That's interesting. In the U.S. (at least where I was at) DSL was horrible. It was always slow, much slower than it was "supposed" to be. Cable was always dead on. I was told that the further you were from the source the slower DSL would be and I lived in a rural area so I figured that was right. But networking stuff is not my specialty so I'll defer to those who know more. Does that argument hold any water in your opinion?
- Thread starter Richard Alberto
- Start date
Cable Internet Provider
That's interesting. In the U.S. (at least where I was at) DSL was horrible. It was always slow, much slower than it was "supposed" to be. Cable was always dead on. I was told that the further you were from the source the slower DSL would be and I lived in a rural area so I figured that was right. But networking stuff is not my specialty so I'll defer to those who know more. Does that argument hold any water in your opinion?
Cool link - DSL vs. Cable Modem Comparison. An "apparently" independent and unbiased study of cable vs. dsl. I just looked at the first four pages which backed up what windeguy and sky are saying about cable slowdown based on usage of the neighbors and it also backed up what I was told about dsl slowdown based on distance.
Yes, hands down DSL is crap...and yes cable can slow down if saturated. If I were to pick, I'd find out how many of my neighbors have cable internet first
Most folks don't realize that a slow upload speed (in the above case of 256kb) is truly the bottleneck in your internet speeds. A faster upload relives that bottleneck and 'uncorks' your speed. I personally don't use anything less than 1mb/upload upload, but then again I am a power user (work, streaming music, movies, magicjack, etc)
