| Author |
Message |
Al Bardo
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:34 am Post subject:
Cable vs DSL |
|
|
I'm a bit confused. Here in West Los Angeles, I have the option of
getting either DSL or cable. For about the same price of DSL offering a
maximum of 1.5 MPS, I can get cable that now claims to offer a minimum of
3 MPS and a possible max of 6. I've spoken to a few people with existing
cable access, and they've told me that the usual negatives linked to
cable, such as slow downs in speed when many people are online doesn't
often happen in reality. They also say they've never experienced a down
connection. Thus, I have to wonder why anyone would choose DSL in this
situation. Am I missing something?
Al Bardo |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dj
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:21 am Post subject:
Re: Cable vs DSL |
|
|
Al,
A person who wants to configure a server might like to have a static
IP address assigned, and bandwidth that is not dynamic. Often (but
not always), this is problematic with cable (TOS violations, etc.).
For just web-surfing, you're probably right!
Kind regards,
dj
Al Bardo wrote:
| Quote: | I'm a bit confused. Here in West Los Angeles, I have the option of
getting either DSL or cable. For about the same price of DSL offering a
maximum of 1.5 MPS, I can get cable that now claims to offer a minimum of
3 MPS and a possible max of 6. I've spoken to a few people with existing
cable access, and they've told me that the usual negatives linked to
cable, such as slow downs in speed when many people are online doesn't
often happen in reality. They also say they've never experienced a down
connection. Thus, I have to wonder why anyone would choose DSL in this
situation. Am I missing something?
Al Bardo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Schwartz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:20 am Post subject:
Re: Cable vs DSL |
|
|
"dj" <danaxx@xxzdana.net> wrote in message
news:iA2Ye.6$s%2.2@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com...
| Quote: | A person who wants to configure a server might like to have a static
IP address assigned, and bandwidth that is not dynamic. Often (but
not always), this is problematic with cable (TOS violations, etc.).
For just web-surfing, you're probably right!
|
For a power user, it's very dumb to compare ISPs just based upon
bandwidth claims. More important is what they let you *DO* with that
bandwidth.
DS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bert Hyman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject:
Re: Cable vs DSL |
|
|
albardo@nospam.net (Al Bardo) wrote in
news:MPG.1d9a3c4cc8dc2a3c9897cc@news.verizon.net:
| Quote: | Thus, I have to wonder why anyone would choose DSL in this
situation. Am I missing something?
|
Maybe.
First, for me to get a cable Internet connection, I'd have to deal
with my local cable company. Doing business with my phone company is
a pleasurable experience compared to that.
Next, if I had a cable Internet connection, I'd have to use my cable
company as my ISP with all the associated grief of their email and
news servers. Buying a DSL connection from my phone company allows me
to choose my own ISP from among bunch offering service in my area.
BTW, my phone company (Qwest) sells me a 7Mbps connection, not just
1.5Mb; I actually train up at 6Mbps, and see consistent 5Mbps
transfers from my ISP's own servers.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Some One
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:38 am Post subject:
Re: Cable vs DSL |
|
|
Al Bardo <albardo@nospam.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1d9a3c4cc8dc2a3c9897cc@news.verizon.net:
| Quote: | I'm a bit confused. Here in West Los Angeles, I have the option of
getting either DSL or cable. For about the same price of DSL offering
a maximum of 1.5 MPS, I can get cable that now claims to offer a
minimum of 3 MPS and a possible max of 6. I've spoken to a few people
with existing cable access, and they've told me that the usual
negatives linked to cable, such as slow downs in speed when many
people are online doesn't often happen in reality. They also say
they've never experienced a down connection. Thus, I have to wonder
why anyone would choose DSL in this situation. Am I missing something?
Al Bardo
|
I've had both and I didn't notice any difference. The reason I dropped the
cable and switched to DSL was purely a customer service issue (money was a
minor issue also). I needed tech support on a holiday weekend from my
cable company/Road Runner. My understanding was that I had 24/7 tech
support. Well the best either the cable company or Road Runner could do
was leave a note for someone to call me on Tuesday, this was on Friday or
Saturday. I told them not to bother and called SBC on Tuesday instead. It
turned out that I could get DSL at about the same speed (1.5 Mbps at the
time) for $30 per month less than cable. I haven't looked back since. The
cable company now offers internet access at up to 5 Mbps and for a few
extra bucks I might be able to get 6 Mbps DSL service but the 1.5 Mbps is
fine for my purposes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ralph Alvy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:50 am Post subject:
Re: Cable vs DSL |
|
|
Al Bardo wrote:
| Quote: | I'm a bit confused. Here in West Los Angeles, I have the option of
getting either DSL or cable. For about the same price of DSL offering a
maximum of 1.5 MPS, I can get cable that now claims to offer a minimum of
3 MPS and a possible max of 6. I've spoken to a few people with existing
cable access, and they've told me that the usual negatives linked to
cable, such as slow downs in speed when many people are online doesn't
often happen in reality. They also say they've never experienced a down
connection. Thus, I have to wonder why anyone would choose DSL in this
situation. Am I missing something?
|
Are you sure you can only get 1.5mbp in West Los Angeles. I'm in Santa
Monica and get 3 mbps with Verizon DSL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
louis kaufman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Cable vs DSL |
|
|
I'm in Westminster and get 3 mbps at a distants of 8000ft from CO
Ralph Alvy wrote:
| Quote: | Al Bardo wrote:
I'm a bit confused. Here in West Los Angeles, I have the option of
getting either DSL or cable. For about the same price of DSL offering a
maximum of 1.5 MPS, I can get cable that now claims to offer a minimum of
3 MPS and a possible max of 6. I've spoken to a few people with existing
cable access, and they've told me that the usual negatives linked to
cable, such as slow downs in speed when many people are online doesn't
often happen in reality. They also say they've never experienced a down
connection. Thus, I have to wonder why anyone would choose DSL in this
situation. Am I missing something?
Are you sure you can only get 1.5mbp in West Los Angeles. I'm in Santa
Monica and get 3 mbps with Verizon DSL. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom C.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:09 am Post subject:
Re: Cable vs DSL |
|
|
For me, I could only get the old 768/128 speed since I was so far away from
the phone company's Central Office (C.O.) And, at the time, Comcast didn't
offer internet service, so I was stuck with a consistent 700 download speed.
At least it was better than dialup.
Switch to 9 months ago and Comcast FINALLY offered internet service. As far
as I know it's not "distance restricted" like DSL, so I have a great
connection that tests well above 4MB all the time with an upload speed of
700 plus. So, it was a no brainer to go with Comcast Cable and drop the DSL
line.
Bottom-line, in my experience - DSL is subject to distance - Cable is not.
Good luck,
- Tom C.
"Al Bardo" <albardo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d9a3c4cc8dc2a3c9897cc@news.verizon.net...
| Quote: | I'm a bit confused. Here in West Los Angeles, I have the option of
getting either DSL or cable. For about the same price of DSL offering a
maximum of 1.5 MPS, I can get cable that now claims to offer a minimum of
3 MPS and a possible max of 6. I've spoken to a few people with existing
cable access, and they've told me that the usual negatives linked to
cable, such as slow downs in speed when many people are online doesn't
often happen in reality. They also say they've never experienced a down
connection. Thus, I have to wonder why anyone would choose DSL in this
situation. Am I missing something?
Al Bardo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Al Bardo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:20 am Post subject:
Re: Cable vs DSL |
|
|
In article <Qxn_e.10170$kH3.1208@trnddc01>, ralvy@warpmail.net says...
| Quote: | Are you sure you can only get 1.5mbp in West Los Angeles. I'm in Santa
Monica and get 3 mbps with Verizon DSL.
|
Verizon techs told me that my max DSL speed is 1.5 because of the
distance from the switching station or whatever it's called. I'm just
over 10,000 feet from that office, and you must be under that distance to
get over 1.5. You must be closer to a switching office than I am.
--
Al Bardo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:40 am Post subject:
Re: Cable vs DSL |
|
|
Al Bardo wrote:
| Quote: | In article <Qxn_e.10170$kH3.1208@trnddc01>, ralvy@warpmail.net says...
Are you sure you can only get 1.5mbp in West Los Angeles. I'm in Santa
Monica and get 3 mbps with Verizon DSL.
Verizon techs told me that my max DSL speed is 1.5 because of the
distance from the switching station or whatever it's called. I'm just
over 10,000 feet from that office, and you must be under that distance to
get over 1.5. You must be closer to a switching office than I am.
--
Al Bardo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in