DSL or Cable?

[dmclone]

If you want even faster Internet I would look into satellite internet, very fast and pretty reliable. Any speed cable can get, satellite can double it.

Ummmmmm......ok

[dmclone]

DSL is very unpreditable because it sits in dormant while not in use, and then is supposed to connect when you need it.

I'm wondering where you get this information?

[Ames]

Your provider has at least one POP (with bigger providers, likely more than one that should be mutlihomed) that gets them into the bigger cloud and non-provider networks, and, while that point is certainly a choke point, the amount of traffic it can pass in any properly implemented network will not be the bottleneck to network performance.

The bottleneck is always the last mile connection. Be it modem, or DSL or cable. Last mile is the single biggest issue with broadband at the moment.

I'm saying there is an inherent bottleneck with DOCSIS that does not exist with DSL or FIOS in a deployment.

During peak traffic loads, DSL will outperform DOCSIS given identically configured upstream networks.

There is no such thing as identically configured. They each have a choke point. When DSL grows they make their pipe to the internet bigger to reduce the choke point. Cable just needs to make sure they don't get too much traffic on the local segments.

Under peak traffic DSL is as fast as their pipe to the net allows. Cable should be broken out such that the customers on a line together at peak still run efficiently; at some point the cable traffic is put back together and needs a good pipe to the net also.

[jumbopackage]

There is no such thing as identically configured. They each have a choke point. When DSL grows they make their pipe to the internet bigger to reduce the choke point. Cable just needs to make sure they don't get too much traffic on the local segments.

Under peak traffic DSL is as fast as their pipe to the net allows. Cable should be broken out such that the customers on a line together at peak still run efficiently; at some point the cable traffic is put back together and needs a good pipe to the net also.

Yeah there certainly is such a thing as identically configured. Cable has the EXACT same problems that DSL has once you reach the service provider. There are 0 differences. Cable doesn't have some magically better connection to the backbone that makes it faster. A DS-3 is a DS-3. A 100mbit fiber connection is a 100mbit fiber connection.

The chokepoint is ALWAYS in the last mile in the US. Cable has a chokepoint that DSL does not, in that you have to share a physical cable with everyone else in your neighborhood, and that chokepoint limits the total throughput that your neighborhood can acheive. Cable cannot be broken out so that neighbors on a line together at peak still run at maximum throughput. It's not physically possible, unless the cable company rolls out a better physical infrastructure (which some are doing).

There is no such chokepoint in DSL, since everyone has dedicated copper to the DSLAM or CO.

You might be getting confused with the inadequacies of service providers, but DSL is an inherently better system for dedicated bandwidth applications.

It kind of depends on what type of each your getting, some companies now are offering a dedicated line to each house for cable. DSL is very unpreditable because it sits in dormant while not in use, and then is supposed to connect when you need it. But I have heard and have had problems with this type. Cable will always be there, as long as the cable is on. You will get faster speeds with cable than DSL, so if your looking ahead I would choose cable. If you want even faster Internet I would look into satellite internet, very fast and pretty reliable. Any speed cable can get, satellite can double it.

Some (very few) companies are doing the dedicated line thing. It's generally been Verizon with FIOS, and not the cable company though.

DSL can be configured to do that, I guess, but I have no idea why you would want to. The VAST majority of DSL modems are always-on.

Cable has much the same negotiation system as DSL, so that's not really accurate either.

Satellite is SLOW. Very very slow. And very unreliable, relatively speaking. Satellite might be able to touch cable speeds, but it will cost you around 5-10k an hour to get those sorts of speeds. Realistically, satellite internet will get you about 256-512k, and it's going to be latent as hell, since, in a two way system, every one of your requests has to travel to space and back to earth, and then every reply has to travel the same path. Round trip latency can be in the seconds, as opposed to milliseconds. It's a completely last-ditch method of connecting to the internet.

There is also a mathematical limit to how fast you can transfer data over a satellite owing to it's very high latency, at least over TCP/IP connections.

[1100011CS]

All I know is it is a beautiful thing with mediacom when there are close to 1000 seeders in the swarm.

Yeah buddy.

[Ames]

Yeah there certainly is such a thing as identically configured. Cable has the EXACT same problems that DSL has once you reach the service provider. There are 0 differences. Cable doesn't have some magically better connection to the backbone that makes it faster. A DS-3 is a DS-3. A 100mbit fiber connection is a 100mbit fiber connection.

The chokepoint is ALWAYS in the last mile in the US. Cable has a chokepoint that DSL does not, in that you have to share a physical cable with everyone else in your neighborhood, and that chokepoint limits the total throughput that your neighborhood can acheive. Cable cannot be broken out so that neighbors on a line together at peak still run at maximum throughput. It's not physically possible, unless the cable company rolls out a better physical infrastructure (which some are doing).

There is no such chokepoint in DSL, since everyone has dedicated copper to the DSLAM or CO.

You might be getting confused with the inadequacies of service providers, but DSL is an inherently better system for dedicated bandwidth applications.

Let's say cable can carry 100 Mbs, they have 10 customers, and they sell each customer a 10 Mbs connection. The local loop cannot bottleneck in that scenario. Obviously cable will sell to more customers than that to make more money. Cable does get a bad rep from companies over selling.

The cable companies can break out a neighborhood if they want. If they want me on one connection and my neighbor on another they most certainly can. They have to do it with physical connections so it costs money.

In the same way DSL providers aren't going to make their net pipe handle every single DSL customer running at the promised speed.

I'm not getting confused other than why I'm having a dumb argument with you. Unless my undergrad and graduate networking classes were all made up; in that case ISU owes me some money and I am confused.

My best advice would be order both and see which works best in your house. Just don't do what I did and keep both.

[jumbopackage]

Let's say cable can carry 100 Mbs, they have 10 customers, and they sell each customer a 10 Mbs connection. The local loop cannot bottleneck in that scenario. Obviously cable will sell to more customers than that to make more money. Cable does get a bad rep from companies over selling.

The cable companies can break out a neighborhood if they want. If they want me on one connection and my neighbor on another they most certainly can. They have to do it with physical connections so it costs money.

In the same way DSL providers aren't going to make their net pipe handle every single DSL customer running at the promised speed.

I'm not getting confused other than why I'm having a dumb argument with you. Unless my undergrad and graduate networking classes were all made up; in that case ISU owes me some money and I am confused.

My best advice would be order both and see which works best in your house. Just don't do what I did and keep both.

Cable can NOT carry 100mbps. that's the problem. It can carry about 43 Mbps over a channel. And far more than 10 customers generally share that channel on a cable. They CAN do it, but it costs money. Lots of money. And that's why you don't see it very often. They can provide more than one channel, but that costs TV stations, and they are pretty maxed out on those as-is.

that's why cable has a bottleneck that DSL does not. DSL has a dedicated connection between the CPE and the DSLAM or CO. There is no sharing of that last mile connectivity.

If both the cable company and the phone company have 100mbit pipes to the internet, with the same number of customers using the same amount of bandwidth, you'll have similar performance, unless those cable customers all live in the same neighborhood, and then they will all be limited to 43mbit/s aggregate down.

[cloneluke80]

I have had Qwest DSL in 4 diff locations for the last 5 yrs. Been down a total of 4 days in 5 years. Fast enough for most people. I can't complain and my rates are low and never go up.

Super geeks care about super-fast speeds and latency. All I care about is internet browsing/the occasional download/ email...

I can even VPN/Citrix/VNC/Remote desktop into work and it is just like I am at my desk downtown.

Go cheap!

[superdorf]

I am happy with qwest.. Mostly the cost. I pay about half as much as I used to for Mediacom.

I do notice a speed difference every once in a while... but it isn't worth 25-35 dollars a month.