Cable vs DSL
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Al Bardo on September 20, 2005, 11:34 pm
Please log in for more thread options I'm a bit confused. Here in West Los Angeles, I have the option of getting either DSL or cable. For about the same price of DSL offering a maximum of 1.5 MPS, I can get cable that now claims to offer a minimum of 3 MPS and a possible max of 6. I've spoken to a few people with existing cable access, and they've told me that the usual negatives linked to cable, such as slow downs in speed when many people are online doesn't often happen in reality. They also say they've never experienced a down connection. Thus, I have to wonder why anyone would choose DSL in this situation. Am I missing something? Al Bardo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by dj on September 20, 2005, 8:21 pm
Please log in for more thread options Al, A person who wants to configure a server might like to have a static IP address assigned, and bandwidth that is not dynamic. Often (but not always), this is problematic with cable (TOS violations, etc.). For just web-surfing, you're probably right! Kind regards, dj Al Bardo wrote: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by David Schwartz on September 20, 2005, 9:08 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> A person who wants to configure a server might like to have a static
> IP address assigned, and bandwidth that is not dynamic. Often (but > not always), this is problematic with cable (TOS violations, etc.). > > For just web-surfing, you're probably right! For a power user, it's very dumb to compare ISPs just based upon bandwidth claims. More important is what they let you *DO* with that bandwidth. DS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Bert Hyman on September 21, 2005, 1:26 pm
Please log in for more thread options
albardo@nospam.net (Al Bardo) wrote in > Thus, I have to wonder why anyone would choose DSL in this
> situation. Am I missing something? > Maybe. First, for me to get a cable Internet connection, I'd have to deal with my local cable company. Doing business with my phone company is a pleasurable experience compared to that. Next, if I had a cable Internet connection, I'd have to use my cable company as my ISP with all the associated grief of their email and news servers. Buying a DSL connection from my phone company allows me to choose my own ISP from among bunch offering service in my area. BTW, my phone company (Qwest) sells me a 7Mbps connection, not just 1.5Mb; I actually train up at 6Mbps, and see consistent 5Mbps transfers from my ISP's own servers. -- Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Some One on September 21, 2005, 4:38 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> I'm a bit confused. Here in West Los Angeles, I have the option of
> getting either DSL or cable. For about the same price of DSL offering > a maximum of 1.5 MPS, I can get cable that now claims to offer a > minimum of 3 MPS and a possible max of 6. I've spoken to a few people > with existing cable access, and they've told me that the usual > negatives linked to cable, such as slow downs in speed when many > people are online doesn't often happen in reality. They also say > they've never experienced a down connection. Thus, I have to wonder > why anyone would choose DSL in this situation. Am I missing something? > > > > > > > > > > Al Bardo I've had both and I didn't notice any difference. The reason I dropped the cable and switched to DSL was purely a customer service issue (money was a minor issue also). I needed tech support on a holiday weekend from my cable company/Road Runner. My understanding was that I had 24/7 tech support. Well the best either the cable company or Road Runner could do was leave a note for someone to call me on Tuesday, this was on Friday or Saturday. I told them not to bother and called SBC on Tuesday instead. It turned out that I could get DSL at about the same speed (1.5 Mbps at the time) for $30 per month less than cable. I haven't looked back since. The cable company now offers internet access at up to 5 Mbps and for a few extra bucks I might be able to get 6 Mbps DSL service but the 1.5 Mbps is fine for my purposes. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Cable vs DSL | September 20, 2005, 11:34 pm |
| Moving from DSL to Cable | August 29, 2004, 11:08 pm |
| Cable modem vs DSL | August 5, 2005, 7:48 pm |
| dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery | January 14, 2005, 6:34 pm |
| Switch from Charter cable to AT&T DSL?? | May 18, 2006, 6:10 pm |
| use cable, not Verizon DSL, for critical missions | July 3, 2005, 10:03 am |
| FAQ: Maximizing cable modem or DSL speed | July 19, 2004, 3:00 pm |
| Stress Test DSL vs. Cable Bandwidth | August 4, 2005, 9:53 am |
| FAQ: Maximizing cable modem or DSL speed | January 16, 2007, 12:53 am |
| FAQ: Maximizing cable modem or DSL speed | October 20, 2005, 9:16 pm |
| FAQ: Maximizing cable modem or DSL speed | December 5, 2005, 10:56 pm |
| FAQ: Maximizing cable modem or DSL speed | April 18, 2007, 3:07 pm |
| FAQ: Maximizing cable modem or DSL speed | April 2, 2007, 8:29 pm |
| FAQ: Maximizing cable modem or DSL speed | December 25, 2005, 4:33 pm |
| FAQ: Maximizing cable modem or DSL speed | January 26, 2006, 11:35 am |
> getting either DSL or cable. For about the same price of DSL offering a
> maximum of 1.5 MPS, I can get cable that now claims to offer a minimum of
> 3 MPS and a possible max of 6. I've spoken to a few people with existing
> cable access, and they've told me that the usual negatives linked to
> cable, such as slow downs in speed when many people are online doesn't
> often happen in reality. They also say they've never experienced a down
> connection. Thus, I have to wonder why anyone would choose DSL in this
> situation. Am I missing something?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Al Bardo