View Poll Results: Do you think E-Voting is a secure method of voting?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, it's secure (my vote is anonymous)

    1 10.00%
  • No, it's unsecure (my vote is not anonymous)

    9 90.00%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: DSL vs Cable modem

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    689

    Post

    I use cable. Here is the deal with cable. You somehow do share your connection with those around you, however "NEVER" have I received less than maximum upstream or downstream speeds. In fact I was promised 2Mbps downstream and 250Kbps upstream, but received 3.5Mbps downstream, and 600Kbps upstream. I run a webserver off of my computer so these were very important things to me. Like I said before, even though many neighbors have high speed too, I have never had a slowdown. I play many online games and rarely get ping times above 100.

    Here are the reasons I dont use aDSL

    1. Speed- although very quick compared to dial-up, its up and downstream is lagging behind that of cable
    2. PPPoe - when I first got high speed internet(many years ago) PPPoe was the standard for dsl and linux wasn't ready
    3. Limitations - some dsl providers are imposing bandwidth limitations, also most dsl providers don't want webservers, so they block port 80
    4. Stability - when dsl was first introduced, many high speed providers went belly up in a short amount of time, this put a bad flavor in my mouth. With Road Runner, which is a division of Time Warner, I feel I have more stability.
    5. Availability - when I lived with my mother, she lived too far from the central office for the telephone company to get dsl. Cable was available however. Now that I have moved out, this is a non-issue.
    6. Cost- When you see those low cost dsl ads on tv, they dont tell you that is with extremely small amount of bandwidth. To reach speeds obtainable by a cable connection, will cost you around the same or more than cable does
    Wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.
    --Ecclesiastes 10:19

  2. #12
    AO Antique pwaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,409
    Originally posted here by Tim_axe
    Hope that is clear/understandable, and shows how badly people in the US are getting screwed for bandwidth on DSL...
    If you think people in the US are getting screwed, try taking a trip to Rip Off Britain (tm). I pay the same amount for my connection (and I'm with one of the cheapest, yet reliable, DSL providers) than someone I know in the states, yet I get half the bandwidth (upstream and downstream). Until a couple of years ago, you were hard pressed to get the lowest DSL (512/256) for under 40/month (that's ~$70/month!), and even now it's hard to get a connection that allows you to run servers for under 25/month.
    Paul Waring - Web site design and development.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,130
    The reason most cable companies will not allow you to use your own equipment is that thier cable modems have filtering rules in place which prevent you from sniffing other people's traffic. These rules are loaded from a tftp server when the modem reboots. With a DSL line, the modem does not recieve traffic not destined for you and so filtering is not a concern. The liability issues for cab,e companies allowing user owned equipment are simply too risky to allow it.

    Some cable companies, however, install filters underground at the junction boxes. These few companies will generally allow customers to provide thier own modems.
    Government is like fire - a handy servant, but a dangerous master - George Washington
    Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force. - George Washington.

    Join the UnError community!

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    144
    I have DSL and love it.....i never go below 1.0 mbit and often hover around 2.0 mbit (and im paying for 384 down/128 up.... I also support vpn connections over dialup, broadband, and dsl. From the support side, Cable is nicer as it is mostly dhcp or static (with no usernames and passwords to forget) However, i have found DSL to be more reliable over the long run. We have more problems with cable than anything else
    M$ support is like shooting yourself in the left foot and then putting a band-aid on the right one.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    689
    Originally posted here by th3>kLuTz
    I have DSL and love it.....i never go below 1.0 mbit and often hover around 2.0 mbit (and im paying for 384 down/128 up.... I also support vpn connections over dialup, broadband, and dsl. From the support side, Cable is nicer as it is mostly dhcp or static (with no usernames and passwords to forget) However, i have found DSL to be more reliable over the long run. We have more problems with cable than anything else
    Maybe in your case dsl is more reliable, but I have found the oposite to be true. It really depends on several factors, your isp, what city you live in, and the kind of set up on your end. Both are viable solutions in some cases. Cable just remains my choice.
    Wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.
    --Ecclesiastes 10:19

  6. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1
    Hello,

    Being that I have a cable modem through Adelphia Powerlink and my son having DSL through SBC the only big difference is the the DSL seems to load all of the data first and release it at once, which looks like it makes it a bit slower vs. the cable opens all at once. On the bandwith speed test site www.toast.net the red line on DSL is about half the number as cable. I get anywhere between 2500 and 300 kps with cable and the same test at his house shows me 1300 to 1500 for the exact bandwith test. Milan

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •