Cable -vs- DSL

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Josh Ryan, Jul 22, 2003.

  1. Josh Ryan

    Josh Ryan - that dog won't hunt, Monsignor. Supporting Member

    Mar 24, 2001
    I have a cable modem. I tried DSL because it's a little cheaper. It's a lot slower. I got about 450kbps down compared to the 2.5mbps with cable. (speed tests, which I suspect are connectionless, like streaming video, therefore not the same as saving a file to your hard drive which requires packets to be re-sent if they get lost). In real life this means that downloading one of my bands songs happened at about 32kbps w/DSL and about 190kbps w/cable. Our songs are not good enough to take that long! I called verizon and asked if these numbers were typical, they said yes, so that settled that. I kept the cable. Why did I post this you ask? I don't know.
  2. Zon Bass

    Zon Bass

    Jan 20, 2002
    Dallas, TX
    I like my DSL but I have never tried Cable. I usually connect at about 1.5 to 2 megs per second. Typical download speeds off good servers are around 180 Kbps. Upload sucks though. I have Southwestern Bell

    Where's that test, I'd like to compare mine to yours.
  3. Wrong Robot

    Wrong Robot Guest

    Apr 8, 2002
    For a couple months when we first got cable it was totally amazing, but then I think they recently capped it, because we went from 100% instantaneous everything 40-60 ping in games, 400-600k/sec downloads on average, and flawless streaming anything


    webpages loading less than instantly, 80-200 ping, 200-400kb/sec average d/l and streaming needs to buffer more.

    oh well..that's the breaks, still creams dial-up.

    I have little experience with DSL, but it is certainly fast, even my brother's 384/384 line is really fast.
  4. mans0n


    Jun 15, 2002
    Apples and Oranges.

    It depends how much you wish to pay for either service, with all the money in the world a SDSL connection would surely be faster.

    Ive had both SDSL and cable.

    Which is better depends on what your uses are. I had a 1.1mbit up/down connection with SDSL, which gave me a static IP, also allowed me to do reverse DNS so I could have my domain name be resolvable from my IP all of this for 49$ per month.

    With cable, 3 years ago, it got installed in 3 days from the order... my SDSL was 4months from the order. Though my cables speed started at 10mbit by 128kbit, after a year it changed to 1.5mbit by 128kbit, after another year 1.0mbit by 256kbit. Also, there isnt even an option to get a static IP, reverse DNS access or the ability to lawfully run any type of server.

    Basically there is no VERSUS in this. It is apples and oranges. One service (cable) is mainly geared toward Mom and Pop families who will NEVER use a server, and never need anything very advanced. Where a DSL line (any of the types) are usually primarily geared toward more advanced internet users, though sometimes advertised to the normal mom and pop.

    Cable vs. DSL?

    If you want to run a server, like i do.. www email ftp, etc.. go with DSL.

    If you want to go on the net faster than ISDN or 56k, go with cable.

    The Cable vs. DSL debate is not only about speed, an issue that usually only changes when you pay more or get a good deal.
  5. Wrong Robot

    Wrong Robot Guest

    Apr 8, 2002
    Very true what mans0n said, on top of that I'd like to add that if you are a serious gamer, DSL is probably for you, if you want get a good package with fast upstream and downstream connections, then you will have as little lag as possible.
  6. I don't mind my Cable. I have maxed out the download at 8.1mbps and upload at 1.7mbps. I am not gonna complain. ;)
  7. I game so it's not worth loosing my connection with Verizon. Cable baby ! It's all cost preference..
  8. JMX

    JMX Vorsprung durch Technik

    Sep 4, 2000
    Cologne, Germany
    One of the drawback with DSL that most DSL protocols (Windows XP-intern and RasPPPOE), slow down like crazy when your upstream is fully used.
    The only protocol/driver that can circumvent it is Cfos' DSL driver.
  9. Josh Ryan

    Josh Ryan - that dog won't hunt, Monsignor. Supporting Member

    Mar 24, 2001
    All of that is true, the bottom line with everything said in this thread is WHERE DO YOU LIVE? My cable is not capped, and is advertised as being three times as fast as what Verizon offers as it's residential DSL package in my area. That said, and with the cost being so low for both, cable is the easy choice.
    WR, I don't get you game comment, faster up and down is faster up and down, no matter which service wins.
    Mans0n, I don't run any servers from my home. I run a server from from work where I can attach it to a t3, thanks to the kindness of my boss ;) , so I do not need a static connection. Static IP's cost a lot more than the entry level residential DSL or even the lower level business dsl packages here. You are right though, it's apples to oranges in the end.
    The main reason I went with cable? I send huge music files (+/- 70mb) to friends so they can add thier parts to them, and cable (in my area of course) has four times the upload speed that dsl (also in my area) does.
  10. NJL


    Apr 12, 2002
    San Antonio
    dsl at the office because it's cheaper.

    i used to have cable at home, but not anymore, too expensive
  11. I have Charter Cable....ugh it blows. DSL round here is A LOT FASTER THAN THE CABLE! The cable is like 1.5mbps and the DSL is like 2.5mbps.
  12. Josh Ryan

    Josh Ryan - that dog won't hunt, Monsignor. Supporting Member

    Mar 24, 2001
    Exactly, it all depends on where you live.
  13. That and is your cable/dsl company tryin to rip u off ;) I heard tha Charter rigs their modems so that they slow down after a while and you pay more for faster far I'm starting to believe that!


    Jun 1, 2003
    Orlando, FL
    a major drawback with dsl (which i have, we have no cable access here) is that to get it you have to be in a certain radius of the server/station (whatever the word for it is) which i think is like a 4-5 mile radius. i live about 4 miles from the station and i can get it but my friend who lives right down the road (closer to it than me) cant get it. what gives?
  15. Josh Ryan

    Josh Ryan - that dog won't hunt, Monsignor. Supporting Member

    Mar 24, 2001
    depends on the line to your house, when you got your phone number, where the repeater is, a lot of factors.
  16. Josh Ryan

    Josh Ryan - that dog won't hunt, Monsignor. Supporting Member

    Mar 24, 2001
    that has the ring of urban myth to me....
  17. I used to think it was a myth..but like we had normal Charter cable, 780kbps or somethin like that, got the upgrade to the 1.5mbps and now its at like I dunno...
  18. Josh Ryan

    Josh Ryan - that dog won't hunt, Monsignor. Supporting Member

    Mar 24, 2001

    Imagine the cable network as a pool, the more people jump in, the less space you have. OK, that's a crappy analogy, but as long as you stay above their guaranteed bandwidth, it will move around depending on numbers and zoning.
  19. unharmed

    unharmed Iron Fishes

    May 19, 2003
    London, England
    ADSL is distance limited to around 18000 feet. The further you are away from the DSLAM (carrier exchange equipment) the slower your connection will be. ADSL is not capable of using fibre-optic transmission media, hence the distance limitation. VDSL (very high bit-rate DSL) is the one I'm waiting for.<BR><BR>Cable is, as correctly stated above, a shared medium. The more people using your segment at one time, the less bandwidth available to each of them. Blisshead's analogy is pretty much spot on BTW.<BR><BR>Don't even get me started on broadband internet access here in Australia :spit:

  20. I know...I was just trying to be cool since charter sucks...