if they require you have phone service to get DSL, then I'd go cable. I think it's bullsh1t that most DSL companies do require it.

Au contraire; it's pure genius. Name any phone company that would, in their right mind, let you use their phone service with someone else's DSL service when you can get their DSL instead...

Vonage/Packet8/<insert VOiP provider here> are other companies that I don't understand the point of; they require high-speed internet, which is cable, DSL or satellite. DSL includes phone service (see previous comment). Cable companies are offering their own phone service as well. Satellite for internet is great download-wise, but terrible for uploading (uploading, in every case I've seen, has been dialup btw - and dialup, like DSL, means you have preexisting phone service). So why would you go with one of those exactly???

In Hermiston, OR there are two phone companies. Qwest and ACN. Some people who live there qualify for Qwest DSL, but choose to have ACN for their telco. Qwest will gladly run a new jack for a standalone DSL for about $100, then charge you $28 per month to lease the lines from them.

 

[Rip the Jacker]

Originally posted by: Xanis
Looks like this thread is abount with stupidity and arrogance.

Originally posted by: Rip the Jacker
Cable, Cable, Cable.

DSL is horrible.

Ok, mind explaining WHY you say cable instead of just bashing DSL?

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=38&threadid=1924986

 

[Sukhoi]

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: Sukhoi
DSL unless you're going to be downloading a LOT.

Here are my personal up/down stats. If you look at 2005-07 through now, that is on a 1.5mb/796k DSL. Before that, I was on 6mb/768k Comcast cable.

You might want to remember that with cable internet, you share a node with a few neighbors. If they are bandwidth hogs, you might not get great performance.

Dsl is your own connection. You share with no one.

That's technically correct, but in reality it doesn't really work that way. IIRC with cable the bandwidth from the node to the provider is much higher than the rated speed at the house, so node sharing isn't that big of a deal. With DSL yes you have an individual node going to your house, but everyone is still dependant on one pipe where the nodes meet. Both systems are pretty much set up on the same tree design.

 

[Svnla]

Doesn't OP forget the cost of a basic phone line in order to get DSL? I pay about $20 for it on top of DSL cost ($35). My DSL total cost = $55/month.

 

[judasmachine]

I just couldn't justify the extra money for more speed that you'd rarely (at least in my experiance) see.

oh but i'm a tightwaud.