Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs:
3 edits | reply to Nightfall
Re: Speakeasy DSL
Wow, did both of you not read what I said completely or what? I said there are people with bad DSL and good cable as well, I didn't say DSL is always better. But from all of the research and talking with people I have done the past 6 years, DSL definitely has the edge overall.
Also, if you check out doctor ping since it has been reimplemented here on the site, DSL generally has more scores at the top, even though cable has higher penetration in the US. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| reply to Speedy8
said by Speedy8  :
No, DSL generally has lower latency. Most likely due to cable subscribers sharing nodes. When the upload speeds starts to get somewhat saturated on a node it can affect latency somewhat. Of course there are many exceptions. Some people have excellent latency on cable, and some people have really bad DSL. But overall cable has more bandwidth and DSL has better latency.
I guess I'm lucky though, because in my area my DSL has the most bandwidth available and the best latency.
To say DSL has better latency overall is a totally false statement. It all depends on the service you have and the area you have it in. This is why it is so important to do research the broadband in your area.
Sorry, but the whole "overloaded node" is incorrect. What is to say that your DSL node you are using is overloaded? I hear it all the time. The fact that DSL is better because you are connected right to to the pipe at the office while your cable modem has to connect to the neighborhood node. I believe it is a toss up personally. I have seen bad DSL with high latency as well as bad cable connections.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
borborpa
Slipping Slowly Into Oblivion
Premium
join:2002-02-20
New Cumberland, PA
clubs:
·Speakeasy
| reply to rradina
My ping to the gateway is 10ms, and is 15-30 to the East Coast. 70ms to the west coast (which is great, considering the distance). Neither DSL or Cable is always better...it depends on the service.
Never, ever judge anything related to the internet based on AOL... 
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.[AIM - BoyBandsMakeUGay] |
|
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | reply to Speedy8
I disagree with your comment on latency. With my OOL 8000/900 cable, the ping time to the CMTS is about 8 msec.
When I had 1500/384 DSL, the ping time to the DSLAM was 18 msec. People who were not set up as DSL "fastpath" had ping times around 25 msec.
--
"We know where they are."
» Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, March 30, 2003. |
|
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs:
| reply to rradina
No, DSL generally has lower latency. Most likely due to cable subscribers sharing nodes. When the upload speeds starts to get somewhat saturated on a node it can affect latency somewhat. Of course there are many exceptions. Some people have excellent latency on cable, and some people have really bad DSL. But overall cable has more bandwidth and DSL has better latency.
I guess I'm lucky though, because in my area my DSL has the most bandwidth available and the best latency. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to Speedy8
Why do you say most cable companies have latency problems?
My only experience suggests exactly the opposite. Granted, my only experience with DSL is my father's AOL DSL but his response times to just about anywhere on the web are +100ms. In the same area, I have Charter cable Internet and I usually get 50ms to most areas of the Internet. He also experiences packet loss, I have no packet loss.
Is it common for DSL to have better latency than cable? I actually thought it was the other way around and that most folks that think cable has latency problems think that way before DOCSIS provided management to keep hogs from killing the network. |
|
novaflare
The Dragon Was Here
Premium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH
| reply to Speedy8
said by Speedy8 :
Uh oh, here come the opt online people... Yes you get that speed in a very small area of the country, some people get 100mbit in parts of the country. But if it's not at least semi nationwide, who cares?
I pay for 6Mbit SBC DSL myself, it's great. Latency matters more to most people anyway than pure bandwidth, which most cable companies suck at compared to your average DSL provider.
Personally though I'd take 2500/2500 over 6000/608 if I could.
Im moveing to wireless 1500/1500 constant speeds with about the same bandwidth as a t1 (a tad less) so i should be able to down load 10 to 15 files simo bef i see any drop what so ever in my dl speed.
heh my provider is currently going to court the city desided his transmision tower needed a permit after the fact basicly one person said nope dont need a permit he erected it then building inspector comes out to check it for safty and tell him he needed a permit and has to take it down lol
any who i hate my current isp.
The techs are all morons always pointing the fingure at me even when i know for a fact its them ill be very happy to have the 1500/1500 con over my 3000/380s cable and no restriction so by god if i want to run a full blown web site i will 
--
my fav mmorpg »www.rubiesofeventide.com if you sign up use novaflare as referal |
|
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs:
| reply to Bobcat
Uh oh, here come the opt online people... Yes you get that speed in a very small area of the country, some people get 100mbit in parts of the country. But if it's not at least semi nationwide, who cares?
I pay for 6Mbit SBC DSL myself, it's great. Latency matters more to most people anyway than pure bandwidth, which most cable companies suck at compared to your average DSL provider.
Personally though I'd take 2500/2500 over 6000/608 if I could. |
|
