Which is better; DSL or 128k Cable?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Ava Keech, Sep 4, 2004.

  1. Ava Keech

    Ava Keech Guest

    Hi:

    I'm moving to a new town and the two best Internet options I can find are Yahoo
    SBC DSL & Cable @ 128k download. Which is faster/better?

    Thank You
     
    Ava Keech, Sep 4, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ava Keech

    Unk Guest

    On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:03:19 -0500, Ava Keech <> wrote:

    >
    >Hi:
    >
    >I'm moving to a new town and the two best Internet options I can find are Yahoo
    >SBC DSL & Cable @ 128k download. Which is faster/better?
    >
    >Thank You
    >

    Verizon DSL is currently 1.5 Meg download...
    Most cable companies are equal or better.
     
    Unk, Sep 4, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ava Keech

    Henrik Guest

    "Ava Keech" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Hi:
    >
    > I'm moving to a new town and the two best Internet options I can find are

    Yahoo
    > SBC DSL & Cable @ 128k download. Which is faster/better?
    >
    > Thank You
    >


    Well, for broadband I don't see how you could possibly get any slower than
    128k. That is like the old ISDN days. In this case I would probably
    recommend the DSL as it surely must be faster than 128k.

    My cable is 3Mb/256k
     
    Henrik, Sep 4, 2004
    #3
  4. Ava Keech

    Gort Guest

    Ava Keech wrote:
    > Hi:
    >
    > I'm moving to a new town and the two best Internet options I can find
    > are Yahoo SBC DSL & Cable @ 128k download. Which is faster/better?
    >
    > Thank You


    IMHO you can't get any WORSE service than SBC DSL.
    The Support people there appear to have never seen a computer, much less own
    one. They even disagreed with what Microsoft had to say about the problem
    I was having, saying that Microsoft " didn't know anything".

    YMMV, but....


    --
    If you find a posting or message from myself offensive, inappropriate, or
    disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting,
    complain to me and I will demonstrate.
     
    Gort, Sep 4, 2004
    #4
  5. Ava Keech

    Henrik Guest

    "Gort" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ava Keech wrote:
    > > Hi:
    > >
    > > I'm moving to a new town and the two best Internet options I can find
    > > are Yahoo SBC DSL & Cable @ 128k download. Which is faster/better?
    > >
    > > Thank You

    >
    > IMHO you can't get any WORSE service than SBC DSL.
    > The Support people there appear to have never seen a computer, much less

    own
    > one. They even disagreed with what Microsoft had to say about the problem
    > I was having, saying that Microsoft " didn't know anything".
    >
    > YMMV, but....
    >
    >


    Agree on the SBC thing. I had SBC DSL back in 2000 and it was the worst
    internet experience I've ever had. I've had cable since then and have been
    thrilled.
     
    Henrik, Sep 5, 2004
    #5
  6. Ava Keech

    mhicaoidh Guest

    Taking a moment's reflection, Ava Keech mused:
    |
    | I'm moving to a new town and the two best Internet options I can find are
    | Yahoo SBC DSL & Cable @ 128k download. Which is faster/better?

    Without knowing what the DSL speed is rated at, and what the cost of
    each is ... how can anyone accurately answer that question? If they are
    both rated at 128k ... then they both suck. So, go with the one that will
    cost less.
     
    mhicaoidh, Sep 5, 2004
    #6
  7. Ava Keech

    ME Guest

    DSL can reach 3.0 MB download and is not shared. You have to share the cable
    with everyone in your neighborhood and it gets slow during peak hours.


    "mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message
    news:FuL_c.299200$eM2.297673@attbi_s51...
    > Taking a moment's reflection, Ava Keech mused:
    > |
    > | I'm moving to a new town and the two best Internet options I can find

    are
    > | Yahoo SBC DSL & Cable @ 128k download. Which is faster/better?
    >
    > Without knowing what the DSL speed is rated at, and what the cost of
    > each is ... how can anyone accurately answer that question? If they are
    > both rated at 128k ... then they both suck. So, go with the one that will
    > cost less.
    >
    >
     
    ME, Sep 7, 2004
    #7
  8. Ava Keech

    Henrik Guest

    "ME" <> wrote in message
    news:t0k%c.9350$...
    > DSL can reach 3.0 MB download and is not shared. You have to share the
    > cable
    > with everyone in your neighborhood and it gets slow during peak hours.
    >
    >


    Sorry, that is the biggest piece of disinformation that the public has
    swallowed from the DSL providers. ALL connections are shared once they hit
    the CO. It really doesn't matter if others are on the BUS in your
    neighborhood because the backbone that the drop wires hop on to is usually
    10Gb. I never have a slow period.

    Always consistent downloads from various sources at around 380kb/s.
     
    Henrik, Sep 7, 2004
    #8
  9. Ava Keech

    Henrik Guest

    "Henrik" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "ME" <> wrote in message
    > news:t0k%c.9350$...
    >> DSL can reach 3.0 MB download and is not shared. You have to share the
    >> cable
    >> with everyone in your neighborhood and it gets slow during peak hours.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Sorry, that is the biggest piece of disinformation that the public has
    > swallowed from the DSL providers. ALL connections are shared once they hit
    > the CO. It really doesn't matter if others are on the BUS in your
    > neighborhood because the backbone that the drop wires hop on to is usually
    > 10Gb. I never have a slow period.
    >
    > Always consistent downloads from various sources at around 380kb/s.
    >


    Sorry, meant 380kB/s
     
    Henrik, Sep 7, 2004
    #9
  10. Ava Keech

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Henrik" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "ME" <> wrote in message
    > news:t0k%c.9350$...
    > > DSL can reach 3.0 MB download and is not shared. You have to share the
    > > cable
    > > with everyone in your neighborhood and it gets slow during peak hours.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Sorry, that is the biggest piece of disinformation that the public has
    > swallowed from the DSL providers. ALL connections are shared once they hit
    > the CO. It really doesn't matter if others are on the BUS in your
    > neighborhood because the backbone that the drop wires hop on to is usually
    > 10Gb. I never have a slow period.
    >
    > Always consistent downloads from various sources at around 380kb/s.



    the entire internet is shared...
    DSL gives you a dedicate bandwidth at the CO.
    Cable gives you a shared bandwidth at the CO.

    it's the difference between running a switch (DSL) or a hub (cable) in a
    network of 30-50 users.
    cable is usually beneficial in the long run, but dsl is cost effective.
    i've had both and i did work as a CO technician.

    -a|ex
     
    127.0.0.1, Sep 8, 2004
    #10
  11. Ava Keech

    Barry OGrady Guest

    On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:58:33 GMT, "ME" <> wrote:

    >"mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message
    >news:FuL_c.299200$eM2.297673@attbi_s51...
    >> Taking a moment's reflection, Ava Keech mused:
    >> |
    >> | I'm moving to a new town and the two best Internet options I can find

    >are
    >> | Yahoo SBC DSL & Cable @ 128k download. Which is faster/better?
    >>
    >> Without knowing what the DSL speed is rated at, and what the cost of
    >> each is ... how can anyone accurately answer that question? If they are
    >> both rated at 128k ... then they both suck. So, go with the one that will
    >> cost less.

    >
    >DSL can reach 3.0 MB download and is not shared. You have to share the cable
    >with everyone in your neighborhood and it gets slow during peak hours.


    Cable is usually much faster than DSL. DSL is shared beyond the local exchange.


    -Barry
    ========
    Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
    Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
     
    Barry OGrady, Sep 8, 2004
    #11
  12. Ava Keech

    Henrik Guest

    "127.0.0.1" <loopy@localhost> wrote in message
    news:ACr%c.10207$...
    >
    > "Henrik" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> "ME" <> wrote in message
    >> news:t0k%c.9350$...
    >> > DSL can reach 3.0 MB download and is not shared. You have to share the
    >> > cable
    >> > with everyone in your neighborhood and it gets slow during peak hours.
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >> Sorry, that is the biggest piece of disinformation that the public has
    >> swallowed from the DSL providers. ALL connections are shared once they
    >> hit
    >> the CO. It really doesn't matter if others are on the BUS in your
    >> neighborhood because the backbone that the drop wires hop on to is
    >> usually
    >> 10Gb. I never have a slow period.
    >>
    >> Always consistent downloads from various sources at around 380kb/s.

    >
    >
    > the entire internet is shared...
    > DSL gives you a dedicate bandwidth at the CO.
    > Cable gives you a shared bandwidth at the CO.
    >
    > it's the difference between running a switch (DSL) or a hub (cable) in a
    > network of 30-50 users.
    > cable is usually beneficial in the long run, but dsl is cost effective.
    > i've had both and i did work as a CO technician.
    >
    > -a|ex


    What you say is technically correct, but the implications of it are way
    overstated. I am a telecommunications distribution designer and understand
    the issues of star vs. bus topologies. But, what is really significant is
    the coax/fiber vs. 1960's POTS twisted pair cable used from the CO for most
    DSL lines. This is why you can only be so many feet from the CO in order to
    receive DSL service. The attenuation factor becomes unbearable very fast
    over UTP.

    Cable is better, hands down, especially since high bandwidth video is
    exactly what coax was designed for. Whereas UTP back then was designed for
    low baud voice.
     
    Henrik, Sep 8, 2004
    #12
  13. Ava Keech

    Jim Berwick Guest

    "ME" <> wrote in
    news:t0k%c.9350$:

    > DSL can reach 3.0 MB download and is not shared. You have to share the
    > cable with everyone in your neighborhood and it gets slow during peak
    > hours.
    >


    3MB = 24Mbit/second. That is completely not right at all. The average DSL
    line is either 768k/128k, 1.5Mb/128k, or 1.5Mb/384k, depending on distance
    and price. Comcast cable is now at 3Mbit/sec, twice the speed of the
    fastest residential DSL services offered.

    I'm not against DSL, in fact, I work at a company where we offer DSL, and
    it is indeed a decent service. It is just different than cable. Neither
    is "better", and both are shared somewhere. A good cable company is better
    than a crappy DSL provider, and a good DSL provider is better than a crappy
    cable provider.
     
    Jim Berwick, Sep 8, 2004
    #13
  14. Ava Keech

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Henrik" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "127.0.0.1" <loopy@localhost> wrote in message
    > news:ACr%c.10207$...
    > >
    > > "Henrik" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >>
    > >> "ME" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:t0k%c.9350$...
    > >> > DSL can reach 3.0 MB download and is not shared. You have to share

    the
    > >> > cable
    > >> > with everyone in your neighborhood and it gets slow during peak

    hours.
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Sorry, that is the biggest piece of disinformation that the public has
    > >> swallowed from the DSL providers. ALL connections are shared once they
    > >> hit
    > >> the CO. It really doesn't matter if others are on the BUS in your
    > >> neighborhood because the backbone that the drop wires hop on to is
    > >> usually
    > >> 10Gb. I never have a slow period.
    > >>
    > >> Always consistent downloads from various sources at around 380kb/s.

    > >
    > >
    > > the entire internet is shared...
    > > DSL gives you a dedicate bandwidth at the CO.
    > > Cable gives you a shared bandwidth at the CO.
    > >
    > > it's the difference between running a switch (DSL) or a hub (cable) in a
    > > network of 30-50 users.
    > > cable is usually beneficial in the long run, but dsl is cost effective.
    > > i've had both and i did work as a CO technician.
    > >
    > > -a|ex

    >
    > What you say is technically correct, but the implications of it are way
    > overstated. I am a telecommunications distribution designer and understand
    > the issues of star vs. bus topologies. But, what is really significant is
    > the coax/fiber vs. 1960's POTS twisted pair cable used from the CO for

    most
    > DSL lines. This is why you can only be so many feet from the CO in order

    to
    > receive DSL service. The attenuation factor becomes unbearable very fast
    > over UTP.
    >
    > Cable is better, hands down, especially since high bandwidth video is
    > exactly what coax was designed for. Whereas UTP back then was designed for
    > low baud voice.


    yes, distance is a major factor...
    $25/month DSL (speed depends on distance) vs. $40 + basic cable
    consumer market... you get what you pay for
    if one lives in the same neighborhood with the CO, DSL would be choice

    -a|ex
     
    127.0.0.1, Sep 8, 2004
    #14
  15. Ava Keech

    tgilb Guest

    "127.0.0.1" <loopy@localhost> wrote in message
    news:EHt%c.10425$...

    <snip>
    | yes, distance is a major factor...
    | $25/month DSL (speed depends on distance) vs. $40 + basic cable
    | consumer market... you get what you pay for
    | if one lives in the same neighborhood with the CO, DSL would be choice
    |
    | -a|ex
    |
    1500/384 Earthlink ADSL, $39.95 per month, 10135' from CO: 2004-09-07
    14:08:36 Speed test @ chi.speakeasy.net 1264/250 kbps
     
    tgilb, Sep 8, 2004
    #15
  16. Howdy!

    "Jim Berwick" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns955DDA8B1C729jimbsnipnet@207.103.26.26...

    > 3MB = 24Mbit/second. That is completely not right at all. The average

    DSL
    > line is either 768k/128k, 1.5Mb/128k, or 1.5Mb/384k, depending on distance
    > and price. Comcast cable is now at 3Mbit/sec, twice the speed of the
    > fastest residential DSL services offered.


    Err - Locally (BellSouth), they've got DSL/Extreme, at
    3Mbit/384Kbit.

    Just a note - 3Mbit isn't "twice the speed" of 3Mbit.

    And that's available residential or business.

    RwP
     
    Ralph Wade Phillips, Sep 9, 2004
    #16
  17. Ava Keech

    Fan Guest

    On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:40:52 GMT, "tgilb" <> wrote:

    >
    >"127.0.0.1" <loopy@localhost> wrote in message
    >news:EHt%c.10425$...
    >
    > <snip>
    >| yes, distance is a major factor...
    >| $25/month DSL (speed depends on distance) vs. $40 + basic cable
    >| consumer market... you get what you pay for
    >| if one lives in the same neighborhood with the CO, DSL would be choice
    >|
    >| -a|ex
    >|
    >1500/384 Earthlink ADSL, $39.95 per month, 10135' from CO: 2004-09-07
    >14:08:36 Speed test @ chi.speakeasy.net 1264/250 kbps
    >

    Yes, Earthlink is great...if you want customer service that is
    stupid, arogent, and nasty. If you have no problems, you are fine. If
    you have problems, don't count on them to help. I quit them because of
    that.

    Also, look them up on the BBB in Atlanta GA. That is either their home
    office or one of the regional ones I forgot which. I looked them up
    when I was pissed at them for not replying to my e-mail AND phone
    calls. Guess what, they had a long string of complaints for not
    replying to inquiries.

    I have never seen a good ISP. I have seen some that are better than
    others, but never one that consistently replies to inquiries, let
    alone with good answers.

    My first dial-up ISP kept telling me that my computer was set wrong
    and that was why I kept getting a busy signal. I had them on the phone
    and finally convinced the guy to dial in himself. He could not get on
    after repeated tries. Another ISP had a bad modem in the pool, but
    refused to replace it because so few users had complained about it.

    The cable operators have a policy that a problem is with the user
    unless there are over three complaints about it. The first three
    people are usually told to reformat their hard drive and re-install
    Windows. In the old days, I called then when I had an outage. They
    insisted there was no outage, it was my computer. I waited a couple of
    hours and it was fine again. Great service, huh.

    Earthlink is below average. They would be way below average, but the
    average is poor :)
     
    Fan, Sep 9, 2004
    #17
  18. Ava Keech

    Fan Guest

    On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 01:29:01 +0000, Jim Berwick <> wrote:

    >"ME" <> wrote in
    >news:t0k%c.9350$:
    >
    >> DSL can reach 3.0 MB download and is not shared. You have to share the
    >> cable with everyone in your neighborhood and it gets slow during peak
    >> hours.
    >>

    >
    >3MB = 24Mbit/second. That is completely not right at all. The average DSL
    >line is either 768k/128k, 1.5Mb/128k, or 1.5Mb/384k, depending on distance
    >and price. Comcast cable is now at 3Mbit/sec, twice the speed of the
    >fastest residential DSL services offered.
    >
    >I'm not against DSL, in fact, I work at a company where we offer DSL, and
    >it is indeed a decent service. It is just different than cable. Neither
    >is "better", and both are shared somewhere. A good cable company is better
    >than a crappy DSL provider, and a good DSL provider is better than a crappy
    >cable provider.


    If everything is good, I can download 5 to 6 MB per minute on my
    cable. It is rated at 3MB per second, but who knows what that really
    means. It does depend on how many others are on the node at that time.
    It also depends on how your system is set up and what pieces you have.
     
    Fan, Sep 9, 2004
    #18
  19. Ava Keech

    tgilb Guest

    "Fan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:40:52 GMT, "tgilb" <> wrote:
    |
    | >
    | >"127.0.0.1" <loopy@localhost> wrote in message
    | >news:EHt%c.10425$...
    | >
    | > <snip>
    | >| yes, distance is a major factor...
    | >| $25/month DSL (speed depends on distance) vs. $40 + basic cable
    | >| consumer market... you get what you pay for
    | >| if one lives in the same neighborhood with the CO, DSL would be choice
    | >|
    | >| -a|ex
    | >|
    | >1500/384 Earthlink ADSL, $39.95 per month, 10135' from CO: 2004-09-07
    | >14:08:36 Speed test @ chi.speakeasy.net 1264/250 kbps
    | >
    | Yes, Earthlink is great...if you want customer service that is
    | stupid, arogent, and nasty. If you have no problems, you are fine. If
    | you have problems, don't count on them to help. I quit them because of
    | that.
    |
    | Also, look them up on the BBB in Atlanta GA. That is either their home
    | office or one of the regional ones I forgot which. I looked them up
    | when I was pissed at them for not replying to my e-mail AND phone
    | calls. Guess what, they had a long string of complaints for not
    | replying to inquiries.
    |
    <snip>

    | Earthlink is below average. They would be way below average, but the
    | average is poor :)

    Yes, I've seen similar complaints before but my experience with E-Link has
    been probably 6-8 short outages in the 4 1/2 years I've had my designated
    (not linesharing) DSL line. No issues other than that so I can't respond to
    complaints with regard to their CS because I've had almost no contact with
    them. In my case it's hard to imagine a much more reliable ISP.
     
    tgilb, Sep 9, 2004
    #19
  20. Ava Keech

    Henrik Guest

    "Fan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:40:52 GMT, "tgilb" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"127.0.0.1" <loopy@localhost> wrote in message
    >>news:EHt%c.10425$...
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>| yes, distance is a major factor...
    >>| $25/month DSL (speed depends on distance) vs. $40 + basic cable
    >>| consumer market... you get what you pay for
    >>| if one lives in the same neighborhood with the CO, DSL would be choice
    >>|
    >>| -a|ex
    >>|
    >>1500/384 Earthlink ADSL, $39.95 per month, 10135' from CO: 2004-09-07
    >>14:08:36 Speed test @ chi.speakeasy.net 1264/250 kbps
    >>

    > Yes, Earthlink is great...if you want customer service that is
    > stupid, arogent, and nasty. If you have no problems, you are fine. If
    > you have problems, don't count on them to help. I quit them because of
    > that.
    >
    > Also, look them up on the BBB in Atlanta GA. That is either their home
    > office or one of the regional ones I forgot which. I looked them up
    > when I was pissed at them for not replying to my e-mail AND phone
    > calls. Guess what, they had a long string of complaints for not
    > replying to inquiries.
    >
    > I have never seen a good ISP. I have seen some that are better than
    > others, but never one that consistently replies to inquiries, let
    > alone with good answers.
    >
    > My first dial-up ISP kept telling me that my computer was set wrong
    > and that was why I kept getting a busy signal. I had them on the phone
    > and finally convinced the guy to dial in himself. He could not get on
    > after repeated tries. Another ISP had a bad modem in the pool, but
    > refused to replace it because so few users had complained about it.
    >
    > The cable operators have a policy that a problem is with the user
    > unless there are over three complaints about it. The first three
    > people are usually told to reformat their hard drive and re-install
    > Windows. In the old days, I called then when I had an outage. They
    > insisted there was no outage, it was my computer. I waited a couple of
    > hours and it was fine again. Great service, huh.
    >
    > Earthlink is below average. They would be way below average, but the
    > average is poor :)


    Cox Communications (cable) provided outstanding service the 2 years I was
    with them. I was so sad to move and now have to use Charter, which is much
    lower on the service totum pole.
     
    Henrik, Sep 9, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mr Sanghez

    Keeping alive ISDN 128k to ISP

    Mr Sanghez, Jul 6, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,186
    Mr Sanghez
    Jul 6, 2003
  2. Holger Deckert

    64k instead of 128k

    Holger Deckert, Nov 22, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    446
    Holger Deckert
    Nov 23, 2004
  3. R Siffredi
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    760
    brandon
    Feb 8, 2005
  4. Himselff
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,027
    Himselff
    Jun 27, 2005
  5. ardz

    128k to 256k "Upgrade"

    ardz, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    55
    Views:
    1,186
    Matt B
    Oct 10, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page