Cable vs. DSL Who has the market share? A report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project ( statesman.com) says that DSL digital subscriber lines eclipsed cable as the most popular source of broadband access earlier this year. After aggressive cost-cutting by phone companies, DSL accounted for half of the home broadband market at the end of March, and cable providers had 41 percent, an exact market share reversal from the year before. Another research firm, Leichtman Research Group Inc., questions the data and expects to release a survey this week that shows cable still leads broadband with 52 percent, compared with DSL's 46 percent. "It's dead wrong," said Bruce Leichtman, the Leichtman Research Group president.
|
  93254336Weapons Of MasturbationPremium
join:2001-10-20
kudos:1
1 edit | That's utterly fascinating... ...and how exactly does this affect me? Both modalities will be generally available for the foreseeable future, so who cares if the ratio of cable vs DSL is 40:60 this year and 60:40 the next.
- Dan | |
|  | Reviews:
 ·Clearwire Wireless
 ·Comcast
| Re: That's utterly fascinating... I have 6Mbps/384Kbps cable threw Comcast because I can't get DSL because the tech dud as he was hooking up the phone service said that I was around 21,000 FT from the Qwest telephone switch board.
DSL: 1) The farther away you are from the telephone switch board the slower the speed you will have at your house 2) Not all telephone line in the country in the country are DSL ready
Cable: 1) There is no distance limit so your speed don't slow don't no mater how far you are from the cable office. 2) The more people that use the cable internet in the same area your speed will go down hill 3) The less people that use cable internet in the same area your speeds will go up hill 4) At night your cable speed can go super faster or some times even faster
Satellite 1) For those of you can't get DSL or cable there is satellite witch as far as I know of get up to 1Mbps/700Kbps 2) On a sunny clear day your speeds can be great 3) If the sky is covered with clouds and it raining then your satellite speeds can get very crappy | |
| | | | | Re: That's utterly fascinating... I'm in the same situation as you. I'm around 20K ft from CO so I can't get DSL either. I've had HSI through Adelphia for over 2 years and it's been a fairly smooth ride but I'm getting to the point where I'd rather have 1.5mbit/384kbit DSL for around $20/month (or cheaper) rather than 4mbit/384kbit for $43/month. SBC/ATT/whoever has been telling me for the past 3 years (I'd originally looked into DSL before subscribing to cable) that DSL would be in my part of town in "the next few months"....total B/S!
Maybe SBC/ATT will roll out something once the Project Lightspeed finally gets going, but even then that's a couple years down the road...when, hopefully, i'll have moved on to a better area....free from SBC/ATT. | |
| | | | | | Re: That's utterly fascinating... Also the tech dud told me that Qwest was going to be installing remote terminals witch would make my distance to the telephone switch board under 18,000 FT but didn't know when Qwest was going to start installing them in my area. | |
| | | | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: That's utterly fascinating... All they need to do is install a remote terminal. 
1) DSL - speed varies with distance, however, your speed 'should' be consistant, once connected. i.e. sync rate locked at 3008/512.
2) Cable - high burst rates (i.e. maxed at 8/6Mbps/384 kbps), however nodes can get overloaded, especially during peak hours.
Since I perform remote access work, I need consistancy, and decent upload. | |
|
| | | | | I guess I'm behind the times. What in the heck is a tech dud? | |
| | | | |  MaggsPremium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY
·RCN CABLE
| Re: That's utterly fascinating... said by john262:I guess I'm behind the times. What in the heck is a tech dud? It's like a Milk Dud but with Techs inside
--
When the lights go out, just draw a KMAP, and all is good. | |
|
| | | | | whats the maximum range for dsl to get very fast speeds my distance is about 15000 feet away from CO is that gonna be terrible speeds for me | |
|
| |  KompressorPremium
join:2002-02-12
Huntington Beach, CA | In reference to #2, the more people who use DSL, the speed slows. Even with less people using DSL, the speed still slows due to a number of things, including distance and line noise. Cable is a fiber/cable hybrid. Most users experience slowdowns with DSL where cable it is more rare. Even a dial-up provider will experience slowdowns if/when the load gets too high. So stating that cable slows due to load and not saying the same for DSL is more untrue than true.
Satellite: The latency is so high that you can't use it for real-time applications like VoIP, gaming and audio and/or video conferencing. | |
| | | |  PoloDudePremium,VIP
join:2006-03-29
Northport, NY
kudos:2 | Re: That's utterly fascinating... said by Kompressor:In reference to #2, the more people who use DSL, the speed slows. Even with less people using DSL, the speed still slows due to a number of things, including distance and line noise. Cable is a fiber/cable hybrid. Most users experience slowdowns with DSL where cable it is more rare. Even a dial-up provider will experience slowdowns if/when the load gets too high. So stating that cable slows due to load and not saying the same for DSL is more untrue than true. Please check the forums about slow speeds from cable users. From everything i have read you have it completly backwards. i have DSL and my tests are always
Last Result:
Download Speed: 1206 kbps (150.8 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 367 kbps (45.9 KB/sec transfer rate)
and i would hate to be on a system that loads up from dial-up users. | |
| | | | ub355
join:2005-09-15
Brookfield, WI | My DSL never waivered speedwise. My cable internet on the otherhand is all over the ballpark | |
|
| |  knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | said by floydb1982:I have 6Mbps/384Kbps cable threw Comcast because I can't get DSL because the tech dud as he was hooking up the phone service said that I was around 21,000 FT from the Qwest telephone switch board. DSL: 1) The farther away you are from the telephone switch board the slower the speed you will have at your house 2) Not all telephone line in the country in the country are DSL ready Cable: 1) There is no distance limit so your speed don't slow don't no mater how far you are from the cable office. 2) The more people that use the cable internet in the same area your speed will go down hill 3) The less people that use cable internet in the same area your speeds will go up hill 4) At night your cable speed can go super faster or some times even faster Satellite 1) For those of you can't get DSL or cable there is satellite witch as far as I know of get up to 1Mbps/700Kbps 2) On a sunny clear day your speeds can be great 3) If the sky is covered with clouds and it raining then your satellite speeds can get very crappy A mis-understanding of technology. Cable isn't limitless on distance. It's two copper wires like DSL. The only difference is how Cable companies do the infrastructure for it. Just like DSL companies put out remote terminals to increase the distance, Cable companies do the same except they do it a lot more. The copper wire for a cox cable is no thicker that the phone cable used for DSL transmission. The difference is in how you keep the speeds up the further out your go. DSL companies want everyone to be within the CO so they don't have to build out RT to server customers further away. Cable companies are more than happy to keep the speeds up over long distances.
Satellite will always be limited by the laws of physics and the speed of light so there is no helping the ping times, maybe get more bandwidth, but don't expect the nice pings you get down on Earth with Cable/DSL ISP providers. | |
| | | | | |  Re: That's utterly fascinating...
First, you are correct that cable companies still have distance limitations. Cable does not use two copper wires like DSL. Cable uses a coax cable and fiber optics, not twisted pair like the phone company, on the infrastructure. The hybrid network is what allows cable to provide service further out then DSL. Both DSL and cable use RF, and RF signal degrades. The rate of the decay in the signal is different for DSL and cable due to the differences in the cabling used to carry that signal. To boost this distance covered, most cable companies run fiber from the headend to the service area and then do the conversion to RF, thus negating the loss of signal quality due to distance. The trade off is that all cable modems in a given area utilize the same bandwidth in the cable plant. This is where plant design kicks in. The cable company needs to design the plant to support the numbers of subscribers at a given rate of speed. That process might include creating new nodes, or service areas, to limit the number of subscribers in any given grouping of equipment. What you need to understand is that the bandwidth available in the system is greater then the bandwidth available to any one subscriber, but not to all of them added together. This is what leads to the slow down in service when many users are online in an area and is a symptom of a service area that needs to be reengineered by the cable company.
Now, on to DSL. There are several major differences. First, every line in DSL is independent to the customer, as opposed to the shared service that cable uses. So, if you and your neighbor both order DSL his line is a distinctly separate line from his house to the CO then yours. It is also twisted pair all the way from the house to the CO. If there is a SLIC (fiber optic connection in phone wiring) DSL will not work. This inability to utilize fiber in the connection is what limits DSL’s distance. Physical medium is also a factor. The size of the cable used in telephony is smaller then that of the coax cable in cable service. This limits the frequencies that can be carried and/or the distance that you can carry these frequencies before they become to degraded to utilize. That is why the cable company uses the larger coax cable instead of twisted pair cable, more room to move more frequencies. Also, the nature of the service, where every line is independent, makes it more difficult to move the equipment closer to the subscriber. We introduce the term “wire mile” here. Just because you have phone lines to your house, and your neighbor has phone lines to his house, does not mean that those phone lines run the same way down the street. That is correct, over the years the phone company has run wires all over the place. So, you would have to rewire all the connections in an organized manner and essentially rebuild the phone telephone infrastructure.
The shared nature of the cable network is what in the end makes it more able to change and allow for newer technologies. There is less equipment, closer to the customer, and that makes it easier to provide these technologies that we all love. On the flip side, the independent nature of the phone system is what allows for your neighbor’s service to fail and yours to continue working. It is also what makes it more difficult to upgrade and allow for newer uses. | |
| | | | | knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Re: That's utterly fascinating... said by kahunanull:I have to correct you here. I have been an engineer for both cable companies and DSL providers. The major difference, in fact the only difference, is the deliverance to the subscriber. First, you are correct that cable companies still have distance limitations. Cable does not use two copper wires like DSL. Cable uses a coax cable and fiber optics, not twisted pair like the phone company, on the infrastructure. The hybrid network is what allows cable to provide service further out then DSL. Both DSL and cable use RF, and RF signal degrades. The rate of the decay in the signal is different for DSL and cable due to the differences in the cabling used to carry that signal. To boost this distance covered, most cable companies run fiber from the headend to the service area and then do the conversion to RF, thus negating the loss of signal quality due to distance. The trade off is that all cable modems in a given area utilize the same bandwidth in the cable plant. This is where plant design kicks in. The cable company needs to design the plant to support the numbers of subscribers at a given rate of speed. That process might include creating new nodes, or service areas, to limit the number of subscribers in any given grouping of equipment. What you need to understand is that the bandwidth available in the system is greater then the bandwidth available to any one subscriber, but not to all of them added together. This is what leads to the slow down in service when many users are online in an area and is a symptom of a service area that needs to be reengineered by the cable company. I won't argue semantics over this, DSL providers like Bellsouth use Fiber all the way to the Remote Terminal and then copper out to everyone in range. Cable companies are not running fiber to every single home, they are running fiber to a point where they can branch off for the lower speeds through copper in the coax just like DSL companies do. The point I'm trying to make is that cable companies are not running hundreds of miles of coax while keeping 100 Mbps the entire way, they are chaining the speed along just like the DSL providers do, just in a different way of achieving the same goal. Both use Fiber, both use copper, but no laws of physics are being broken with Cable as I often see it stated here by those less informed. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: That's utterly fascinating... Yes, both use fiber at different portions of their network. Cable companies get the fiber connection closer to the subscriber then the phone companies do though. The nature of the infrastructure allows for the cable companies to do so since they have less individual equipment impacted due to the architecure of a cable plant. Also, remote terminal is not the correct term in DSL. It is a DSLAM (digital subscriber line access multiplexer) and the DSLAMs are located in the CO of the telco. A CO is designed such that from the CO out to the subscriber is all twisted pair. This creates a huge difference in the distance that can be covered by the DSL signal. Since you cannot just up and rewire a whole city to add a CO, you cannot really reduce the "wire mile" from a CO to a residence without serious re-engineering of a telco line. In the cable world, you just add a new fiber run, and either add a new area of split an existing one. Far less change in cabling is needed to allow for new subscriber areas, or to reduce the size of any given subscriber area since all you need to add/change is the trunk run to the headend, not every single line to every subscribers house.
I understand the point that you were trying to make, and appreciate it. There are many advantages and disadvantages to both means of access, and I tried to point them out. I simply saw a few errors in the information and sought to correct them, while providing some additional information along the way. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: That's utterly fascinating... I agree with some of what you have said but not all. Of course things may vary from region to region, state to state. From most of what I have heard... and from a friend or two on the East Coast the DSL on there is behind the curve. So that may account for some of the statements here.
Here in Cali (at least the area I live and work in) we have fiber to RT (SLAM) which is usually with in a mile (but can be as many as three to five miles) of the prem... if we are talking rural areas. We have a small farming community some eight miles outside of town which has fiber fed DSL. Ask them if they can get cable modem service. Or even cable TV service out there... or if they even want it.
In my area ComCast cable is behind... way behind. We are putting a huge hurt on them. Our 1536/384 DSL is $12.95 for the year with free equipment and free activation. And we have fiber to the RT feeding 75% of the people who are not within two miles of the CO. With only one area of town not yet covered by a SLAM (RT) int eh field.
DSL does not slow down at peak hour usage... that is the
internet. Cable on the other hand does. One conductor for an entire neighborhood. Not so with DSL.
We also have fiber to the prem for all new neighborhoods. Each house has 37mb per fiber to the prem. One fiber at the RT feeds twelve houses. Try that with cable. Only downfall so far is it is newer technology and some bugs are still present on occasion.
We are even rolling out fiber to the NOD here and hopefully will begin offering the major networks to our fiber to the prem customers soon.
I get the new at&t Yahoo elite package for $27.95 (plus taxes). Which is 6016/768. No slower speeds during peak usage. No faster speeds when the neighbors finally go to bed. I get over 600 kbps if the download server can handle it.
Though I am not knocking cable. I would have it in a heart beat if DSL wasn't available. :P | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | xygor
join:2006-05-08
Quakertown, PA | said by knightmb:said by floydb1982:Satellite will always be limited by the laws of physics and the speed of light so there is no helping the ping times, maybe get more bandwidth, but don't expect the nice pings you get down on Earth with Cable/DSL ISP providers. No, it's not limited by the speed of light. Well, bounded, maybe. It's a radio signal and it's even slower than light. | |
| | | | | knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Re: That's utterly fascinating... said by xygor:No, it's not limited by the speed of light. Well, bounded, maybe. It's a radio signal and it's even slower than light. You realize you are talking about trillionths of a second in speed right? No one is going to notice the difference between a ping time of 100 ms and 100.0000001 ms, LOL. The current natural speed limit in the universe is the speed of light in a vacuum, nothing natural can go faster and the cost to get faster than light speeds is well beyond any Satellite ISP or the home user budget. | |
| | | | |  MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3
1 edit | said by xygor:No, it's not limited by the speed of light. Well, bounded, maybe. It's a radio signal and it's even slower than light. Actually the RF signal in coax is faster then the speed of the laser traveling in the fiber.
Look up "Velocity of Propagation" for coax and fiber.
BTW, both are slower then the speed of light in a vacuum.
--
For official Adelphia support, contact Adelphia. I'm just here for advice... | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | telcos should just run all FTTH and solve the distance problem once and for all.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | damoxPremium
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Well it may not affect you directly, but the more gains that DSL makes, the more likely it is that cable companies will up the ante (and that affects me), and then the more likely it is that DSL will counter with better offerings. So the more competitive things become, the cheaper it will be for us all . . . at least generally speaking.
--
DAMOX Proud to be a member of Team Discovery | |
| | knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | said by 93254336:...and how exactly does this affect me? Both modalities will be generally available for the foreseeable future, so who cares if the ratio of cable vs DSL is 40:60 this year and 60:40 the next. - Dan I second that, as long as the company that does which ever technology does it well, customers will be happy. If one could get 3 Mbps over Satellite regardless of terrible ping times and keep a good connection at a more competitive price, I'm sure a larger percentage would move to Satellite Internet. | |
| |  NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| said by 93254336:...and how exactly does this affect me? Both modalities will be generally available for the foreseeable future, so who cares if the ratio of cable vs DSL is 40:60 this year and 60:40 the next. - Dan It doesn't. Henceforth, all the posts below yours will fall into the "tastes great (DSL is better)/ less filling (cable is better)" pointless statements, debates, and arguements. There is no better broadband technology.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
|
 CPMBroadband, DSL, cable
join:2001-08-24
Brooklyn, NY | Most News Most news don't effect the majority of the people. | |
| | | | Re: Most News said by CPM:Most news don't effect the majority of the people. They don't???
Given the number of readers I have to disagree. | |
| | | CPMBroadband, DSL, cable
join:2001-08-24
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Most News You have the right to be wrong. | |
|
| | The real question is... Who would have the market share if cable AND DSL were available everywhere? I find it very sad that after over 15 years many people still don't have access to DSL even in well populated suburbs. | |
| | | | Re: The real question is... After 15 years? Why did you pick 1991 as the starting point? I, like most people, didn't even know what DSL was till 1998 or so. | |
| | | | | Re: The real question is... I was reading on the net about hows DSL came to life in 1989 | |
| | | | | | Re: The real question is... And fiber optics came to life long before it came out.
DSL as a telecommunication product didn't come out to far later. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Clearwire Wireless
·Comcast
| Re: The real question is... When DSL was first developed in 1989 it was designed primarily for video. ADSL was the flavor of choice because it provides the high downstream rates needed for streaming video. Video on Demand (VOD) was viewed as the next generation service supporting the next generation network from telephone companies around the world. Video on Demand was expected to be the telephone company's way of competing with cable television providers, and ADSL was the technology to make it possible. However, with few exceptions, VOD has not proven to be as popular as was once predicted. Instead, the market for DSL has emerged much differently than was once expected. As it turns out, personal computer users need high-speed access to the Internet and corporate networks from residences and remote offices. Now, this PC user market has captured the attention of both cable TV providers and telephone companies, as both are furiously working to meet their needs. | |
| | | | | | | said by bogey780:And fiber optics came to life long before it came out. DSL as a telecommunication product didn't come out to far later. Fiber would require LOTS of changes (as we see now). I'm all for FTTP. But DSL uses most of the same copper as PTSN. So given it's age and relative ease of deployment DSL "should" be more wide spread. Many places still don't have a DSLAM in their CO or are stuck behind a RT that is also not setup with an RDSLAM. In areas where both DSL and Cable are available I wonder that the ratio is. My guess is that Cable has a greater market share only because the phone companies have fallen asleep and not deployed as much DSL equipment. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The real question is... But you forget about load coils, bridge taps, and other designed features of POTS that kill DSL. | |
|
| | | | |
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | cable has much greater reach, which brings to question why is DSL so range limited. id think by now it could go 20,000-30,000 feet with modern tech.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | | Re: The real question is... Innacurate and bad logic. Cable doesn't have an incredible reach. It just has greater node deployment. The signal still needs to be generated or repeated every so far.
DSL is ranger limiited much the way ethernet is range limited. | |
| | | KompressorPremium
join:2002-02-12
Huntington Beach, CA | While the name Digital Subscriber Line DSL sounds good, it is a horrible technology. | |
| | | | | | Re: The real question is... said by kompressor :
While the name Digital Subscriber Line DSL sounds good, it is a horrible technology.
Neither cable or dsl is better. Both are pretty much evenly matched. | |
| | | | | | Based on your other post on this thread I don't believe you to be familiar in the least with xDSL. | |
|
 Rob AJets AFC ChampionshipPremium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | DSL Will be beating cable in only a short amount of time, priceless. | |
|  OlegBellsouth FastaccessPremium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL | Re: Cable vs. DSL I hate cable,because of down times with DSL I have no down times at all  | |
| | | | Re: Cable vs. DSL said by Oleg:I hate cable,because of down times with DSL I have no down times at all HUH??? you make no sense. because of? wuh???
 | |
| | | OlegBellsouth FastaccessPremium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL | Re: Cable vs. DSL Cable Internet Is down very often this Is why I got DSL. | |
|
 Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | . Who cares? | |
| | | | Re: . I second that!!!
Marckus  | |
|
| | Who Cares? Who Cares... When you don't have a choice between competitors?!? There's no difference between a Local monopoly, and a Global monopoly, for those affected. | |
| duked
join:2000-08-12
Brunswick, ME | dsl vs.cable IMHO. I think it comes down to price.
I can get cable ,3mbs, for about 45 bucks
I get dsl ,3000/768 for 34.95
so I go with dsl. and the cable co. has a
clause, only 2gb download for one month, I don't
think it is enforced however it is there.
just my 2 cents | |
| | KompressorPremium
join:2002-02-12
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: dsl vs.cable Get both and run a speed test and see what you're really getting. If cable says you're getting 3mbps, chances are you're getting 3mbps. But half of the DSL costumers will be lucky to get half that speed, but you'll still have to pay full price.
Another thing to consider with DSL, you'll have to commit to a 1 or 2 year commitment. With cable you can cancel anytime with no penalty, they'll even prorate a partial month. That's because cable usually (not always) doesn't have any major flaws, where DSL does.
DSL, is more prone to block FTP, P2P and VPN ports/traffic. | |
| | | | | Re: dsl vs.cable Have you ever had DSL before, because that sounds like it was copied from your cable company's website.
As someone who's actually had both, I can tell you that if your DSL provider says 3.0Mbps, you'll probably get 2.5, not "half".
And the whole "With DSL you'll be on a 1 or 2-year contract" is just baseless. Some DSL providers do have contracts, but most do not.
Each of the three DSL providers I used prorated my last month of service.
I've had no problems with blocked ports with any of those three DSL providers, and very few (but a few) problems with cable blocking ports.
My cable connection has gone out three or four times since last August when I got it(although admittedly, it came back up within 24 hours each time). With one of the three DSL providers I had, I had service for over four years, and the service went out twice during those four years.
Now admittedly, the cable connection I have is the fastest connection I have had, but I only still have it because when I called Comcast to cancel, Comcast offered me another six months at the intro price. Once that's up, I'll be going back to Qwest. Qwest's 7Mbps DSL is cheaper than Comcast's 6Mbps cable internet, and Qwest's customer service, billing, and tech support was a lot better than Comcast's.
-And just to be clear, I'm not saying that I've been dissatified with Comcast's cable internet, because I haven't. My main complaint with Comcast's cable internet is that it's quite a bit more expensive than what I paid with DSL, and I don't think it's worth the extra cost for Comcast's slightly worse connection and Comcast's poorer customer service. | |
| | | | | | Re: dsl vs.cable said by Kompressor :
Re: dsl vs.cable
Have you ever had DSL before, because that sounds like it was copied from your cable company's website.
As someone who's actually had both, I can tell you that if your DSL provider says 3.0Mbps, you'll probably get 2.5, not "half".
If you cannot makeup your mind which is better
Why not get both?
 | |
|
| |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | said by Kompressor:Get both and run a speed test and see what you're really getting. If cable says you're getting 3mbps, chances are you're getting 3mbps. But half of the DSL costumers will be lucky to get half that speed, but you'll still have to pay full price... Not my experience with Comcast. I was sold 6 MB down, and was only getting about 3MB down. And yes, I checked the signal strength on my cable modem, and the config files, and all that stuff. No matter what I did, I couldn't get more than 3 MB down.
So, I gave DSL a shot. It's a few bucks cheaper. I'm very happy with my Verizon DSL. I'm getting the speeds they promised for a cheaper price that Comcast, and unlike Comcast, it's actually usable on a Sunday morning. Any time I would try and use my Comcast HSI on a Sunday morning, it would crawl along at sub dial up speeds.
Cable would have to do some heavy handed shrewed marketing to me to get me to come back... | |
|
 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
1 edit | Well, if Pew internet says it's so... It MUST be so!
Who are these people and how do they and The Leichtman Research Group suddenly become authoritative figures on who has what kind of connection?
What the numbers do tell you is that with such a wide discrepancy between their two results, that it's doubtful that anyone really knows for sure.
I think the numbers also tell you that when you apply a reasonable margin for error, that it's any ones game.
Personally, with DSL's pricing and promotion schemes of the last year or so, I would have expected them to BLOW away the cable competition if in fact, they really had anything that worthwhile to compete with.
I mean, who here hasn't been enticed with..12.99 a month...come on down and get it, cause the price is right?
With THAT kind of aggressive promotion, these numbers should be blow away..in favor of DSL..no questions asked..80% have dsl..20% have cable.
But, they AREN'T that at all, and whomever's numbers you care to believe, the difference represents just a few percentage points either way.
I think that tells the real story here and that cable, despite it's generally higher cost, has many people staying with it and believing apparently that it's the better way to go.
This is NOT to knock DSL and those who have it. Many people have great connections and service and are happy with it. But yet cables speeds..no contracts..relative ease of getting connected..all have real value to consumers..and they're willing to pay for it.
~RRR | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
kd6caeP2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Palmdale, CA Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| cable offers faster speeds I've had decent experiences on both cable and DSL.
when I lived fairly close to a central office I could get about 5.7mbps down and the max offered 768kbps upload. When I was on Adelphia cable, I could get around 6.6mbps throughput download and a decent 865kbps throughput on upload. When on Cox cable briefly, I was able to experience max download rates of around 9.3mbps or around 1300 kilobytes per second, and uploads or around 1.04mbps or around 124 kilobytes per second. That was sweet.
However now that I've moved to Riverside, I'm on Charter cable, and it truly sucks. Despite the fact cable technology can easily do 10mbps/1mbps, Charter still only offers a max tier of 3.0/256! I back up files to a server off site, and at 256k, it takes me now 7 hours to upload around 700 megs of data. So to get better upload I'll soon be going to dsl, where my upstream can be increased by 3 times at least.
I want decent upstream and downstream, and charter certainly doesn't offer decent upload at all! why won't T1 lines or the like come down in price so those of us wanting to upload as well as download can do so? enough with the crap upload speeds. Even 6mbps is decent, but give us decent upstream already! I don't care if it's cable or DSL, or a couple of bonded t1's, but let us upload if we want. | |
| mpeirce
join:2002-03-22
Lewis Center, OH | I have both. It's a mixed bag. The two services are roughly equivalent. Cable edges out DSL in download speed (2650 kbps vs 2500 bps) but in practice you really can't tell the difference. Upload speed is a different matter. DSL is roughly twice as fast as cable in our area (675 kbps vs 345 kbps). This really makes a difference when uploading big files like, say, Keynote presentations or audio files from school board meetings.
DSL is from Verizon (ex-GTE territory) and cable is Insight-Roadrunner.
I wrote this up back in march:
»homepage.mac.com/mpeirce/iblog/C···dex.html | |
| | | Matter I dont think that this matters. | |
| nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA | DSL faster? Yeah right! RCN Cable (20/2) kicks DSL ass - this screenshot using a famous DSL providers speedtester broke its needle off!
| |
| | | | Re: DSL faster? Dam!! nozzer, that's speeed... nice When cable works right it's fast | |
| | MaggsPremium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY | It's like an all you can eat buffet with RCN cable. If you use 20/2 constantly you get a termination letter.
--
When the lights go out, just draw a KMAP, and all is good. | |
| | | nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA | Re: DSL faster? Has this really happened to anyone? I've seen nothing on the RCN forum (and I'd expect anyone it did happen to, to make one hell of a noise) | |
|
| | who exactly cares? And who actually cares if DSL has more of the market share than cable? | |
| | | | Re: who exactly cares? Well exactly I might be going with speakeasy pretty soon because I need a static IP | |
|
| |
|
|
