DSL or Cable internet? (ONSRBVIA)

[watersnowdirt]

Obviously not ski related, but very important anyhow.

Which is faster? I have cable now, seems to run at about 400 kbps accordint to www.2wire.com, but SBC claims DSL will run about 800 kpbs. Do i believe them? It's also $20 cheaper per month. Is there a standard for which is faster?

Ok - I'll check back in the morning. For now, I need to watch "Flying Virus" about some killer bees on an airplane. Riveting stuff.

[BigJay]

My fiend had DSL and he was downloading at 40k per sec. I have cable at my house and I get well over 200k per sec. Off microsoft and apple I get over 300k per sec. It all depends on what monthly plan you get.

[skiHOG]

DSL speed varies depending on how close or far away you are from the service provider. In my area, cable is faster with 4 Mb/sec, and DSL runs about 1.5 Mb/sec. I would stick with cable, it's more reliable.

[Sublime]

I just did a test online and I ran about 2006 with cable.

[jibij]

I just switched from cable to DSL a couple of weeks ago. The cable was much faster for big downloads, like iTunes, but the DSL speed and service has been much more consistent and reliable. I see little to no difference when surfing other than the cable used to hang all the time. Upload speed seems about the same. So far, I'm much happier with the DSL.You can generally buy it in 2 or 3 different speeds. I have the fastest Qwest offers at 1.5Mb.

[fez]

i just got qwest dsl and am pretty happy with it. I ordered the 1.5Mb downstream and am getting close to 2.0Mb consistently. Still not as fast as cable but fast enough for me. DSL bandwidth can depend on line quality and distance from the DSLAM, but cable bandwidth can depend on how many people are using it at the time.

The primary reason i chose dsl over cable was because i wanted a static ip address which isnt possible with cable. This way i get to run my own web server, ftp server and mail server.

[Snow Dog]

Obviously not ski related, but very important anyhow.

Which is faster? I have cable now, seems to run at about 400 kbps accordint to www.2wire.com, but SBC claims DSL will run about 800 kpbs. Do i believe them? It's also $20 cheaper per month. Is there a standard for which is faster?

Your connection bites. My cable connection runs 900-1300 kbps. When I first got it the speed was around 3000 kbps but as people sign up the whole thing slows down.

If the signal strength to your house is low then the error rate is high and the performance is low. The customer service department should be able to check remotely.

There are no standards. Distance from the central office matters and the company usually throttles back all the cable/dsl modems to whatever they want.

[Snow Dog]

The primary reason i chose dsl over cable was because i wanted a static ip address which isnt possible with cable. This way i get to run my own web server, ftp server and mail server.

I have a static ip with my cable modem. It's more a company policy thing.

[Arty50]

I've had both and prefered cable. Check with your local cable company to see what type of service they are offering. Most cable companies have upgraded service to 2.0-3.0M. Some people in New York are even getting 10M. DSL is running around 1.5M right now. Although, I believe Earthlink is offering faster service (around 2.0M as I recall).

If you're going to go with DSL, call Earthlink. SBC will screw you royally. I shopped around for DSL for my old house in San Jose. SBC wanted to sell me 512k service for $50. The said that was as fast as the neighborhood line would go. Covad was offering around 768k or something service for $50. Earthlink promised me 1.5M service for the same price, and so I took a chance with them. You know what? I consistently drew 1.5M. Call them, and shop around too. Don't buy from SBC if you can help it. They'll give you the worst service for the highest price.

[schuss]

cable is faster, except when you have a ton of downloading freaks in the neighborhood, as you all share the same bandwidth (thus the wildly varied speeds for cable). I've had both, and still like cable better.

[365wp]

QWest DSL was ok. I tried Verizon DSL in the Boston area and it was really, really poor - like 28.8k speeds after 4pm every day. Switched to Comcast, much faster.

You can always check out reviews for your area, although I dunno how accurate they are.

[Viva]

I have Q-West DSL at home. It works okay, but my connection at work is faster. DSL service is also forcing me to pay an additional $20+ for a land line and basic phone service which I never use since I have a cell phone.

I'm serriously considering switching to Comcast cable.

Now, if I can find a way to steal a WiFi signal from the Starbucks down the street and get reliable service that way...

[watersnowdirt]

this is good info - thanks.

Good advice about SBC, also.

Now to test those speeds again and see what happens in the morning.

[The Dude]

Qwest does offer DSL without landline service now. It will run you about $60 a month and works great. I've got 1.5 mb through the DSL which I prefer over cable. To my understanding though Qwest is the only local phone provider that will provide DSL w/o a phone line.

DSL's advantage is that it is a direct connection between you and the central office or remote terminal. Cable can offer a faster speed at times but you are sharing the connection with your neighbors. The more people online results in slower speeds.

[The AD]

I just switched from cable to DSL a couple of weeks ago. The cable was much faster for big downloads, like iTunes, but the DSL speed and service has been much more consistent and reliable.

Well, my mileage has varied. I've had Comcast cable internet for a couple years now and don't remember it ever being down. About the only thing I've ever had to do is reset the modem, and I've done that probably twice in two years.

[Arty50]

WSD, try this test page also:

http://speedtest.dslreports.com

There are several tests you can run.

[Castro's]

Lol, I was just scanning through this thread and noticed that people were saying that 400k/s was slow. My cable company offers a 300k or 600k, packages and thats it. I have the 300k package and get about 200k/s download. I found this amusing.

[EPSkis]

WSD ~ Go with cable.

As mentioned, your distance from the CO is what determines your DSL speed...If you're in the neighborhood of 10k'+, don't bother. DSL's more suitable for a business application as far as its' "tweakability", but for home use & true high-speed connectivity - get cable.

Look into just adding it to your cable bill - that'll usually save you about $20-$30 a month.

[Lane Meyer]

Cable all the way, DSL sucks ass and is a glorified modem connection. Of course up until i moved here, I was spoiled by a ~100 MB/sec pull from the T3 line I used to have through the DoI where I used to work in Hawai`i, which tied right into the direct seafloor fiber optic line from the Maui supercomputing center.

We have a local provider, USA Media in Truckee, which ties into a fiber optic line going (I think) from San Francisco to Salt Lake, thus pulling easly 1200-1300 kbps.

[Arty50]

I'm curious as to why you're only getting 400k out of your cable connection. That doesn't seem right. You're in a pretty small neighborhood, it should be much faster. Maybe the test you're running isn't very good. Also be sure to run the test without anything else going on (no email, web, etc.). Or perhaps you should complain to the cable company. That's really slow.

[fez]

Qwest does offer DSL without landline service now. It will run you about $60 a month and works great. I've got 1.5 mb through the DSL which I prefer over cable. To my understanding though Qwest is the only local phone provider that will provide DSL w/o a phone line.

I have qwest dsl 1.5Mb, static ip, qwest.net basic as my isp (no mail server, have to run my own), no home phone, and it runs $47/mo.