Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by jazzbo, Jun 21, 2003.
I was a little late, but I'm here now, with DSL.
Seriously man. Wow.
You ain't got nuthin till you got cable
Congrats! Its like seeing clearly for the first time. You won't know what to do if it ever goes back
Don't listen to him JB, DSL is great.
Sure I personally have Cable, but that's cause it's the only thing avail to me.
I never said DSL was bad, just that cable was better
Personally, I don't like my upload speed, 30k tops, While my downloads reach upto 800k....I wish it was more balanced. DSL packages can offer that, cable packages generally cannot.
on top of that, my cable chugs at 6 pm, when everyone on my block is home from work.
I don't know the actual speed of my connection, but it is constant, and pretty damn fast. The speed doesn't really fluctuate with time of day for me. I dunno, my cable corridor might just have less traffic compared to others.
I think the speed and service issues between DSL and cable differ regionally. In the town in which I previously lived I had cable modem for 25 bucks a month and it was awesome in speed and outages were very rare (although some people in the very new suburb neighborhoods did have some more outages). I currently have DSL now (SBC Yahoo) because in this town cable modem is freaking 45 bucks a month!! I've used the cable modem at my fiance's house though and it is usually about 4 times faster on average than the DSL package that I have. Mine goes up to 1.5 MBPS but it usually clocks in at 600 to 700 kbps. Not great but acceptable. I live in an older part of town so that may or may not have something to do with it (phone lines??). I have also had a recurring problem too in which sometimes I'll click a website and the icon in the upper right of explorer is moving as if it's taking me there but there is no info being transferred. It's just sitting there. Weirdage. Overall I've been pretty content with it but if I could do it again I would seriously consider spending the extra 10 (now 15 since DSL went down 5 dollars for new customers) for cable now that I've used both in my town. This could vary greatly by location. Cable modem is more competitive in price with DSL if you drive 45 minutes down the highway to Austin. Not sure about performance there.
people still on 56k?
my dad was paying $180 a month for business sDSL (symmetrical DSL) which supposedly uploads as fast as it downloads. i was downloading a 20kbps, and uploading at 16kbps. it was 192kbps sDSL. it was horrible. i hope that company that sold it to my father burns in hell.
i now have cable, and im downloading at an average rate at upwards of 400kpbs, at any given time of the day. and, it is $35 a month.
DSL is just a hotrodded phone line. it uses the same phone lines as, you guessed it, your phone.
cable uses coaxial tv cables. it is a lot more stable this way, too, and leagues easier to set up and get.
i hate dsl. its more expensive, it uses a lower-tech method of transferring information, and you pay more per kbps.
but im glad you experince speed now, jazzbo.
The second that I got cable, I got used to it instantly. Now I can not stand 56k at my friend's houses.
Now we see the subjectivity of the statement that "Cable is better than DSL." In your area I'd take my DSL over your cable. You're only getting 400kbps on cable modem? That's very slow for cable modem IMO. I get 600 to 700 kbps on average (never clocks lower than 600) and up to 1.5mbps at times for the same price. Here though the cable modem gets up to 3mbps and averages over 2mbps for 45 a month. It's different everywhere. If my DSL is flat-out faster than your cable than I don't care WHAT technology is being used or how old it is. That is completely irrelevant in light of performance. They could be transmitting it with two tin cans and a string for all I care.
By the way, I've had both cable and dsl and the dsl was easier to set up. These days DSL requires no alterations to your phone jack. You just plug in and go.
IT sounds like your father's DSL is using some ancient 1st gen. technology or something and therefore you've condemned all DSL based on that one experience.
I am, and that is because nothing else comes out here, or even within 10 or 15 m iles of my home.
I've done all the steps from 28,8 to 56 to dual ISDN to cable, but finally backed down to ADSL. The cable connection was so erratic I just couldn't use it reliably. It was probably too new and unproven at the time. The ADSL connection is solid though.
That's fine if you can get cable - in the UK there are very few cable TV regions and I certainly can't get cable in my little village, but I can get ADSL (or I will be able to in a month!)
I had ADSL in Southampton when I lived there and I have no problems what-so-ever. I don't know what this 'stability' issue is you're talking about (what do you even mean by 'it is more stable this way'?!) and I can't see how cable is any easier to set up and get (we had the option of cable too but decided we didn't want our bandwidth compromised by others in our street).
Over here ADSL is cheaper than cable. Can you explain the difference between the transfer method between xDSL and cable, or indeed why one is more 'high tech' than the other?
The only good thing I saw with the cable connection was that they had to upgrade the cable amplifiers in my apartment building to even get it to work. That made my TV reception much better.
search for your local exchange, see how many people you need to get to register to get the exchange upgraded, then write to your local paper to encourage everyone to sign up for it (well sort of, it's more a show of interest with BT) and hopefully you'll get ADSL soon.
That's what we did!
no, its really not brad.
in my area, i get a minimum of 400kbps.
on average, i get 600kbps to 800kbps downloads.
the only advantages on having dsl over cable is that:
1) higher speeds are offered. (but for a much higher cost)
2) you have your own line, and you do not share a sector with the public. its private. (therefore no slowdowns during peak usage hours...kbps speed remains constant)
3) the ability to establish a hardware VPN (virtual private network) which is more secure with dsl than with cable.
the stability issues of a digital subscriber line lie with the phone companies' issues.
with dsl, you use a companies phone line that ties into one of their sector service stations. many things can go awry in that situation. ive had many outages and mishap "soft disconnects" happen because of this. it is in part because of the phone companies' mismanagement with contracts and services with others, confusing the ip addresses with others, and simply just confusing one service with another. with cable, it (in my case) connects directly to your tv service. its a lot more simple than dsl. less can go wrong. a lot less can go wrong. however, if your tv goes out, usually so does the cable, and that can be a major drawback at times.
a lot of homes these days need to get cable boxes wired and rigged to be able to accept a dsl service, to get on the information highway and ride "piggy-back" on the phone signals. its "less tech" because of this xfer method. its not low-tech. its less tech.
im not damning all dsl and saying "i have cable therefore all dsl sucks".
First it was an average of upwards (usually means "around" or "just over") of 400kbps, now it's an average of 600 to 800. Which is it?
Huh? I live in some old-as-dirt apts. They are for medical students and they are so old and in such bad condition that more than one employee of the medical system that owns them has tried to have them condemned. The phone lines are old too. I didn't have to get anything special done. I just called SBC, they sent me the stuff, I plugged in and went. And last I heard the phone company doesn't provide cable through the phone lines, nor do they use "cable boxes." This indicates that you know little about that of which you speak.
Once again, if it works and it doesn't break then I don't see why it matters what level of tech it is. I've had no problems with the supplied service or phone lines. I mentioned a problem above but I've found that it's a problem with the network settings on my computer. To say that one's better because it's more high tech is simply nonsense and nothing more.
It still seems like a lot of what you are saying is based on your own personal experience with a poor DSL provider (and a little BS mixed in). That's fine. Whatever works best for you. Cable might even be better but I just felt that some of your statements were just a bit silly in the first place. That's why I replied.
Me, I'm in limbo right now...
I was one of the first in my area to get broadband when aDSL became available. Recently the wife and I were pretty blown away while visiting some friends with a cable connection, and debated the switch. A dead DSL modem cinched the decision, and the cable guy should show up on my doorstep on Tuesday morning.
...In the meantime, I gotta say that I was astounded to find that the new Mac I bought a few weeks ago actually came with a modem... so I'm counting myself lucky to be able to surf TB at the moment... for those keeping score at home, I'm cruising at an altitude of 46kbps...
Tuesday will not come soon enough!
[edit - after submitting this post the thread never loaded back up and the connection died. Attempts to dial back in weren't working, so I picked up the phone in the office, only to hear the TV in the den, where my wife was watching a late night movie with cats, one of whom tripped over a phone receiver, knocking it off the hook...]