Printable View
What is the difference between dsl and cable modem's internet connections in terms of speed (up, down stream), tech aspect, and most important cost??
Are they using same type of technology os sorts??? :confused:
If anybody could shed some light on this....... I'm still checking google but can't seem to find anything that would explain what I need to know.... :(
I personally prefer DSL, It is somewhat cheaper and has a fast connection, among other reasons. But many of the factors depend on geographic location. I live in St. Pete, cable is expensive, DSL is relatively cheap. I don't know if it's the same for you.
EDIT: accidentally posted before I finished.
DSL runs about $30/month here, cable $40/month (i think).
Both have high speed downloads, but DSL doesn't have good upload speed in case that's important to you. I refuse to run cable because I despise Time Warner and they are the only local provider.
The main differences are:
xDSL- dedicated line.
aDSL is usually used by residential areas. Faster download then upload. ex. 768/128
sDSL is usually used by small/large businesses. transfer rates are about the same, up and down. more expensive.
Cable is pretty fast depending on what they allocate to your area and how many people are using it.
I've seen some people get 1mb down 256k up or 2mb down 256k up. You share all this bandwidth with everyone on your segment. So, if all the neighborhood punks are using filesharing 24/7, then your speeds can reflect those of dialup.
The price depends on the competitors in the area and the cost to them, providing you the service.
In my area, cable with speeds of approx 1mb/256k is ~$50/month. DSL with speeds of 768k/128k is ~$20/month. I am just south of Philly... with many major cities around... so the cost of them providing the service to me isn't that much... they have all the major businesses in/around me paying the majority of their costs...
I prefer DSL because it is dedicated. I don't have to worry about what time the my bandwidth will be available to me again, so I can download the latest linux distro.
I got DSL and im happy with it but i hear rumors that cable might be faster...
correct me if im wrong on this...but isnt cable 512 down or so and DSL is 768 down for sure
To me there is no big difference...the price is the same also
btw phishphreek80 the price on the cable and DSL depends on your location and your ISP..you pay $20 for the DSL...I pay $80 but i also got a IDCaller and some other stuff too.
and my bill for just the DSL comes out to like $40 i think..oh yea my ISP is SBC
peace
/scriptkiddie18
Everything I have heard points toward DSL being better. DSL is basically 4 telephone lines wrapped together it is your bandwidth (just like you telephone line) and the speed is the same whether 2 or 3000 people are on in your area.
This is were cable falls short! Cable basically is a huge pool of bandwidth and when you pull an IP from the cable company (this is only if not dedicated cable) you would "jump into that pool. So lets for instance say two of you are in the pool you can swim around freely and the water is still clean but as more and more people jump in you space gets more and more invaded and soon you are smashed up agains the side of the pool by bertha's ass (you know the one that smell like she has never wiped it).
This is were DSL falls short! Uploads are slower
I prefer DSL also
DSL is definitely better over cable
I've seen cable anywhere from 5mbps down, 256k up, to 512 down and 128 up.
DSL is usually anywhere from 768-2.5mbps down and 256-384k up
However on the companies that do offer 5mbps cable speeds the fastest I've seen on them is 2mbps.
If you can get a 1mbps DSL line I'd say your better off with that than cable.
The reason I prefer DSL over cable is beacuse you don't share your bandwith like phishphreek said. I'm not all that fast, but my DSL is 512k/256 when I test my speed its actually 495k/245k
The cable company here offers 1mbps/128k most everyone I've talked to only get 500-800k/80-110k. Obvioulsly thats a lot more bandwith thats lost which is why i prefer DSL as its always a constant speed.
D0pp139an93r you forget, you need a phone line to get dsl (i have a celly, no land line), so that adds at least another 10/month (for primary, not a second line)...
I pay 40/month for my cable and I love it. I have comcast and I run anywhere from 1.5-2.5 down and 300-400 kb/s up. Even during so called 'peak' hours, I never drop below this. I have never used dsl, so I have nothing against it, but cable seems to be a good option.
I would agree with most others and say that the choice between cable and DSL depends largely on geographic location. In many rural areas near where I live, cable TV is not available, however the phone company is fast adding DSL capabilities to the phone switches there and taking customers before the cable company gets a chance. Cable here usually runs at about 1.5mbs down and 512 up. Currently, DSL is the same, however my bandwidth will be doubled to 3 down ad 1 up by the end of march, according to the phone company.
In some areas the telephone lines are still a jumble and problems crop up regularly with DSL because of this. I generally find that cable is a better alternative where telphone lines are still overhead, unless cable is not available.
The one thing I really liked about cable over DSL was that it was much simpler to set up and troubleshoot. Generally troubleshooting problems with my DSL connection now take twice as long as it used to take me on cable.
You can also (over here in the UK) use your own equipment with ADSL, so long as you avoid companies such as AOL who want you to use everything of theirs. The cable companies I have spoken to won't let you use your own equipment, which can make setting up and running a home network much more difficult.
Also, there is a lot more competition in the DSL market, so prices tend to be lower (there are only a few cable companies left now). Cable is usually only cheaper if you have your telephone, broadband and television from the same company.
BTW, DSL over here uses contention ratios, so don't think for a second that you've got all that bandwidth to yourself - you're in the same situation as cable users. However, I would imagine that it's more likely for people on your street to all use cable (seeing as they have to put cable down the whole road usually to make it commercially viable) than it is for them to have DSL.
DSL is like an upgraded phone line. One benefit of DSL is that it is regulated or something, and your phone company has to allow competitors to open up their own ISP at the switching station / office. DSL usually is cheaper because of this competition, although at times the phone company can drown some DSL providers by charging a lot for use of DSL lines to the ISP...
Cable internet service is provided by your cable company. No competition, at least not that I've heard of recently. If an ISP wants to operate on cable, they have to work a deal with the cable company. This is because the classifaction is broadcast (ie cable TV is one way) while phone is classified telecommunications (you call people and get calls). Until this is changed, nobody can have competition on cable unless you can switch providers...
The allocation of bandwidth is different also. Cable has a single fiber line that transmits both TV and maybe one or two channels of cable internet. The more TV channels, fewer internet channels. This single fiber goes to pretty much everyone on your block, or anyone connected to that green box. There it is converted to the cable TV connection for TV, pay-per-view, internet, etc. And everyone shares the internet channel, and the fewer there are, and more crowded....well adiz summed that up nicely.
DSL is your normal phone line, but operates outside of the regular phone frequencies. This lets you use your phone for phone calls without interrupting your internet connetion. Since it takes a higher quality wire to keep this signal strong, if you have bad telephone wires DSL won't be quite as fast as it should be. Usually a DSL signal is pretty good for a few miles outside of the switching station / central office. The closer you are, the stronger the signal and faster your internet.
Now I'll talk about the connection I miss so much... My 12mbit dl and 1mbit up connection in Japan. They already offer a 40mbit service downstream with 1mbit upstream, and 24mbit down streams are pretty cheap. I think I got a free DSL modem with wireless AP built in for $20-$40 a month with 3 free months during the campaign for Yahoo! BB... Such a sweet connection, and all on two wires. Yes, I had a cheap phone line with only a single twisted pair, providing 12mbits... Technology at it's greatest... *sigh* Now I'm in Idaho and got Wireless since it isn't much more expensive than DSL ($50 month here :( ) and I can get about 4mbit up/down since I'm on a rarely used antenna and like 100m away from the ISP's building with their connection... Better than the same amount for 768/486 IMHO....except I had $500 in equipment to get...and that fact that they don't even offer DSL to my place...
Hope that is clear/understandable, and shows how badly people in the US are getting screwed for bandwidth on DSL... :D
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
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.Quote:
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... :D
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.
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.Quote:
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
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