General Discussions

**007** · 08-06-2006, 12:46 AM

Has anybody else here had to switch to DSL due to a move to a different location? In a few days I will no longer be able to get cable internet and it is really worrying me. Is DSL really much worse?

I hope not, but the stats I have checked from both providers show that it should be about 3 times slower than what I am getting now with cable.

Also has anybody here used Satellite Internet before?

:helpsmilie:

**BamaStangGuy** · 08-06-2006, 12:58 AM

Depends on the DSL service you get. Some DSL is just as fast as Cable.

**JustinG** · 08-06-2006, 02:21 AM

I use the best plan on SBC and its just as fast as cable. I like DSL.

**Plugin-Developer** · 08-06-2006, 02:33 AM

I personally prefer cable internet to DSL. I've had and tried both. Cable just seems faster to me, personally, and now that I have it, I couldn't go away from its speed.

-Nick

**imported_Edder** · 08-06-2006, 02:50 AM

Cable, in general, is faster than DSL. I've used both, but I've made my decision to go with cable for the speed and the stability.

With DSL, you need to understand that there are peak times in ISPs cannot handle the number of connections. During these periods, which can be hours at a time, you will experience a bottleneck and notice that the speed decreases significantly, sometimes to a seemingly sluggish stop. I've experienced speeds slower than 56k, usually in the afternoon and in the evening.

I'm not so sure about satellite internet, but it doesn't hurt to do a trial. I would test out DSL, too, at your new location and compare the two. Like you said, the DSL speeds vary in each area so you'll never know for sure unless you try.

**GeorgeB** · 08-06-2006, 02:56 AM

Actually Edder it's quite the opposite.

Cable is the one that uses shared connections for residential users. DSL is a direct connection to the Central Office (CO). That's why you'll hear a bunch of people complaining that they can't get DSL. If you're too far away from the nearest CO you're just out of luck.

BUT... the weakness in DSL in fact is your distance from the CO. Plus DSL runs on your home's internal telephone wires. In most older homes the wiring just isn't adequate to support that type of usage or the wiring is just plain old and worn leaving it more prone to intereference and signal interruption.

**imported_Edder** · 08-06-2006, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkKnight

Actually Edder it's quite the opposite.

Cable is the one that uses shared connections for residential users. DSL is a direct connection to the Central Office (CO). That's why you'll hear a bunch of people complaining that they can't get DSL. If you're too far away from the nearest CO you're just out of luck.

BUT... the weakness in DSL in fact is your distance from the CO. Plus DSL runs on your home's internal telephone wires. In most older homes the wiring just isn't adequate to support that type of usage or the wiring is just plain old and worn leaving it more prone to intereference and signal interruption.

Thanks for correcting me, DarkKnight. Contrary to what I had thought, DSL speeds aren't affected by the number of users connected in the proximity. I just did a little research and it seems that bottlenecks and slowdowns occur at the ISP.

**Fredto** · 08-06-2006, 04:47 AM

Depending on your ISP and the use you make of Internet, DSL is somewhat preferable.

Mine is faster than cable and I have, unofficially, no download / upload limit. I can't stand cable, at least the ones available here, they all have bad customer service and crappy download / upload limits.

**dazzlindonna** · 08-06-2006, 08:25 AM

I had to switch from cable to DSL, and the result for me was faster speeds and less downtime. Soon, I will be moving and will have to switch to satellite, as that's my only option. Am a little nervous about that, but gotta do what I gotta do.

**Karl89.co.uk** · 08-06-2006, 08:57 AM

I've always had cable here in the UK, never had any problems with it and I get a great service for the money I pay.

10mb for £35 a month, which is about $67 a month.

**mason** · 08-06-2006, 09:41 AM

I made the switch cause I moved and it's about the same. I get better connection with dsl though. I remember when I had cable and the internet would just die for hours.

**Moelman** · 08-06-2006, 02:53 PM

We have cable at my house, my father works for IBM and works at home so they pay the bill ^^ I hear DSL is still pretty fast. And I know a downside, if you're interested in this kind of thing, of cable is that you aren't allowed to host your own webserver, or at least with comcast, but with DSL you can.

**GeorgeB** · 08-06-2006, 05:20 PM

Charter.net offers 10 meg service in my area. Problem is that's just download. Not sure what upload is.

Having a 10meg port down/upload would mean I could accomplish incredible feats in CS and Halo online.

I host some of my startup sites from home (because it's a lot easier to develop and code sites on the fly not having to FTP it to a server) and that would greatly increase the amount of time I can keep them here. It also saves me tons of bandwidth costs for the myspace related site I host.

**Tran** · 08-07-2006, 02:44 AM

Comcast cable all the way hehe.. I've tried my cousins Yahoo DSL or whatever.. its pretty good but.. I just like comcast more because it falls in with my phone service & cable television service

**imported_RudeDog** · 08-07-2006, 08:00 AM

Satellite is the only option I have besides dial-up, it's been around 5 years using this crap. It's pretty bad when you have to dial-up to upload a website especially when your paying $70 per month .. it really sucks.

Downloads at 150-175 kbs .. uploads around 10-15 kbs. I use to use DSL at work .. man it was nice, I went over to a friends house and used his cable before .. it was really nice too. On top of that I have to check 14 emails at a time using outlook .. it takes around a minute to walk thru checking emails. I noticed with DSL and Cable it may take a few seconds. I'll stop now before this becomes a rant..

**imported_Bleys** · 08-07-2006, 09:09 AM

I have actually been thinking of switching to Verizon DSL from Cox Cable because of all the unexplained downtime and shoddy service. It seems to go out for no reason at least one per week for a period of 1-5 hours. That's unacceptable when I need to be connected to the Internet to make a living.

It has always been my understanding the DSL will generally be more reliable since it is a direct connection, while cable will slow down depending on the number of users on your node.

The wires in my house should be about the same age for either (cable wires might be slightly newer--th he house has had cable since the 80s, phone service since the house was built in the 70s).

Satellite you definitely should avoid, if you can. It is overpriced, and as RudeDog said, I think it is almost always (or always?) only downstream... so you need an additional dialup account to upload anything. There may be some satellite providers who have fixed that problem, I don't really know much about it--but it will be overpriced regardless.

**paul c** · 08-07-2006, 01:03 PM

I have the Verizon FIOS service which is a new fiberoptic cable service....highly recommend it. Very reliable and fast, even the cheapest level is faster than the the Charter cable. It is not offered in many areas yet, but if it is I'd recomend it highly.

**imported_Bleys** · 08-07-2006, 02:35 PM

Sadly FIOS isn't available in my area yet. Hopefully soon, but Verizon took their sweet *** time getting down here with DSL (I live in a smallish town, 30,000--though there is a large University here at which the majority of upper classmen rent off campus, so there's plenty of business to be had)--so I'm not holding my breath.

**xboxundone** · 08-07-2006, 05:11 PM

Cable over DSL but if price go with DSL

**Lpspider** · 08-07-2006, 05:52 PM

I have DSL provided by SBC... it can be slow at times, but is so much better than dial up. It really depends.