insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to dvd536
Re: The numbers
The shared factor only matters if your area is oversold. If your area is not oversold, cable by far destroys dsl. I currently have 6mbit comcast cable internet and 1.5mbit AT&T dsl. The dsl is always sluggish when doing anything and I am not referring to the slower download speed. If you max out your upload bandwidth on dsl your downloads suffer a lot and ping times shoot through the roof. With comcast I can max out the upload and download and still surf pretty decently. Not to mention normal web surfing is really fast now that they have speed boost.
Although because of price I only have comcast for the summer because they offer it for 20 bucks a month for the first 4 months. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | reply to dvd536
It's shared back to the node. Makes a difference if there's heavy node saturation.
I'm not familiar enough with PON architecture to make a statement about it. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to docchat
said by docchat  :My company's lowest tier is 10/2...Verizon Fios....and this is dedicated bandwidth (all mine), not shared like yours is...so stay on the point of this topic, point being that this is a total BS report by the FCC. And who cares if DSL has more penetration than cable or vice versa. Broadband should be more readily available and more widespread than it is now. If they are going to take the USF from us, they should make some better use of it. BS!
any type of connection is shared at some point along the way
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
bchris02
join:2006-05-25 | reply to pabster
Cox is 256/256 in my area for their $30 tier. In ares with Verizon its 768 down instead of 256. |
|
docchat
join:2002-10-02
New York, NY
| reply to jtorre69
My company's lowest tier is 10/2...Verizon Fios....and this is dedicated bandwidth (all mine), not shared like yours is...so stay on the point of this topic, point being that this is a total BS report by the FCC. And who cares if DSL has more penetration than cable or vice versa. Broadband should be more readily available and more widespread than it is now. If they are going to take the USF from us, they should make some better use of it. |
|
pabster
join:2001-12-09
Waterloo, IA
 ·Mediacom
| reply to travelguy
Yeah, 128kbps service might be fine for occasional web surfing and e-mail. But why would I pay only $10 less than their "regular" tier for it? I'd be far better off (price wise) with either a cheap dial-up account (which can oft be had for less than $10 a month) or an entry-level DSL offering, both considerably cheaper.
Perhaps the other carriers don't operate the same way, I have no idea. I was surprised they weren't offering 128kbps for like $20 or $25 a month. I certainly wouldn't pay any more than that. |
|
jtorre69
join:2005-12-26
Hollywood, FL | reply to pabster
my cableco has a low tier, they call it 6meg, you get 3meg at best!!!!!!! |
|
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
| reply to pabster
said by pabster :Yeah, mine has a "low tier", 128k / 128k. Problem is, it is only $10 cheaper than the "regular" tier. Now wonder they don't advertise it! OTOH, if all you want is 24/7 email and access to the occasional web page to check weather or book an airline ticket, its just the ticket.
Cable and telcos don't advertise such packages for two reasons - they are afraid they will cannibalize their higher cost packages and they dilute their Average Revenue per Unit (ARPU) numbers that Wall Street is so fond of. |
|
pabster
join:2001-12-09
Waterloo, IA | reply to tiger72
Yeah, mine has a "low tier", 128k / 128k. Problem is, it is only $10 cheaper than the "regular" tier. Now wonder they don't advertise it! |
|
