# DSL vs Cable - Is this a NO Brainer?



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

OK,

We've had Qwest DSL since it came out several years ago. Our speed used to always be close to 640K download (dslreports.com) but the last month or so they have been more like 380K.

Now were paying close to $55 a month for this "sizzling fast" connection after you throw in all the bells and whistles.

I had my daughter signed up for Comcast cable last month. She is getting 1.6MB for $42 a month. (She gets basic cable for free in her dorm)

I can sign up for service WO also taking BASIC cable for $60 a month.

So on paper it looks like $5 more and I get a 400% increase in speed. When I spoke with Qwest even they admitted they couldn't come close to that. They want $88 for 1MB and the ISP fee is on TOP of that!

Am I missing anything here or is this a NO Brainer??

Does Cable use DHCP addressing? Any show stoppers hooking this up to my whole house network?


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Before I moved to Las Vegas, I had no access to high speed internet. Several friends had DSL and I'd heard all the rumors that cable was slower because you "share the line with your neighbors". I moved to Vegas and had the choice of DSL or Cable. I chose DSL. Install was over $300, services was 512k/128k @49.99. The service bounced up and down serveral times, techs bounced me from one department to another until I finally decided to go to cable. I've been w/cable for over 2 years and don't regret the decision. It was $100 for the modem, free install. Speed is 1.5k/128k for $39.99, and.....it works!


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

It's another case of it depends on what system your on. Some folks say that their cable slows down durning peak hours others say it's always great. Same with DSL and who your provider is. I've got SBC ADSL and get speeds in the 1.25Mbps/240Kbps range all the time and it stays up for months at a time. I know others on SBC that get less then 200Kbps because of their lines. The only real true way to find out what's best in your case is to actually try both and see who's the better provider.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

DSL, in most cases, cannot handle the same bandwidth as cable. If you want much faster speeds, switch to cable.

Also, DSL providers always use the selling point that cable is slower because you "share with your neighbors" but in reality, its not that big of a problem.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Also, don't forget that with cable modem service they tend to pump analog cable channels in with the access. I tried to inquire about barebones local channel access (I can get NY and Philly channels with cable, but only New York channels with E*) but they said I had to order their family cable package to get it ($40 a month.... er, no thanks).

So what do they do? They sell me a cable modem package which comes with a splitter and tells me to run one cable to my cable modem and one to my TV. Voila, analog cable works in my bedroom. I've since disconnected as my cable modem connection is flaky when I have it hooked to the splitter, but in an emergency (local weather channel info during hurricanes or Eagles games for the wife) it works.

And please, no lectures about piracy.... THEY GAVE me the splitter and told me how to use it. And I tried to get a lifeline cable deal, which I would have paid $12 or so for and they didn't offer it. And it's a moot point anyway as it is disconnected right now (I was getting dropped connections when it was hooked up)

Great speed though. The price is too high at $49 a month, but I get 2Mbps so it is worth it for me. PLUS DSL isn't available on my street so I'm screwed either way.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

BobMurdoch said:


> So what do they do? They sell me a cable modem package which comes with a splitter and tells me to run one cable to my cable modem and one to my TV. Voila, analog cable works in my bedroom. I've since disconnected as my cable modem connection is flaky when I have it hooked to the splitter, but in an emergency (local weather channel info during hurricanes or Eagles games for the wife) it works.
> 
> And please, no lectures about piracy.... THEY GAVE me the splitter and told me how to use it. And I tried to get a lifeline cable deal, which I would have paid $12 or so for and they didn't offer it. And it's a moot point anyway as it is disconnected right now (I was getting dropped connections when it was hooked up)


 I know what you mean. When I first got my cable modem, they told me I could hook up a splitter to get basic cable TV channels BUT they didn't recommend it for the very reason you stated. Flakey cable modem connection.

Last year, they came out and installed a filter so now I have cable modem only and no basic channels.


----------



## marko (Jan 9, 2003)

Having had both dsl and cable (Spring DSL, Earthlink Cable modem through time warner cable), the service themselves were similar. I had 1.5/256 dsl service, and 2.0/384 cable modem service. I was happy with Sprint all along, until work stopped reimbursing me for access at home. The Sprint bill was $65 a month, and cable modem is $42. Both did a great job of being available (dsl went down less I would say, but cable modem didn't go down much at all).

Also, have to think about how much speed you really need. High speed access is great for just getting quicker access to web pages. If you don't download a ton of huge files, 512K is still plenty. 

Also, basic cable channels did not come in for me when I hooked up my cable modem line to a tv. My guess is they do something to that cable box outside to give you access to basic cable channels (for me at least).


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

Called em again and got more info. Theya re willing to install for free and give me 3 months service for $19.99. I'm going to give it a try and leave my DSL connected for a month before calling Qwest.

Our problem is we have 3 teenagers and then my wife and I. And everyone is online and downloading files etc. Somethimes we have 5 PC's going at once so the extra bandwidth would be very appreciated in our household!


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

ibglowin said:


> Called em again and got more info. Theya re willing to install for free and give me 3 months service for $19.99. I'm going to give it a try and leave my DSL connected for a month before calling Qwest.
> 
> Our problem is we have 3 teenagers and then my wife and I. And everyone is online and downloading files etc. Somethimes we have 5 PC's going at once so the extra bandwidth would be very appreciated in our household!


That's great news! Enjoy! We have 3 computers in our house hooked to a router and the slowdown with all 3 computer downloading at once is very small.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

ibglowin said:


> Called em again and got more info. Theya re willing to install for free and give me 3 months service for $19.99. I'm going to give it a try and leave my DSL connected for a month before calling Qwest.
> 
> Our problem is we have 3 teenagers and then my wife and I. And everyone is online and downloading files etc. Somethimes we have 5 PC's going at once so the extra bandwidth would be very appreciated in our household!


We often have three computers online at once, and during the summer we can have four or five going when everyone is home. Negligible lag time. I notice more of an effect from times when servers are reaching their capacity than I do from a couple of us being online at the same time.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Well one thing you should be careful about, Cable tends to have the model wanting to sell per node. A number of cable companies do not like the fact you are sharing bandwidth and wants to charge for extra computers. A number of them are starting to do things like port scans to determine if you have NAT and are running multiple boxes behind your firewall. This steams from the fact that it is a shared line from the central location to the homes. I know some cable companies are able to clamp bandwidth at the cable modem, but a lot of them can't so they are trying to control usage by stating that it is for a single connection. Single computer and charging extra if you have multiple computers. Cable companies tend to have problems with things like Web Servers, mail servers etc. If Static IP is a concern look into the cables philosophy on what they dont like on their network.

DSL on the other hand usually has the philosophy of selling bandwidth and they really don't care how you use it. Most DSL companies clamp the speeds and that is all they really care about. Tend to be more friendly about multiple computers in a home. 

That has been my experience. 

Cheers,

Ron


----------



## waydwolf (Feb 2, 2003)

Most CLEC(Competetive Local Exchange Carrier) DSL has AT BEST two DS-3 backhauls which means a total aggegate bandwidth of far less than 100Mbps because almost all use TCP/IP over ATM and the overhead is a killer.

ILEC(Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier, aka your phone company) DSL may have as much as an OC-3 but that's only 155Mbps, and tends to be serving more than ten times as many people and twenty times as much bandwidth usage as the largest CLEC in the CO(Central Office).

Cable modem when @Home was dominant, often had MULTIPLE OC-3 connections from their data center and as @Home went away and the cable companies beefed up their own fiber capacity to cover data, voice, and video, bandwidth has gone WAY up.

You can't just go "voila" and invent more bandwidth with baseband which is what DSL is. It is NOT broadband. Cable on the other hand has a throughput of well over 38Mbps per 6Mhz channel at 256QAM and plenty of space in their spectrum on the average system.

In a few years DOCSIS 2.0 will be common, you'll see systems with MANY channels dedicated to downstream data, high side split systems with upstream in the high end instead of the 5-42Mhz band with bi-directional speeds of better than 10Mbps.

DSL on the other hand would require MASSIVE beefing up of backhauls, and remote terminals for EVERY block which would be fed by fiber(as cable nodes are) and carry the last mile on copper(coax from the node out). It won't happen any time soon because the phone companies are only catering to residential high speed access as much as they are because cable is outdoing them from the start and they can't stand anyone trespassing on their traditional monopoly. But they don't really care about it enough to change the foundation of their architecture away from the days of Bell.

Cable modem is superior in almost every respect. If you want a static IP or to host a server, business class service is comparable to DSL in pricing usually. Remember, ADSL is the dominant form and is entirely unsuitable for serious use as a server connection. SDSL requires straight copper to the CO, has less reach, and tops out around 1.5Mbps bi-directional. Many places don't even have remote terminals and most remote terminals have no CLEC presence so no competition whatsoever.

Lastly, there's a good reason the SNET techs write nasty names for SBC in the CO bathrooms like Stupid Buttf***ing Cousins and yes, worse. If the rank and file can hate their corporation so strongly for lack of caring about customer service there's something wrong. In cable, we can be easily fired for lack of good customer service and people often are, and you won't know either. You'll just grouse about the cable company never knowing that the offending tech was severely disciplined.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Good post there Wolf. However, you might want to state you work for the cable company so the reader knows where you are coming from. I have not had Cable but do plan on getting it when my contract is up on DSL. WHy?? I no longer have need for static IP and I am on the DSL edge.  However, I am concerned about the philosophy of cable companies in regards to multiple computers and home use web servers. THe cable companies are also known for port blocking etc. at that concerns me.

As for the technical merits, A lot of it has to do with installation and how a company roles things out. I am from the technical field and I do have friends that have had experience with slowdown due to the neighborhood shared concept. This maybe a topology issue, but none the less it does have some basis in reality. Also, I don't think I have ever heard of someone getting 38Mb/sec on their cable. 

As for the static IP, being a developer and a low band widith web server user a lot of cable companies are not friendly to my use case. Infact, Comcast did some rather nasty things in my area with regards to [ersonal web servers and multiple computer use. Like I said, Cable companies tend to have a node based business model and want to take advantage of multiple computer home installs. DSL has more of a bandwidth based model. Something to consider. 

ALso, As wolf pointed out with DSL distance to the DSLAM at the CO or RTU is important. If you have a long distance to the CO then CABLE will win hands down for speed. However, depending on how cable is configured you also have some security issues you need to be concerned with. There have been cases of people printing stuff on printers on windows machines that have not been properly set up. This tends to be a cable installation issue and goes back to the shared line install. 

It has been a while since I have been in the DSL development world and I have done a lot of technical comparason in regards to speed. ALso, Speed is not the only measure of technology to consider. As for the the name calling stuff, I would not know about it. I worked for a major networking company and was never in a CO. 

Anyway.. Good post and the answer to the question is"NO it is not a SLAM Dunk". A lot of it depends on your use case and the installations in your neighborhood. All cable companies are not created equal and all DLS providers are not created equal either. 

P.S. Cable can get you up and running quicker.. Less for them to do to get you running and less hands in the pie.


----------



## waydwolf (Feb 2, 2003)

WeeJavaDude said:


> Good post there Wolf. However, you might want to state you work for the cable company so the reader knows where you are coming from. I have not had Cable but do plan on getting it when my contract is up on DSL. WHy?? I no longer have need for static IP and I am on the DSL edge.  However, I am concerned about the philosophy of cable companies in regards to multiple computers and home use web servers. THe cable companies are also known for port blocking etc. at that concerns me.


I am a CONTRACTOR, doing both cable AND DBS work. I worked TWO different CLEC DSL outfits both as installer and CO technician. I don't get paid any differently no matter what people choose so there's no conflict of interest whatsoever.



> As for the technical merits, A lot of it has to do with installation and how a company roles things out. I am from the technical field and I do have friends that have had experience with slowdown due to the neighborhood shared concept. This maybe a topology issue, but none the less it does have some basis in reality. Also, I don't think I have ever heard of someone getting 38Mb/sec on their cable.


38.8Mbps is approximately the throughput in a 6Mhz channel at 256QAM. I DIDN'T state it was the throughput of any CABLE MODEM on the market. This was about architecture and infrastructure, not CPE. BTW, only a DS3 device or better has that kind of bandwidth while in about five years cable modems will have that, but then cable backhauls are immense in their capacity. The difference can be summed up as follows:

1. Cable has fiber running to nodes. Copper runs from the nodes and a few hundred to a few thousand customers of all types(data, video, voice) are serviced by each node. Each systems has MANY nodes. They have the 5-42Mhz and 54-550(of 650 or 750 or 867)Mhz bands. These are sliced into 6Mhz channels and are either running at 64 or 256QAM giving either 26.9 or 38.8Mbps per channel. The vast majority of the band is still taken up by analog and digital TV services but as boxes and user-owned equipment becomes DOCSIS-aware and IP-enabled, this is guaranteed to change some.

2. DSL has only copper to the customers from the CO and frequently doesn't even have fiber feeding them. It's like having ONE node supplying the entire system. Remote terminals are like a mini-CO serving a smaller area but most ILECs don't allow CLECs into them so you get the same crappy service as your phone company usually gives.



> As for the static IP, being a developer and a low band widith web server user a lot of cable companies are not friendly to my use case. Infact, Comcast did some rather nasty things in my area with regards to [ersonal web servers and multiple computer use. Like I said, Cable companies tend to have a node based business model and want to take advantage of multiple computer home installs. DSL has more of a bandwidth based model. Something to consider.


First, cable companies have always had edicts against server use other than a few overbuilders.

Second, cable companies have always had DYNAMIC IPs, NOT static IPs, with the exception of a few operators or areas they covered for whatever reasons they had at the time. @Home's DHCP service was merely not used to change IPs on a regular basis because their pool of IP addresses was nowhere near in danger of saturation for the longest time. But they ALWAYS stressed that the customer computers had to be set for DHCP as those IPs WERE subject to change.

Third, DSL DOES NOT and NEVER HAS had a bandwidth based model. If you consider that the average CLEC needs to have around 200 customers per co-location to hit break-even on a SINGLE DS-3 which has approximately 44.736Mbps bandwidth, do the math as to the usage(.22368Mbps availible to each line evenly without any TCP/IP or ATM overhead allowances). The prices are such for two reasons:

1. The ILEC can and always has charged whatever it thought it could get away with. This is why ILEC T-1s are to this day as much as $1500/month in many places despite that being far less speed than cable, and the same speed as an SDSL line, and no more difficult to maintain than an SDSL line. They can absorb the low-ball price of their ADSL consumer service into their overall bottom line which is in no danger unlike DBS which low-balls to compete with cable but has no entrenched money machine to cover for it.

2. The CLECs have to pay for CO space and the ILEC lease fees are extravagant. The CLECs have to pay someone else for the backhaul and a DS-3 can run as much as $30K/month in some places. CT is among the most expensive states for such backhauls. They usually resell through a number of ISP partners who then add on to the cost with what are by comparison to the pipe trivial things(e-mail, Usenet, webspace).

On top of all this, the ILEC CO personnel have a history of physically vandalizing CLEC equipment(the cages have no top and you can climb in from outside) and their line personnel have a history of severing existing CLEC service lines to use them for their own DSL and they use the all-purpose excuse that they "made a mistake" and unless you've got as much money as the ILEC does(Microsoft, United Technologies, the NYSE, that level of money) you're not going to successfully sue them for any real winnings. Many customers so severed are not hooked back up fast enough to keep the customer from going to the ILEC's DSL or cable and the CLEC loses customers constantly this way. Verizon's Boston operation are masters of screwing with CLECs.



> ALso, As wolf pointed out with DSL distance to the DSLAM at the CO or RTU is important. If you have a long distance to the CO then CABLE will win hands down for speed. However, depending on how cable is configured you also have some security issues you need to be concerned with. There have been cases of people printing stuff on printers on windows machines that have not been properly set up. This tends to be a cable installation issue and goes back to the shared line install.


This is a lie that still permeates the DSL world and it is repeated more often than any other fiction. Most say it without knowing it anymore. However, there are still many DSL ISPs who make that claim repeatedly and they DO know better.

It has been years since any cable ISP has made the error of transmitting NetBEUI/NetBIOS data and allowed this. If it happens it gets caught rather quickly. It quickly became @Home's mantra to turn off all file and printer sharing on machines connected directly to the modem as opposed to NAT despite it now being irrellevant in almost every case. DOCSIS standards properly implemented render most problems moot and the few that are left are consequences of the Windows architecture being designed around LAN, not public WAN use.

By default all incoming ports should be closed that are not used for standard Internet usage but most users don't have a clue as to what a firewall is for. For the record, many DSL ISPs don't block ports and don't instruct the users to adopt a firewall, and configure CPE to allow everything by default. Consequences of using a server friendly system.

If you want to run a server on cable, do like legitimate business owners do and pay for a business connection. Cox has cable modem, T1, DS3, OC3 and other options all carried on their large fiber network.



> It has been a while since I have been in the DSL development world and I have done a lot of technical comparason in regards to speed. ALso, Speed is not the only measure of technology to consider. As for the the name calling stuff, I would not know about it. I worked for a major networking company and was never in a CO.


I was in a CO and spent sixteen hour sieges six days a week trying to keep the service going on the network from the CO to the Internet, repairing lines severed at the blocks in the phone closets at the prem caused by ILEC, replacing CPE at 11PM, doing hundred mile round trips to steal unused line cards from less full colos to those where over eighty customers were out, etc. CLEC personnel work VERY hard to keep it going while the ILEC personnel don't. But then they have union contract mandated coffee breaks and we didn't.

You can't beat a system based on huge fiber usage to hundreds if not thousands of nodes where you have almost DS-3 bandwidth in a single 6Mhz channel and well over one hundred such channels. This is why cable can do HD way better than DBS can, why they can do telephony when DBS can't, why they can do data way better than DSL can, and why they can do interactive Video On Demand that DBS can't. From the start a modern HFC network is superior to anything short of fiber into your home with a node in your basement.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

My cable company is promoting the fact that cable internet allows for more than one computer in a house to be online at the same time without it turning to molasses. Right now they have no problem if up to four computers are online at one time. I'm not sure if they can tell if I actually had five going through my router, but right now four is the number of functioning computers in the house anyway. 

So as far as my answer, check with your local provider, because not all cable companies have a problem with multiple computers.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

waydwolf said:


> I am a CONTRACTOR, doing both cable AND DBS work. I worked TWO different CLEC DSL outfits both as installer and CO technician. I don't get paid any differently no matter what people choose so there's no conflict of interest whatsoever.


Well that is cool. I was not suggesting that you where a cable mole. But from the post it was obvious that you did work for the cable company. I removed a lot of the text. I am trying to keep this at a higher level based on my experience and what I know of DSL. I have not been in the CABLE world so I cant comment on if what your experience have been are what one could expect with most cable companies. I am mainly talking about CO to CPE connection since that is where the biggest bottleneck may occur. However, I am fully aware that it can occur at the aggregation device too.



waydwolf said:


> 38.8Mbps is approximately the throughput in a 6Mhz channel at 256QAM. I DIDN'T state it was the throughput of any CABLE MODEM on the market. This was about architecture and infrastructure, not CPE. BTW, only a DS3 device or better has that kind of bandwidth while in about five years cable modems will have that, but then cable backhauls are immense in their capacity. The difference can be summed up as follows:
> [/QUOTE.]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

Well I thought I would post a follow up. We had Comcast come out and install the cable modem a fews days ago. The install was smooth and quick. I had my whole house wired and wireless network online and operational in minutes after the installers left.

High points------

The speed ROCKS compared to my Qwest 640k DSL download speed. I have clocked the download speed from dslreports.com 10 times in recent days and it is always at least 1.6MB download and around 280k upload. It has been stable with no outages for 3 days so all looks good but.......

The Bad news--------

Comcast has an email file size limitation of 10MB. Qwest had none. I called customer service and complained because I specifically asked not one but two CSR's before I signed up about file size limitations and BOTH said no, there were none.

This may not be a show stopper for most people but it does complicate things for us. We do move large files (over 10MB) pretty frequently by email so this IS an issue for us. Tech support said there is NOTHING we can do to increase our email storage, SORRY, can't even buy more space.

But we could use the handy dandy FTP or HTTP tool to upload files to our "personal web storage" for sharing. Not exactly what I wanted to hear to say the least.

Perhaps you can't have it ALL as they say. You can have high speed or an unlimited mailbox but not both!


----------



## waydwolf (Feb 2, 2003)

ibglowin said:


> The Bad news--------
> 
> Comcast has an email file size limitation of 10MB. Qwest had none. I called customer service and complained because I specifically asked not one but two CSR's before I signed up about file size limitations and BOTH said no, there were none.


Believe it or not, back in the @Home days, cretins would attempt to send 300MB+ movie files by e-mail. Any idea how much bandwidth that uses on their network, across their peering connections, their leased lines, etc.?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Hmmm.. I didnt even think of emails size. Email really is not designed for attachements that large and most Email server have a files size limit so I am not suprised by this at all. 

Well glad to hear your jump went smoothly. 

As for the 300MB files, I would expect it to take about just as much bandwidth through email as through FTP or HTTP... And this is still occuring just through P2P networks and IM clients. Only difference is that it does not take the Mail server out with it.


----------

