is there any real need for cable powered internet at home?

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2006-01-11 01:11am

as i said in my previous post, i lost cable internet, i had to switch to DSL. I am on DSL now and there is no difference in download speed compared to Cable. DSL is 2 MBpS and Cable is 10MBpS. I don't really see any need to have so much speed to just do little like downloading music and playing videos. I think it is simply paying too much for too little a increase in speed.

DesertFly · Post by **DesertFly** » 2006-01-11 01:47am

I personally switched from cable to dsl and haven't noticed any difference. Realistically, though, you should just go for what works for you. If dsl is meeting your needs and is cheaper, then keep it.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-01-11 01:54am

Dennis Toy wrote:as i said in my previous post, i lost cable internet, i had to switch to DSL. I am on DSL now and there is no difference in download speed compared to Cable. DSL is 2 MBpS and Cable is 10MBpS. I don't really see any need to have so much speed to just do little like downloading music and playing videos. I think it is simply paying too much for too little a increase in speed.

It fills a niche, certainly. Of course, it also encourages bloat and pork on more and more websites, which will eventually create more of a need for high-bandwidth home connections. Though it certainly is overpriced when compared to DSL, especially for the needs of most people.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2006-01-11 02:04am

The real problem with cable is that most websites do not support speeds for home users that are greater than those provided by DSL, so on most websites there really is no difference between cable and DSL.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2006-01-11 02:07am

Strange dsl you guys have.

My dsl is 12/8Mbit/s and the fastest cable that I can get is 10/0.5Mbit/s

ANd the cost? Exactly the same.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-01-11 02:28am

Yeah, but the phone infrastructure's pretty shitty in a lot of places in America; Verizon's deploying fiber-optic service maybe ten miles away while my DSL connection is only 3M/768K.

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-01-11 07:14am

The cable/dsl split is rather artificial. As long as it has a basic decent speed its all broadband and the implementation and pricing really depends on your local company then the underlying tech and as such you should choose what is best for you depending on local conditions and availability rather then some sort of global "cable is better then dsl" or the other way around. Not to mention that soon(ish) new techs like WiMax (the precursor of which in terms of commercial exploitation, EGDE GSM PCMCIA/USB cards, are probably available from your cell company right now, however its likely more expensive then a wired solution), internet over electrical lines and others will be available that will make the cable/dsl distinction even more artificial.

Here, there is a rough parity between cable and dsl with the diffrence being that cable actualy tops out at a lower speed (and also allows for a lower starting speed package) but it doesn't charge for traffic (and there is a slight chance of getting faster then advertised speed if your neighbours are nice) while DSL charges for traffic unless you buy a package which allows for unlimited "free" traffic but it tops out at higher speeds. At the same speed (for example 0.5mbit down) with the "free" traffic package for DSL the price is essentialy the same.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-11 07:59am

My ADSL works at 2.3 Mbps down and about half that up. It operates as fast as my old 10 Mbps connection at uni, I honestly don't see why I'd need to upgrade to, say, 8 Mbps which has gotten dirt cheap here now.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2006-01-11 08:46am

mmar wrote:Not to mention that soon(ish) new techs like WiMax (the precursor of which in terms of commercial exploitation, EGDE GSM PCMCIA/USB cards, are probably available from your cell company right now, however its likely more expensive then a wired solution), internet over electrical lines and others will be available that will make the cable/dsl distinction even more artificial.

I doubt EDGE will be used widely, especially with all the providers sitting on their expensive UMTS licenses. Why use something that's built on GSM, when that tech is on its slow way out?

As for High-speed DSL (10+ MBit): The current desired idea is the "triple play" to offer high-speed internet, phone, and TV from one hand through DSL (ADSL2 is the current name for it IIRC). For that, they need the higher bandwidth. If users will jump on that waggon is still open...

As for here in Germany: For most parts, DSL is the only option for high.speed internet. Cable isn't very widespread here. I currently pay ~50 Euros for my ISDN + DSL connection, including flat-rate for DSL.

Ypoknons · Post by **Ypoknons** » 2006-01-11 08:51am

In Hong Kong cable access is shared throughout the building, so your 10Mbps sort of trickles in these 47-floor apartment complexes.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2006-01-11 09:40am

Adsl is the only option for highspeed home net connections in Australia. Beyond for rare locations, you simply cant get cable

I've got a connection with a guarantied minimum of 1.5kbps down and 256kbps up and upto 24mbit down/1 mbit up. I get 6-7mbps down and 1 mbps up. Utterly no restrictions on usage (I can and do host servers), and upload is unmetred and unlimited.

My ISP (iinet, 3rd largest in Australia), does not sell deals based on line speed, but on how you you download (quota system).

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-01-11 10:31am

Dahak wrote:I doubt EDGE will be used widely, especially with all the providers sitting on their expensive UMTS licenses. Why use something that's built on GSM, when that tech is on its slow way out?

I was mentioning it as something thats available now for broadband (well, lower end broadband anyway) and is not cable or dsl (plus, from a user perspective, it functions in the same way as WiMax will). I know the prices are insane, especialy if you go over your prebought traffic and that it is something of a stopgap tech which will never get popularity outside the proffesional who needs net acsess on the road (the only person I know that uses it is a engineer on highway construction sites so he is often at locations that barely have a phone, let alone internet acsess - luckily, cell coverage is nearly-universal, and for web-surfing and checking e-mails its actualy not that bad in either price or speed from what he tells me).

Lost Soal · Post by **Lost Soal** » 2006-01-11 11:28am

So whats mostly used in north Korea, where according to the Gadget show a connection speed of 100Mb/s is the norm?

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2006-01-11 11:41am

Lost Soal wrote:So whats mostly used in north Korea, where according to the Gadget show a connection speed of 100Mb/s is the norm?

North Korea? I doubt that the have electricity, much less Internet

Kim o sung land is not big on things that allows them contact to the outside.

Lost Soal · Post by **Lost Soal** » 2006-01-11 11:44am

OK, may have been south Korea

It was deffinately something Korea, home of LG.

Ypoknons · Post by **Ypoknons** » 2006-01-11 11:59am

Oh definately South Korea. Their internet speeds are insane. But goodness, thankfully no Koreans were to hear that blooper! Koreans if you watch the news you'll see that Koreans are good fighters; history and geography are great classes to take.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2006-01-11 12:34pm

I have cable, and I employ the ten megabit speed whenever I get on a good torrent, or when I'm downloading Linux ISOs or something huge like that. For normal browsing, though, I rarely notice the difference.

Tokaji Kyoden · Post by **Tokaji Kyoden** » 2006-01-11 12:49pm

I use cable, but more because we only have one phone line, and that it's really handy when I'm uploading larger video or animation files to my website.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-01-11 12:59pm

I use cable both because it was available first and I also get phone and CATV from them as well.
Plus if my Uncle's experience is anything to go by, DSL (provided by SBC) sucks locally as speedguide tests show it consistently to have less than half the download speeds I get with my cable connection.
The only good thing about his DSL is that it comes with 10 free email subaccounts and each subaccount gets free nationwide dialup.
When I built his PC, he let me have a subaccount w/dialup.
It's backup for the times my cable goes out and for traveling with my laptop.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-01-11 01:02pm

The cable infrastructure in the US is pretty vast, and a great many people have cable already, so the question is "Do I get the phone + internet" or the "Cable TV + internet", of course nowadays cable companies are offering VoIP, which lets the cable company offer "Cable Tv + Phone + Internet", the service which I recently got for my appartment. Cable is certainly still viable, and really, it depends on your area. Some places DSL is slower than cable, or vis versa. Some locations have 1 and not the other, and for the rest, who could get both, well... it's healthy competition, which is good for everyone.

BloodAngel · Post by **BloodAngel** » 2006-01-11 01:08pm

I don't even get these superfast speeds on Cable OR DSL anyway, so there's really no big difference. In fact, in the history of my cablemodem experiences, the highest it's gone has been 1.x Mbps, nothing larger.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2006-01-11 01:15pm

BloodAngel wrote:I don't even get these superfast speeds on Cable OR DSL anyway, so there's really no big difference. In fact, in the history of my cablemodem experiences, the highest it's gone has been 1.x Mbps, nothing larger.

Is that because thats all your paying the cable company for are you paying for something faster?

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2006-01-11 01:17pm

mmar wrote:
Dahak wrote:I doubt EDGE will be used widely, especially with all the providers sitting on their expensive UMTS licenses. Why use something that's built on GSM, when that tech is on its slow way out?
I was mentioning it as something thats available now for broadband (well, lower end broadband anyway) and is not cable or dsl (plus, from a user perspective, it functions in the same way as WiMax will).

Well, so is UMTS, and it'll be there after GSM and thus EDGE will have been shown off the stage...

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-01-11 01:30pm

Zac Naloen wrote:
BloodAngel wrote:I don't even get these superfast speeds on Cable OR DSL anyway, so there's really no big difference. In fact, in the history of my cablemodem experiences, the highest it's gone has been 1.x Mbps, nothing larger.
Is that because thats all your paying the cable company for are you paying for something faster?

IIRC, the bandwidth for a cable modem is split between all users on a node which means the more users on at any one time, the slower the speeds for each individual user.
This could be what's causing BloodAngel's slow speeds.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-01-11 01:58pm

Glocksman wrote:IIRC, the bandwidth for a cable modem is split between all users on a node which means the more users on at any one time, the slower the speeds for each individual user.
This could be what's causing BloodAngel's slow speeds.

Well if everyone on your node is trying to download shit, things will definatly be slower than if everyone else on the node is just web browsing or playing games.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

is there any real need for cable powered internet at home?

is there any real need for cable powered internet at home?

Re: is there any real need for cable powered internet at hom