DSL?

If you are talking ADSL, the answer is sometimes.

If you are talking SDSL, the answer is YES.

Cable is much faster than DSL, usually.

Only problem is, Cable has a nasty habit of slowing down exactly when you most want to use it.

It's like the tortoise and hare story, and Cable is the hare.

Now watch fifteen bazillion people flame me for daring to post the truth that DSL is faster. That's blasphemy, y'know. :) -Dave

Guess it sucks to live where you live. Over here, I see no slowdowns whatsoever.

Nothing a new Linksys cable modem won't fix, right? ;-)

Apparently, there's a razor thin dividing line between underutilized and oversold, so yes, I'm fortunate to be on the good side of the line. The bigger point, though, is that slowdowns can be found (or not found) with virtually any access type.

My local phone charges $50 for "up to 1 mbit" down & 128 kbps up.....

Costs & speed depends > Really ?

ISPs offer

Which xDSL ?

VDSL is faster.

There are a family of DSL's. Each applying an encoding method which is either compatible with POTS or incompatible with POTS such as 2B1Q.

ADSL HDSL HDSL2 IDSL MDSL SDSL VDSL

Dave

We should be so lucky.

Depends.

On Rogers "Extreme" service, I get 5 Mb down/800K up. A few days ago, I was able to download a 102 MB file in just over 2 minutes!

I pay $40.50 (CDN), or about $32 (US) for 5 Mb/800Kb service on my cable modem.

Flame you -- NO. Like I said, VDSL "is" faster.

As for the statement "Cable is much faster than DSL, usually." It needs to be qualified because a factor of 2~3 does not warrant the words "much faster". Just the one word "faster". You can state both Cable and DSL are "much faster" than v.90/v.92 Dial-Up.

Dave L.

With DSL, you have a pair of wires all to yourself between the telco's local office, and your home. Your distance from the CO will determine what DSL packages you can be offered. You'll get a downstream, and an upstream number. Unlike the speed limit on our streets and highways, these aren't numbers that your speed will be around. They are maximum speeds.

Once you get to the telco's CO, there is something there called a DSLAM. At that point you share available bandwidth with other customers of your DSL provider. Assuming that your DSL provider has adequate capacity at the DSLAM, and you weren't sold a DSL package that is pushing the envelope, you should be able to maintain something close to the quoted speeds. (Of course there are other considerations, such as the server capacity, and the capacity of any segments and routers your packets follow on the Internet backbone, but we could theorize for hours.)

With cable, you are sharing a cable all the way from the tap outside your house. In DSL-land you need a provider that doesn't oversell access to the DSLAM. In cable-land, you need a provider that doesn't put too many people on this shared cable node.

Cable also quotes downstream and upstream maximums, but you'll notice something different from DSL. Most of the time, the downstream number will be higher than comparably priced DSL packages, but the upstream number will be significantly lower. Without getting to technical, this is essentially a limitation of the cable itself. To put it simply, the cable was originally designed to deliver RF signals to your home, not to send signals both ways.

If all you do is browse the web, and use e-mail, the significantly smaller upstream won't make much of a difference. All you'll be sending are requests for web pages, confirmation of data received, and e-mail. If you're the typical non-techie residential customer, the only thing you may notice is e-mail sends slowly (compared to how fast you receive it.)

However if you work from home, and send big files to your office, or if you do a lot of video conferencing, or if you do anything that involves a lot of sending data, you will notice this difference.

Getting back to the downstream number, as you may notice, it'll usually be quite a bit higher than comparably priced DSL packages, but (unless you have a really bad DSL provider), DSL will likely come closer to it's maximums more often than cable.

If you're on the one extreme of hardly ever needing a big upstream, cable is probably a better value. If you send a lot of things upstream, DSL might be the better choice, depending on how far you are from the CO. If you're too far to get a package that's fast enough for you, cable may still be the better value.

So to the simple question, is DSL just as fast as cable, the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "David H. Lipman" on Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:43:59 GMT spoke:

Yes, that IS 'much faster'.

If you're driving at 50mph, and someone passes you doing 150mph, you WILL say they're going MUCH faster than you.

Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "Warren" on Sat,

16 Oct 2004 23:19:30 GMT spoke:

ExCUSE ME??

Where have you ever seen a 'standard' DSL package with higher upstream than a cable modem??

Most cable modem ISPs now have 256kbps up, many are higher. Some offer as much as 1.5mbps up.

Most DSL ISPs offer 128kbps up on their standard package, a few are at 256kbps, anything faster costs more.

Not when you have; 10 Mb/s, 100 Mb/s and Gigabit Ethernet. Not when VDSL can be 25~52Mb/s. I was recently in communication with a peer in Japan whose ISP provides 100 Mb/s FO Internet.

So, 3Mb/s cable is NOT "much faster" than 1.5Mb/s or .768 Mb/s ADSL. Both are "much faster"

46Kb/s Dial-Up.

Dave

on Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:43:59 | GMT spoke: | | >As for the statement "Cable is much faster than DSL, usually." It needs to be qualified | >because a factor of 2~3 does not warrant the words "much faster". | | Yes, that IS 'much faster'. | | If you're driving at 50mph, and someone passes you doing 150mph, | you WILL say they're going MUCH faster than you. | | | | | | -- | | The truth is out there, | | but it's not interesting enough for most people.

Really ?

I pay $35.00 for 1.5/.384 Mb/s aDSL. I started at $40.00 for .768/.09 Mb/s aDSL.

Dave

128kbps up on their standard package, | a few are at 256kbps, anything faster costs more.

I can have 3000/800 (with overhead counted in) on cable but the best ADSL I could have is 2400/200 (also overhead counted in). Cable here has always had higher upstream and downstream than ADSL.

A - albeit very small - cable operator in another part serving only a small fraction of the country is even offering 4000/4000 on cable, but that's a business line costing a bit more (though nothing excessive for a flat rate connection).

I'm currently on 1024/256 cable but I'm moving soon and I'll be getting

4.8mbits symmetrical on a G.SHDSL+ line. (leased line, very near to an ISP)

CU

René

That's cool SDSL at 4.8Mb/s !!!

How much $$ ?? What locale ? What provider ?

Dave

"Guess it sucks to live where you live. Over here, I see no slowdowns whatsoever."

Then your cable trunk is underutilized and you are lucky.

Dave

| >If you are talking ADSL, the answer is sometimes. | >

| >If you are talking SDSL, the answer is YES. | >

| >Cable is much faster than DSL, usually. | >

| >Only problem is, Cable has a nasty habit of slowing down exactly when you | >most want to use it. | | Guess it sucks to live where you live. Over here, I see no slowdowns | whatsoever. | | >It's like the tortoise and hare story, and Cable is the hare. | >

| >Now watch fifteen bazillion people flame me for daring to post the truth | >that DSL is faster. That's blasphemy, y'know. :) -Dave | | Nothing a new Linksys cable modem won't fix, right? ;-) | | -- | Bill

That's true.

Dave

| >Then your cable trunk is underutilized and you are lucky. | >

| >Dave | | Apparently, there's a razor thin dividing line between underutilized | and oversold, so yes, I'm fortunate to be on the good side of the | line. | The bigger point, though, is that slowdowns can be found (or not | found) with virtually any access type. | | -- | Bill