Cable vs DSL

[GhandiInstinct]

With the pros and cons being weighed on both sides, who is the overall victor from your experience?

Granted:

DSL = Steady, reliable latency

Cable = More horsepower, neglegable latency differences, (20-40ms) at best.

 

[Tazanator]

DSL- private line from telcom to you

Cable -everyone shares the bandwith ... so if you got a good game going and the neighbor starts Edonkey bye bye ping times.

 

[JackMDS]

What it is really amount to is the Price for Bandwidth Ratio.

DSL or Cable Internet, what should I get?

:sun:

 

[imported_Kensai]

DSL is only a little bit cheaper than cable here. Cable rocks (sometimes) here.

 

[w00t]

Originally posted by: Tazanator
DSL- private line from telcom to you

Cable -everyone shares the bandwith ... so if you got a good game going and the neighbor starts Edonkey bye bye ping times.

I prefer cable and it doesnt lag when your nextdoor neighbor plays. Have fun putting those filters on your phone line that dont work and still make your phone static.

 

[Tazanator]

humm never had that problem ..

 

[spidey07]

well I'm getting over 10 Mbs on cable so I'm all for it.

At the end of the day either technology can be superior to the other, it all depends on the provider and your area.

 

[GhandiInstinct]

10mbs? Where do you live? Rather, go to bandwidthplace.com/speedtest and screen shot your results.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct
10mbs? Where do you live? Rather, go to bandwidthplace.com/speedtest and screen shot your results.

Why?

You can see my profile, my provider is Insight Communications, I do this stuff for a living and can accurately measure bandwidth.

Those speed tests are NOT accurate measurements. Repeat - speed tests from popular websites ARE NOT ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS. Most times I max out the server/their internet connection. They claim "accurate up to T3 connections". The thing is they are NOT. Like I said, its not like I build this stuff for a living or anything (I do). To truly measure raw thruput you need to have a controlled scenario. A public server is NOT a controlled scenario.

As far as raw speed cable wins hands down from a technology perspective. But like I said it all depends on your provider.

-edit- judging from your link provided I am server side limited (opened sinffer and saw their side close down my window) and only get a "reading" of 1034 kilobits/sec. Bogus test. I routinely transfer to servers across the US at over 1 MB/sec.

*cough* usenet

 

[halfadder]

Cable vs DSL ***TOTALLY*** depends on your local providers. Having moved several times in the past four years, plus having visited my friends all across the USA, I have seen it all. I've seen awesome DSL, I have seen sucky DSL, I have seen awesome cable modems, I have seen sucky cable modems. Find out what your local DSL and cable modem providers offer and find out (via word of mouth) how close they really are to their claimed specs. Reliability might also be important to you as well.

Where I currently live we can get 2 Mbit SDSL (2 Mbit up, 2 Mbit down) from the local telco, we can also get from the cable company a modem that will do 3 Mbit down but only 512 kbit up. It's always a tradeoff, so do your research.

Yes, I have read about how DSL is "private" and cable is "shared", this might be technically true, but what's more important is how much bandwidth your ISP really has behind their routers... because really, it's all shared at the ISP level anyway.

Beware of overinflated specs. I have seen cases where "5 Mbit cable modem" does indeed mean 5 Mbit... to the ISP! But the real world internet benchmarks show downloads that are closer to just 1 Mbit. I have seen this with DSL as well.

Real world performance (speed and reliability) differs more due to company policy and company routers and upstream internet providers. The "last mile" technology (DSL and cable modems) usually have less to do with the overall experience.

 

[jonny13]

The only thing I don't like about cable is when your upload is maxed out, the download slows to a crawl. I used to run an FTP server off of DSL and never noticed a difference. Moved to a different area and tried two different cable places with the same results. I was downloading at 56k speeds when people were downloading from me, so now I am looking back at DSL. I do prefer cable since it is cheaper and is much faster (for the price). But then I like DSL because of the consistant speeds plus its easier to get a static IP and they could care less about running a server on their line.

Either way, each has its pros and cons, but like people above have said, it depends on the providers.

 

[ncl]

Originally posted by: jonny13
The only thing I don't like about cable is when your upload is maxed out, the download slows to a crawl. I used to run an FTP server off of DSL and never noticed a difference. Moved to a different area and tried two different cable places with the same results.

This is not "cable" related, but rather a QOS related issue. The way TCP/IP works if you max out your upload, no ACK's can get out from your machine to the server you are downloading from. This will be the same for DSL if you saturate your upload.

 

[konakona]

the only cable I have tried in the states was comcrap and it sucks donkey ballz. i wholeheartedely agree about sharing the bandwidth thing, things are almost as good as DSL at around 5-7am, and turns into a mess after 10:00 when everyone crawls out of their beds and at around 4:00 when kids come home from school. it is sooooo routine that i really have to stay up if i wanted to play any games at all.

i just did some googling and it reveals latency is always an issue with cable. would i be better served with DSL? i dont need 20MB/s download (actually, i used to have it once at home) since my downloads are capped at 50kb/s anyway. what i want is a reliable and consistent connetion that doesnt give me packet drops every day and fluctuates like crazy.

 

[cmetz]

GhandiInstinct, it depends on your particular location. In some places, the cable company network is good. In some places, the cable company network is bad. In some places, the ILEC or CLEC DSL providers are good, and in some places they are bad. I would suggest you talk with folks who live near you and ask them how happy they are with their service, and go from there.

A super fast line isn't necessarily helpful if it's not reliable, or if it slows to a crawl during prime time.

 

[comphollic]

Originally posted by: spidey07
well I'm getting over 10 Mbs on cable so I'm all for it.

At the end of the day either technology can be superior to the other, it all depends on the provider and your area.

I get 10mb over my cable as well... never been capped, consistent speeds, low ping, no lag when gaming...
but like many have stated, depends on ur local broadband providers... my cousin who lives in the next town has a different cable company, and finds dsl better and cheaper.

In my area, cable is much better than dsl. Your area may be differ.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct
With the pros and cons being weighed on both sides, who is the overall victor from your experience?

Granted:

DSL = Steady, reliable latency

Cable = More horsepower, neglegable latency differences, (20-40ms) at best.

Depends on what companies serve you. I have two choices, Insight Cable Modem and Verizon DSL. I went with Verizon DSL since I can get a static IP and servers are fine per the TOS. Cable was less reliable and the TOS prohibited servers.

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: jonny13
The only thing I don't like about cable is when your upload is maxed out, the download slows to a crawl. I used to run an FTP server off of DSL and never noticed a difference. Moved to a different area and tried two different cable places with the same results. I was downloading at 56k speeds when people were downloading from me, so now I am looking back at DSL. I do prefer cable since it is cheaper and is much faster (for the price). But then I like DSL because of the consistant speeds plus its easier to get a static IP and they could care less about running a server on their line.

Either way, each has its pros and cons, but like people above have said, it depends on the providers.

I know I'm coming in on this late, but the fix to this is to prioritize the TCP acks in the outbound packet queue on your firewall. The CMTS is not to blame here.

 

[igr11]

DSL is a dedicated telephone line to you. Cable is your PC connected to your Cable company's LAN (or more appropriately, WAN). So, as a result DSL is more predictable in terms of performance because that performance is artificially limited by the line speed you buy. However, on the average, Cable is at least twice as fast, because you are always surfing at LAN speed. But cable tends to charge for that speed with higher monthly prices.
I live in NYC and I've had both DSL and Cable. My cable is 3x faster than DSL (both upload and download). Both were reliable, and I've never experienced outages. Furthermore, my cable company offers a deal where I can get internet, TV and cable phone for an excellent price over the same cable line. All services work very well.
Most importantly, both Cable and DSL are site dependent. I suggest visiting DSLReports.com to check out your providers. Better yet, just get both DSL and Cable for 1 month and judge for yourself.

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: igr11
DSL is a dedicated telephone line to you. Cable is your PC connected to your Cable company's LAN (or more appropriately, WAN). So, as a result DSL is more predictable in terms of performance because that performance is artificially limited by the line speed you buy. However, on the average, Cable is at least twice as fast, because you are always surfing at LAN speed. But cable tends to charge for that speed with higher monthly prices.
I live in NYC and I've had both DSL and Cable. My cable is 3x faster than DSL (both upload and download). Both were reliable, and I've never experienced outages. Furthermore, my cable company offers a deal where I can get internet, TV and cable phone for an excellent price over the same cable line. All services work very well.
Most importantly, both Cable and DSL are site dependent. I suggest visiting DSLReports.com to check out your providers. Better yet, just get both DSL and Cable for 1 month and judge for yourself.

faster as in bandwidth? i know plenty people including myself who are interested in improving latency. either service has plenty bandwidth we could never get to fully saturate anyway. so is it true DSLs have better latency by and large?

 

[JonnyBlaze]

i prefer dsl(verizon) because they have very very good free usenet servers. the speed isnt as good as comcast in this area but i think its worth it.

that being said, comcast is coming monday to install cable. im going to give them a shot again (6mbs) and hopefully they dont send me any letters about bandwidth or im going back to verizon.

 

[igr11]

I'm not sure what you mean by "plenty bandwidth we could never get to fully saturate anyway". Of course you can. Just start downloading 3 files (e.g. game demos) at once or download a file while streatming online video. You can quickly saturate your bandwidth. If you're still not convinced, wait until HD video comes to the web. Quicktime HD (H.264) movie clips already tax my 8MBps cable connection.

Cable bandwidth: ~ 9 Megabits/sec = ~1.2 MB/sec (8 bits = 1 byte)
DSL bandwidth: ~ 3 Megabits/sec = ~ 0.4 MB/sec

So with Cable, downloading files and streaming video is a more pleasant experience. DSL is more limited in the bandwidth area. Not to mention that DSL's upload speed is crippligly slow (e.g. uploading photos to own website, sending e-mails with sizable file attachments).

Latency is comparable with both (my current latency is <1ms with Cable).

So, essentially DSL has lower bandwith, static IP (important if you will connect to some secure network over the web), and lower cost. Cable has dynamic IP, greater bandwidth (somewhat affected by network load - 7-10MBps) and higher cost. Choose what is important to you.

Igor

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: igr11

So, essentially DSL has lower bandwith, static IP (important if you will connect to some secure network over the web), and lower cost. Cable has dynamic IP, greater bandwidth (somewhat affected by network load - 7-10MBps) and higher cost. Choose what is important to you.

Igor

stact ip's are an option on both services. at least with verizon / comcast. they are dynamic unless you pay more for a static one.

 

[syco83]

I have cable and have no ping problems or speed problems I always get the advertised speed.
When I first had cable it would slow down a bit.
I am not for sure but I think people are switching to other providers so it actually helped my connection.
The place were I live I don't think many people have broadband or even a pc and that probably helps also.

 

[darktides]

that statement was true back when cable rolled out, now me and all my nieghbors can be super seeders on one pc and downloading a ton on our other pc's and not have any lag from it. I worked for BellSouth and now work for Comcast, when I was at BS I had cable internet. Heck we supply 6-8 megs down with no issues

 

[Thoreau]

Originally posted by: Tazanator
DSL- private line from telcom to you

Cable -everyone shares the bandwith ... so if you got a good game going and the neighbor starts Edonkey bye bye ping times.

This misconception is definitely common, but no less inaccurate, or at least skewed.

With DSL you get that 'private line' from your home to the DSL provider. At that point, the line then goes into a pool of every other line, and eventually is bottlenecked by the provider itself.

Cable's 'shared bandwidth' just places that same bottleneck at a different location, closer to you.