Didn't you break your last silence to ask for help? You're so abusive.
I've had both, and DSL was slightly more reliable, but considerably slower than the 500KB/sec cable connection I have now. It might be faster now, dunno. Unless you download movies with any regularity, it doesn't much matter.
The big difference (in my limited experience) is that when they go down, the cable is much, much easier to get set back up again than the DSL.
I, too, have had both, and, I also, have preferred cable. However, I am a big downloader.
Speaking of, Ogged, I actually did put a good bit a thought into the argument that downloading copyrighted material which one hasn't paid for is bad. I have to say I concede this point. If the author or artist wants to restrict his product, then it's wrong to violate that. However, and this probably makes me a bad person on some level, life is short, and money is finite. If presented with the option of increasing the quality of my life, or adhering to a principle which, let's face it, is not going to make me feel better about myself, then, I have to say I don't lose any sleep over making the former choice. Now, every now and then when I get some extra cash flow, I lavish extra money on people who do things I like. I would love to do this more. I can't justify present unprincipled behavior by claiming that I'll try and make up for it in the future, but, I probably do delude myself in thinking that as long as someone is doing something good, they're going to get some support for it. As long as the RIAA doesn't rob them.
Another vote for cable, if you have the choice.
Go for cable. Is Unf leaving Chicago?
He's moving to an offshore island tax-shelter, I think.
Cable is the way to go, not just for service/reliability, but because it's possible to get a *much* better deal bundling your cable TV/cable Internet. YMMV, but when I switched from DirecTV and DSL to a bundled Comcast setup, we cut our monthly costs for the two services in half.
That being said, the Comcast DVR is teh suck in comparison to TiVo.
Yeah, we got a phone/tv/internet deal for our house a few years ago, made things much cheaper. The bundle deals are the way to go.
Also, skip getting a land-line phone--we use a VOIP service for $20 a month. It works just as well as a regular phone line, is cheap, and we get all the extras that the phone company charges more for. Plus, international calling is dirt-ass cheap.
What Matt F. said in 8.
I would add that reliablity will turn in a large part on the infrastructure where you will be living. If the cable lines are old and the phone company has just updated its phone lines, DSL may be much more reliable (although I do not know if it ever is much faster). So try to gather some information on your neighborhood, because it could make a big difference.
I switched to DSL a few months ago to save money and haven't regretted it. I suppose it is a bit slower, but unless you're really into porn, does the difference in connection speed make that much difference?
but unless you're really into porn
Now nobody here can answer your question.
34 percent of us can't help you, Chris.
I've had both.
DSL can be faster than cable if you are in the right location.
My cable was about 1Mb/s, my current DSL is 3Mb/s.
As for reliability:
* the cable went out for a few hours or so about 6 times a year, and went out seriously (as in required a call to someone to get it fixed) about twice a year. While only a single call was required, the cable company took its sweet time about responding --- in the worst case taking two weeks to fix the problem.
* the DSL has gone out for a few hours or so twice in two years, and has gone out seriously once. Getting it fixed required three phone calls to figure out the responsibility between the ISP and the phone co, but it was fixed the same day once that was sorted out.
I would say that if you have access to DSL of acceptable speed, the real issue is who are the ISPs? Some ISPs are just insane in the restrictions they place on your usage --- restrictions that may not be enforced, but at any moment could be.
Do you want to be able to run your own server (and server may mean something as limited as a web site visited by you and your family and no-one else, it may be as limited as wanting to be able to connect to your computers at home from work using ssh or VNC)? Do you want to connect to a NAT router (like a wireless base station)? Many ISPs state in the contract that you may not do either of these things.
As far as I can tell, Earthlink (DSL) seems the most reasonable in terms of not being an asshole about how you can use the connection that you have paid for.
As for VOIP huh? This strikes me as a total scam, paying $20/month. Why not just use skype or google talk or iChat or Yahoo messenger or any of the dozen or so VOIP solutions that cost nothing. If the person being called on the other end doesn't have a computer, use a solution like skype out.
I don't know where I got $20. My plan costs $9.99/month. Nobody in my extended family is technologically savvy enough to use skype.
Oh, there's where I got $20. The $9.99 is a limited time offer.
The whole point of skype out is that the other end of the connection is a phone, not a computer.
Right. Sometimes my family like to call me.
That's what SkypeIn is for (seriously).
As Maynard said, it really varies by area. Ask your neighbors; they'll have the best idea. In my experience DSL is cheaper but significantly slower. It's more reliable, though, both in terms of outages and in terms of speed not decreasing when your neighbors get home from work. Also, the DSL companies behave in a significantly less evil way toward their consumers.
SkypeIn is in Beta. I'm not even sure it existed 8 months ago when I was shopping for a VOIP service.
Seriously, I'm willing to be convinced that there's a better, cheaper VOIP service, but I searched pretty hard at the time to find one that met all my needs, and Packet8 was the best one I could come up with. The next time I get around to reviewing my TelCom options (about a year, when the locked-in rates I have with Comcast expire), maybe there will be something better.
I've had DSL from SBC/Yahoo and cable from two different providers. The DSL went down much more, and required a complicated reboot each time.
re: 6 -- I thought that only money lived in tax shelters, not people.
Some people feel lonely if they don't live with their money.
As you can see, both have reliability problems. However, the problems are unlikely to be caused by the same lightning strike/backhoe/technician error. If you really count on have a reliable internet connection, the answer is obvious:
BOTH.
Years ago I heard that the limitations on speed are determined by two factors, absolute theoretical maximum bandwidth, and, how that bandwidth may have to be shared.
At that time the maximum speed of DSL was lower than cable and I believe that this is still the case.
However, DSL is a dedicated line, or rather circuit, from your home to a telecom facility. Therefore you never share its bandwidth, so you are basically always as fast as you ever are.
With cable, the connection is shared with all the other cable subscribers on your "branch" of the local cable company's network. So, if everyone on your block downloads gigabytes every night, then all these cable internet subscribers , may experience potentially seriously limited download speeds. Of course with cable, you're never given a chance a go full speed. You're only allocated a max speed that is logically limited by the system, so that no-one can hog all the bandwidth. These speed caps mean that in some areas, even high use by your neighbors may not impact your speeds, because the total speed possible allows a lot of folks to exercise their maximum before it the pipe is truly full, at which point all user's actual speeds drop below the cap as sharing starts to truly impact each user. Other factors on cable max speed are the actual physical cable, higher grade cable has higher bandwidth, and in the case of digital cable TV, how much bandwidth is devoted to TV and to Internet use, though these should be transparent to the user. The cable company should be able to tell you what their max download, and upload speeds are, and for a given part of there network, how often the speeds per user dip below this max speed.
I have no certainty that these concepts applied in all cases, or, for that matter, that they still hold in any general sense, but I suspect they would given the structure of the related networks, phone lines and coaxial cable.
The rule of thumb derived from the above is that in dense urban areas, especially where populated with relatively active internet users, cable may, potentially often be slower than DSL. In more sparsely populated areas, cable is almost always faster.
I've also run into a real difference in internet service providers in that some cap total monthly downloads to some number of gigabytes, while others have no limit. If you are a serious downloader this can totally cramp your style if you use up your monthly quota early.
