Just got "upgraded" to SBC "faster" DSL and found little difference. Maybe it's my old computer.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

WOW!

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



M

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

I've been very happy with my Adelphia Cable moden. I use Mozilla Firefox too, much faster than Microsoft Internet Explorer, however, I can't download some files that are posted here (racing videos) with Firefox, I have to switch over to Microsoft IE when downloading.

QUOTE (Neo914-6 @ Jul 30 2005, 04:25 PM)

Just tested DSL download: 651 kilobits per second

You must be a ways from the nearest whatzis. Just tested the GF's place, here, and even over the wireless I got just over 1 MB/sec downstream. Sounds like cable modem is significantly faster, though...

--DD

This past Wednesday I had my DSL replaced with Verizon FiOS "fiber-optics". Free installation and only $29.95 a month. Verizon has the cable companies sweating. My home phone is also on the fiber network. Next year I will be disconnecting my Brighthouse cable and will go with Verizon fiber for my TV.

DSL vs Cable. Hmmmm I could and did write volumes on this subject.
I started a company that went public (Efficient Networks, EFNT)
and became the worlds #1 DSL modem supplier in the late 90's.
(Siemens bought the company in 2001)
We supplied private labeled DSL modems for every major Telco
around the world.
I was heavily involved with ANSI T413 commitee which splintered
off to form the ADSL forum and then the DSL forum to push the
DSL standard out to compete with the rollout of cable modems.

I worked with numerous carriers all over the world helping
them define and bring up their SDSL/ADSL rollouts.

I made a ton of money off of DSL, so given a choice what do I
use for Internet connectivity: CABLE MODEM!

There is no simple answer, but technology wise, cable modem
stuff is just simpler, much cheaper to build, and faster with lower
latencies than ADSL.
And in the technology game, simpler, faster, and cheaper to make
usually wins.
Cable data encoding is much more efficient that DSL data encoding.
So if rates are identical, Cable will get better throughput.
That being said, alot depends on how the data plant is built out.
But for the most part, if things are not "broken" cable will usually
pretty easily beat ADSL for speed and latency.

--- Bill

---------- More info below----------------------------------------------

Alot of this comes down to the "NET heads" vs the "BELL heads",
i.e the ISP/Internet mindset vs the Telco mindset.

Telcos, know how to build things that are unbeliviably realiable.
In fact to a fault when it comes to data.
Internet data types tend to focus more on speed than on absolute
realiability.
Things like 100% uptime blows the mind of the NET head yet
things like TCP, sliding windows, and packet retries tend to blow
the minds of BELL heads.
NET heads tend focus on packets and Bell heads tend to focus on bits.
NET heads don't understand Bit Error rates and BELL heads don't
understand why a single bit error can cause transmission to stop
for 2 seconds and cause the retransmission of an entire packet.

DSL uses a VERY complex physical encoding on the
wires which is subject to higher error rates as distances increase.
This is why downstream speeds are reduced as the distance
from the central office increases; it is to reduce the error rate.
DSL also uses ATM encoding for the data layer which is really
good for constant data applications like voice but not so great
for variable sized data packets like IP/internet traffic.
The ATM encoding inserts a MINIMUM of 11% overhead.
For short packets like TCP acks, the overhead approaches 50%,
i.e packets are taking up twice as much bandwidth as a simpler
encoding method. Or in other words each TCP ACK uses up
twice the bandwidth on DSL due to the ATM encoding.

In the late 90's the Telcos finally figured out that using ATM was
not good on links where bandwidth is precious and TCP is being used.
Nearly all of them removed ATM encoding on the transcontental
fiber links between the US and Europe.

With DSL, the speed between you and the central office drops
as the distances increases, with Cable, the effective or usable
speed between you and the cable plant decreases with the
activity in your neighborhood.

Both have backend issues at their plant which are similar.
And once your data hits the main backbones, it no longer matters
if you originated the packet with DSL or Cable.

One funny thing with DSL is that during the meetings, there
were heated discussions about having DSL service WITHOUT voice.
The telco guys, laughed and said "who would ever do that".
They designed their rollout such that even today, in many cities
you cannot get DSL without the voice service.
So for many of the young 20-somethings that don't have a landline,
cable modem service is actually cheaper because they would have
to add a dummy voice line for $30+ to get ADSL.

ADSL was supposed to offer this great reliability and guaranteed
bandwidth, however, the way it is deployed, there is no
way to guarantee any bandwidth with the current ADSL implementation.
The Telcos rushed their deployement and didn't want to wait
for everyone to implement the other parts of the standard.
It is now too late to go back and implement this.

As far as realiability goes, that really depends on the backend
equipment.

The cable guys have SUCKED when changes/transitions have been
done. Outages have been for DAYS at a time, during these transitions.
Telcos handle this kind of stuff much better since they are
used to building networks that can never go down.

I could go on and on and on, but the bottom line is that for
residential ISP service, alot depends on the network layout,
backend equipment, and for cable, how loaded your neighbor hood is
with heavy users.

My feeling is that ADSL is rapidly becoming like 56k modem
service was in the late 90's. Nice, but faster things are becoming
available. If you doubt this, look at how it is priced, in most
regions, DSL is cheaper than Cable modem service.

For me, I'm getting near 5 mbit/sec data downloads through TCP!
That is hightly unlikely if not impossible using ADSL for most users.
So I gladly pay the extra money for cable over ADSL.
And for me, other than during the @home->ATTBI->Comcast
transitions and the recent Comcast encoding speedup.
Things have been very realiable.

Heck I still remember the early days back at Efficient when
we paid $600/month to get a 64k ISP service back in 1993!

Excellent post Bill, thank you. Who knows anything about the details of Sprint Broadband? Specifically with relation to DSL and cable.

I've had Sprint BB for over 3 years now. It used to be rock solid reliable if a little slow as compared to other's service speeds via DSL and cable. But lately (the last couple of [few?] months) I've having service dropouts for minutes to an hour sometimes and DNS dropouts constantly. One second can't lookup, the next Bam! - same page loads. Its really starting to piss me off; Especially when Im on call and have to drive in to work because I cant get my network to reliably connect on a Saturday afternoon. I've been considering going to Comcast cable service, but I remember a few years back when I had digital cable TV from the same company and the reliability absolutely sucked.

QUOTE (bperry @ Jul 30 2005, 11:54 PM)

Cable data encoding is much more efficient that DSL data encoding. So I gladly pay the extra money for cable over ADSL.

FiOS fiber-optics to the house is what Verizon is focused on. DSL will be fazed out in the areas where FiOS is available. Besides all the online features and your home telephone service, FiOS will also allow them to offer on demand video and television. It has a connection speed of up to 15 Mbps. I'd take fiber-optics over my local cable provider any day. Plus it's less money.

What is everyone paying for their service? Comcast wants 50-60 bucks a month for cable internet. DSL is pretty close to that.

Introductory price for 3 months at $29.00, now at $43.00.

QUOTE (Brett W @ Jul 31 2005, 11:39 AM)

What is everyone paying for their service? Comcast wants 50-60 bucks a month for cable internet. DSL is pretty close to that.

i pay 50 a month for phone and dsl, the phone comes with all the features, and for 20 more a month i can get unlimited long distance, but i pay 5 cents a min now. if my long distance adds up to 10 a month i am suprised.

A great site for broadband information is:
DSL reports: Link
There are tons of reviews, forums, and tracking of problems
as well as uptime and performance tools available.

I pay about $50 for Comcast. I agree about the Fiber comment.
Fiber could definitely be better than Cable.
I'll be interested to see how the rollout of those services work.
It may run into some franchise issues as the cable companies
fight to preserve their monopoly.

--- bill

Cable Modem:

I share my neighbors cable modem with a secure wireless router at 108mps ]
We split the 60$ monthly bill.

I swtched from satillite to Cable and it is blazingly fast. I pay $19.95 per month for cable access which is much cheaper than satillite.

QUOTE (grantsfo @ Jul 31 2005, 11:06 AM)

I swtched from satillite to Cable and it is blazingly fast. I pay $19.95 per month for cable access which is much cheaper than satillite.

What service, can't be Comcast?

QUOTE (PatW @ Jul 31 2005, 10:34 AM)

Cable Modem: I share my neighbors cable modem with a secure wireless router at 108mps ] We split the 60$ monthly bill.

Wonder if you can do this without them knowing

Our houses are so close in the Bay Area, you'd think this would be more common...

QUOTE (Neo914-6 @ Jul 31 2005, 11:11 AM)

QUOTE (grantsfo @ Jul 31 2005, 11:06 AM) I swtched from satillite to Cable and it is blazingly fast.  I pay $19.95 per month for cable access which is much cheaper than satillite. What service, can't be Comcast?

Yep Comcast, I negotiated with them as I didnt disable my satillite and said I'd be comparing services. They were going to charge $45 per month and I said they'd have to do better. They are providing the service at $19.95 per month for the next year no start up fees etc. Guess I'll see what happens when my year is up!

Year, I thought the deal was 6 mos at half rate? They dropped off the hardware so I have a free month to compare with my SBC DSL...

Hope SBC doesn't charge me to drop the "contract".

Sonic.net DSL all the way 6.0mbps Download/608kbps Upload which means......i will download at 600k/sec 24/7. Check out the reviews: http://www.broadbandreports.com/reviews/896 Sonic.net

QUOTE (PatW @ Jul 31 2005, 10:34 AM)

Cable Modem: I share my neighbors cable modem with a secure wireless router at 108mps ] We split the 60$ monthly bill.

maybe 100Mbps to the modem, but you aren't getting that speed past the modem (where it counts).

QUOTE (Neo914-6 @ Jul 31 2005, 11:11 AM)

QUOTE (PatW @ Jul 31 2005, 10:34 AM) Cable Modem:   I share my neighbors cable modem with a secure wireless router at 108mps ] We split the 60$ monthly bill.  :D Wonder if you can do this without them knowing Our houses are so close in the Bay Area, you'd think this would be more common...

it doesn't matter if they do know.

hey vortex, fellow coworker.

i'm a area tech out here in seattle area. and yes @home was a nightmare. once they file chptr 13 the net fell apart. the plant was still solid out here so it was real frustrating to see our hard work getting going down the sh-tter.

we're solid 6mb dwn and 500 up

I have been using cable modem in various parts of the state for around 9 years now. I started using a beta network in San Diego in 96. I have always had great results with cable modem despite occasionally spotty service and mysterious downtimes. Our cable modem connection in Mountain View was FAST and now Sunnyvale seems decent too (only been on it for 30 mins so far). I have heard reports of major network problems in Saratoga and other areas, so watch out. It may depend on what neighborhood you're in. But I would definitely give it a shot, a free trial sounds perfect.