SOT: DSL or Cable Modem?, Need for surf speed... Options

[neo914-6]

Just got "upgraded" to SBC "faster" DSL and found little difference. Maybe it's my old computer. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/confused24.gif)

[Andyrew]

Computers make a big difference....

but the internet just aint fast anymore... to much junk and activity I guess...

lol

We have dsl... (obviously.. lol, dad works for SBC)

[scotty914]

i have dsl for cost reasons, cable is 42 a month in my area but is somewhere around 500 k download speeds, my dsl runs around 100 k. but i changed my phone service to CAVTEL and the phone and dsl package is like 40 a month less than what i was paying for the phone and cable before.

[johnmhudson111]

I have roadrunner cable and it is very fast, I run a small home network (combination of wired and wireless) and my wife, son, and I can all be online at the same time with no noticeable impact on internet "speed". If you want to test you connection speed check out www.dslreports.com/tools and scroll down to speed test. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/type.gif)

[914GT]

I've been using Sprint Broadband Direct wireless for the past 5 years and have been happy with it. It's neither cable or DSL.

[TravisNeff]

Cable all the way. I had cable internet for about 3 years, until I moved where I could only do Qwest DSL. Again cable is the way to go hands down.

[bondo]

We use DSL, because we have satellite TV. The cost of cable internet when not buying their crappy TV service is prohibitive. We're paying $21.95 a month from dslextreme.

[lapuwali]

I some degree, it depends on where you are. Where I live, despite being in the SF Bay Area, I can't get DSL. I've just a bit too far from the phone company's CO. There are several other places in San Jose and Campbell where DSL is also unavailable, despite being in the heart of Silicon Valley. The farther you are from the CO, the worse your speeds will be. SBC simply hasn't built up capacity to meet demand.

I have I-DSL (DSL over ISDN), which is 1/4 the speed of the slowest DSL, but 4x the price! It's very reliable, but I pay a real premium for that. I had cable previously, and had terrible downtime problems (like HOURS per week). For the job I had at the time, I required 24x7 connectivity, so that was completely unacceptable. Reliability was much more important than speed. I also have satellite TV, so I never noticed any downtime on the TV side.

There's now a different cable provider where I live (comcast instead of AT&T), so I may try switching back to cable, to get 10x the speed for 30% of the price. My current job also doesn't demand the constant availability anymore.

The Sprint wireless service is supposed to rock, but they're out of capacity in the Bay Area, so they haven't signed up any new subscribers here in years.

[mk114]

well i work in a dsl trouble shooting center for a Bell company I prefer dsl to cable for two reasons I need static ips for my network and I also find I got faster repair if shit broke ( 1 day vs 3 day)

[redshift]

Cable, until now... Verizon is draggin' fibre up to your house, and that's a 5 Mbps dn.. like, uh... fast.

That will allow spam porn emails to include HD full motion video, and surround sound.

In three years with Comcast, I was down one night for about 5 hours from a hardware explosion, and I have had to reset my modem maybe... 10 times.


M

[vortrex]

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Jul 30 2005, 12:36 PM)

I some degree, it depends on where you are.  Where I live, despite being in the SF Bay Area, I can't get DSL.   I've just a bit too far from the phone company's CO.  There are several other places in San Jose and Campbell where DSL is also unavailable, despite being in the heart of Silicon Valley.  The farther you are from the CO, the worse your speeds will be.  SBC simply hasn't built up capacity to meet demand. I have I-DSL (DSL over ISDN), which is 1/4 the speed of the slowest DSL, but 4x the price!  It's very reliable, but I pay a real premium for that.  I had cable previously, and  had terrible downtime problems (like HOURS per week).  For the job I had at the time, I required 24x7 connectivity, so that was completely unacceptable.  Reliability was much more important than speed.  I also have satellite TV, so I never noticed any downtime on the TV side. There's now a different cable provider where I live (comcast instead of AT&T), so I may try switching back to cable, to get 10x the speed for 30% of the price.  My current job also doesn't demand the constant availability anymore. The Sprint wireless service is supposed to rock, but they're out of capacity in the Bay Area, so they haven't signed up any new subscribers here in years.

you'll find reliability in general with cable has gone up, just because it is not new anymore. there were lots of problems before because the cable companies had to upgrade their plants to 2-way and maintaining the upstream was a whole new thing to them. as the cable plants have settle in, issues have been fixed and lessons learned by everyone involved. I was a network engineer at @Home from '97-to the closing and now am a network engineer for comcast. there are such fewer problems these days in general. it's deinitely not because of the skill set either, because at comcast I work with a bunch or morons and back in silicon valley there was a bunch of smart people. comcast will also be going to 8Mbps down soon for like $10 extra and standard will be 6Mbps.

[redshift]

WOW!

All Hail Comcast! Great job! You tell them I said, please!



M

[vortrex]

also, comcast will be having its own backbone for the first time since leaving @Home. this will make things much nicer. a nationwide 10Gbps backbone build is underway which will give you much better access to the internet. since the fall of @Home comcast has bascially made each regional market its own ISP and got access by going through leased lines of ATT. when the backbone is in full swing we'll have direct peering with all the big shots cutting down hop count and latency. I still hate comcast. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

[airsix]

QUOTE (Travis Neff @ Jul 30 2005, 11:56 AM)

Cable all the way. I had cable internet for about 3 years, until I moved where I could only do Qwest DSL. Again cable is the way to go hands down.

Yep, I've done both and cable wins by a mile. I'm sure the provider has a lot to do with it, but in my experience cable has been more reliable, and faster for lower cost. It's the clear winner in my community without a doubt.

-Ben M.

[lapuwali]

QUOTE (vortrex @ Jul 30 2005, 01:56 PM)

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Jul 30 2005, 12:36 PM) I some degree, it depends on where you are.  Where I live, despite being in the SF Bay Area, I can't get DSL.   I've just a bit too far from the phone company's CO.  There are several other places in San Jose and Campbell where DSL is also unavailable, despite being in the heart of Silicon Valley.  The farther you are from the CO, the worse your speeds will be.  SBC simply hasn't built up capacity to meet demand. I have I-DSL (DSL over ISDN), which is 1/4 the speed of the slowest DSL, but 4x the price!  It's very reliable, but I pay a real premium for that.  I had cable previously, and  had terrible downtime problems (like HOURS per week).  For the job I had at the time, I required 24x7 connectivity, so that was completely unacceptable.  Reliability was much more important than speed.  I also have satellite TV, so I never noticed any downtime on the TV side. There's now a different cable provider where I live (comcast instead of AT&T), so I may try switching back to cable, to get 10x the speed for 30% of the price.  My current job also doesn't demand the constant availability anymore. The Sprint wireless service is supposed to rock, but they're out of capacity in the Bay Area, so they haven't signed up any new subscribers here in years. you'll find reliability in general with cable has gone up, just because it is not new anymore. there were lots of problems before because the cable companies had to upgrade their plants to 2-way and maintaining the upstream was a whole new thing to them. as the cable plants have settle in, issues have been fixed and lessons learned by everyone involved. I was a network engineer at @Home from '97-to the closing and now am a network engineer for comcast. there are such fewer problems these days in general. it's deinitely not because of the skill set either, because at comcast I work with a bunch or morons and back in silicon valley there was a bunch of smart people. comcast will also be going to 8Mbps down soon for like $10 extra and standard will be 6Mbps.

Funnily enough, I had @Home over cable originally, and had no problems for the several months before @Home exploded and AT&T Broadband took over. Service nosedived during and for nearly a year after that, when I got fed up and switched to IDSL. Friends who live in my area with Comcast cable report no problems, so I'm hoping it's better now. It wasn't a "hardware" issue, it was AT&T dicking around while integrating @Home's stuff with their network.

[914GT]

What kind of speeds are you all getting with cable and DSL? At one time I was thinking of trying out cable. I just checked my speeds a few minutes ago and I'm getting avg. of 3 Mbps download with Sprint. That varies up or down somewhat with network traffic. Cox is offered in my neighborhood. Would that be any faster?

[BIGKAT_83]

I just checked my cable and got 3.3meg. The cable has it capped at 5meg now.
I used PCPITSTOP.COM to check it

Bob

[Dave_Darling]

One small problem with the poll, as asked--I've never tried cable modem. My attorney and I both don't have cable, though, so DSL was pretty much the only reasonable $$ option.

--DD

[Verruckt]

Comcast cable 3mbs. Maybe three times in several years have there been any problems, dns, or major hardware issues. Been rock solid for me.

[neo914-6]

QUOTE (Dave_Darling @ Jul 30 2005, 03:51 PM)

One small problem with the poll, as asked--I've never tried cable modem.  My attorney and I both don't have cable, though, so DSL was pretty much the only reasonable $$ option. --DD

Dave,

Comcast just dropped off a Cable modem for a free 30 day trial. I wasn't sure of the differences because obviously each ISP will say they are better.

DSL is cheaper but saving time "should" save money.

Just tested DSL download: 651 kilobits per second