Cable here is Comcast and I pay 50 dollars for 8mbs down 356kb up. If I were to get DSL I'd have to pay for a land line which is about 30 raw, meaning thats just the phone and taxes. Then I'd have to pay another 34 for 3mb dsl and either addon to the line for LD/international or get VoIP which is another 20....so, it's just no financially smart here.
I can't WAIT for FiOS....that's if it ever gets off the ground. I play WoW and my connection WAS perfect but I moved (same city) and now my connection has gone to sh(t....comcast is saying they don't support online games so tough cookie, "as long as you can view web pages and download data sir, we can't really help you". So yeah...*whistles* comere' fios, comere' boyyy....

I've got Qwest's 1.5 meg DSL plan at my house, and all I can say is thank you Qwest, for allocating so much bandwidth to the upload portion of the frequency spectrum on our lines. My 85 KB/sec upload lets me send files faster than any person in town with cable (cable in the nearby city tops out at 45-55 KB/sec upload). We pay for 1.5Mb/sec, and are averaging at 135KB/sec down, which is pretty good considering we're nearly 5 miles from the CO (and I have no idea what the lines are like or how they're done since they're all buried). Living in Idaho and still waiting for word on when Verizon will bring FiOS here (yes, I checked Verizon's expansion plans, and my state is in the list of states not yet wired that should be wired by '09 from what I've heard). Shame that the big companies like Cox, Comcast, and Charter aren't around here (yet) to challenge CableOne's monopoly, since no one has a choice in cable here. But satellite, DSL, and local wireless companies give choice in TV and general internet availability, so cable doesn't matter too much here.

DSL - Must pay for analog line which I don't use. Cost $31 in my area to have a basic land line, with no white pages, or information listing. Add the fastest DSL, which is way slower than cable, it costs me 60 a month. The same as cable, but way slower. Why waste your money on two lines. When the power goes out in my area, most of the time, so does the land line, even with a land line non-cordless powered phone. I get no dial tone, so I just stick with a cell, and it works out great. I am assuming they are using some type of powered amplifier to get the phone signal to my house, so when the power goes out, so does the line, but then again I know nothing about land line technology.

I hope SDSL2 and SDSL3 at 25/25 and 50/50 Mbps symmetric speeds will become the standard by 2008 replacing the older asymmetric xDSL connections.

I have been working for the cable industry for awhile now and am not surprised. Although we offer "higher speeds" then our DSL competitors it really never pans out. I house has all new wiring, a new drop running to it, and the line extenders and noe have been "optimized" My 3 meg service never is three meg, and never will be. It peeks at 2.4 and mostly runns around 1.8meg.... I used dsl before comming to work for the Cable company and always pushed every bit of 1.5 meg which is exactly what I was paying for.

Wow! I don't buy it. Things will really have to change for this prediction to come true.I live in a Verizon area and they have done NOTHING to make this come to pass. All Verizon does is complain, insult their customers, and lobby Congress against net neutrality. Meanwhile, they don't have the infrastructure to deliver anything to many homes in a large metro area. I've been listening to Verizon BS for so long, I finally got them out of my house and switched mobile services, too.

"All Verizon does is complain, insult their customers, and lobby Congress against net neutralit"

LOL oh really...that's ALL they do?

"Meanwhile, they don't have the infrastructure to deliver anything to many homes in a large metro area"

LOL that's even better...verizon (one of MANY DSL providers) doesn't have the infrastructure...in large metro areas?? What large metro area are you in...arizona? We already got FIOS here in the NJ/NY area...

Baltimore/D.C. and we got nothin' but marginal speeds and bad service.

Congrats on your wonderful experience, but it doesn't change my opinion.

Who are all these people ordering DSL, AOLers?

What a shame. DSL is broken technology. There is absolutely no way that performance can be guaranteed and the further you get from the DSLAM, the worse performance gets - and quickly. Note that DSL providers claim that you can get "up to" such-and-such a speed - they dare not claim thjat those speeds are uniformly available across the board.

Thanks but I'll stick to cable - more uniform speeds (unless you live in an apartment building where the management cheaped out and put all ten floors on ONE pipe). I get consistent 6Mbit (measurable using DUMeter) while the poor unfortunates in my neighbourhood using DSL get a mere 1.5MBit even though their provider claims 5Mbit in this area.

And yes, my online habits (and those of the drivers of the other four workstations in my household) do require 6Mbit.

Fortnately, Cable won't be usurped by DSL in my part of the world any time soon and there's another speed war brewing.

Yo Tito! Back up the truck! We're backing up the Internet again tonite!. :) :) ;)

Hmm, and the TOS lets you run any servers you want, etc...?

I'll take my freedom over higher speed. All your arguments about the tech being flawed are pretty much sweeping generalizations.

There are plenty of range extending technologies that are implemented all over the place and they've existed and have been trialed for a long time in the frame relay market. Frame relay is actually quite similar to how dsl works and works at speeds *far* in excess of you 6MB pipe over copper. Oh yea, most DSL products can be ordered with a CIR for business use situations so saying that speed can't be guaranteed is outright false. All cable ISP's basic internet service is similarly offered with no guarantee of speed or performance and you have to pay more for that guarantee.

Cable does tend to be faster for general web surfing and such but when you consider the onnerous bandwidth capping or outright blocking of certain protocols that goes on at many cable ISPs I would find it hard to recomend to anyone except a casual web user.

No it doesn't and I don't care - we leech; we don't run servers.

I can pull down a DVD ISO in an hour and a half. Try that with DSL. In the words of the old battery commercial:

"Go on - I dare ya".

As to bandwidth caps, I exceed them regularly and never look back. no one blinks.

Xabious,

you are trying to explain the technology of Cable as it gets propagated to the world via DOCSIS to each household. Rather than explain this little feature to EVERY person, still won't explain the different between DSL / Cable.

I was simply trying to educate people by comparing the 2 technologies on EQUAL terms.

What you said has merit, and a LOT of technical explanation, like trying to explain the 4 processes that happens when a 4 stroke engines does on each RPM, its only relevant to a group of engine junkies. It doesn't explain why 87 octane isn't any more useful than 91 octane does it?

They don't want the technical details behind how the engine works, they want to simply know if paying the extra 20 cents is worth it, capiche?

The majority of the market doesnt need 6-10mbps download to do what they need on the internet. These general internet users can well do without the 6-10mbps in favor of a cheaper 768kbps always-on-and-faster-than-dialup service from verizon.

At that point it comes down to price.
And DSL wins in a landslide.

1) a lot of users looking for broadband either dont have CableTV or dont want CableTV. Cable internet without TV service, through Comcast at least, bumps the price up to $55 a month. To get the $45 price you have to pay for the $50/month Digital Cable package from Comcast as they dont offer basic cable anymore.
2) Even if you have Cable TV, its $45 for cable vs $35 for DSL...and probably lower if you dont want a lot of speed.

In the case of gamers, downloaders, web designers, sure, the download speeds will count, but with FIOS coming around DSL will not be left behind like it is right now in comparison to Cable. Distance from the Telephone Company will not matter anymore.

If Cable does not start lowering their prices they are in for some serious troubles.

"Cable companies have long said that the value and speed of cable Internet justify the higher price, which in some cases is two or three times more than a competing DSL offering in an area."
This wont be the case when FIOS becomes widespread.

*1) a lot of users looking for broadband either dont have CableTV or dont want CableTV. Cable internet without TV service, through Comcast at least, bumps the price up to $55 a month. To get the $45 price you have to pay for the $50/month Digital Cable package from Comcast as they dont offer basic cable anymore.
2) Even if you have Cable TV, its $45 for cable vs $35 for DSL...and probably lower if you dont want a lot of speed.*

Cable charges 45 bucks. DSL charges 35 *PLUS* the price of Analog line, because you can't have DSL without analog service, which means ANOTHER 20 bucks. so right there, that is $55.00. Care to try again?

*2) Even if you have Cable TV, its $45 for cable vs $35 for DSL...and probably lower if you dont want a lot of speed.*

That may be true, but the prices fluctuate BASED on speed and availability. I have seen prices as low as $15.00 (+20.00 for analog) to get DSL, but read the fine print, that's like really slow, like 256-512 download range. I don't know about you, but that is too slow.

Everyone complains about how slow and expensive cable is.. but do a ACROSS the BOARD comparison, not DSL/Cable speed test.

DSL Must include prices for an analog line which ADDS 20 dollars to the price of EVERY DSL installation...

"DSL Must include prices for an analog line which ADDS 20 dollars to the price of EVERY DSL installation..."

Hm...what percentage of households don't have an analog line? What percentage of households don't have an analog line AND want broadband? VoIP for people who refuse to have an anlog line...well FIOS will take care of that...

Come to think of it...I just don't know ANYBODY who has NO analog line in their house...I'm sure they're out there somewhere...but again...what percentage of the population is that?

I was gonna say...

Seriously, everybody I know has an analog line.
Other than new home owners signing up for new phoneline service, I really dont know who doesnt have analog phone service.

Analog phone is like a staple in houses nowadays. So saying you need to pay an extra $20 for analog phone may be true, but who DOESNT already pay that charge, rijp?

Dont get me wrong, I am a Comcast user, and I love my service since DSL sucks in my area, but I hate paying $45/month + $50/month for Internet and TV when I can pay $35 + $20 for DSL, assuming you figure in analog phone. I think in some cases that "$20" charge can be as low as $10 for just a basic local plan anyways.

I can compare them for you if you want...In my case its Comcast vs. Verizon:

E-Mail addresses: 7 from Comcast, 9 from Verizon

Homepage: 25MB from Comcast, 10MB from Verizon

Usenet: Verizon - Unlimited/month, Comcast - 2GB/month.

Download speed: 6mbps (Comcast) vs 768kbps (Verizon)

Upload speed: 384kbps (Comcast) vs 128kbps (Verizon)

Price (for new subscribers): 3 months at $19.99 then recurring price of $42.99 thereafter (Comcast) vs 1 year of $14.95 with first month free (Verizon).

Other stuff:
Comcast comes with 1 free year of McAfree security suite.
Verizon gives you access to ESPN360 and a some other exclusive web content you wont find on Comcast.

The main comparison is the download speed area. 16KBps vs 48KBps really won't make a different when watching videos, browsing the web, playing games, etc. It will make a difference with P2P, but lets talk about the general user who is concerned with LEGALITY.
6mbps vs 768kbps...it all depends on what kind of user you are. For my aunt, 768kbps is fine. Browse the web, e-mail, etc. For me 768kbps is not enough...I do a lot of big downloads like service packs and all that crap.

The majority of America arent like you and me who need major speeds, and will really enjoy the net at $15 at 768kbps.
And when FIOS comes around, think about what that $15 service will become.

If $15 currently gives you 768kbps/128kbps while $35 gives you 3.0mbps/768kbps, and the FIOS' $35 package gives you 5mbps/2mbps, then, mathematically, the $15 FIOS package would give you 1.25mbps/~384kbps assuming they have it. Thats not terrible for a $15 package.

@Tokar
"If Cable does not start lowering their prices they are in for some serious troubles."

No, actually, the cable companies will *continue (meaning it is already happening) to buy out the owners of DSL. And there will NOT be any pricedrops regardless of what the consumer chooses.

Sorry, we now live in a corporate communism country (those of us in the States)... we all lose.

"If $15 currently gives you 768kbps/128kbps while $35 gives you 3.0mbps/768kbps, and the FIOS' $35 package gives you 5mbps/2mbps, then, mathematically, the $15 FIOS package would give you 1.25mbps/~384kbps assuming they have it. Thats not terrible for a $15 package."

You don't know how much I wish you were right.
But you're not, and it sucks, and gas prices will keep going up along with cell phone service prices and internet prices and housing prices and..

RIJP: You don't know what you are talking about.

I have comcast basic cable. A quick visit to: http://www.comcast.com/B...tails/Slot99PageOne.asp and you too can see that basic cable is still available.

In addition, I pay $65 for a full 8Mbit line and basic cable. In addition I consistantly pull right at 1MB per second through my web-browser. Yes, that is right, I pull a FULL 8Mbit. I originally had 6Mb for $55 (after taxes), but I wanted the additional 2Mb for the $10 more per month (inclues a greater upload speed).

I use this connection to rsync my home computers to a remote location for backup purposes.

At this point, the only way I would switch is if I could get some glass Fiber to the house and do away with all the copper (I hate lightning).

He's not wrong:

A 2mbps to 5mbps Fios connection will cost $35 a month if purchased along with Verizon's local and long-distance telephone service. The service will cost $40 if purchased alone. A connection of up to 15mbps is available for $45 a month if purchased as part of the same telephone service bundle, or $50 alone. The company did not reveal pricing for the 30mbps plans.

And how long does your innocent naivete allow you to believe that pricing structure will remain in place??? Yeah, 'bout that long.

I built a brand new house last year and didn't even connect the house to Verizon's box at the back of the lot. No analog service here. I wired the house with copper and jacks in the house, but more for future owners then me.

I hate Verizon. Every department from Wireless to DSL and everything in between. I would rather not have a phone then give money to Verizon.

LOL I love it. When proven wrong..."well, well...it won't last forever, yea!!"

That's classic :)

Congrats on your new house.

Now answer my question...percentage of population in the US with no analog service in their home WHATSOEVER?? I bet it's low enough that nobody really cares.

spongy-poo:

I know that $35 and $45 monthly plans exist currently in FIOS. Its a widely known fact.
There is a $35/month Normal DSL package...so that matches up.

As you know there is a $15 normal DSL package...I just did a mathematical comparison to obtain theoretical numbers for a possible $15 FIOS package. You are right that there is no known evidence that such a tier would exist in FIOS, but nothing says Verizon wouldn't create one seeing as how they made a $15 tier in normal DSL.

My bad...

I just checked my area and Im still able to get basic cable. My SISTER on the other hand, who lives in Boston, did not have this option. The mimium she could get was a basic Digital Cable package.

By "Basic" cable are you talking about like...local channels + TBS over normal splittable coax?
I ask because I pay near $100 for a 6mbps connection and a splittable-coax normal cable TV package (80 channels or so). I dont exactly see how you can pay $65 total unless your cable TV service is the one I mentioned above (local TV + TBS or so).

DSL usually has better upstream rates than Cable, but lower downstream rates. Personally, as long as my downstream is decent(> 2mbit), I prefer high upstream for hosting games.

really? Show me proof of this. As speeds for download limits increase, so does the upstream.

There is SDSL which allows the same upstream and downstream, but in general ADSL has the same limitations at the same speed as does cable.

The reason they even limit upstream in the first place, is because you are encroaching on speed limits of T1. If they allowed you 1.544 upstream, then business customers would simply swtich to simple DSL and drop their T1, otherwise why pay 1000 a month for 1.544 up/down when 50 bucks a month would suffice?

I realize T1 is guaranteed speed, but most companies would simply take their chances with slower or rolling blackouts with ADSL than pay 900+ more a month..

THAT's why you won't see much over 768 up.. plus, that would encourage you to do what you just said you would do..host games and websites.. they want you to PAY for hosting services, not use their ADSL to do it.

Well, someone below with Cable just claimed to get 22000kbit downstream, and 1250kbit upstream. Compare that to Verizon FIOS(15mbit down, 2mbit up), and it proves my point.

Locally we have Telus ADSL and Shaw Cable. Telus provides 2.5/640kbit ADSL. Shaw provides 5.0/640kbit Cable(but more expensive). The speed usually caps at around 380kb/sec down, 55kb/sec up for them. Telus gives me 260kb/sec down, 62kb/sec up, and is a bit cheaper.

Since I don't really need the downstream, I'd rather have the extra 7kb/sec up, and save a few dollars/mo.

Oh, and technically nobody is allowed to host personal or business websites on these hosting plans....or that was the case last time I checked. I agree on the T1 aspect; it's horribly overpriced, but guarenteed. I still can't wait for more upstream though!

*Compare that to Verizon FIOS(15mbit down, 2mbit up), and it proves my point.*

That is Fiber Optic, not ADSL, first of all.

Secondly it proves my point, as the download speed increases, so does the upstream speed.

But thanks for posting this. I agree, more upstream would be helpful, just don't count on it getting much better...

The price of a T1 is much more about service than price (and it's a lot lower than a grand a month nowadays). When you have a T1 and something happens you call an 800 number and someone who's fairly compentent answers, no being on hold, no BS. With DSL or other consumer grade networking you get several layers of confusing and unhelpful phone trees followed by being on hold for usually a long time and then the opportunity to speak with a moron who doesn't know how to fix your problem.

The T1 frame cloud is also usually not oversold as much as the cheap products so the speed tends to be consistent and latency much better.

The up speed really has nothing technically to do with the download speed. It just happens that most providers choose to raise both speeds when you pay more. If you look at the Yahoo/SBC offering you will note some higher end offerings where the upload rate stays the same while the download rate gets faster.

With the Redback DSL concentrator, which is what most telcos use to terminate aDSL lines here in the US, the cap on the upload and download speed are two seperate and totaly independant configuration points.

I believe the absolute, non-capped limit for normal aDSL if you're within about 1200-1500 feet of the CO is somewhere around 2MB up and 6MB down. It all has to do with how much you pay and how far away. :)

Agreed, I pay about $500 per month for each of the 3 T1s I have at my office before quanity discounts.

A T1 is all about the service behind the service..:)

yeah, i have comcast and i pay $55/mo for basic cable and 6Mbps/768Kbs and i get closer to 8Mbps/2Mbps, but i live in the middle of the woods, but strangly enough about 1000ft from a switching center "as the crow flies", or closer to 2000ft if you take the winding road down there, i admit this is probably really rare, but more to the point the two services are close to equal when it comes down to being awesome in some areas and absolute crap in others. which i think makes them about equal to each other over the united states.

DSL is better out here but that isn't to say DSL is overall better in cable.There isn't a clear winner servicewise becuase it all depends on the company providing it.both tecknologies have there pro's and cons though.

It is possible to get DSL service with out voice the products are completely different even though they run on the same line. It is up to the carrier if it is offered or not. It can be called "Dark DSL"

I live in IL and Verizon told me I couldn't get DSL without Voice Service. I called 3 times and spoke to 3 different reps the last time asking for a manager and all said the same thing.

I wasn't planning to get DSL 100% as I prefer Cable, however since it was a brand new house I wanted to what special rates they were offering "new" customers.

Since Verizon said no DSL without voice, I opted not to have Verizon run their lines from the hub to my house. Oh well, less money I have to pay to that crappy company.

Telephone comapny pissed me off got rid of voice kept DSL and switched to Vonage for voice then switched to cable once it was available. My DSL only went up $5.00 when I got rid of my voice.

yes but now you are paying what, 25 bucks more for vonage.. just to get voice? You can get skype, drop Vonage, and pay as you go....

I don't see how you can drop voice.. maybe you are dropping some features, but your TELCO bill WILL show some ANALOG service at your house, even though you don't WANt voice capabilities. You must have some dial-tone to get DSL. There is currently NO way around it.

Once my voice was cancelled there was no dial tone to the house. When I dropped my voice my DSL was assigned a new telephone number not associated with my voice line.

*When I dropped my voice my DSL was assigned a new telephone number not associated with my voice line*

AH-HA! Now the evidence has just been introduced to the court.. SEE? TELEPHONE number, you are STILL PAYING for a Telephone number WITH analog service.. They dropped voice on ONE line, but you are paying it for ANOTHER line, you just aren't USING IT!

There you go, you are paying for analog service *PLUS* DSL. When you get your bill, look at it.. you are being charged for the line AND DSL service.. so you can't include charges for ONLY DSL, you MUST include *ALL* related services...

The telephone number was just so they could administer the account. On my bill there was only charges for the DSL account and no other charges. Before my bill had voice and DSL after there was just DSL with a $5.00 increase since they were no longer my voice carrier.(Just like the Cable companies charge more if you don't get TV from them)

I take it the matter is closed?

I would consider it closed, he is really in an argumentative mood today..:)

DSL is cheaper but Cable destroys DSL now with new Optimum Online Boost im getting 22182 download and 1283 upload. Thats almost 20x faster then DSL around here.

22182 what? cows? thats alot of cows.

but seriously im asuming you mean Kbps but at least give us some units, cause if you mean bps then man that sucks.

It doesn't do customer any good if either one over take the others. DSL or Cable both have monoploy in their own market. You don't see too many area where they offer 2 DSL providers, or 2 cable providers. If you happen to live in one of those areas, you get the cheapest and the fastest internet access.

Thanks to government regulation, EACH carrier can have control of a particular area. So yes, this is a monopoly. You either take what they have, or forget it.

BUT they are competitors within DSL ISP's. Earthlink, Yahoo, and SBC can offer alternative DSL service to the Phone company DSL, but you STILL get the phone company service, just BILLED by a different company.

There is actually new legislation being introduced that will allow "phone" companies to compete with cable companies. Seems like pretty soon we could have more choices.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198913,00.html

I don't agree - to get cable like performance in your DSL package it cost about as much as the cable line if not more - most of these cable providers are now discounting the internet connection if you beef up your TV service....

I still think cable is gonna rule the market

...

DSL ~still~ ain't anywhere near
as good as cable !

...

The Computer Rodent

...

Perhaps technology wise. But market-wise, it's a toss.

DSL has reached a virtual cap limit. Cable is simply an ethernet cable plugged into a bandwidth limiter on a switch.

They could offer 100 MBS to your house via cable if they were interested.. but since DSL can't get close.. what's the point?

I guess it depends on the region where you live.

Up here in Qc, Canada, cable (Videotron) has MUCH more traction than DSL has (Bell).

DSL is trying to play catchup with cable here, and as soon as they come close to matching in performance, cable just ups our speed and gives us a bit more.

For now, this competition has been good for the consumer as the prices have not been going up (in a substantial amount anyway). We're being given more for roughly the same price.

Hope it stays like that-- even better if it would put prices lower too ;-)

Vla

Actually cable is nothing like Ethernet as it is not a collision based transport. Cable or more exactly DOCSIS is a time dependent polled protocol. In the forward path it is a broadcast over a 6Mhz wide channel utilizing a 256QAM carrier for an aggregate bandwidth of approximately 38Mb/sec shared across the entire CMTS. The return path is usually a 16QAM carrier at 3.2Mhz channel width for approximately 10Mb/sec of bandwidth shared within a given return combining group. So the morel of the story is that to say cable can offer exceedingly fast speeds in excess of DSL simply due to a raised limit on a bandwidth limiting device is extremely inaccurate and shows very limited if any knowledge of HFC combining and the DOCSIS standard.

Sorry try again.

The point is they offer DSL / phone package at the same speeds as Cable in my area, cheaper than cable / internet Package.

As I stated in my above comment, I'm not arguing that Cable tech is better, but in my market, and many others, DSL is still the better option.

Dude, you are an idiot. Cable providers plug you into their switch. the Cable itself may work on DOCSIS but the data elemend of cable is nothing more than Ethernet tied to some switch on their end. The data channels set aside for data transfer are nothing more than Ethernet. WE aren't talking about cable technology, we are talking about specifically the data transfer of Cable, not how the technlogy works.

We are trying to keep this simple, not do a Cable provisioning class.

*YOU* try again.

Dear Moron,

The switch is a drain for aggregate bandwidth from the CMTS. The switch plays only a portion of the customer experience. If you are talking cable modems, then you NEED to talk DOCSIS and HFC limitations to discuss customer experience and packages that can truely be delivered to the home. Your Ethernet view to the connection and subsequent comparison to DSL (what the article is about) is NOT even remotely accurate. I can only assume that you have no practical experience in design or scalability of cable based data delivery systems.

Again, sorry try again!

Hey Dips***!

You are still trying to explain cable technology, you dumb ass. I am talking about the transfer of data from a cable modem across the internet from a computer/household that is already configured for cable.

We know cable uses docsis, we are PAST that, you dweeb.. I have more experience with CABLE and DSL than you probably every will, you jack ass. I konw how cable works. I am explaining this in Laymen terms not for purposes of getting certification, you a** wipe.

ehternet is in terms for understand and where the data transfer originates at the cable provider, you dimwitted bafoon.

So AGAIN YOU go back and read your service manual, maybe you can be a good little tech, we don't care about your knowledge of Cable, we are talking pure data.. it IS ethernet ultimately.

So *YOU* try again, but this time, keep it in context, you fool!

Forget it, Having an intelligent conversation with you is not possible. It would be nice to actually discuss the technology rather that trading useless insults.

Good, I was tired of having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent anyway.

I think xabious's point might have been that after the switch, both DSL and Cable use ethernet or fiber. Speed differences must be accounted to the technology getting your data to and from the switch, and any bandwidth limitters built into it.

...

"Perhaps technology wise.
But market-wise, it's a toss."

...

DSL is almost always cheaper. Here in Arizona,
usually less than half as expensive as cable.

But cable is twice as good.

...

The Computer Rodent

...

Thanks guys. Seeing people trade increasingly viscious insults over their knowledge of cable and dsl has made my life seem a whole lot less trivial.

Hence the 'technology-wise' portion of my comment.

Geez...

yeah and apple pie is twice as good as cherry. seriously maybe you should back it up. and specify what good means, i mean there is service, support, uptime, signal strength, all kinds of things, be more specific and make a real post instead of just one to get the end-all word in with pc_tool

hmm run out of stuff to copy from your textbook? cause seriously a large number of us learned that crap, and all found little need for it in the real world, nobody but technical engineers and every once in a while, a stumped network admin needs to know that. it doesnt make you sound smarter, but if it makes you feel you didnt waste time and/or money on it then fine, we will still laugh at you.

ah but ethernet is a protocal and fiber is a medium. also you forgot to factor in frame relay and the other various other methods of data transfer as well as different physical mediums, like sat based, thick and thinnet, larger twisted copper, microwave and anything i might have missed. oh and token-ring cant forget that underdog, im sure there are still things with that running on it, although i lack knowledge of a direct place still running it, maybe for backbone load-balancing or something. not to seem like a geek or anything, but ethernet and fiber are not the only things running the net.

...And I have no idea what you said. However, I do know that standard RJ-45 ethernet cords have limitted length for whatever reason, so I assume most data today is sent over fiberoptics once it hits backbone providers.

I thought TCP/IP was the protocol? Or are there multiple types of protocols that are unrelated to eachother?

Until DSL gets their heads out of their rear ends and offers more "naked DSL" or DSL without a regular phone subscription then many will not get DSL. Having no use for a land phone they lost out on my business years ago.

Yeah thats ture. Myself, being single and having a cell phone, I have no need for a land line, and I belive you can can't have DSL with an active land line, or can you?

you can't separate DSL from Analog phone lines. that's like trying to separate wheels from a car, they go together.

Phone companies aren't trying to snooker you into a phone line, the DSL technology is tied to an analog account and its a protocol that runs ON the twisted pair lines.

So they can't simply remove the phone service from DSL.

That's why when you compare Cable / vs DSL you MUST take into account the cost of the phone line in DSL pricing.. because you can't get DSL without regular phone service.

Nope, its not even possible. DSL was developed as a protocol that runs on TOP of Analog service. Just like ISDN, its PART of the phone service.

Perhaps a lame question, but is your line busy while you're using DSL? My understanding is that with cable, different services are offered at different bandwidth ranges, so cable TV doesn't interfere with the phone which doesn't interfere with high-speed internet... How does DSL work? I always thought that when a phone line is "in use", it's "in use"... so if someone is talking, will DSL "switch" or will it not work??? Thoughts? Thanks!

Then DSL providers had better figure something out. As much as I despise all cable companies, I am not going back to a landline just to have DSL. And rijp, remember that the once [supposedly] impossible is indeed possible today--airplanes, fiber optics, space travel, etc.

I advise the phone companies to not make such [historically wrong] assumptions and figure something out. If I could get DSL *only* and at a DSL-only price, I'd drop cable in one second. And we must remember, even homes that now have dropped their landlines are still wired with POTS copper wire. The infrastructure remains.

And again, the impossible has an outstanding track record of becoming reality.

Assuming you have a decent line coming to you, there shouldn't be any problems.

I have Telus ADSL. With their dialup I get 4.8kb/sec, which is close to the max for 56k, and indicates ok wire quality. Dialup blocks out phone calls and is easily disconnected by simply picking up a phone somewhere in your home.

ADSL is different in that it is apparently on a different frequency, and has no effect on phones. Truthfully, I can hear some slight crackling when I'm downloading at full speed(2.5mbit(260kb/sec)), but using the phone seems to have no effect on my internet.

You might want to read this.

Not so.

You need the pair running to the premise but DSL does not depend upon dialtone being available.

It is simple greed. The telco wants the voice revenue as well as the DSL. How can they pitch you for intrastate LD, etc if you don't have a voice line?

OK, DSL is a separate protocol on your phone line. The phone uses 1 pair of wires to connect to another device. If you have call waiting, you can get calls or notified someone is trying to call.

With DSL, its just like ethernet. Cable doesn't get "busy" calls because like your computer, you can send/receive to many sites at once. But you have limited bandwidth. Conceivably, you will never get completely blocked, you will only get slower and slower connections.

Download a file from Microsoft (assuming all data can be downloaded at the same speed) now download a sizable file from fileplanet.com. Technically if your bandwidth is 6 mpbs. 3 mbs would be used for MS download and 3 mbs would be used for fileplanet. But during downloads, you can also browse the net. Now you visit betanews, as you "browse" your Ie is going to need SOMe amount of bandwidth to get data from the betanews site.. maybe its 1/2 mpbs, because it needs something to use to get data.

You can actually talk to someone on your phone WHILE you are surfing the net, ALL with 1 phone line in your house. DATA uses the DSL protocol to retrieve / send internet data, while voice using a different circuit at your house. That's why DSL requires a switch at the central switch for your phone company, that SWITCH looks at the DSL (which is assigned a certain Circuit ID) and knows that your phone number 123-456-7890 is assigned to that circuit ID.

When people want to voice call you, it goes to the phone number, that's a voice call. When you want to get on the internet, it uses the data circuit - circuit ID- to send/receive data packets.

Its rather complex.. but DSL is distance dependent as well as since it runs on top of your pair lines at your house, if you have an alarm, or a bunch of phones in your house, or 900 mhz phones.. all of those cause interferrence.. which could limit the DSL signal even further.

THAT'S precisely why Cable is better than DSL. Cable has its OWN dedicated circuit to send/receive data, and it doesn't have to "share" this with anything else.

A Cable is comprised of multiple "channels" spread out over millions of circuits within the Cable line. 400, lets say, are dedicated for ONLY data traffic. Data channels don't interefere with the other channels on cable, any more than showtime would intereferre with ESPN. Your set top box, or tv tuner can differentiate between them..

The cable modem is "tuned" to those data channels..

howstuffworks.com is a marvelous site for this info, you can read all about cable, dsl, and phone lines. I probably didn't do any of these technologies justice, but I was trying to give an overview.

What are you talking about? The cost of the phone line can easily be removed from the service. It is not the fact that a carrier is on the line to be maintained, the cost is in the trsistion to a common carrier at the CO. If you utilize no bandwidth in the transfer to the common carrier then you relaize very little cost in the serivce being offered as DSL only with just enough phone serivce to satifiy the 911 FCC requirements. Termination of the phone service is done at the switching level.

*ADSL is different in that it is apparently on a different frequency, and has no effect on phones. Truthfully, I can hear some slight crackling when I'm downloading at full speed(2.5mbit(260kb/sec)), but using the phone seems to have no effect on my internet*

That's the difference between a filter and using a separate line for DSL.

you can call the phone company and have them do a "home run". This takes the signal at the NID coming into your house, and it separates the data from the analog signal using a splitter. The digital signal can then travel along a separate unused pair of wires in your house. (Most houses were built with at least 2 pair, sometimes 3, of analog wires around your house.). People that have a "FAX" line will use this for DSL, because its a line that get's used very little, but if you only have 1 analog line in your house, I recommend this "home run" so that it can utilized a completely unused pair or wires, and you can then get a "clean" signal for DSL. Then in your office where your DSL modem is plugged in, you can simply use a "line swap" to have the modem ONLY reconize that pair and thus you can have a dedicated line for DSL.

The phone company should be able to do ALL of this, if you ask them to.

You can then remove your filters, because the only thing the filter does is it attenuates the "noise" from the DSL circuit, so you don't "hear" this communication, and that's why you can clear up the problems with interfference, but filters only work so well.

A home run with a splitter is the BEST way to get the best DSL signal. I did this for 2 years.. I have don't hundreds of homeruns, they are extremely easy *IF* you know what you are doing. Materials are very cheap also.. but the phone company/DSL provider shouldn't charge you a dime to do it. Its part of their service.

dude. You are WRONG.

Call your DSL provider, you *MUST* have dialtone on at least 1 line at your house to have DSL. The technology doesn't require it, but the phone company DOES required you have dial-tone. And there is a reason behind it, which I am not getting into.

I am not *EVEN* going to argue this point, its obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

A phone company won't even THINK about giving you DSL UNLESS you have CURRENT analog service with them. ANY DSL provider will NOT be able to install DSL without 1 ANALOG line present.

-Period-

Long distance is another matter. I can use long distance codes from my mobile phone. All I am doing is telling my carrier I want to use a different switch to make my calls from. I can make long distance calls from ANY phone and charge them to my land line, from anywhere in the world.

When you dial a long distance call from your land line, those "LD codes" are pre-programmed when you press "1" to make a LD call.. that's why they need to know up front, who you want as your choice for LD service. Otherwise you will get a "round robin" long distance carrier.. which means whoever they pick at random.

I never said it was impossible.. I said that's the way DSL was DESIGNED. It was designed to WORK in tandem with Analog lines. DSL is a protocal, designed as a cheap alternative to ISDN/T1 runs to your house.

They can do other things, if you have lots of money. DSL is a cheap way to use existing lines to give you high speed.. but DSL isn't perfect nor is it available to everyone.

There are plenty of alternatives.. And airplanes use Mobile based technology that is commercial grade not available to inviduals.

Verizon is developing 4g techology that is currently being beta tested in NY. They can get T1 speeds on your MOBILE phone, connected via USB. So you can in essence have a traveling T1..

They have data cards which do the same thing, but mobile Gsm/tdma/cdma technology wasn't designed for heavy data use either, that's why your phone sucks for browsing, its essentially a 14.4 connection.. they have to ugprade EVERY switch/tower to make the extra bandwidth available. T-Mobile is coming out with this in 2007/8. Verizon customers will get it first.

Guys, this is great information. Much appreciated! Additionally, I checked out howstuffworks.com, very cool. Great info there as well... Thanks for the info. I've been curious about the differences between DSL and cable technologies for a while and this helps a bunch.

Now you guys are just mincing words.

You said above:

"..Nope, Its not even possible."

Yes, it is "possible" looking at the technology alone. You could have DSL without voice service.

However we know Ma Bell wants to serve you everything so you can't get just DSL.

That is why ghammer said you were wrong.

Just what I said.. You have to have Analog/dial-tone service at your house to get DSL.

did you have reading comprehension trouble?

the cost of the phone line CANNOT be removed, and keep DSL. The phone company WON'T let you do this. If you have DSL, then you have 1 functioning Analog line in your house. that's it. DSL works in conjunction with analog service, it cannot be stand alone. DSL is a feature, not a stand alone service.

You really need a business class. I an not talking about removing the signal set as that would be illegal having to provide 911 per FCC requirements. I am talking about the cost surrounding the switching at the CO between exchanges and the LDC if it applies. And for your information I can buy a DSL and 911 only package at my local phone company which is exactly what I described in my previous post.

* And for your information I can buy a DSL and 911 only package at my local phone company which is exactly what I described in my previous post.*

you need literature 101 again, dork, your reading skills need some help.

I already answered this question in my original post. you just repeated what I originally stated, thanks for being repetitive.

911 service, is what? ANALOG SERVICE! You anal retentive loser. Basic phone service, is REQUIRED to get DSL. That's exactly what I put, just because you want to read into this about some signal set, or whatever technology techno blather you want to look impressive, is the same thing I said in the first place.

You can't get DSL service without SOME Analog/911/basic/dial-tone service! That's all I said.

*Now you guys are just mincing words.*

Technology limitation isn't the same as allowable limitation. Yes it *IS* possible, technically (I hate it when people take me out of context) to get DSL and NOT have analog service.

But you can't DO IT with current TELCO Limitations, because *THEY* require you to currently HAVE analog service. So no it's *NOT* possible, because the phone companies won't let you do it.

If you had control of your own central switch, you could run DSL to a home and NOT require them to enable analog service. Yes, technically its feasible, but given today's TELCOs and the way DSL was DESIGNED in the first place, no YOU *CAN'T* remove analog service *AND* keep your DSL feature. Its *NOT* possible.

*"..Nope, Its not even possible."*

Was in context with my paragraph about phone company requirements...

*Yes, it is "possible" looking at the technology alone. You could have DSL without voice service.*

Key words there were? Say it with me.. technology alone....

good explain it to me, because now I am confused..lol

I'm with xabious, it isn't worth it.

A little less coffee wouldn't hurt..:)

Telephone company pissed me off got rid of voice kept DSL and switched to Vonage for voice. My DSL only went up $5.00 when I got rid of my voice. Then switched to cable once it was available.

Cool! Definitely going to remember that! Lots of good info! :D

Whatever, I don't drink coffee. Maybe you are having trouble understanding, because you can't tell the slight difference in context.

One doesn't have anything to do with the other. If I have a car, that is CAPABLE of doing 100 mph, that's one thing. Whether or not I am *ALLOWED* to travel that fast, due to some governor the placed on my throttle, or restrictive laws is quit another.

That's what I am saying.

Its not worth it, because you can't decipher between REAL technology and LOGISTIC LIMITATION.

Just because I try to explain things in terms so I don't repeat myself a hundred times, doesn't mean I am extreme or in need of a caffeine break. you people don't read well enough and 90% of the posts around here are due to rehashing topics because we have to re-explain to suit your needs.

If you read the complete article in the first place, we wouldn't be at this point in the second place.

Besides, most of what I write in complete thoroughness isn't for your benefit, its for OTHER people so they can understand. Evidently you are in the minority when it comes to understanding.

Even you acknowledged that it is technically possible to have naked DSL. The only reason most reason that most people don't have that option is that the big telcos don't want to lose the large source revenue they get from voice call over the publically switched network.

Verizon is just a carrier. Maybe you were referring to Qualcomm which makes the EV-DO chipsets that Verizon uses. Your post is vague about which technology you were referring to but 4g wireless is years away from any large scale implementation which isn't much help for somebody looking for a wireless.

While you are correct in saying that standard GSM, D-AMPS, cdmaOne, and other 2G technologies were too slow for most users data needs it would be inaccurate to say that most people don't have better option available to them. Most urban areas in the United States have EV-DO service available from either Sprint or Verizon which can send bursts down in excess 1 megabit per second with 300-900 kilobits/s sustained. Uploading speeds are still fairly slow at about 100 kilobits/s at best. Outside areas with EV-DO coverage Sprint and Verizon provide 1xRTT which is about 100 kilobits/s down. Cingular has started work on their HSDPA network which has a slower theoretical maximum ~2 megabits/s but it supposed to be comparable in real world usage. Coverage is still pretty weak but they should have most major metropolitan areas covered within a year.

Outside of some rural areas most people in the US can get wireless access a lot faster than 14.4. Chances are if you are only getting 14.4 kilobits/s you either need a new phone or find a carrier with a better data plan.

"Evidently you are in the minority when it comes to understanding."

Translation - Evidently you are in the majority when it comes to disagreeing with me, and that really pisses me off, you moron!

You can find naked DSL, it's just not widely available. Qwest has been offering it for a few years and I believe Verizon is offering it. http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6028_7-6215358-1.html
http://www.engadget.com/...till-too-modest-outside/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_DSL

So, apparently using your analogy, I can drive my car without wheels. Please don't attack when you don't know what you are talking about. Telephone companies are unwilling to let go of the requirement that you have to have a phone line because it is a big money maker. Thanks

You said it was impossible to have naked dsl using your stupid analogy of the car without wheels. Unless you can think of cars that are able to get around without wheels. Please admit when you are owned instead of backtracking. thanks