[SOLVED] Network-related Question

[submix8c]

I have RoadRunner Cable.

AT&T has been trying to convince me that DSL is better both Download and Upload. AFAIK there is no advantage one over the other in this respect (I may be wrong). A "salesman" is telling me that with DSL I will have a "dedicated line" so "I won't be sharing my line as with cable". This doesn't sound right to me. Isn't DSL based upon the "band" (e.g. frequency) that I would be assigned?

I would simply like to have some basic information to rationally discuss pros/cons with the "salesman" when he calls back (grrr!).

Yes, I know I could dig into this on my own (undoubtedly all info is on MSFN), but I kind of want a quick down-and dirty explanation that any "id***" (e.g. salesman) would understand.

SpeedTest says 6780k/453k - thought that was good??? Doubtful AT&T is better.

Not intended for a full-blown discussion, if you please.

Thanks, all.

...and I browsed here and got a little basic info -

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=88661

EDIT -

OK, guy's I haven't been bothered again. And thanks for the info. By browsing around in above topic, it's obvious that they were just trying to suck me in. Phone lines are lousy around here, anyhow (electro-interference).

Edited March 10, 2009 by submix8c

[CoffeeFiend]

AT&T has been trying to convince me that DSL is better both Download and Upload.

A true salesman at work

with DSL I will have a "dedicated line" so "I won't be sharing my line as with cable".

That's what I'd call a half-truth. The only "dedicated" part when it comes to DSL, it from your house to the CO or RDSLAM. Then you're back on the same congested/very oversold network as anyone else.

As for cable internet (DOCSIS), only the upstream channel is shared, so if it's too oversold in your immediate area (or lots of neighbors who upload lots), then it might be slower in that particular direction than DSL (depending on the actual DSL speeds, network congestion, line quality, etc). Download speeds are unaffected (not shared i.e. "dedicated" the same way -- no one else uses your channel, then it goes back to another oversold network too).

Either ways, lots of them advertise very high speeds/claim higher speeds, then they end up throttling your downloads, or offering very fast speeds along with low bandwidth caps... There's no way to tell for sure which one is faster, short of trying both. I never dealt with either ISP as I don't live in the USA.

Here, I can get 20Mbit or more using cable (they have a 50Mbit plan, not sure if I can get it -- too pricey anyways), and the top speed offered on DSL is 512kbps... Easy choice to make.

[gamehead200]

[ Moved. ]

[submix8c]

Thanks for the move gamehead2000 (wasn't sure?)

and...

Thanks for the response, Coffeefiend. I had suspected/figured as much re. your explanation and figured the "sales pitch" was over after said salesman stated "I'll talk to my supervisor and ask" then never called back (heh heh). Guess I must have shut them down when I gave half-correct arguments and told him I was "a geek" (not entirely true).

Case closed. Except... how do I change the Title to "Solved" so no one else will bother. A simple P.M. will do....

(p.s. up/down speed is better or equivalent to AT&T ennyhoo, beside the phone lines stink around here - InTerFerEnce!)

[Tripredacus]

Having experienced both industries, here is my 2 cents:

- Cable has a higher maximum speed than DSL

- DSL has a higher average speed than Cable

- While Cable's download speed may be the only thing that is "shared" via the DOCSIS standard, QoS standards employed at the gateways (1st hop) will always scale back that download speed if the upload speed reaches a certain level.

- Cable companies are trying to move beyond their means in areas with Fiber competition. Most issues are because the lines on the poles (or underground) are not likely anywhere near new. For example, the cable company in my area does not go around and update the lines. Lines are only replaced if they go down. Unlike their proclamation that they are "high-speed fiber networks" it isn't the entire truth. Only areas serviced by corporate customers (like in downtown of cities or large business districts) are laid out with the FTTH equipment that their commercials state. You would know if they ran fiber because they dig up the streets all over the place. I remember when they put it into my city, but they did not replace the residential lines off their head-ends. So in most areas like the suburbs or residential areas, the lines are still 20+ years old. And also a lot of equipment still follows DOCSIS 1.1 standard, maximum 56MBps share per node. Cable companies are pressured to provide more HD channels onto their network from companies with less limitation, such as satellite or Fiber Optic only (AT&T and Verizon) options. Areas with older equipment won't be able to handle the full HD spectrum and large amounts of internet activity. Its frankly too expensive. And lets not forget, cable is highly succeptable to interference. If your TV signal is not perfect, your internet speed will be slower. And if you opt for their VOIP options, if you lose your TV you lose your phone. Most people have cell phones now so its not a big issue.

I use my internet at home and I need to upload files because I am a web developer. So I use DSL because their QoS won't downgrade the upload speed, and the higher average speed means that a queue of files will finish faster than if I was on cable.

I have been convinced that Cable is the last place guys now. Their equipment is too expensive to sustain as compared to other telecoms.

So bottom line, if you are in a residential area, stick with DSL. If you are getting a corporate account, Cable should be fine.

[CoffeeFiend]

- DSL has a higher average speed than Cable

That mostly depends on the particular ISPs you've tried. I always get the speeds they claim to provide (using cable), any time I try it. That's been true for every cable ISP I've been with (cogeco, eastlink & videotron). While every DSL I've seen had issues (where mostly they had to reduce the speed to very low levels to work out sync issues, change lines and all). Perhaps your local ISP's line qualities are the other way around (good phone lines & short distances for DSL, crappy old coax), but as far as I've seen it's very much the inverse... DSL is barely usable (again, 512kbps tops, yuck), when even available. Nevermind all the heavy PPPoE/ATM overhead, and the usual really crappy USB-only modems they tend to use (with really crappy firmwares too)

Again, it comes down to which ISPs, local line quality and everything...

[Access Denied]

I've had both over the last year. Both are 6Mbit and both were 768 upstream. They both have about the same speed up and down. The DSL is snappier loading pages.

[CoffeeFiend]

The DSL is snappier loading pages.

Which mostly is a question of network latency, which isn't really a DSL vs cable thing, just a matter of network design, amount of hops, etc. But yeah, both can be good or bad, depending on which specific ISPs, local line conditions, etc.

[cluberti]

Also, upload speed on DSL would only be faster if you purchase something with faster upload speeds. Most DSL companies sell you ADSL packages, which mean the upstream is almost always at or lower than what you could get from your cable provider (1.5Mb down/256k up is pretty common for ADSL, at least in my area, which is slower than my 10Mb/1Mb cable package).

I've also found that my VPN to work is actually more reliable since I moved to cable than the DSL provider here, which also goes to the quality of the provider's network. If you're happy with your cable, don't switch.

[Tripredacus]

I must admit that my cable experience does come from the knowledge of how 1 company operates, and their sibling companies. So it could be true that other companies or areas are different.