Something on your mind? Want to give us feedback on something in particular or everything in general? Tell us how we are doing!
#15347 by thbjr
Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:42 pm
Does either one actually work better with voip? Is one more stable than another?
I know that cable bandwidth is effected by number of users, while DSL is dedicated, but would that make DSL better?
#15349 by scoutconnor
Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:48 pm
thbjr wrote:Does either one actually work better with voip? Is one more stable than another?
I know that cable bandwidth is effected by number of users, while DSL is dedicated, but would that make DSL better?

Nope! as long as they connect you to the internet they are the same. The only common disadvantage to DSL is it is, in most cases, slower than cable.
#15351 by thbjr
Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:56 pm
Well, here in Phoenix, the Cox cable 1.5mps claims down at 1.5 and up at .25mps (actual best at my house has been down 1.7 and up .28) while the Qwest DSL I had for 2 years claims 1.5 down and 768 up (actual was 1.3 and .74mps).
So which would you choose?
#15353 by WayneDsr
Sun Aug 09, 2009 7:43 pm
I will chose dsl. I have a rock solid connection 100% of the time. Speed tests never vary too far off.

A neighbor of mine uses cable and he braggs about his internet speeds. I did a test at his house and his QOS was horrible, seeing varying upload speeds from 20% to 40% never higher. Jitter was terrible.
Now you'd never notice downloading or surfing, but when you add voip to the picture, his cable didn't make the grade.

I'd take my DSL anyday.

Wayne
#15354 by ggilman
Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:31 pm
I don't have experience with DSL, but I can confirm Wayne's experience with cable modem. On my current cable modem setup, I can run a speed test and the numbers look great. I run the same test a minute or two later, and the results are horrible, QOS can have dropped from 98% to 19% in that amount of time. What cable benefits from with higher 'theoretical maximum' speed, it looses with respect to stability. My case may not be exactly typical, but there is definitely higher potential for instability with cable modem.

Anyway, at this current point if I had it to do over again, I'd go with with DSL. I'm strongly considering switching now but my wife is resistant to technology changes, as she has made me well aware after a series of changes I've made around the house. Nothing related to DSL, but that's a different story for a different day.
#15421 by StevenJohn
Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:49 am
I would much rather have DSL if I was near the central station or DSLAM. Most people in my area, including myself, cannot get DSL at all. Many of the people that can get it are too far away to get good speeds.

I guess I am lucky to have cable. Lots of people in this rural area get nothing. Even wireless is hard to get.

sj
#15453 by scottlindner
Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:13 pm
My experience is similar to Wayne's. DSL has higher QoS than Cable, but a slightly lower download rate. Also note that DSL is generally cheaper than Cable, although not always true.

Scott
#15464 by daet
Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:45 pm
scottlindner wrote:My experience is similar to Wayne's. DSL has higher QoS than Cable, but a slightly lower download rate. Also note that DSL is generally cheaper than Cable, although not always true.

Scott

I have the same experience. QoS can vary wildly with cable. That being said, there are some ways to deal with it. For example, I use dd-wrt on my router (a Netgear WNR834B). My setup is modem->WNR834B->ooma:

Using the dd-wrt QoS algorithms, I have limited the upload/download rates to be 85% of the average rate that was measured using approximately 70 measurements over a week.

That one change alone has make my QoS to be fairly steady between 75% and 85% (as opposed to jumping wildly between 25% and 95%).

I also use QoS for other purposes, but limiting the rates was sufficient to "steady" the QoS.

However, steadying the QoS has had no effect on the quality of calls. They were fine before and after the change. There's been no effect on fax transmissions - they've worked before the change, and continue to work after.

DG
#16024 by mrjagster
Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:21 am
Speed isn't the only issue.

Cable seems have suffer from more outages and the cable provider, at least in my area, has pathetic customer service. My cable was out for a week until they sent a tech out that solved the problem in less than five minutes. I work from home so this weeklong wait for service was unacceptable.

Switched to dsl and have been much happier.
#16028 by MikeekiM
Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:11 am
I've had both... I currently have DSL... The only thing about DSL is that it that they charge you more for it if you don't have a landline...

Here in the Bay Area, a 6Mbps service is $35 with phone service, and $45 without phone service... A basic measured landline phone is 7.25 (plus surcharges)...

I just moved from a super duper expensive package down to the $7.25 service (so I don't actually have a bill in front of me)...my friend tells me that with surcharges, it ends up being about 14-15 bucks...(man...double the price with surcharges)... So that boils down to $45 for dry loop DSL service, or $50 for the same service with local landline as a backup...

For $5 more, I decided to go with the landline + DSL... I need the basic landline for my alarm system anyway...and it also is a good back up for power/internet outages...

The other think I like about DSL is that AT&T here as a tiered pricing/service... I can go with the 6mbps service cuz I want it (one could argue whether I truly need it or not)... My mom on the other hand, subscribes to the 768kbps package...and it suits her fine...

I pay $35, she pays $14...

With cable, for the most part, you pay one rate, and it's pretty high... There is no reason for my parents to pay any more than $14 for internet with their light usage...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests