Cable modem versus DSL [Archive] - Quarter To Three Forums

awdougherty

09-30-2003, 09:18 PM

I'm about to move and I'm weighing my options for internet service. Verizon has a deal where the give you DSL for 35$ a month if you get local service with them, which we do anyways. That's a savings of around 10$ a month compared to my current cable modem prices (which I expect to remain constant). We're moving to a pretty populated area (Montclair, NJ if anyone cares) so we should have no trouble getting service, but I imagine plenty of others will also be using such services.

Any thoughts? Anywhere to get advice on this?

Thanks

XPav

09-30-2003, 09:31 PM

www.dslreports.com

Despite the name, they do cable reviews also.

Desslock

09-30-2003, 09:41 PM

Compare the download/upload speeds -- they can significantly vary - not all DSL is the same (or cable, for that matter). DSL is generally a better choice, unless only a slow version is available in your area.[/i]

ElRavager

09-30-2003, 10:52 PM

Cable rocks for me, I think I'm the only person in the neighborhood that uses it. Comcast, NH.

balut

09-30-2003, 11:39 PM

IIRC, Verizon DSL is 640k down/90k up for their regular rates, likely your $35/mo. special. They offer 1.5mbps down/256k up business rates, but that's around $99 or so a month (these are from last time I checked, which is a year or so ago, at the least).

I'd say go with cable - both Optimum Online and Comcast Online offer 1.5mbps to 3mpbs downloads with 225k to 256k uploads. I had Verizon DSL here in Jersey a few years ago, and switched to Comcast cable later - simply put, Comcast cable modem service blows similarly-priced DSL away. With Verizon DSL I was getting actual speeds of 580kbps down, 80kbps up, and I live < 1 mile from a Verizon CSO. With Comcast I used to get 4mpbs down/4mbps up until they realized they forgot to cap my connection and 3 months later I got 2mpbs down/128kbps up. Since then, they've upped their upload stream to 225kbps up. Oh, and I was paying $49.99/month for Verizon DSL while Comcast was $39.99/month.

I haven't been to Montclair in a long time, so I can't remember if they're a Comcast or Cablevision or RCN area, though. I'd still recommend Cable over DSL.

Jason McCullough

10-01-2003, 12:03 AM

Supertanker

10-01-2003, 02:24 AM

Time Warner/RoadRunner announced this week that they were increasing the download speed cap to 3 megabits. Upload will remain 384k. Comcast is supposed to follow suit very soon.

In fact, I'm downloading Forgotten Hope at a nice 305KB right now.

Midnight Son

10-01-2003, 04:58 AM

Cable is the way to go, Kemosabe.

Timemaster Tim

10-01-2003, 06:36 AM

There is no clearcut answer because it depends on the service at your particular address, and what the provider has doen with respect to throttling the up/down speeds.

quatoria

10-01-2003, 08:37 AM

Comcast fucking bites - the only usenet access they offer is through giganews - one gigabyte a month. I'm looking to find something else in my area - does anyone know of a central repository site where I can figure out what dsl/cable is availible in my local area?

Desslock

10-01-2003, 08:50 AM

At the low price points, there's virtually no reason to take DSL; you get a dynamic IP from 'em and shitty bandwidth. Cable's superior, unless:

1) You need a static IP, domain name, or other related things.
2) Upload bandwidth beyond what cable gives you (it's not much).
3) You're in a really overloaded cable loop. Only way to find out about this is dslreports.

DSL bandwidth is much better than the best Cable, in some areas. It's 3 megs download/1 meg upload for me, for instance, which is better than cable anywhere, that I'm aware of (and bandwidth doesn't depend upon users). And no bandwidth limiters. And it's also cheaper than cable here.

Bottom line - compare the services in your area. If DSL is as crappy as it is in Balut's area, yeah, skip it.

DennyA

10-01-2003, 09:21 AM

Find other users in your area if you can and talk to them. It totally varies by the company and region, not by the technology.

Overall, DSL is a better solution, with the consistent bandwidth it offers.

But there are exceptions. Verizon's DSL service was terrible for the year that I had it. Constant email server problems, service going down, etc.

I switched to Adelphia cable and got 3x the speed at the same price (with no bandwidth issues in my area, which has pretty light usage), zero email problems, and overall better uptime. But I know Adelphia is a horror story in some other areas.

Jason McCullough

10-01-2003, 09:43 AM

Desslock, how much do you pay for that 3000/1000 line? 1000/1000 was setting me back $200/month here in Seattle.

Bub, Andrew

10-01-2003, 10:28 AM

It really does depend on the region. My parents are in Southern Chicago and have the shittiest digital cable TV and Internet I've ever seen. DSL, I've heard, is great.

In Milwaukee we have a very modern Roadrunner. Digital Cable TV and Internet are, probably, the best I've ever seen. But DSL here is fraught with huge problems.

Xaroc

10-01-2003, 10:54 AM

Definitely find out from other people in your area what their experiences are. Also as someone mentioned Verizon does have unlimited newsgroup access while Comcast has pretty crippling limits if you like to download much. My personal experience is DSL is far more reliable. When we had cable (via comcast) it went down more than a cheap hooker.

-- Xaroc

Dean

10-01-2003, 11:01 AM

I am currently waiting for the cable guy to come and hook me up. I've been with Comcast for years for cable TV, but couldn't justify the extra $40/month for broadband. I was with Verizon for local phone.

Last month RCN had a deal: basic cable, local phone, broadband internet for $77/month. I threw in HBO, and, after taxes, it comes to $101/month for the first year, $115/month afterwards. I was paying $104/month for cable TV + phone, so for this next year it's like getting broadband for free.

After the year is up, they'll also start charging me $10/month for the cable modem, but I assume I can buy one within the year (looking for a sale) and put my own up to avoid that charge. Any opinons on buying a cable modem vs. getting one from the cable company?

balut

10-01-2003, 11:08 AM

You can buy a cable modem for ~$80 or so nowadays, so figure if you're going to have the service for longer than 8 months, it's worth it to buy it outright.

Dean

10-01-2003, 11:18 AM

That was my (very reasonable) thought. When I told the guy while I was ordering the service I would do get my own within the year, he gave me this story about how he did that and they failed/blew up, so he went through three of them and paid over $200 before he finally just rented one from RCN.

I figured that was total bullshit.

ElRavager

10-01-2003, 01:05 PM

I was leasing an old Lancity cablemodem from ATT (now comcast) for $10/month.. I bought my own cablemodem (Motorola SB4200), and cancelled my account. A month later, they sent me a brand new Motorola SB4220 to replace the Lancity! I called up ATT to have them come and pick it up, and they told me to go drop it off in Portsmouth. I told them no, I'm not an errand boy. They then told me I could keep it... pretty cool... so I have an extra docsis modem as well as the old lancity.

:D :D :D

Anyway, to the point, it's definately cost effective to buy your own modem.

Supertanker

10-01-2003, 01:13 PM

I don't even know what part of my cable bill is for Road Runner or the modem. I pay $87.45 for a package of all digital cable channels, the HBO channels, and Road Runner (with the modem).

Desslock

10-01-2003, 01:24 PM

Desslock, how much do you pay for that 3000/1000 line? 1000/1000 was setting me back $200/month here in Seattle.

About US$40/month.

TimElhajj

10-01-2003, 01:45 PM

Desslock, how much do you pay for that 3000/1000 line? 1000/1000 was setting me back $200/month here in Seattle.

About US$40/month.

Gah, I just turned bright green with envy.

Desslock

10-01-2003, 01:57 PM

Desslock, how much do you pay for that 3000/1000 line? 1000/1000 was setting me back $200/month here in Seattle.

About US$40/month.

Gah, I just turned bright green with envy.

Yeah, it's great. While Cable is $10 more and has inconsistent bandwidth that is, at best, 1.5 Mbps download; 192 kbps upload .

Jason McCullough

10-01-2003, 02:00 PM

Well, that must make up for a little of the taxes.....

Desslock

10-01-2003, 03:44 PM

no.

Dirt

10-01-2003, 04:12 PM

TimElhajj

10-01-2003, 07:43 PM

Yeah, it's great. While Cable is $10 more and has inconsistent bandwidth that is, at best, 1.5 Mbps download; 192 kbps upload .

Good for you, Desslock. That is a great deal. I am just about to jump off the DSL boat and try cable this very week. I get a little 5/month break in price but a 4x bump in download speed. I also lose my 2 static IPs, so now I have to buy a hardware router to keep the status quo on the home LAN.

TimElhajj

10-07-2003, 01:55 PM

Well, here is my recommendation for cable connectivity. I just had it installed this morning and my web surfing is much snappier right now. I just need to find something to download to really test it out.

Waltzer

10-07-2003, 03:04 PM

'Round here, cable is distinctly superior. Our DSL connectivity is woefully poor, but I'm already getting 3 mbps from my Time-Warner connection, and it's bliss. Very nice, nothing but good things to say about it. On the other hand, in more crowded areas with better fiber connectivity, DSL will be better, since it's not a shared line and your neighbor can't steal your bandwidth.

TimElhajj

10-07-2003, 07:38 PM

in more crowded areas with better fiber connectivity, DSL will be better, since it's not a shared line and your neighbor can't steal your bandwidth.

My understanding is that this problem has been pretty much solved by EULAs and caps.

Supertanker

10-07-2003, 09:56 PM

Joe O'Malley

10-07-2003, 10:05 PM

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread, but one thing that a friend of mine brought up was sattellite high speed internet. He loved his dish system but lived in fear of latency getting him killed in an online game. So he sticks with dial up, amazingly.

Aleck

10-08-2003, 06:41 AM

It has been solved by construction of newer systems, too. Most of those tales of crowded cable connections come from the original, non-fiber systems. Most of those are upgraded, or will be upgraded soon. One of the cable companies (I forget which one) got an injunction last year against the Bell companies to prevent them from showing those "Cable hog" ads. They got the injunction because the problem no longer existed.

This was supposed to be true. Unfortunately, some cable companies have run into tough financial times and are delaying upgrades to their system. So you run into the situation where some users love their cable while others with the same MSO (multiple system operator -- industry-speak for cable company) say their service blows. They're both right, unfortunately.

Time Warner generally has great service -- you're a lucky guy! :)

What amazes me is the schizophrenic nature of the cable industry. When they're not complaining about bandwidth hogs or imposing download/upload caps, they're doubling the bandwidth available to users or touting improved service. Just weird. They really have a love-hate relationship with customers!

Supertanker

10-08-2003, 09:56 AM

I think the spending varies, depending on the area. California seems to be getting plenty of rebuilds. I've got three clients where Adelphia is conducting or finishing rebuilds, despite the bankruptcy. Time Warner bought our system last year, and started rebuilding within 90 days of the purchase. Last I heard Cox isn't doing any rebuilds in southern California because they have already rebuilt all of their systems to at least 750MHz capacity. It is a furious pace in SoCal.

Aleck

10-08-2003, 11:04 AM

Supertanker,

Oh, I am *so* jealous. :evil:

Things out here are much more of a mixed bag. I've watched my local Comcast system get worse and worse over the last 4 years (I use a competitive DSL provider and am very happy with them). I also work with schools and libraries all over the country, and many -- in MI, in particular -- seem to be reporting similar experiences.

I may need to get my parents (out in Claremont, CA) online via cable one of these days...

chet

10-08-2003, 11:30 AM

They just did a rebuild in our area. 3mbs down, 256 up - or for an extra $40 4mbs down, 512kup. I think i will stick with the basic package which right now is $25 a month for 5 months then $40 a month.

Our DSL from SBC was costing $80/month for 786 down and 128k up, and i never saw more than 256 down and sometimes as slow as 33k up.
Chet

XPav

10-08-2003, 11:46 AM

I have DSL at work through Sonic.net (which resells SBC DSL).

Download: 768kbps-1.5Mbps, Upload: 256kbps, 8 static IPs, $69.95

At home, I've got the lower package,

Download: 384kbps-1.5Mbps, Upload: 128kbps, 4 static IPs, $34.95

Static IPs rock. No PPPoE rocks. Sonic.net rocks.

Xaroc

10-08-2003, 12:52 PM

DSL via Verizon: 1.5 down/384k up for $75 a month. As long as the site I am downloading from isn't overloaded I always get full download speed. It uses PPoE and a dynamic IP but my pings are great and the service has been almost perfect. We had some slight packet loss issues when they were doing an upgrade but they were cleared up within a few days and the line never went completely down. It was still useable at least for browsing and downloads.

-- Xaroc

chet

10-09-2003, 10:52 AM

Well I now have - until Monday - Business Premiere DSL from SBC and basic Digital Cable from Adelphia connected to my home. DSL costs $80, Cable $29 (then $49 after 6 months)

On Adelphia I get over 3000 Kbps at dslreports, for my DSL I get 225Kbps

Both get under 125k up even though I have a guaranteed up of 256k with DSL.

Oddly at C-Net's test, my cable gets below SBC's dsl report (on their page) and they offer a link to buy the DSL. Even odder, i started two downloads and my C-net test remained the same, almost as if the test had a cap... the best i can get is 1435 kbps - any else?
http://webservices.cnet.com/bandwidth/

In case anyone didn't know, a while back, C-net went from a respected source to nothing but a paid shill. Their website ratings are based on how much money the company pays cnet, they allow companies to "purchase" downloads on download.com to inflate the numbers. I doubt their speed numbers.

Chet

TimElhajj

10-09-2003, 01:49 PM

Oddly at C-Net's test, my cable gets below SBC's dsl report (on their page) and they offer a link to buy the DSL. Even odder, i started two downloads and my C-net test remained the same, almost as if the test had a cap... the best i can get is 1435 kbps - any else?
http://webservices.cnet.com/bandwidth/

> 2612 Kbps - You 2612 kbps

Oh, I got 2.5 Mbs on my new 1.5 Mbs cable line.

Zephyr

10-10-2003, 05:39 AM

If its Optimum Online in Montclair, go for it. It also rates #3 for speed at DSL Reports, just behind 2 fiber-based ISP's. I have had it in Edison and Old Bridge, both decently populated areas, with no real discernable speed drop/lag during prime time.