OT....internet connectivity, thinking of going w/ cable Options

[Aaron Cox]

im thinking of going w/ cable....DIALUP SUCKS the big ...... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smash.gif)

[Alexlitov]

I have cable, but I also have wireless T1. T1 sucks big time!!!! Get cable and be happy.

[72Signal914]

After having ethernet for a year in my dorm, and having dial-up practically my whole life. I convinced my parents about a month ago to get cable...oh man I love it and so do they. And we get like 250+ channels now. Our house is also set up for wireless too so I can sit on here and watch TV from my couch. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[72Signal914]

T1 is faster than cable, but it depends on how many people are using it. My dorm room was a T1 connection, I DL'd stuff from my friends comp at 1.2 Mb/sec. and stuff from the net at like 600-800kb/s. Are you in an apartment

[Dave Cawdrey]

Had dial up once. For a week... Sucks. Cable is better. Network DSL, Admin computer... BEST (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[seanery]

I've had cable for about a year and had dsl for 2 1/2 - 3 years before that.
I'm sold on cable, the speed is much better than the dsl. As long as cable is offered
where I live, I'll have cable. I dont use it for television programming I'm a DSS fan there.

My speeds are usually in the 1.7 - 3.2 megabit range for $41 / month.

[Mockmaw]

There are a couple of critical questions to answer for yourself when deciding on a 'high speed connection'. Notably:

1. How many people 'around' you use cable internet?

2. How far are you (as the crow flies) from the nearest phone/dsl station?

Cable has theoretical potential to be faster than DSL, but is highly limited by the number of people around you that have it and use it. If you live in the suburbs, cable should be fine.. the only time you might see slowdowns is if many people in your neighborhood also have cable and are using it at the same time (peak hours of 6-8pm for instance can cause slowdown in many people in the area are using their cable connection.) If you live in an apartment/condo complex where many other tenants/residents use cable.. forget it, use DSL or satellite or something else.

DSL does not have the theoretical potential that Cable does, but it's not limited by the number of users in your area that are causing activity. Unfortunately, speeds and particularly availability are limited the farther you are from the nearest phone/dsl station. When signing up for a DSL service, just ensure that they have a guaranteed _minimum_ bandwidth so you don't get signed up with a plan that gets you only 10% throughput because of your proximity to the local station.

Easiest way to find out which is best: find people that are physically close to your home and see what their connection speeds are like with both cable and dsl.

Hope that was remotely helpful. I've been using cable, dsl, t1, and many other high speed connections for almost as long as I can remember. I've had positive experiences with basically every connection medium I've used.. certainly not true for with every provider I've worked with.

[Bleyseng]

CABLE!! Just went to Costco and bought the wireless router for Moniques house and set up a wireless network. I walk around on the internet and do work (business) on the laptop at night. Simply great, and cost $129.
Geoff

[vortrex]

unfortunately the myths of cable modems are just that. sure, it's a "shared" medium, but so is the ethernet at your office, and has little to do with your speeds seen. your performance will be more governed by what your connectivity is out of the cable headend to the "internet" or if your node is abnormally overloaded with customers. I've been a network engineer for 5 years now for very large cable modem ISP's and have seen it all.

in CA and in PA I was able to consistenly get over 2Mbps downloads at anytime of the day/night, which is more than a T1. sure, you don't have the upstream capabilities of a T1, but most people don't need that.

[Mockmaw]

Your analogy is correct, 'too many' users on any network medium can lead to congestion (just like the ethernet at the office).

I'm not sure what part of CA you're speaking of (or what year your anecdotes refer to, for that matter) but cable congestion does happen here and it's very unpleasant. In some complexes, the connection is essentially 'unusable' from about 4-10pm. 5 years ago cable congestion was a non-issue, now it is definitely a problem.

2mbps anytime of the day/night is unheard of here.. on top of that, AT&T capped the cable DL bandwidth at 1.5mbps when they took over @home's customers.

Down south we've been using cable for.. sheesh, at least 10 years, and have never had a speed issue. I had cable for about a year up here in Berkeley.. I learned my lesson. Switched to DSL 2 years ago and have never looked back.

[KaptKaos]

unfortunately the myths of cable modems are just that. sure, it's a "shared" medium, but so is the ethernet at your office, and has little to do with your speeds seen. your performance will be more governed by what your connectivity is out of the cable headend to the "internet" or if your node is abnormally overloaded with customers.

Vortex, I agree.

As a professional geek I can tell you that cable is generally faster for most people. If you are hosting a website and need the committed upload speeds then a T1 or DSL (budget - low hit web site) is your best bet. I have also found cable to be lower cost, plus now I get Speed Channel!!

Just remember that DSL is distance limited. If you are too far from the point of presence (POP) then you may be shit out of luck (SOL).

- Joe

[vortrex]

you were in berkeley which was an ATT market. they were notorious for overloading their CMTS's and nodes. you were probably also on a motorola CMTS (garbage). the bad performance had nothing to do with it being cable and everything to do with poor planning on the MSO's part. I managed the equipment you were on, but had no control over the node combining plans. ATT would on avg have 1000 more customers provisioned to each CMTS than what @H and CMTS maker recommended. ATT is/was very cheap. things will get much better in those markets when comcast takes over in '04.

[markb]

Go with the cable. We have 3 computers in the house, and I never even notice if anyone else is downloading at all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Mockmaw]

Agreed, the fault is on AT&T.. but that doesn't mean that cable is still the catch-all solution. I will say that the provider probably makes the biggest difference between one service to another. So research your options and ask people around you what they're using and if they like it.

[krk]

Mockmaw's got it. (as do several others on this thread) I can only add some btdt.

I've been running DSL for almost a year at my home and have been very happy with it. You can usually find out how far you are from the POP, and you can usually measure the performance you are currently experiencing. But the next set of questions is where your ISP is in the internet food chain. The advice about asking around your neighborhood is a very good one. Cable wasn't an option for me due to the cable supplier in my neck of the woods - I won't be doing business with them anytime soon (I run a satelite dish for TV -- occasionally have weather issues on receiving signal so probably wouldn't use it for my internet connection -- but love SpeedChannel!)

hth.

kim.

[EdwardBlume]

Between DSL and Cable Modem I went with DSL for the convenience and I already was using Earthlink. Whatever choice you make, stick with the reputable cable or DSL provider. Also try and get a promotion for 6 months at a cheaper price, etc...

Yeah, dial up was tough.

[campbellcj]

I had Verizon DSL for a couple of years at my old place (LA) and it was fabulous. Cheap, fast and pretty reliable. I did not have the base package; it was one or two clicks up from that. 768KB up and down, IIRC.

None of the residential solutions will beat a commercial circuit on performance, overall. You will either suffer more outages, or more fluctuations in throughput...BUT you will pay a fraction of the bill too. I have a full T1 at my office for $500/mo, which is "cheap" for the area; this is for a 13-block of static IP's and 24x7 monitoring. (I used to pay $1500/mo before the competition got cut-throat). There is on average no variation in speed and no downtime, other than a problem we had recently when the ISP merged with a larger company and the transition was botched...back to normal now. The DSL I used to have was like $60/month, for half that speed.

Now I have a DirecPC/DirecTV satellite lashup at home, because I cannot get DSL or Cable here. My next best option was like $700/mo vs $120 or so for this. The overall throughput is great, usually 800-1500+ Kbps/sec but there is a lot of latency (lag to establish a new connection) and also it is subject to disruptions from major storms, winds, etc. Not much I can do though.

[need4speed]

I agree with Mockmaw.
You can get "lucky" with cable, many do. Many do not.
Then again, whether local service providers will offer DSL to your area or not is also a crapshoot.

But for me, it comes down to my philosophical disagreement with how Cable TV is structured in the US. It's a largely unregulated monopoly. The cable companies raise prices with impunity. They degrade their analog signal, then tell people who complain to upgrade to the "better" digital cable for $10 a month.

Back when I lived in Illinois, our local EVIL MONOPOLIST cable provider, Jones, used to rob us blind, with crappy service, no phone reps, and ever escalating prices.
Then, they passed legislation (1996 Telecom Act) which allowed competition. AT&T came in, and magically, the outages stopped, and Jones started answering the phone when there were problems, and prices actually went down. Then Jones decided it wasn't profitable to be in that market, and shut down operations. Leaving only one provider, which played the monopoly game again (only this time it was AT&T, so they pretty much knew how to play that game, because they have the most experience at it).

When I moved to California, in my area, again, we suffered under a cable monopoly. I was renting for the first two years, and everywhere we moved, it just got worse and worse. Then when I bought a home, I said enough's enough - and got DiSH satellite TV, and DSL internet through PacBell. While the DSL prices have gone up by 25% since I first signed up, I've never had an outage, and performace is crisp and stable, and their customer service is top notch, AND - no goofy port blocking. It's a connection, with email and webhosting tacked on. They don't cut me off if I use too much bandwidth, and they don't block certain ports they don't like. It's very common for cable providers to do both. And while my mother in law probably would not care about blocked ports as long as 80 was open, if you do more than just web browsing (passive consumption of content), then having a full-on REAL connection is important.

I'm glad I have a choice, and as long as I have a choice, I choose to say "screw the cable companies".

[Brad Roberts]

5 IP addresses at home and at SSI allow me to run/do anything I want with web servers/email servers.

Hardcore geeks will use DSL (with IP addresses) Joe Blow user typically will use Cable.

My DSL isnt the fastest (I could pay more for speed) but it has only failed for more than 10 minutes twice in 16 months.

B

[Jeffs9146]

I vote for Cable!

I run a wireless network in my house and I have 3 computers that can run at the same time. I also charge my neighbor $15 a month to use my wireless network, supliments the exorbitant prices they are charging now!

Jeff