I've used both in differnet settings in different parts of the country.
When all things are equal you get MUCH more bang for your buck using cable.
If cable is oversold, as it has been in the past, it CAN deteriorate below
that of DSL. Actually a number of years ago I saw useless cable speeds, but
I've seen that with DSL too, early on.
If your copper is too old or too far away it's not workable.
The cable guys know this is the time to steal all the DSL customers they can
get. So they don't oversell it as they used to. And, they have finally
learned how to manage IP access over cable.
You pay roughly the same, but you tend to get at least a cool 2MB down pipe
on cable. Whereas you only get 384 or 768 on DSL for the same dollars. (About
$40.)
DSL is more stable, but when they go down they can be down for a week, or
more, as their actual repair time can take a couple of weeks. (I've seen it.)
Cable will go down more often than DSL as they work on and modify it. But
it's always up in a matter of an hour or a couple.
DSL cannot overcome the distance problem the way your cable guys do it. I'm
not sure why (costs/income no doubt) but the cable guys will throw in
repeaters when the phone companies won't. On the cable they can have many
customers use that repeater, whereas on DSL there's only one on that pair.
Cable infrastructure is more costly to build (material cost) than DSL which
it's already there.
So I almost never recommend DSL over cable. Actually I turn companies onto
cable as they tend to prefer more but shorter outtages than fewer longer ones.
This is what I have observed.
On Sunday 12 May 2002 16:38, you wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I am on cable and considering DSL. It appears that you have had both, what
> do you recommend?
--Steve ________________________________________________________ HTML in e-mail creates out-security, and more spam. By using it you teach others, less knowledgeable, that it's safe to use.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:18:47 EDT