[TriLUG] Broadband Speeds

[lgeek at logicalgeek.com]

Just to throw my can of gas on the debate. I've had
both cable and DSL in various places in the country.
Cable has been faster speedwise. DSL has had more
consistant pings ("Hi everybody I'm Dave and I'm a Day
of Defeat Junkie"). 

I went with DSL when I moved here, Why? because in
every single cable user agreement I have ever seen,
including the TW agreement, there is a line about no
servers being allowed. Not that that stopped me, or
anyone else ;). In fact Cox even blocked incoming port
80 requests. (newbie hint: have apache listen on port
8080 or some other random port they can't block em all,
you don't know where you heard that <<wink, wink>>). My
Bellsouth DSL agreement not only does not have that
clause, but they offer a static IP specifically for
running servers. Less hassle and more flexibility for
me!. 

The trade off in speed is offset by the peace of mind
of not having the cable polizi kicking in my door, and
not having to deal with a dynamic IP. At least for
me..YMMV.

Cheers!
Dave S


Message: 41
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 11:59:29 -0400
From: Jeremy Portzer <jeremyp at pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [TriLUG] Broadband Speeds
To: Triangle Linux Users Group discussion list
<trilug at trilug.org>
Message-ID: <3F82E2E1.4040001 at pobox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The "dedicated bandwidth" of DSL is marketing bull. 
Sure, you have your 
own dedicated line back to the CO (Central Office),
unlike cable where 
you are shared with your neighbors immediately.  But
once you reach the 
CO, your DSL connection is still shared with your
neighbors in whatever 
upstream connection the company uses from there. 
There's no such thing 
as non-shared bandwidth in DSL -- for dedicated
bandwidth you have to 
pay much more, for a leased line or frame relay.  As
you say at the end 
of your comments, cable infrastructure is built to
widthstand multiple 
users, and the difference in the "point of sharing" has
little 
difference on the outcome.  The result is that cable is
a better choice 
IMO because of the ultimately higher speeds.  The
128kb/sec upload rate 
of some DSL offerings is especially pitiful.

--Jeremy

Chris Bullock wrote:
> You have to remember that cable is shared bandwidth,
compared to 
> dedicated as with DSL.  Potential speeds of cable are
significantly 
> higher than that of DSL.  I have heard that DSL is
more reliable but 
> can't make an honest call about that.  Cable is like
the days of dial-up 
> when everyone got off work and tried to dial up and
got a busy signal.  
> Cable acts the same way, unless the infrastructure is
made to withstand 
> a lot of people surfing at the same time.  Depending
on the cable 
> provider depends on the speed decrease, hopefully the
cable provider has 
> planned for this and the consumer should notice
little difference if any.
> --chris
> 
> Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> 
>> Ok, so with respect to speed for TWC, what are the
actual download speeds
>> for Cable?  I am at a consistant 160Kb/sec
(advertised at 1.5M), how does
>> this compare to the other providers?  I have heard
stories of cable
>> getting painfully slow around 5ish when everyone is
home and surfing, is
>> that the case here?  How about Upload speed? 
Bellsouth DSL gives me
>> roughly 35Kb/s upload.  I am considering the switch,
but want to make 
>> sure
>> I am getting as much bang for my buck as possible.
>>
>> TIA.
>> Steve
>>  
>>
> 
>