Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DSL VS CABLE

Last response: in Components
Share
December 9, 2000 9:36:26 AM

Which one is faster and better. DSL or Cable.

More about : dsl cable

December 9, 2000 1:27:26 PM

I think that cable has the potential to be faster since it is a shared connection. This is also the drawback. If there are a lot of users in your neighborhood then it will probably be slower than a DSL connection. It all depends on congestion when it comes to cable. Sometimes I can barely get 50KB/s, and other times I can get 650KB/s. I usually get about 150-200KB/s.

DSL is a dedicated connection, so your bandwidth will stay relativly constant. My brother-in-law says he gets about 100KB/s on his DSL line, but I think it really depends on your ISP.

Talk to people in your area to find out what kind of bandwidth they get with their cable/DSL connections. My choice was easy because we only have cable in my area.
Anonymous
December 10, 2000 1:56:30 AM

I have DSL, but from what I've heard cable seems to be faster, with some annoyances. As more of your neighbors log on, the performance per user in that area will decrease. Not everyone has the choice of DSL or Cable, so get whichever is best for price/performance. Also you might be able to get a break on the price if you're a cable subscriber from the same company offering cable modem.
Related resources
December 10, 2000 2:08:38 AM

I am on DSL and it rocks. I get mine for about $24 a month and I usually get a D/L speed of 170/200 kb/s.

OF course, when you're uploading you get way less on DSL. I get about a 40 kb/s on uploads. Not too great.....
December 10, 2000 3:51:29 AM

Cable sucks- esp. for onlines gaming. Well, in my area anyways... I live in Seattle. I've got DSL and it connects at 640kbps- i pay $30 a month for it. DSL is consistent in speed. Also, DSL is scalable- you can always opt for a faster connection (with a price tag of course) where as Cable requires booko upgrades in equipment and hardware (for the user and cable company). The cable companies say "up to 10BMbps"- whatever. Fiber Optic is coming online in some areas to- like Atlanta. Heh, that's the ultimate connection.

-MP Jesse
December 10, 2000 5:31:12 AM

I live in Austin Texas, and cable here rocks, fastest d/l I've gotten is 430k/sec. Normally stays around 250+ never below 200. Only downside- with road runner my upload is capped around 36k/sec. And even worse, by supporting road runner I support AOL.

"Are you saying that I can dodge bullets?"
Anonymous
December 10, 2000 9:44:05 AM

I think I agree with everyone hear when I say that it depends on your situation. I have DSL. Why? It's the only thing available in the city of Portland (OR). Of course, if you go to the suburbs you can get cable. The maximum download speed I've gotten is 60kB/s (Kilo-Bytes/sec). I think that translates to about 480 kb/s (kilobits/sec). 8 bits for every byte.

I've heard of others getting 100KB/s, but not through the same ISP as I have, so that might suggest that, yes, it depends on the ISP. The guys I know who have cable that live fairly close in to the metropolis routinely get over 100 KB/s, but I have heard of those guys having outages. I've never had an "outage" with DSL. So for speed in Portland, it looks like Cable is still the winner. Cable is about the only thing you hope to get too if you live out in the country.

Pricing on Cable tends to be about the same as DSL, and plus, there's no contract required with our cable company. With DSL I had to sign up for a year. The company that I recieve the DSL from, does however, off a service where instead of an always on connection, you are allowed 2-hour chunks of time at one time before getting kicked off your connection. This is perfect for people who know they won't be spending that much time at one sitting (more than 2 hours), and they can save an extra $10 a month. As far as I know, Cable charges you a flat rate and they don't offer any different rate plans.

One more thing that might not be a big deal, but in playing LAN game parties, the guys with the cable internet always seem to have trouble restoring their connection to it when they get home. The networked settings always seem to get screwed up switching from a Cable configured network setup to a LAN setup and back again. So as long as you don't fool around with these settings a lot, that shouldn't be a problem.


- Every private citizen has a public responsibility
December 10, 2000 10:41:54 PM

I know this isn't much help you deciding between dsl & cable but there are lots of choices for dsl depending where you live. The closer you live to the CO (Central Office)the more choices you have. You can check out <A HREF="http://www.dslreports.com" target="_new">dsl reports</A> to find out what company's are out there and what there prices are.
Anonymous
December 11, 2000 7:10:47 PM

I believe ping time will be better on a dsl connection compared to a cable connection (something to consider if you're an avid online player). ADSL has better ping times than SDSL as well... For the price (speed for what you pay for) cable is still better for fast downloads (depending on your neighborhood).
December 12, 2000 2:16:02 PM

I have ADSL in Toronto Canada, monthly contract.
I don't get above 60KB/s (~500kbps) from a single download, but that's more of a limit of servers I'm downloading FROM, not my limit. If I download from two servers at the same time, I can easily exceed that and get my full potential.

Also, it's great for gaming -- it's stable (I never get disconnected during games), and it has low lag -- very important when that Mig29 is behind you :) 

But I think what gets through everybody's post it that you may be better off asking a few people in area where you live in, than a forum where people are from all over the world -- my ADSL or CABLE experience is probably radically different then yours would be.

As a final note, in theory Cable can be faster, and sometimes is. However, I've found no internet use where my ADSL isn't more than *fast enough*, and I'm willing to sacrifice potential speed & bragging rights for rock-bottom stability and consistent performance...

Hope that helps, and good luck with whatever choice you make:) 
December 13, 2000 5:57:59 PM

I don't know about that ping thing- my cable often has the lowest ping on any givin online game- never above 60.

"Are you saying that I can dodge bullets?"
December 13, 2000 6:17:08 PM

cable all the way

-- takes one to now one --
December 14, 2000 2:47:41 PM

I have DSL. On my line I get up to 1.5Mbs. Usually runs between 600-800kbs. I have no complaints about the speed.
I do notice consisted and frequent hangups, though. I will be going along fine when all of a sudden it stops for up to 2min and then runs fine again. I think my net connection passes through a bad or overloaded router. Haven't decided if I will recommend it to my company yet, but it is OK at home. Cable is notoriously bad in my area also so DSL is the best choice for me.
I would suggest asking people in your area what they have and recommend.

:cool: James
Anonymous
December 14, 2000 5:10:52 PM

In my area, cable costs more and doesn't offer a static IP address, which means you'll have trouble hosting anything... Beware of anybody claiming to "consistantly get over 100KB/sec." My DSL can easily achieve download speeds in excess of 100KB/sec, but you have to realize that you'll only see these speeds when the server you connect to is able to shovel out the data that fast. Most companies are still connected via a single T-1, which means that if you are the ONLY user on the system, you'll theoretically get 1.5MBit/sec... Just because the cable company claims to be able to handle 10MB/sec, doesn't mean you'll ever see it. Not only is that bandwidth shared, but there are hardly any Internet connected servers that will give you data at those speeds. I've had my DSL for 2 years and it hasn't failed once. Someday, when I notice that every connection I make is at 150KB/sec +, I'll consider an upgrade... until then, more speed is a waste of money.
December 14, 2000 9:17:37 PM

Cable in my area I get about 180kb a sec dl and that is after it spends some time in the 400-600kb sec dl range. I pay 39 a month and I get a static ip. I think cable is godly also I never used dsl. I really think it depends on where you live the type of service you get.


In the immortal word's of Bob Marley, "Let's get together and feel alllright..."
December 15, 2000 1:32:07 PM

Just a little sidenote
I think people in posts of this kind should agree on using either kiloBYTES or kiloBITS, otherwise the results are hard to compare, and some people will go "wow, he gets 180kbs while the other guy only gets 100KBs", not realizing the bit/BYTE difference...)
Since agreeing on the standard may be impossible:) 
, at the very list include at the end a little explanation of which measurement standards you used...
December 15, 2000 2:07:39 PM

Agreed, using the standard: KB = KiloByte, and Kb = Kilobit (1KB = 8Kb) would be much less confusing.
December 15, 2000 4:37:44 PM

It is not kiloBITS the 180 I get is KILOBYTES I know the difference. Just didn't think anyone would post saying kilobits is what they get.


In the immortal word's of Bob Marley, "Let's get together and feel alllright..."
December 15, 2000 5:40:40 PM

well, the modems come marked in megaBITS, i.e. us ADSL guys will have 1.0,1.5 or 3.0 megaBIT modem (or the old 56.6 kBIT modem etc)

Plus you used kb (usually used for kilobits) instead of KB...

I fully realize most people here know what the difference is, but most also seem to use their own wildly varying personal way of displaying that difference:) 

just saying there's always room for confusion and it'd be nice to try to avoid it:) 
December 15, 2000 7:02:42 PM

NP if I was getting 180 kilobits I would say shove the modem up the cable co a$$.


In the immortal word's of Bob Marley, "Let's get together and feel alllright..."
December 18, 2000 3:40:11 PM

>> if I was getting 180 kilobits I would say
>> shove the modem up the cable co a$$.

he he, granted, and you'd be justified in doing so:) 
!