cable vs. dsl
 

how much will I notice dsl vs. cable internet? I can get comcast for $60/month or verizon dsl for $30. I play poker,do video chats and play games like cards over the internet but dont do any serious gaming. occassional downloading but nothing that needs to be super fast (ie songs, short clips)

thank youu

Re: cable vs. dsl
 

depends on how fast they'll give it to you. I had DSL but my area only could receive 1.5 Mbps, so I said screw this and purchased Cable and for an extra $30 a month my up/down speed is sooooooo much nicer. call each company and dbl check what type of clock speeds available in your area then go from there. for your needs though you dont need as fast a connection as i have, DSL should be fine if the $'s an issue.

Re: cable vs. dsl
 

Depends on your specific location (down to the block in some cases). I live in a highrise apartment that pushes the heck out of the local cable company.....and they don't have the bandwidth running to the building to support the customer base. I'll take my 1.5 DSL over 6Mbit cable here any day hands down.

In general, cable companies seem to offer more bandwidth-per-dollar-per-month than ADSL services...but that's not always the case. Set up a good WiFi antenna and scarf off your nearest neighbor w/ cable and do a speed tests to find out for sure [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

Re: cable vs. dsl
 

dsl at 1.5/384 or 3.0/768 isn't worth it compared to my cable at 12/384. If I need to upload a big file to my server I'll use the t1 at the office. I want my usenet and linux iso downloads to be screaming.

Re: cable vs. dsl
 

[ QUOTE ]
dsl at 1.5/384 or 3.0/768 isn't worth it compared to my cable at 12/384. If I need to upload a big file to my server I'll use the t1 at the office. I want my usenet and linux iso downloads to be screaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt...but perhaps I was unclear at the diff between 1.5 ADSL and 6.0 cable here.....the cable is so oversold w/ such a thin pipe to the building that the DOWNLOAD bandwidth isn't even available most of the time. Consumer grade broadband accounts habitually claim "up to" before stating the max download bandwidth. In my case, I routinely get close enough to my 1.5 downstream that I can't complain while some cable customers here paying for 6Mbit downstream get closer to 500Kbps during peak times.

"Up to" is the key word and most lowly consumer services have no bandwidth guarantees whatsoever. 1.5 > 6.0 in certain unique situations...even in download rates. That's all I was trying to say. In general, cable beats DSL for downloads, upstreams vary according to service/provider, and commercial accounts (SDSL, T1, T3, OC3, etc) are FAR more likely to reliably hit the actual rates you're paying for. Cheap, asynchronous consumer-grade accounts are a different story...and it depends on how much the ISP oversold their bandwidth.

Re: cable vs. dsl
 

I'm pretty sure comcast is only $42.95 and verizon dsl is 29.99. I've had both services before and I can say both companies suck equally well. Majority of the time dsl was extremely too slow for me. Couldn't even stream high quality porn.

Re: cable vs. dsl
 

I originally got DSL and had alot of reliability problems. The DSL would often cut out for a couple of minutes at a time, which really sucks when you are in the middle of a poker game. It also introduced alot of noise in my phone lines - I tried getting the better filters for the phones, but the phones were still noisy. This was in an older area, so the quality of the phone lines probably had something to do with it. Switched to cable and haven't had a problem. Costs about double, which sucks, but for me the reliability is worth it. YMMV.

Re: cable vs. dsl
 

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on your specific location (down to the block in some cases).

[/ QUOTE ]

I [censored] hate DSL vs. Cable debates for this exact point. It completely depends on where exactly you live and how many people are already using cable in your area.