 
elias
Premium,VIP
join:2000-07-24
Miami, FL
clubs: 
1 edit | Cable vs. DSL One of the benefits of cable, and major pitfalls of DSL, is the lack of distance requirements.
-- Elias
--
Crunching the Midnight Oil | |
|  | 
Derch
Premium
join:2004-10-16
Tulsa, OK | Re: Cable vs. DSL I disagree, Cable companies like to crowd there nods. People take a chance with DSL because they want dedicated bandwidth. That's my opinion though, others might disagree... | |
| | | keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
 ·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Re: Cable vs. DSL Things get crowded no matter what. A node can be broken up or you can just add more upstream and downstream ports to a node. The concept that a node is limited and then cable companies just force more than they should is not correct. I admit some cable companies probably do push it but that is the company, not the technology.
The same things can happen with DSL. Pipes can get crowded, DSL does not have unlimited pipes to the internet or hardware with unlimited capacity.
I think one problem with DSL is the fact that cable length can change because it actually may. For example, if a neighborhood gets a lot of customers the phone company may actually run new cable and "shift" people around. | |
| | | | Hickerx2
God Bless The U.S. Military
join:2001-03-04
Franklinville, NY
| Re: Cable vs. DSL said by keyboard5684  :Things get crowded no matter what. A node can be broken up or you can just add more upstream and downstream ports to a node. The concept that a node is limited and then cable companies just force more than they should is not correct. I admit some cable companies probably do push it but that is the company, not the technology. The same things can happen with DSL. Pipes can get crowded, DSL does not have unlimited pipes to the internet or hardware with unlimited capacity. Kinda-sorta, but not really....
The fundamental difference between cable and dsl "shared bandwidth", is that with DSL, a "fat pipe" only needs to be installed from the CO on. With cable, "fat pipes" would need to be installed from every node to the head end/CMTS, then also from the head end/CMTS on.
Of course, this is a simplistic view, but pretty accurate.
Im my town, VZ has only one dslam and no RT's. Adelphia cable has 15+ local nodes. DSL's dedicated bandwidth back to the CO, eliminates any "sharing" problems, provided there is enough BW from the CO. Adelphia would have to have a fat pipe connecting every node. It's definitely possible for DSL systems to get "crowded", but it's a hella lot cheaper for a Telco to combat it than a cable co.
It is most definitely an issue with the technology, and the reason for DOCSIS development.
--
Kerry for President? Is this Saturday Night Live?....whew!....it was only a bad dream | |
| | | | | 
test3
@rr.com
| Re: Cable vs. DSL NOT TRUE!
Most cable companies are hybrid fiber/Coax. Fiber runs from the Headend to the node, and is distributed from the node to the premises by Coax. That is why the NODES are user limited!
The runs from the Node to the headend are multi-strand fiber, so they ARE extremely FAT! | |
| | | | | | keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
·Teliax VOIP
·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Re: Cable vs. DSL Nodes are user limited but breaking those nodes up is not difficult. Basically you can take a node and "cut" it in half. You would just pull off a strand of fiber and with a transmitter/receiver you now double capacity! You can keep breaking up nodes as much as needed.
Cool thing about cable is that it is really primed to deploy fiber to the home a lot easier than the telco can. The reason being that the fiber is already to the node. You could just start stringing fiber to the home instead of coax, right along the same cables. People talk an awful lot about telcos doing fiber to the home but realistically a cable company could do it, and fast. They just do not have to, yet. | |
| | | | | | Hickerx2
God Bless The U.S. Military
join:2001-03-04
Franklinville, NY
| said by test3:
NOT TRUE!
Most cable companies are hybrid fiber/Coax. Fiber runs from the Headend to the node, and is distributed from the node to the premises by Coax. That is why the NODES are user limited!
The runs from the Node to the headend are multi-strand fiber, so they ARE extremely FAT!
That's exactly what I just said
The problem is that only newer systems(maybe 3-5 yrs old at most)use fiber at the node. There are a hella lot of first generation cable systems left.
The "fat pipe" that supplies the node is then split up to 1500x.(usually not that many, but certainly hundreds in alot of systems)
So, like I said, the cable co has to add bandwidth to each individual node, whereas the Telco only has to add bandwidth to the CO.
So, in reality, DSL is also shared bandwidth, but it's shared at a point that is inherently easier and cheaper to upgrade. Also, with DSL's distance limitation, the probability of over-selling is quite remote.
--
Kerry for President? Is this Saturday Night Live?....whew!....it was only a bad dream | |
| | | Samwoo
join:2002-02-15
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
| cable does crowd the node which means a hogging neighbour can take up bandwidth... but because of bandwidth caps it probably several hogging neighbors to take up the bandwidth.
This bottle neck is local to the node.
However there is still the possibility of bottlenecks for the co (distribution center) no matter what service is used. often the co can get crowded and, when that happens, if their service is broken up into nodes or not, it really doesn't matter. DSL can't guarantee speeds either. | |
| | 
jinjimbob
Troy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
| said by elias :One of the benefits of cable, and major pitfalls of DSL, is the lack of distance requirements. -- Elias True.
One large benefit of DSL is cost, costs me less than half what cable would. | |
| | | 
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
clubs:
| Re: Cable vs. DSL not in my area unfortunately. to get the 3000/380 connection i get with roadrunner for an avg of $44 a month, id need to pay almost $90 a month for DSL. for $40 a month, i only get 512/128 on DSL. plus the fact that the dsl modems that sprint provides here have PITA to disable NAT on them is another reason i avoid DSL at all costs. | |
| |
itsthetelcostupid
@optonline.net
| the thin copper that dsl runs over has to many maintenance issues and is runned by an overcharging monoply... and only comanies that gain enough customers on the business side to be able to squaeak out a profit (covad) are still around... some (rcn) file for bankrupcy to keep all those cute expensive fiber and head end systmes paid for this bankrupt play money...
Fiber is the real deal in telecommunications and if you haven't started upgrading to it, you will be obsolete in 15 years because lots of the copper in place today is not going to be replaced with copper... For now it will only be replaced with fiber if the costs are equal or above fiber, but fiber will get dirt cheap in 5-10 years. Now sure whhere the costs are going to be, but we all pray it will be cheap, but good! All the content and speed you can eat for one low monthly price (say, $100, phone, video, videophone, music, movies, live events, software, games, etc etc etc) $100 a month (of course adjusted for inflation from todays price)
You just don't know how many people you'd get for the convenience of it all in one pipe/technology. And FCC, leave your friggin hands off with the taxes!!! | |
| | |
naterw
@fielding.edu
| Re: Cable vs. DSL I agree with you there.
The whole cable shared bandwidth thing is a rumor of the past. Most cable companies have upgraded their infrastructure so much that its no longer an issue. For instance my cable company a few years back ran TONS of fiber around town. Our town is about 30 square miles, and currently the cable company has about 300 linear miles of fiber running around the town. Their current active capacity is about 655mbps on their sonet ring. However only about 1/3 of their available fiber is active so they could easily achieve about 2gbps on their network.
The phone company however doesn't even have fiber between their CO's in town. They're 100% copper running old fashined T-3 lines. The cable companies are definitely positioned to become the telco's of the future and put all the Bell's out of business. | |
| | batmanst
join:2003-12-23
Beverly Hills, CA | they are downgraded because bandwidth is expensive or want to limit the number of user at 3.0/768 to 1.5/384
makes perfect sense! | |
| 
steelgaze
Premium
join:2002-02-01
San Francisco, CA
clubs:
| Ouch Man that guy got screwed.
I'm glad Verizon isn't in my area.. I wonder what will happen to the people that ordered the new 3000/768 line find out they get bumped down to 768/128.
--
The first anime convention in San Francisco. | |
| 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| It just amazes me... ...that RBOC's are even able to deploy DSL what with the screwey distance records, questionable copper infrastructure and hokey rules regarding who can provide your dialtone in order to get service. I started with DSL in 2000 and had about 85% uptime but also had an issue with being a "mobile home" with changing distance records. The final straw was the lightning bolt that took out the line and not having my service provider willing to service it (it was a dedicated line from the pre-linesharing days). I reluctantly switched to cable and never looked back. Total down time in 3+ years has been approximately 9 hours not including the blackout of 2003.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Bottom line...... = bottom line...they just don't want to have to spend anything....or fix anything till they have to:(:(:(
--
BlooMe | |
| 
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC | CO Distance The funny thing is, I just moved about 1.5 miles closer to the CO, and my Downstream speed has decreased...go figure, but that is probably something I should bring up in the BellSouth forum, since they are my ISP. | |
| DSLDave4
join:2002-12-06
Mount Holly, NJ
| Not just Verizon Speakeasy (through Covad) did this to me almost a year ago. If memory serves me, when I signed up for 1.5/384 I was at 13,000 feet (round numbers). I think their limit was 15,000 for this package at the time. My service worked fine for over a year. After I started having connection problems, which went back and forth with tech support for months, I noticed that their limit for the same package was 12,000 feet. It would have been nice if someone told me. In the end they put my service in "safe mode" at 768/128 while I was still paying for 1.5/384. I have since dropped Speakeasy and will not use them or any other Covad service again. | |
| | | keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
·Teliax VOIP
·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Re: No DSL for me... I use cable and like it.
But I also want a Starbucks in my neighborhood, a mall, and a nice grocery store. I would rather have a Ferrari so maybe someday I will get that.
But yes, fiber would be good. I would get the same quality Voice, maybe more TV channels (like I need that) and the same internet speeds. All for a higher price, sweet. | |
| | | | | | | 
Dragasoni
We're All Mad Here
Premium
join:2001-12-14
Rotonda West, FL
1 edit | Re: No DSL for me... No, you need to move here. Four grocery supermarkets, a Supper Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Hooters, Walgreens, Eckerds, McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, Boston Market, Arby's, Subway, Checkers, YaYa's, Sonic Drive-In, and Gulf Beaches. All within 5 miles of my house.
Oh, and 2 malls within 15 miles...
-Dragasoni- | |
| | | | | | | | | | keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA | Well, I would consider it just for the Hooters.
I really do not have anything like that here, I have a few restuarants about 10 miles from my home. | |
| | | | | 
lupinia
Premium
join:2004-08-24
Harrisonburg, VA | Damn, your neighbourhood makes me sad. Too much civilization in one spot  | |
| | | hiromu
join:2003-09-22
Lexington, IL
| I found this out too.... I used to be a Verizon customer about a year ago before I cancelled. I'm pretty sure that I had the 1.5 mb package back then too, but when I called recently to try and get the 3 mb package (so I could leave my cruddy cable company behind) I was informed that for the best speeds possible for the entire town was the 768/128 package. I realize that I live in a smaller town, but that's no reason to let us slide that far behind the rest of the country. Oh well, I didn't really want to give Verizon my money anyway. | |
| | | madrhino
join:2004-07-03 | Re: Making Profit That is a VERY good observation.I won't rant on Verizon but they are as crooked as a dogs leg. | |
| kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| forget the database! OK here's what I suggest. Let's say I wish to get 3m/768K package. I order it, but am told I'm too far to get it. My only thought would be prove it by having my modem be provisioned for 7.1M/768K and see what it's truly able to connect at! I consider myself fortunate because I did actually have the 7.1/768 package for a month and I could connect to the DSLAM at 864K up and up to between 6752 and 7040KBPs to the CO. Notice my downstream wasn't solid, and I never connected at the provissioned rate for 7.1M Verizon users which I believe is 7840KBPS. However does this mean I shouldn't have been able to get that level of service just because I didn't connect at the provisioned rate? I don't think so! If I order a package, and can't get the exact speeds, let me get the best my line can get! If I order 3M/768 which would be 3360/864 synch, and I only sync at 3100/672 then so be it. It's still better than my previous service level. verizon folks shouldn't just go on what a database says, but rather should also attempt to have the modem connect at desired package and user therefore would at least get something, instead of being told hey you can't get it, so you're screwed! | |
| | 
StreetSpirit
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY | Re: forget the database! AMEN TO THAT! | |
| | batmanst
join:2003-12-23
Beverly Hills, CA
| said by kd6cae :OK here's what I suggest. Let's say I wish to get 3m/768K package. I order it, but am told I'm too far to get it. My only thought would be prove it by having my modem be provisioned for 7.1M/768K and see what it's truly able to connect at! I consider myself fortunate because I did actually have the 7.1/768 package for a month and I could connect to the DSLAM at 864K up and up to between 6752 and 7040KBPs to the CO. Notice my downstream wasn't solid, and I never connected at the provissioned rate for 7.1M Verizon users which I believe is 7840KBPS. However does this mean I shouldn't have been able to get that level of service just because I didn't connect at the provisioned rate? I don't think so! If I order a package, and can't get the exact speeds, let me get the best my line can get! If I order 3M/768 which would be 3360/864 synch, and I only sync at 3100/672 then so be it. It's still better than my previous service level. verizon folks shouldn't just go on what a database says, but rather should also attempt to have the modem connect at desired package and user therefore would at least get something, instead of being told hey you can't get it, so you're screwed! it doesnt matter if you even have full speed or not, they dont want you to use much of their bandwidth. | |
| | VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01
| I agree. If my line's only good enough for 1.5M down (probably closer to 2.0M, actually), then let me get that, and the 768 up that goes with it, rather than being limited to 1.5M/384, because that is the only next-step-down provisioning configuration in their computer menu system. | |
|
PDX
@xx.sea1
| I thought I was crazy... This just happened to me this past week. I switched from using my own ISP (on a Verizon 1.5/128 DSL circuit) to using Verizon Online as my ISP to save $30/mo. They told me I qualified for 3.0 (only 2480 ft from the CO) so I signed up. It was a 2 week nightmare to get verizon to take over the DSL line from my old ISP, but when they finally got me hooked up, I found I only had 768/128. I called them and was told I didn't qualify for anything higher - the guy in fact told me I never had anything faster, even though I'd had the 1.5/128 for over 2 years. I tried for 2 hours to speak to someone who could explain why this was to no avail...Comcast comes on Tuesday, I still save $3/mo over what I was paying originally. | |
| | batmanst
join:2003-12-23
Beverly Hills, CA | Re: I thought I was crazy... complicated aren't ya? y, you are crazy and need to seek medical attention. | |
| 
DOStradamus
MVM
join:2003-11-04
Santa Rosa, CA
| ASI (SBC via "partner ISP") Is WORSE! I used to live 3500 feet from the CO, and had 6000/608K service that tested regularly "5000/501" using the speed test tool here.
I moved a month ago. My nightmare began. I live 6500 feet "as the crow flies" from the CO, and a third party estimated my loop length at 8500 feet. NOT SO sez SBC/ASI via my ISP, claiming I'm 19,000 feet away, capping me at a piddly 768/384k!
I talked to an SBC tech that was doing some work nextdoor, the night before last, and asked him if he could come up with a route that could total 19,000 feet. "Goes down to Third and over", he said, " that has to be wrong."
I wish I knew where "the buck stops".  | |
| | batmanst
join:2003-12-23
Beverly Hills, CA
| Re: ASI (SBC via "partner ISP") Is WORSE! said by DOStradamus :I used to live 3500 feet from the CO, and had 6000/608K service that tested regularly "5000/501" using the speed test tool here. I moved a month ago. My nightmare began. I live 6500 feet "as the crow flies" from the CO, and a third party estimated my loop length at 8500 feet. NOT SO sez SBC/ASI via my ISP, claiming I'm 19,000 feet away, capping me at a piddly 768/384k! I talked to an SBC tech that was doing some work nextdoor, the night before last, and asked him if he could come up with a route that could total 19,000 feet. "Goes down to Third and over", he said, " that has to be wrong." I wish I knew where "the buck stops". he could be right, the only way to disapprove of him is by use of advanced modem like 2wire home portal, or 4060 speedstrem, it sure can measure distance! mine alway says 4500-5000 LOL I guess 5000 would be a safe bet  | |
| steveneddy
join:2004-07-04
Fort Worth, TX
| DSL Speed I feel fortunate to live in Ft. Worth. I am 2 miles from actual downtown, have TWO DSL nodes close to me here, and I pay for 364/128 and have been getting over 1000/300 (avg.) regularly. Had it over two years with no probs. I'm VERY satisfied with SBC and their performance. I guess living IN the city (a large city) has perks, & I can understand the frustrations regarding a small town and "something fast DSL". But, you must realize, that at least you have DSL service for a small town & don't have to live with dial-up anymore. 764/128 is a respectable number set. I would be happy if I got that too. I actually get more. I did sign up for the 3000mbps upgrade last month. Hasn't kicked in yet, but will by the first.
PIII PC w/512mb RAM
Win2K - Linux (Debian/Woody) dual boot
WireSpeed modem
Linksys BEFSR41 router & ethernet cable all
over the house
I can get 1225/368 on this line with this setup almost every day on the test pages. Can't wait for the upgrade.
I use Linux 98% of the time for everything. | |
| | | |
|
|
DSL Downgrades
·
·