IS DSL just as fast as Cable?

Which xDSL ?

VDSL is faster.

There are a family of DSL's. Each applying an encoding method which is either compatible
with POTS or incompatible with POTS such as 2B1Q.

ADSL
HDSL
HDSL2
IDSL
MDSL
SDSL
VDSL

Dave


"Tom Goodman" <edlidfj@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:5ef59479.0410161332.2f9a31dc@posting.google.c om...
| IS DSL just as fast as Cable?

"Tom Goodman" <edlidfj@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:5ef59479.0410161332.2f9a31dc@posting.google.c om...
If you are talking ADSL, the answer is sometimes.

If you are talking SDSL, the answer is YES.

Cable is much faster than DSL, usually.

Only problem is, Cable has a nasty habit of slowing down exactly when you
most want to use it.

It's like the tortoise and hare story, and Cable is the hare.

Now watch fifteen bazillion people flame me for daring to post the truth
that DSL is faster. That's blasphemy, y'know. -Dave

Flame you -- NO. Like I said, VDSL "is" faster.

As for the statement "Cable is much faster than DSL, usually." It needs to be qualified
because a factor of 2~3 does not warrant the words "much faster". Just the one word
"faster". You can state both Cable and DSL are "much faster" than v.90/v.92 Dial-Up.

Dave L.


"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in message news:2tdltlF1uctdcU1@uni-berlin.de...
|
| "Tom Goodman" <edlidfj@mailinator.com> wrote in message
| news:5ef59479.0410161332.2f9a31dc@posting.google.c om...
| > IS DSL just as fast as Cable?
|
| If you are talking ADSL, the answer is sometimes.
|
| If you are talking SDSL, the answer is YES.
|
| Cable is much faster than DSL, usually.
|
| Only problem is, Cable has a nasty habit of slowing down exactly when you
| most want to use it.
|
| It's like the tortoise and hare story, and Cable is the hare.
|
| Now watch fifteen bazillion people flame me for daring to post the truth
| that DSL is faster. That's blasphemy, y'know. -Dave
|
|

Tom Goodman wrote:
With DSL, you have a pair of wires all to yourself between the telco's
local office, and your home. Your distance from the CO will determine
what DSL packages you can be offered. You'll get a downstream, and an
upstream number. Unlike the speed limit on our streets and highways,
these aren't numbers that your speed will be around. They are maximum
speeds.

Once you get to the telco's CO, there is something there called a DSLAM.
At that point you share available bandwidth with other customers of your
DSL provider. Assuming that your DSL provider has adequate capacity at
the DSLAM, and you weren't sold a DSL package that is pushing the
envelope, you should be able to maintain something close to the quoted
speeds. (Of course there are other considerations, such as the server
capacity, and the capacity of any segments and routers your packets
follow on the Internet backbone, but we could theorize for hours.)

With cable, you are sharing a cable all the way from the tap outside
your house. In DSL-land you need a provider that doesn't oversell access
to the DSLAM. In cable-land, you need a provider that doesn't put too
many people on this shared cable node.

Cable also quotes downstream and upstream maximums, but you'll notice
something different from DSL. Most of the time, the downstream number
will be higher than comparably priced DSL packages, but the upstream
number will be significantly lower. Without getting to technical, this
is essentially a limitation of the cable itself. To put it simply, the
cable was originally designed to deliver RF signals to your home, not to
send signals both ways.

If all you do is browse the web, and use e-mail, the significantly
smaller upstream won't make much of a difference. All you'll be sending
are requests for web pages, confirmation of data received, and e-mail.
If you're the typical non-techie residential customer, the only thing
you may notice is e-mail sends slowly (compared to how fast you receive
it.)

However if you work from home, and send big files to your office, or if
you do a lot of video conferencing, or if you do anything that involves
a lot of sending data, you will notice this difference.

Getting back to the downstream number, as you may notice, it'll usually
be quite a bit higher than comparably priced DSL packages, but (unless
you have a really bad DSL provider), DSL will likely come closer to it's
maximums more often than cable.

If you're on the one extreme of hardly ever needing a big upstream,
cable is probably a better value. If you send a lot of things upstream,
DSL might be the better choice, depending on how far you are from the
CO. If you're too far to get a package that's fast enough for you, cable
may still be the better value.

So to the simple question, is DSL just as fast as cable, the answer is
sometimes yes, sometimes no.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools & Parts:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker

Not when you have; 10 Mb/s, 100 Mb/s and Gigabit Ethernet.
Not when VDSL can be 25~52Mb/s.
I was recently in communication with a peer in Japan whose ISP provides 100 Mb/s FO
Internet.

So, 3Mb/s cable is NOT "much faster" than 1.5Mb/s or .768 Mb/s ADSL. Both are "much faster"
46Kb/s Dial-Up.

Dave




"Never anonymous Bud" <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
news:4fb3n056p0poagclkrmh6mao8ggo7m1uv2@4ax.com...
| Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net>
on Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:43:59
| GMT spoke:
|
| >As for the statement "Cable is much faster than DSL, usually." It needs to be qualified
| >because a factor of 2~3 does not warrant the words "much faster".
|
| Yes, that IS 'much faster'.
|
| If you're driving at 50mph, and someone passes you doing 150mph,
| you WILL say they're going MUCH faster than you.
|
|
|
|
|
| --
|
| The truth is out there,
|
| but it's not interesting enough for most people.

Really ?

I pay $35.00 for 1.5/.384 Mb/s aDSL. I started at $40.00 for .768/.09 Mb/s aDSL.

Dave



"Never anonymous Bud" <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote in message | Most DSL ISPs offer
128kbps up on their standard package,
| a few are at 256kbps, anything faster costs more.

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
I can have 3000/800 (with overhead counted in) on cable but the best ADSL I
could have is 2400/200 (also overhead counted in). Cable here has always
had higher upstream and downstream than ADSL.

A - albeit very small - cable operator in another part serving only a small
fraction of the country is even offering 4000/4000 on cable, but that's a
business line costing a bit more (though nothing excessive for a flat rate
connection).

I'm currently on 1024/256 cable but I'm moving soon and I'll be getting
4.8mbits symmetrical on a G.SHDSL+ line. (leased line, very near to an ISP)

CU

René

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

That's cool SDSL at 4.8Mb/s !!!

How much $$ ??
What locale ?
What provider ?

Dave



"Rene" <invalid@email.addr> wrote in message news:20041016200135.317$tv@newsreader.com...
| I can have 3000/800 (with overhead counted in) on cable but the best ADSL I
| could have is 2400/200 (also overhead counted in). Cable here has always
| had higher upstream and downstream than ADSL.
|
| A - albeit very small - cable operator in another part serving only a small
| fraction of the country is even offering 4000/4000 on cable, but that's a
| business line costing a bit more (though nothing excessive for a flat rate
| connection).
|
| I'm currently on 1024/256 cable but I'm moving soon and I'll be getting
| 4.8mbits symmetrical on a G.SHDSL+ line. (leased line, very near to an ISP)
|
| CU
|
| René
|
| --
| -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
| Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

"Guess it sucks to live where you live. Over here, I see no slowdowns whatsoever."

Then your cable trunk is underutilized and you are lucky.

Dave



"Bill M." <wbillups@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ff3n01opj2ldd486cskroskj60krk0kmo@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:33:25 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Tom Goodman" <edlidfj@mailinator.com> wrote in message
| >news:5ef59479.0410161332.2f9a31dc@posting.google. com...
| >> IS DSL just as fast as Cable?
| >
| >If you are talking ADSL, the answer is sometimes.
| >
| >If you are talking SDSL, the answer is YES.
| >
| >Cable is much faster than DSL, usually.
| >
| >Only problem is, Cable has a nasty habit of slowing down exactly when you
| >most want to use it.
|
| Guess it sucks to live where you live. Over here, I see no slowdowns
| whatsoever.
|
| >It's like the tortoise and hare story, and Cable is the hare.
| >
| >Now watch fifteen bazillion people flame me for daring to post the truth
| >that DSL is faster. That's blasphemy, y'know. -Dave
|
| Nothing a new Linksys cable modem won't fix, right? ;-)
|
| --
| Bill

That's true.

Dave



"Bill M." <wbillups@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vdh3n057tbpr34glj5p0k14nbn8pr9bv0r@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:46:56 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
| <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
|
| >"Guess it sucks to live where you live. Over here, I see no slowdowns whatsoever."
| >
| >Then your cable trunk is underutilized and you are lucky.
| >
| >Dave
|
| Apparently, there's a razor thin dividing line between underutilized
| and oversold, so yes, I'm fortunate to be on the good side of the
| line.
| The bigger point, though, is that slowdowns can be found (or not
| found) with virtually any access type.
|
| --
| Bill

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

Cable at 1.5mbps up??? Where???

As for faster than the standard 256k for cable, Qwest DSL has 4
residential packages on their home page, and two are faster. The
$30/month package from Verison is 384k. It's not that hard to find. Of
course the loss-leaders highly advertised aren't the best packages.
Still, around this end of the country, 256 is "standard" upstream for
DSL, and cable is just rolling up from 128 to 256 as standard.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools & Parts:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker

My local phone charges $50 for "up to 1 mbit" down & 128 kbps up.....

Costs & speed depends on the phone monopoly by small local companies as well.

On 2004-10-16, David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

Tom Goodman wrote:

Depends.

--

(This space intentionally left blank)

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

On Rogers "Extreme" service, I get 5 Mb down/800K up. A few days ago, I was
able to download a 102 MB file in just over 2 minutes!

--

(This space intentionally left blank)

Cars don't travel 150MPH on the highway so "your" whole argument was irrelevant.

Dave

David H. Lipman wrote:

I pay $40.50 (CDN), or about $32 (US) for 5 Mb/800Kb service on my cable
modem.


--

(This space intentionally left blank)

Gee that means the WinXP SP2 admin. EXE is downloaded in like a little more than 5
minutes -- nice !

Dave




"James Knott" <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:iJ-dnReEA_8xRezcRVn-rQ@rogers.com...

| On Rogers "Extreme" service, I get 5 Mb down/800K up. A few days ago, I was
| able to download a 102 MB file in just over 2 minutes!

James Knott wrote:
We should be so lucky.

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
About 30$ per month for the leased line. Traffic is a bit special, it is
routed directly to some private rack-space at an inet-exchange so it is
basically free, unless it forces us into the next higher traffic class
which then would cost more than 300$/month extra that the rack-space
doesn't already cost today.

But that place as a hosting environment "produces" mainly upstream, which
means that downstream on the line is basically free but upstream must be
monitored and limited during high-peak usage to prevent us from falling
into the next higher traffic class.

The expensive part is the setup. It's well over 1000$. The end devices are
a quite bit more expensive than your standard netgear or whatever too.

country is switzerland.

No provider really, it's a leased line with leased line technology. But the
ISP where the line terminates is the very same that we buy the rack-space
upstream so that's fortunate. The whole thing is not an end-user solution
and probably never will be.

CU

René

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB