# cable modem or DSL - your opinion?



## toddjb (May 7, 2002)

Just curious on your opinion....for us SAT users the price is about the same since we don't get the cable customer discount. In my area, I'd have to pay $55.50 a month for cable and $50 for high speed DSL (1.5/128 not .4/128, $40 for low speed, .4/128).

Installation and everything works out about the same because I have to get a second phone line if I do DSL (home security system on primary).

In any event, here is my PRO list for the two.

DSL
- newsgroups
- more consistent speed
- I'd have access to a 2nd phone line
(since I have to buy it anyway, it'll be nice to have)

CABLE
- faster
- 15MB more web space (10 vs. 25)


From what I hear, cable will be faster. However, I have used cable modems and found that at peak times, they can get sluggish. I *think* that the 1.5 DSL would be more consistent.

Too bad I don't have a good broadband option with Dish.

Any thoughts?
Thanks,

-todd


----------



## Tomsoundman (Jun 17, 2002)

I'm pro DSL just because my bad attitude towards cable. More consistent speed is also a big plus IMHO.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

I would go cable modem. With DSL (at least in my area) you are not connected 24 hours a day, you are required to connect to DSL as needed with Cable you are connected 24 hours a day 7 days a week.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

I've had both... In my situation cable modem has been much faster, more reliable and cheaper. But as with anything, it depends on your providers. I think we have seen cable modems rise to the top over the past year in speed and reliability while DSL hasn't really grown.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

There is no set answer. I had DSL until the Northpoint meltdown. While the speed was nowhere near the peak speeds of cable it was rock solid and dependable. 

When I could no longer get DSL I let the cable company back in my home because I knew we could not live with dialup. At off peak hours it flies. But during prime time it is anything but that. I am also susceptible to the same annoying weather related outages that led me to satellite TV to behin with.

To make matters worse wheen the cable goes out my cable company is so overwhelmed with calls I cant even report the outage and have no idea when service will be restored.

I relaize that not everyone has theese problems with their cable company but that si precisely why I think ther is no single answer.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

It depends. You have to be within 3 miles of the CO in order to get DSL *IF* they have the equipment installed. Cable can be overutilized depending on the infrastructure.

As for newsgroups, if your DSL provider doesn't provide DSL access, then there are subscription newsfeed services.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Geronimo,

That is the big point. While some people have great Cable systems, other have bad ones. Same with phone companies. Heck I use Cox Cable for my telephone service because Qwest is so bad.


----------



## toddjb (May 7, 2002)

Newsgroups - I've just grown accustomed to them as a phenomenal web resource. Its amazing how many people don't use them for whatever reason (very easy, but not easy enough for the village idiot. : )

Anyway, DSL provides the groups, Cable does not.

SPEED: Most of the DSL rates I see advertised are for download speeds up to 384 kbps.

I'd be paying $10 extra for the 1.5Mbps .

At 1.5, is it still considerably slower than cable at off-peak hours?

I'd like to be able to watch high-res video as soon as I click on something, for instance.

Thanks for all the feedback,
-todd


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

A bit off topic but I access newsgroups through Google not as a direct service from my ISP. But it depens on how you use them.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

Most of the Proporganda is BS on both side. 

1)The slowdowns my friends have gotten with Cable Modems, is similar to the slowdowns I get as well. 7PM-9PM ET is a slow time to surf the net for most people since most people are home around the country at that time and doing whatever.

2) Cable may be faster in general, but my 115k DLS connection got better over time as they upgraded my area and one day it just shot up to 1256K and has stayed there.

3) Time I needed tech support over phone, taken forever. My ISP has a Instant Messenger option and that has worked best for me. But without it, there would be little difference in quality.

4) BUT, many of my friends are now getting a raise in their cable modem costs, so them switching to DSL (if they can find a time when free modem and no startup fee) will be $5/month cheaper. I wonder if DSL will raise their rates to match???


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by toddjb _
> *Just curious on your opinion....for us SAT users the price is about the same since we don't get the cable customer discount. In my area, I'd have to pay $55.50 a month for cable and $50 for high speed DSL (1.5/128 not .4/128, $40 for low speed, .4/128).
> 
> Installation and everything works out about the same because I have to get a second phone line if I do DSL (home security system on primary). *


In looking at your costs, does the $50 for DSL include the cost of the second line, or will that charge be on top of the DSL charge? If you really need the second line anyway it might not make a difference, but in some areas the second line is not cheap. In my area a second line is considered a "luxury item" (try telling that to a parent with three teenagers in the house) and is taxed as such. I am now down to one teenager in the house and got rid of the second line, saving me $25 a month.

I have a cable modem. My experience, and I think to a large extent this will be true with either cable or DSL, is that you will not necessarily notice a huge difference in how fast a page opens. There are logjams in the pipeline that have nothing to do with the speed of your access. At 10 PM its going to take longer to check your email because everyone else is checking their email before they go to bed. The delay is as much because the server is working close to capacity as anything else. Where I *really* notice the difference in speed is in downloads. Pages with a lot of graphics, programs, updates, etc. A 10-15 meg download at work, where I have a dial-up connection is painfully slow, taking days to accomplish (well, it seems that way, but I suppose its only hours) compared to the four or five minute download at home. I sometimes do the download at home and bring it to work on a disk to save time. Personally, the only time I have had a cable outage was for a short time when the system was being upgraded.


----------



## Neil Derryberry (Mar 23, 2002)

I've got cable modem from Adelphia, and given their corporate troubles, their service is still ok.

Points to consider:
* DSL usually requires some flavor of PPPoE to run. This is additional software running on your computer that can be and is buggy. Workaround to this is a firewall/router, which can usually handle the PPPoE for you. Cable only needs a MAC address to allow you on to the system.

* DSL requires you to install a line filter on each telephone to block noise. This can be problematic for some. Cable doesn't have this requirement.

These are only a few issues, and if it appears I am biased, I am. To date, cable doesn't have the technical hurdles like distance to overcome, etc.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Well the best thing to do is ask people around you who have both systems and try it yourself.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Be aware that DSL *MAY* interfere with DBS units hooked up to the phone line.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

And DSL usually means an internal modem. They don't work as well as external modems and are really hard to share. Internal DSL modems are almost WinModems IMO. :bang:


----------



## toddjb (May 7, 2002)

Ahhhh...thanks for the tip. At $16 I thought the 2nd line was pricey anyway, but they didn't tell me what the tax would be. They just said "+tax"

I'll also ask if the DSL is an internal or external modem. I agree. I'd rather have the external.

I was planning on getting one of those D-Link 2.4G wireless routers, so i guess that would take care of the router concerns.

The one thing I HAVE found out is that all of their websites are pretty un-informative! :bang They tell you the basic rates and features but if you need any detailed information (type of modem, newsgroups, actual speeds, etc.) you have to go digging on your own. 

Thanks again. Have a good weekend,
-todd


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Check out DSLREPORTS.COM for some good hints on DSL / Cable Modem services.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Check if the modem is Single user or multi user. Qwest has Intel single user (most likely internal) modems and Cisco multi user (external) modems. The nice thing about cable modems is you have a much larger choice. All you need is a DOCSIS compatible modem and those can be found for less than $60 online (for an external modem).


----------



## HarryD (Mar 24, 2002)

I thought I was getting a deal w/ MCI for my local phone service ($14.95 + tax) Well it was a BIG + ... $10.00 of misc tax and other fees..


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Bogy _
> *
> In looking at your costs, does the $50 for DSL include the cost of the second line, or will that charge be on top of the DSL charge? *


The DSL does not require a 2nd line, it only requires one line (although your house may require some equipment upgraded at the junction box, the phone companies responsibility) and may require upgraded phone wiring (does your phone jack have 2 or 4 wires in the cable, need 4 wires, not a problem on relatively new houses)

If you look at the 4 wires on your wall jack

1-2-3-4 Only wires 2&3 are needed for the phone to work. DSL uses wires 1&4 so that is why you can recieve calls while you are online with the DSL.

As stated prior, there is a problem if your DSL is connected that you get static/interference on your regular phone line when making phone calls. A filter (I got 3 for free when I got my DSL Modem, they cost around $10 each if you needed to get more at radio shack or comp-usa. ) basically prevents lines 1 & 4 from passing to your phone equipment, so no ability to recognize the DSL lines, thus you lose any interference. I have 3 wall jacks in the house where I just have phones, sat recievers, 56K modems connected using splitters and such. If plug the filter into the wall jack then the splitter into the filer, EVERYTHING on that line is now filtered. So I have 3 phones, 2 sat recievers, 3 modems all conected to one of 3 wall jacks (each with a filter between cable and wall jack) and have no problems. You have to make sure these is no filter between DSL and wall jack for the DSL to work.

There is no problem with DSL and Satellite recivers or anything else as long as your filters are in the right place..

Walljack------>FILTER------>Splitter----->Satellite and/or Phone and/or analog modem = ALL OK!!!

Walljack------->Satellite reciever and/or Phone and/or Analog Modem = Intererence

Walljack------->DSL Modem = ALL OK!!!

Walljack------->FILTER----->DSL Modem = NO DSL Connection

At least where I am the popularity of DSL/Cable Router/Firewalls makes it that you hardly see USB or PCI internal DSL modems. Where I am the modems are mostly external.

So the options are

Walljack------->DSL Modem------>PC Network Card

or

Walljack------->DSL Modem------->DSL&Cable Modem Router/Wireless Access Point/ Whatever-------->PC Network Card


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

You are partly correct Zac. You only need a filter if the line isn't a "home run". If you have something sliced off that line or share the jack with another device, then you need the line filter.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

The key there is "properly". In my house I didn't need any because I had it wired correctly when it was being built. Older home with bad wiring might need the filters even on other lines. Basically if you have good wires, you won't need a filter. If the phone company runs an new line and tells you that you need filters, then they did a bad job.


----------



## toddjb (May 7, 2002)

...all right, I think I got this now. Basically, I am getting a 2nd line because I don't want to mess with my home security system (that takes over the line when it calls AND I'd have to figure out where it taps onto the phone and filter it...its behind the wall somewhere).

Anyway, it looks like I have one 4 wire phone line in the house. I had planned on just using wires 3,4 for DSL and keeping the first two for my regular lines. 

If I can't do that...ugh...I'd be running another line. Either way I'll have to crack open the box again and check.


Found out 2 answers. Covad gives me an external modem (Efficient or Zytel) and Verizon in MD doesn't know of any special taxes for a 2nd line...they estimate about $2.50 in taxes. My main line, with extra features, is taxed $3.71 (taxes & fees)

I think I'm going with DSL, but I'll tell ya what, Cable is easier. They were able to come in 2 days, install everything, that'd be it. With Covad, I have to wait for Verizon to install the line (7 days), and then another 7-10 days for Covad to do their thing and send me equipment for a self-install.

-todd


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Yea, thats the problem with DSL... Why not just use Verizon?


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by toddjb _
> *...all right, I think I got this now. Basically, I am getting a 2nd line because I don't want to mess with my home security system (that takes over the line when it calls AND I'd have to figure out where it taps onto the phone and filter it...its behind the wall somewhere)....*


It looks like cable would be easier for you. Maybe just give them a try first. If it dosen't work out you can do DSL at a later point. The cost of the 2nd line can be alot (install and monthly fee)


----------



## Jasonbp (Jun 17, 2002)

Well for me with would have to be DSL. Being it's the only thing I can get being where I live. Only has gone down a few times, speed is great and so is the price. 

If I could be Cable, I wouldn't. It's down alot, at peak time in places it slows down to 80K (if not lower). Plus, I would be paying $20 more a month just to get the speed (630K) I am at right now on DSL.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

You know I can't belive what you people are paying for DSL. DSL here is $39 for always on 512k and my cable modem is $34 a month...


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by gcutler _
> *Most of the Proporganda is BS on both side.
> 
> 1)The slowdowns my friends have gotten with Cable Modems, is similar to the slowdowns I get as well. 7PM-9PM ET is a slow time to surf the net for most people since most people are home around the country at that time and doing whatever.
> *


Perhaps that is the case in your area but it most assuredly is not my experience. My cable modem slows considerably during peak times. While DSL (or anything else) is somewhat slowed by general internet traffic the fact that your line is more or less dedicated makes it less suscptible to slowdowns.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Geronimo,

So you have the exact opposite experience of me. What does that prove? I wasn't getting even 256k with my DSL and even though Qwest gave me rebates because 512k was guaranteed, it wasn't worth the hassle of DSL. Crappy modems, crappy service, slower download speeds.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Geronimo _
> *Perhaps that si the case in your area but it most assuredly is not my experience. My cable modem slows considerably during peak times. While DSL (or anything else) is somewhat slowed by general internet traffic the fact that your line is more or less dedicated makes it less suscptible to slowdowns. *


*If* the cable co. does their job right (and yes, that can be a big if) there is no real reason for cable to slow significantly just because two of your neighbors also decided to go online. Just like the need for filters when the telephone wires have no been properly installed, a significant decrease in speed at peak times shows that the network was improperly installed. This is one of the benefits of competition between the two services. If they want to keep their customers happy, they better do the job right.

I agree with James, I can't believe what some of you are paying. I only pay about $30 a month. Of course I get my local and long distance phone, digital TV, and internet access all from Cox, so they almost pay me (I wish).


----------



## toddjb (May 7, 2002)

Around here cable is $40 if you have TV cable, if your don't its $55. They cap your rate at 1500K. You can only go higher by paying $100 a month for "Comcast Pro" service. 

DSL, $40 for 400K and $50 for 1500K.

After figuring installation, equipment and some other fees, it comes out to about the same.


So, I have pretty much been changing my mind every 6 hours on what I'm getting. This evening I made up my mind that I'd go with Cable. Then, after 2-3 calls to customer support to ask some questions I realized how much I do not miss cable customer service!!! Its awful! :bang

...amazing, actually. I think my local phone company is overpriced, but at least they bend over backwards to please you on the phone. The cable company is just filled with uneducated, unfriendly and unmotivated customer support people. Its painfully obvious which company monitors and tracks customer support and which one hands out free painkillers. 

Anyway...I'm on the fence again at this point. Considering DSL mainly because the customer support with Covad and Verizon was so much better. (fyi - DSL was $10 cheaper through Covad than it was through Verizon).

-todd


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Geronimo _
> *
> 
> Perhaps that si the case in your area but it most assuredly is not my experience. My cable modem slows considerably during peak times. While DSL (or anything else) is somewhat slowed by general internet traffic the fact that your line is more or less dedicated makes it less suscptible to slowdowns. *


Have you witnessed your local DSL provder at the same time period your cable modem take a hit? I have with 3 different cable modem providers in 3 different parts of my city and the results have never been as bad or as good as the vendor claim.

The less succeptable to slowdowns is only in my immediate area. So my neighbors going online does not necessarily slow me down from my connection to my house and the main office. While cable modem has you sharing the cable with your neighbors. You are all still sharing the connections between your provider and the rest of the world. I'm still sharing the pipe with all the Bell South users at peak times. The bottleneck can be in your neigborhood or at the ISP, but the bottlenecks still occur at Peak Hours. I've done testing and I often lose 50% of my performance at those peak hours. So what that I am less succeptable to the slowdowns, I still get them. So to me, the statement by DSL that Cable Modems are more succeptable to slowdowns dosen't cary much weight. There is the chance that if by bad luck all DSLusers in the neighborhood were downloading files at 5am, I as a DSL users would probably not be negatively affected since bellsouths pipe is probably not majorly utilized, and a cable modem user in the sam situation would have a problem. But in general the Peak hours is where the problem occurs consistantly on both DSL and Cable Modem, the other is a rarity. Kind of like Cable making a big deal about weather outages with Satellite, they do happen but it isn't as bad as the vendor makes them out to be.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

I had both DSL and Cable Modem for about 2 months. Look why are we arguing about this? It just depends on your location. I might be too far from a switching station for DSL or no one in my neighborhood has cable. Pick one as the reason why my cable modem is faster than DSL. How about crappy Intel DSL modems or bad lines between my house and the phone company? :shrug:

The fact is that the fiber optic lines that Cox cable has in my area are better than the lines that Qwest has in my area.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Does the distance to the CO on DSL make a difference? I am probably under 400 feet from the CO. Would I be expected to get better speeds and consistency than someone a the far end of the line? I am currently on Starband and as a dealer get service for $39 per month, but am always open to looking at alternatives. I always tell my prospects that if they have DSL available that is the better way to go over Starband because of the high initial cost and high on going cost. I have the initial costs covered when I bought my system and my on going costs ($39 per month) are reasonable. The few instances of rain fade here haven't been much of a problem for me.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Another question.... If I choose to go to DSL, is there a difference between getting it from the phone company (Bell South) or another source (DirecTv DSL)?


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rking401 _
> *Does the distance to the CO on DSL make a difference? I am probably under 400 feet from the CO. Would I be expected to get better speeds and consistency than someone a the far end of the line? *


Lucky guy...The closer you are the faster your speed should be. I was just about the maximum length and I was getting about 144k download. They added some repeater hardware between me and the CO (or added a CO, or whatever they do...) and my speed shot up to 1265K around 3 months into it..


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rking401 _
> *Another question.... If I choose to go to DSL, is there a difference between getting it from the phone company (Bell South) or another source (DirecTv DSL)? *


There are pros and cons.

I have it thru Earthlink but the wire is provided by Bellsouth.

For example, at the time,

1) BEllsouth only allowed USB or PCI DSL modems so no way to use the DSL Router/Hub/Wireless access pont effectively, but Earthlink didn't care (may not be an issue now a days?).

2) Bellsouth wanted $125 for a business account if I wanted a static IP address for my server (be my own host). Earthlink only charged an extra $15 for static IP address ($65 total).

3) Earthlink had a deal of free hardware and no setup fee for 1 year commit, bell south had no similar deal.

4) I think Earthlink support for internet stuff probably better than BellSouth?

5) Could use Dialup Earthlink #s anywhere in the world (20 hour s dialup included in DSL service) if travelling, don't believe Bell South had dialup options or at least outside of control area (earthlink had much bigger service area than Bell South, thus more dial up #s around the country)

But on pro Bellsouth side...
1) If had all other BS offerings save $5/month on DSL.

2) Earthlink would drag you thru 10 support steps before they would call Bell South to check the physical line (my DSL line was dead while they replaced the DSL hardware that gave me faster speed, but didn't know it at the time). Was not allowed to call BellSouth about DSL line problems. If had Bell South as ISP would have know of problem sooner.


----------



## raj2001 (Nov 2, 2002)

I've had both cable and DSL and I can tell you cable is better for a number of reasons:

More widespread availability - i.e. no requirements to be less than 15,000 feet from the CO

Lower pricing for equivalent packages in many instances

More bandwidth/speed

No special wiring requirements/filters

Fewer cable providers tend to use PPPoE

Less susceptibility to wiring mishaps (like a tech in the CO de-provisioning you by mistake)

I have found the general argument that DSL providers have been pushing that cable is shared and will slow down when others access the system is total BS. Of course this is in my area and others may vary.

The best reason I'd like to dump DSL of course is to get rid of my expensive land based phone line, which I hardly use at all!


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by raj2001 _
> *Less susceptibility to wiring mishaps (like a tech in the CO de-provisioning you by mistake) *


Agree with all but this one, both sides have wiring issues. Several istances of construction cutting cable wire, takes days, weeks to repair. Neither side has perfect record.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Zac explain to me how fiberoptics are suseptable to weather?


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *Zac explain to me how fiberoptics are suseptable to weather? *


Plague of Locusts fall from the sky (technically weather). They chew thru fiberoptic cable. Thus succeptable to weather


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *Geronimo,
> 
> So you have the exact opposite experience of me. What does that prove? I wasn't getting even 256k with my DSL and even though Qwest gave me rebates because 512k was guaranteed, it wasn't worth the hassle of DSL. Crappy modems, crappy service, slower download speeds. *


i never referenced your experience my friend. My only point was that the quality of DSL and cable service vary so widely from one area to another that you can't make any generalizations. We would seem to bein agreement on that.

And Bogy I dont know that I ever said that it was becaause teo of my neighbors went on line. In some areas. And this is one. Cable speeds degrade significantly during peak times. I think people need to check into therse things before going with cable because it is "faster".


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *Zac explain to me how fiberoptics are suseptable to weather? *


I have weather outages on cable too. First of all not all of us have fire optic lines. Secondly in my area a lot of the cable is above ground. It does go out and quite often it does so for hours at a time. In three years plus of satellite TV I have had only 5 weather outages. All were short term and one was due to severe weather in Cheyenne not at my home. Although hey a weater related outage is a weather related outage.

I had cable for years and the outages were frequent. I have had cable internet for only a few months but it has gone out 4 times in bad weather---including the day it was installed.

So it really does vary from area to area.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Geronimo,

Thats my point. Asking this question gets a different response for everyone. Unlike DBS, cable/DSL is SO VERY different depending on your location. Your cable system sounds like my parents so I know what you are going though, but you can't just say DSL is better, just like I can't say cable modems are better. The best thing to do is find out what your neighbors are using and how their sevice is. I'm lucky enough to have fiberoptic cable all around me so I'l 100% sure that is why my service is always up. Heck I've never have my phone service go down and I get that through the cable company also.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *If you look at the 4 wires on your wall jack
> 
> 1-2-3-4 Only wires 2&3 are needed for the phone to work. DSL uses wires 1&4 so that is why you can recieve calls while you are online with the DSL. "
> ...


I was mistaken...Thats the way it was explained to me. :sure:


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

OK everybody, group hug now.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *OK everybody, group hug now.
> 
> 
> ...


Will Zac be wearing his DBSTALK.com Thong? :righton:


----------



## raj2001 (Nov 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rking401 _
> *Another question.... If I choose to go to DSL, is there a difference between getting it from the phone company (Bell South) or another source (DirecTv DSL)? *


Remember as well that alot of DSL providers are simply reselling your local Telco's or a CLEC's DSL (not the internet service, just the DSL line and DSLAM). For example, DirecTV DSL (ex Telocity) may be reselling Verizon's lines and Earthlink may be reselling Covad's. Therefore differences between ISP's and their DSL service may not be as different as you think.

Cable ISP's typically own everything but due to FCC regulation they may be forced to share it with other providers. For example, in NYC you can choose Earthlink, AOL, NYConnect or RoadRunner and they all use the Time Warner cable network.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

One advantage I have found with DSL is the ability to get a static IP address. In the systems I have been on Cable tends to work faster. The phone company does not want to make DSL work too fast because they dont want to sell you a T1 line.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *It's completely inappropriate to attempt data transmission over the normal 4-wire cable's extra lines (OF ANY TYPE, including another phone line, even though this is common). Those wires are ONLY suitable for providing power to the AT&T "Princess" telephone (obviously a far outdated application). *


Explain exactly why it is inappropriate to use the other two wires in a four wire line to connect your second line. Does the inappropriate color of the insulation interfere with the transfer of electrons in the copper wire? I haven't noticed a problem in the many 2-line phones I have installed using four wire cable.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Mike123abc _
> *One advantage I have found with DSL is the ability to get a static IP address. *


Hmmm.... Cox allows me to have a static IP, though my brother has had his for over a year and its ip has not changed even though its DHCP.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *
> 
> Hmmm.... Cox allows me to have a static IP, though my brother has had his for over a year and its ip has not changed even though its DHCP. *


Has the PC or Cable Modem Router been down for any extended period of time? A sure way to lose that DHCP lease 

"Honey, did we leave the Iron on or the Router OFF when we left home for Disney Land???"


----------



## Neil Derryberry (Mar 23, 2002)

Zac, you are completely wrong on a couple of levels.

Most houses are wired with Cat3 because it is much less expensive than Cat5 when bought in bulk. I'm talking plenum-rated cable, not PVC. PVC is out of code for just about anything other than patch cables. Home runs aren't the standard, either. Most new construction consists of one cat3 run that appears at each jack... the blue pair is cut, and each wire is stripped and twisted together to allow the jack connection, and the line runs back out of the box to the next jack.

When you order a second line from the telco, it gets run down the second pair. Unless termination points are done poorly, crosstalk isn't an issue because of the high current of a phone line (42-45VDC, 90VDC ring voltage).


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *But Neil, it is YOU who is completely wrong. ANY decent builder will run CAT5. Some close friends of mine just got a new house and it was run with CAT5. Any decent builder runs CAT5 (at least around here)*


So Now Your Expertise also runs to construction and building codes? Take my word on this, builders do not put anything above what is required without you asking for it. If minimum requiremens is CAT3, you are getting CAT3 unless you ask and pay for it. My house wasn't pre-wired for Cable and the phone lines only went to the Kitchen, Living Room and Master bedroom (not to the den or the 2 smaller bedrooms). This was because the original owner didn't ask for it, thus the money was not spent (Decent Builder Or Not)

A decent builder may ask you if you want the CAT5 option, but why would they spend money on something that many people would say now to if asked.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Zac, when I built my house I had an option of having the builder install the network. They wanted to install CAT3 (it even says in the options list). I had to pay them extra to get CAT5e put in. 

Again you are confusing the real world with yours. No one does more than the job requires no matter how skilled they are.


----------



## Neil Derryberry (Mar 23, 2002)

Zac, I've been a network engineer for ten years now... you don't know what you are talking about. I don't doubt that some builders do what you are speaking of, but that certainly isn't the majority. Vast minority, in my experience. If you would like to continue this little pissing contest, PM me.


----------



## PeterB (Jul 25, 2002)

Ive had both, they both have thier ups and downs, but what it comes to is this,

Cable isnt always faster, in fact its offen the same, AT&T caps bandwidth to 1.5mbit down, and 128kbit up, the same speed I get from my DSL provider, for the same price. 

After switching after I moved, I can say my DSL is more consistant than AT&T (or when they were using @home) ever has been. Granted, I did have a cable modem 4+ years, and my DSL service about 7 months.

but as always with different cable companies, YMMV.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

My hope with DSL is that it is a more stable entity (corporate wise). Thinking about all the merging and selling my "Theorhetical" cable company would have been thru. And knowing people who have had the company on their bill change 3 times in 5 years (and they didn't move) that can cause annoyance. A friend who had 3 different companies in 5 years had the Cable Modem entity switch on her, so they forced an e-mail address change, changes in the end-user agreement. If going with the local Telco's DSL avoids that administrative junk, that might be beneficial??? All Things Being Equal???


----------



## jlabsher (Aug 26, 2002)

I've had both, cable with ATT/@home. Moved to the east coast and the cable system sucked. Got the dish then convinced the wife to let me have DSL (Earthlink). 

Did not have to install 2nd line, got the phone line filters with the package. In my area both cable & DSL run about $50 a month, but cable has a download speed cap of around 800, if you want faster speed, you pay more. 

With cable you always face the risk that they will buy out or merge, probably don't face that with DSL. I have experienced cable slowing down during peak times, not so much with DSL. Thing is with most cable companies you have to have their digital plan to get internet, or you pay out the wazoo. With DSL, you will not need 2 lines and most companies offer specials where they give you the modem, etc if you sign up for one year. All you need is a network card on your computer.

I would recommend DSL, just because I have grown to hate cable companies so much, and both technologies are very similar.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

jlabsher: the drawback with DSL, IF IT'S AVAILABLE, is that you need a FIRST LINE. Cellular phone deals are way better than land lines today. I'm geting 750 anytime minutes + 3000 NW minutes starting at 8pm(That 8pm start time isn't offered anymore. I was grandfathered) for $40/month with Sprint PCS. Who needs a land line with that. I can live with just Sprint PCS and a cable modem. Of course you need a cable deal that will give you a cable modem at a fair price without cable TV. I've got Earthlink for $41.95.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

Well there still is a need for Land line, if you have a home alarm system, and 911 (auto finding address when calling) is still questionable via cell phone in many areas, or dialup alternative if DSL or Cable is down. So I think significant amount of people still need their Land Line. But I do know more and more people who have given up or want to give up their land line


----------



## craig559 (Aug 10, 2002)

Guys this may sound dumb but with cable do you usually get the basic service by default just because you are hooked up? I have heard that some do, but were not told because they only hooked up to get internet acces, and were not subscribing to a channel package which would have cost them more. I know dumb question, but had to ask.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

I don't with Cox. I think it depends on the type of system. With the fiberoptic lines around here, they hang some sort of box on the outside of my house. According to the CSR it has some stuff in it that Cox can program to not let features into the house. :shrug: Bottom line in my case, I get Cox Telephone and Cox.net high speed internet, but no basic cable.


----------



## Rick_EE (Apr 5, 2002)

I have to say, my Roadrunner from TW has been great. I often get 1800 bps downstream. Generally my downloads are often limited by the server on the other end. I get newsgroups, too. If your cable company doesn't offer a server, there are free servers you can access out there, too.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by craig559 _
> *Guys this may sound dumb but with cable do you usually get the basic service by default just because you are hooked up? I have heard that some do, but were not told because they only hooked up to get internet acces, and were not subscribing to a channel package which would have cost them more. I know dumb question, but had to ask. *


I know if I was to use my provider, I would have to pay for at least basic service $20 + $30 for the Modem service. For a total of $50. I assume that if I am paying for basic service I should get "Basic lifeline cable" in the house. At least I would make a stink about it.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

It is really variable. I have Cox. I had only internet but the cable TV is on the same line. They recently modified their pricing. Instead of $39.95 for internet you have your choice of paying $49.95 for internet alone or $34.95 for the net plus $12.xx (really about $14.00 after fees) for internet plus basic cable.

So I now have basic cable in the den for slightly less than I would pay for internet alone----but more than I used to pay. But the truth is I could have split that line anyway even when I paid for internet alone.


And yes its cockeyed pricing. but I guess they REALLY want to sell me basic cable.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Geronimo _
> *And yes its cockeyed pricing. but I guess they REALLY want to sell me basic cable. *


I think they got some benefit (ego maybe) of saying you are a subscriber (no matter how basic you are). Perhaps as a utility they get some benefit from the increased #s???


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

First, I think it is very nice of Cox to make it honest people out of those who only pay for internet access but "steal" the basic tv service. And save money at the same time. 
The other possibility for why they might want to boost their subscriber numbers are for the advertising spots they sell.


----------



## toddjb (May 7, 2002)

Thought you'ld get a kick out of my install process. Let's just call it...

"Why I have satellite television instead of cable."

My Cable Modem Install, thus far...

* Call cable company ask for best price: $99 install, $55.50/month. I book it anyway.
* The agree to come in 2 days for the install.
* I call back to check my order. The order is wrong, they correct it.
* I call back to ask about Newsgroups. They say no newsgroups. (check order, its wrong again)
* I call back to cancel, because there are no newsgroups, they tell me they have newsgroups via giganews.com.
I keep the order open.
* See that at Best Buy I can get their service for $49 installation & 2 mos. for $9.95
* Call cable company, woman has no knowledge of Best Buy tells me all kinds of stuff that isn't true. I get fed up and decide to go to Best Buy in the morning.
* Wake up. Call cable one last time to ask about Best Buy, this person tells me I can get it for $19.95 installation and the first month free. On par with Best Buy so she updates my rates.
* Saturday comes around. Cable is a no show. They promise to reschedule Monday @ 6:00. Check the order, its still wrong (what they are delivering and the rates)
* Monday 7:30PM, I call and tell them if someone doesn't come tonight I'm getting DSL.
* They have no knowledge of my 6:00 service install. I get put on hold.
* Someone else picks up the phone, they didn't know I was on hold, I start over. This person does know about my 6:00 install. I get put on hold.
* They come back promise someone will be there.
* Cable Install guy shows up at 9:30PM. He doesn't have a ladder. Can't install the cable. :bang

EVERYtime I've spoken to someone on the phone the service has been waaaay less than desirable. (Comcast is my cable provider)

Verizon is scheduled to install my phone line for DSL tomorrow. If the cable company doesn't get things working tonight. I'm through with them and I'll go ahead with the DSL. Only reason I'm hanging on at this point is due to my risk free trial and all told its still $15 cheaper for me than DSL (since in my case I DO need a 2nd line). I can always cancel and get DSL.

Ugh.

-todd


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

I am not compalining about the pricing guys. But i do think it is odd.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

toddjb, I know that Cox has a guarantee that they will not only show up, but be on time in a 2 hour window. I can't remember what happens if they don't show, because they've never been late. Usually been early. This was *NOT* always my experience when waiting for DBS installers to show. When I was converted from Primestar to DirecTV the guy did not show for the first appointment and I had to wait for two weeks for another appointment and stay at home another day. Let's condemn the entire DBS industry for this no show.

Cox is also really pushing the self-install, at least around here. Its a pretty simple process. Since my computers are already networked I never have used their disks. Just follow the easy to follow directions to change the network properties. I have never had any problems.


----------



## toddjb (May 7, 2002)

I hear ya Bogy, but I disagree. I'll condemn the cable industry because I have had bad experience with MANY cable companies in MANY different markets. More so than with any other home utility.

You usually run into this kind of service when they are the sole provider. So, I expected better service since they compete with DSL. No such luck. I found my Verizon customer service to improve dramatically once they became threatened by local competition.

Naturally one will find differences with different companies. However, I think you'll find the majority of people do have problems with their cable companies.

Glad to hear yours is working out for you.

Unfortunately, I couldn't take advantage of the self install. I use all my interior cable for my SAT system so they had to run a new line. However, yes, the DSL and Cable companies around here are pushing self-install as well whenever it works for the situation. And why not...its costs them less money. Most people will choose the self install, in part, because of experiences like mine. Heck, if I could trust that a competent person could come to my house when promised, I'd much rather have someone do it for me. But I'll do whatever I can myself just so I don't have to block out an entire afternoon and risk a no show!

In any event, the installer was supposed to be here an hour ago...we'll see! I'm hoping for the best. 

-todd


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Any news?


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by toddjb _
> *I hear ya Bogy, but I disagree. I'll condemn the cable industry because I have had bad experience with MANY cable companies in MANY different markets. More so than with any other home utility.*


I had bad experiences with DBS, at least in terms of installers, and, after the merger with DirecTV CSR's. Certainly no better than many cable customers experience. Isn't DSL in many cases provided by telephone companies? These are the knights in shining armor you are placing your hopes in? From what I hear, in Omaha, the local phone company, Quest, has had to greatly improve their service after Cox moved into the internet and telephone business.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

You'd think that Bogy, but here I am with Cox telephone and VERY happy that there is no Qwest in my house.


----------



## toddjb (May 7, 2002)

Yes, here you can get DSL through the phone company or a selection of other providers (covad, earthlink, and some others). I think they all end up using covad's network, though.

Well, cable guy showed up to install things at 10M! I didn't mind because I'm a night owl and would rather that than have to take off work to meet them. Still, though, they were supposed to show by 6:00 so this was a little extreme. Real nice guy, though. Took his time and did the job right. My neighbors must be wondering what the heck a guy is doing up on my roof at 10:30 at night... 

Works great. Hooked up my DLINK wireless router/firewall and that works as well.

SPEED: This was disappointing. The speed test is showing up at 740-Kbps. Cable guy says this will increase and its only "slow" (that's relative, I realize) because it is a new connection. Still, with my service getting capped at 1500Kbps, I had hoped for closer to 1400 at off peak times.

Any good links for cable modem tuning tips?

But, I DO have broadband. And its very nice. 

-todd


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

My started slow, but increased to above 1200Kbps where it is right now all the time. It took a phone call from me and they send someone out to "massage" (their word, not mine ) the cable box across the street. I think I was the first person on my street with the modem, so I became sort of a test for the local network. I'd just monitor it and let Cox know that you aren't getting near 1500Kbps. The good thing now is you don't have to be home for them to fix the speed.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *You'd think that Bogy, but here I am with Cox telephone and VERY happy that there is no Qwest in my house. *


Me too.  When I moved to Omaha a little over a year ago I checked with some of the people in my congregation about their experience and advice. After checking the prices we went with Cox for everything. The phone service was significantly better, and we have had excellent service. Never had any outage on our phone service, and only a brief outage on the tv and internet when the system was upgraded. Everyone from CSR's to techs have been very pleasant, punctual and efficient. I always enjoyed DBS, but after DirecTV bought Primestar the customer service got progressively worse. Fortunately I didn't have to call them very often.

Toddjb, glad to hear you're all hooked up, and once the guy got there it all went well. Our access speed has varied, increasing significantly after the upgrade (we are out on the edge of the city, in one of the suburbs), and I haven't even tested the speed lately, so I can't tell you right now what our speed is. But it's a whole lot faster than dial-up, especially when we occasionally have three or four computers on-line at the same time. Happy surfing. :hi:


----------



## Rick_EE (Apr 5, 2002)

Roadrunner here has a self-install kit. Went very smoothly and only cost $12.95 (two years ago). Plus I did not have to wait up unitil 10pm.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Self-install works well if you have a cable outlet near your computer. A really cool self-install kit would be:

1. Cable Modem
2. Wi-Fi router
3. Wi-Fi PCI card

That way you wouldn't need to be near the computer to have service.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Your Cox must be considerably friendlier than mine James. Here Cox wants $9.95 per month to install and "maintain" your home network. they do not forbid self installs but they were totally uncooperative when I called for tech assistance.


----------



## Rick_EE (Apr 5, 2002)

I had it easy. I have a drop ceiling above the computer.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Thats what makes DBS better than cable. We both have Cox, but we might as well be in different worlds. At least with DBS you get the save service, good or bad, all across the country.


----------



## toddjb (May 7, 2002)

Figured I'd give you all an update...

Cable modem speed is now a reliable 1400+ Kbps. My guess is my earlier slow estimate was due to me using a non-east coast based speed server and possibly it being a new modem connection.

All is good. Works well. I'm now another victim of $50 a month internet bills cuz I won't be able to go back to dialup. 

-todd


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Tell me about it... I just got back from a business trip to Seattle and I had to check my email using the modem on my laptop. It had been awhile since I had used a modem and well :bang:


----------



## Wedgecon (Jul 13, 2002)

If "Ethernet to the last mile" every gets going it will kill DSL and cable modems.


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

I skimmed over the three pages of messages and haven't noticed this issue discussed: DSL is a little more secure than cable. I've seen cable modems where you can see the neighbor's print queue and so forth. Whereas with DSL, you're not going to browse anyone else. 

I've had both DSL and cable and would cast my vote for DSL. Even with Qwest (infamous for poor service), we were able to get to a CSR in a few minutes and get a problem resolved the next day. ATT Cable, well I'd probably still be on hold.

We were very happy with Verizon DSL out here in the sticks where the cablemodems don't grow.  Their DSL was rock solid, 24/7 always on and used an external modem that I can't remember ever having to unplug to reset. The $50/month price tag was a little high, so we switched back to a highstream.net dialup account for $8/month.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *Tell me about it... I just got back from a business trip to Seattle and I had to check my email using the modem on my laptop. It had been awhile since I had used a modem and well :bang: *


About ayear ago. i did the same thing. I checked work email on the road. It took 45 minutes to download 7 emails. the big culprit was an announcement that there was ice cream in the company kitchen. The graphics were such that it was muder to download.

oh well.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by lee635 _
> *I skimmed over the three pages of messages and haven't noticed this issue discussed: DSL is a little more secure than cable. I've seen cable modems where you can see the neighbor's print queue and so forth. Whereas with DSL, you're not going to browse anyone else. *


True, I think we just assume that a Firewall/Router is almost standard these days for the people talking in this forum. But then again, I bet my brother's PC is totally open to the world because I can't convince him to spend the money (he has 3 pre-teen sons, I think that alone makes the PCs daily survival questionable)


----------



## toddjb (May 7, 2002)

Speaking of routers/firewalls...do we need to do anything to the factory settings of a firewall to make it secure?

I bought the DLINK wireless router which also acts as a firewall. At installation I chose my password and such but didn't do much else.

Are there any obvious doors I should know about that a hacker could use or am I pretty safe with the DLINK out of the box?

-todd


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by toddjb _
> *Speaking of routers/firewalls...do we need to do anything to the factory settings of a firewall to make it secure?
> 
> I bought the DLINK wireless router which also acts as a firewall. At installation I chose my password and such but didn't do much else.
> ...


Each system is different. But for most people changing your default password on the device is all that is really needed.

Goto http://www.dslreports.com/scan and see what they say about your security. I actually needed to apply a Firmware upgrade to my linksys router to get a "All Filtered" ports grade (I had installed 4 different linksys at friends but only mine didn't get the top grade.) Everything was set the same on each of them, then realized firmware was oldest only on my router. Now they all get "All Filtered" Ports grade.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

This is the stupidest debate of all time. The answer is simple, obvious, and absolute: THE ONE THAT'S AVAILABLE FIRST!!!!!! That is a fact, and it's indisputable. If DSL wasn't so concerned about pumping the max speed to the most people, and instead concerned with ANY SPEED TO AS MANY PEOPLE, it might have won. However, they didn't and thus DSL is dead. It has way too many distance limitations to overcome. I am a DIshNet\work retailer and I have and RECOMMEND STRONGLY AND PROUDLY Eartthink Cable modem service over Time Warner Cable just to stick it to SBC/AmeriCRAP.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Jeff, all too true. Friends of mine just today switched from a dial-up account with Qwest to a cable modem with Cox. Because of their business they had to have broadband access. They would have been glad to stay with Qwest if they could have provided them with a DSL connection, but they couldn't. This is not a location in the middle of nowhere. This is in Omaha. Qwest is desperately trying to compete with Cox, but Cox is even taking away an increasing amount of the telephone business from Qwest. 
At this point, take what you can get, and if you have a choice consider yourself blessed. Who knows, someday we may have true broadband, but this will have to do until that time.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Bogy _
> *Jeff, all too true. Friends of mine just today switched from a dial-up account with Qwest to a cable modem with Cox. Because of their business they had to have broadband access. They would have been glad to stay with Qwest if they could have provided them with a DSL connection, but they couldn't. This is not a location in the middle of nowhere. This is in Omaha. Qwest is desperately trying to compete with Cox, but Cox is even taking away an increasing amount of the telephone business from Qwest.
> At this point, take what you can get, and if you have a choice consider yourself blessed. Who knows, someday we may have true broadband, but this will have to do until that time. *


See, what really makes me infuriated is that all of the RBOCs could be doing this. Covad has such a service. They offer 200k/64k adsl for $40/mo and $21.95 for the first 4 months. I'm sure that the baby bells could offer this for $29.95/month regularly and it can be deployed up to 20,000ft from the CO. Offering this service would eliminate half of their availability problems at least. They also could've won over the low end market. The fact that they didn't do this shows the complete stupidity of RBOC officers and upper management. They are by far the stupidest people on earth, what incompetents. Again, I hope I'm insulting people personally.


----------

