Cable vs. DSL
- 3
- Add a Comment
- No Related Post
Originally Written 03 May 2003
Recently there has been a huge push by digital subscriber line (DSL) providers to take a bigger chunk of the broadband market away from cable internet service providers. This has become even more apparent in recently thanks to Verizon and SBC (and I’m sure others will follow suit) dropping their prices dramatically. This is good for broadband subscribers and people looking into broadband because the cost of high speed Internet services is coming down. DSL and cable broadband both have their advantages and disadvantages but DSL seems to be the one lacking in quite a few areas and their marketing shows it.
DSL has many, many different types or versions. Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Lines (ADSL) are typically what most DSL providers offer to home users. These typically have a cap of 1.5 Mbps download speed and a provider specific upload speed that’s usually a significantly lower data rate. ADSL has a max speed of about 8 Mbps but this is rarely seen by home users (or even business users, for that matter). Symmetric Digital Subscriber Lines (SDSL) offer a greater upload speed (a max of about 2.3 Mbps) and an equal download speed (max of 2.3 Mbps). This is what is typically marketed to business customers as a replacement to the expensive dedicated leased lines, like T1s and fractional T1s offered by numerous companies. SDSL though is significantly more expensive because of their increased capability (which makes perfect sense). There are several other versions or types of DSL but ADSL and SDSL are your two typical flavors found just about everywhere. As the case with any DSL line, it’s a dedicated circuit between your location (home, building, apartment, etc.) and the Telco. There are also limits to the distance a DSL circuit can be run. So even if DSL is available in your area, your specific phone line might not be able to get it. DSL also requires some trickery in terms of wiring jacks with filters so that your phone system still works as it should when you’re also connecting to a DSL service. Cable requires a filter as well but one filter (or the removal of a filter depending on your cable company) works for every jack in your home.
Cable Internet services are limited only by the providers’ use of frequencies. The technology is pretty the same across the board which eliminates the version/type issue that DSL has. Cable providers that offer high speed Internet access typically use one channel (6 MHz) for download streams and a much smaller channel for upload streams. There is quite a bit of technology involved in getting signals converted to and from the coax/fiber cable network to the Internet but it’s a rather efficient process in comparison to DSL and offers much more than just high speed Internet access (HDTV, voice, digital cable, etc.). We all know that both cable and DSL are “always on” technologies. The one downside to cable is that you share bandwidth with other people. Cable providers use a cable modem termination system that essentially takes the Internet and puts it on your coax. These systems are fed a very high speed (typically ATM) Internet connection (for ideas of the speed of ATM see our Bandwidth Reference). This termination system is where all the users of cable Internet in your area get their Internet access from. In a sense it distributes data from one source to numerous other sorts, much like a hub in a LAN. This is cable Internet’s one major flaw but is typically overcome by assessing the bandwidth needs of specific areas and increasing or decreasing the feed as necessary. This is one of the reasons cable providers rarely mention guaranteed speeds or latency.
Cable versus DSL is a tough one. For a long time DSL was a more reliable option because of the guaranteed data rates. But there were limiting factors like distance from your local Telco and price. Cable clearly became a better option even though it was a shared technology (which helped drive the price down) because of its flexibility in delivering Internet access to entire areas in one fail swoop. Cable providers have also adhered to standards (Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification or DOCSIS) thus simplifying development of networks unlike DSL’s flavor craze, which runs off unknowing users in my opinion. Cable for the moment is significantly cheaper for what you get in terms of bandwidth even though that bandwidth is dependent upon so many factors (population, time of day, etc.). Based on price alone cable seems to be a better overall option if both cable and DSL are available in your area. I’m partial to cable myself because I’ve never had a real problem with it (and I did go through the @Home bankruptcy). I’ve never once met a happy DSL customer.
DSL providers market things such as “dedicated” which is true in the sense that from the Telco to you wall jack it is a dedicated circuit. But, from the Telco to the Internet you still share the bandwidth with everyone else connecting to that Telco (which could easily be more than “your neighborhood”). At least cable providers acknowledge the fact that their users share bandwidth and build their networks so that each user has the best possible experience. Verizon has actually gone as far as saying (on their web site) that you can’t, “Use the same phone line for phone or fax and Internet” with cable. This is a very moot point because cable Internet doesn’t use a phone line. DSL providers typically require a contract (12 months or more) to be signed for any service. Cable providers typically don’t require this because no matter what if cable Internet is available in your area your house is getting it’s just being filtered out. When setting up DSL for your phone line typically, someone actually has to do physical labor at the Telco to provide you with service so a contract is to be expected so that the labor charged to your provider can be reimbursed somehow. There are numerous other things to look at when you’re making a decision about broadband and typically it is area specific but if both DSL and cable Internet access are available to you my advice is to go with cable.

3 Comments
Chris
April 19th, 2005
at 6:07am
Ah you make some great points, but as for your beleifs on cable being better. I find that your not correctly looking at it. I have had a cable modem for quite some time now and it doesn’t work as well as your making it out to sound. Internet will always have problems, but your put on a server with your cable company. And if your cable company gets alot of customers others are put on that same server. A server thats filled with the full amount it can handle will have horrible speeds. It’s to a point running dial up seems the same. Then you usually can’t access it when it’s peak time of use. And you get alot of down time. Now with DSL you can still use the phone line to dial up a connection so you rarely go down, but Cable leads to a huge issue that doesn’t end. I have had my internet go down for weeks. And the cable tech’s are rarely able to get out to me quick. A severe disadvantage of cable is in that when the server goes down, you are cut off completely. If your cable has issues your internet goes down and servers (especially lately) are always filled. So really DSL is better for those who use the internet often and rely on the connection to be stable, but cable is for those seeking speed and have odd hours when they use it.
Chris Short
April 21st, 2005
at 4:21am
You’re quite wrong in your analysis. You’re not “on a server” you’re sharing a robust (usually ATM) switching system with other people in your neighborhood (use my bandwidth reference to get an idea of ATM speeds). What’s funny is that DSL is the exact same way even though it’s marketed differently.
DSL you have a “dedicated” between you and a closet or small building referred to as a “telco”. Between the “telco” and the rest of the world… that’s right one single point of failure. So really DSL is no better.
I won’t even mention that using dial-up is nonsense these days. If you have broadband and you’re using dial-up as a back up connectivity method (which makes your DSL more reliable, somehow) then you’re living in the stone age. But you could just as easily use a dial-up connection and cable if you really wanted to.
Cable is still better than DSL for a myriad of reasons.
Scott B
April 21st, 2005
at 4:45am
Chris Short is exactly right except for one word, more on that in a second. I have basically a ‘big DSL’ line called a T-1 that supplies my work with connectivity. It is a “full pipe.” Which means I get 1.54 megs both ways, guaranteed. I can ‘peak’ above that if the capacity is available in my segment of the ‘network.’ Domestic DSL lines have varying speed depending on how far you are from the CO (Central Office. That is the word I was talking about that Chris S. calls “telco”) and the condition of your phone cable (age, corrosion, etc.). I could write a book on this, but suffice it to say, phone lines were not designed to carry data.
Cable was also not initially designed for data, but because it can carry so many different frequencies it is a very nice ‘pipe’ for data. The only limiting factor on cable is that it is serial. Think of serial like a creek, as water is taken from the creek, the flow slows down and each user on the digital ‘creek’ takes some water. Cable companies have done a pretty good job limiting the number of users on a particular ‘creek’ so that is not usually a problem. This is not really due to the demand of data (think Internet), but to TV. Imagine how many people get pissed when their TV signal is bad.
For those reasons and about 10 more Cable is not only more reliable, but offers a much higher bandwidth. Remember my T-1? 1.54 megs. Cable can offer on average 2 to 5 megs down and 256 k to 1 meg up. I would take that in a second at work.