Shit I have to dissagree with Amp. I'm for it now
Quote:
Originally posted by Amputate Your Head
let's see what else....
1. a big thick ass cable, versus two scrawny little phone wires. (shouldn't take rocket science to figure this one out)
|
If I recall my basic electronics training, doesn't a thicker cable have more resistance? Ergo, a smaller copper conductor will be less lossy?
Add to the fact that a DSL line is just for that one purpose and does not have to carry X amount of channels over different freqencies, then you should have a cleaner signal (which is, to my understanding, the basic problem with cable as it stands now).
Quote:
2. Cable is readily available to virtually anyone with cable. And even to those without cable.... they'll fucking install the line.
|
Not so sadly. It DOES depend on where you live and is slightly dependand on distance to the nearest node. The UK, for instance, still has a lot of areas without cable.
Quote:
3. Cable is not limited by distance as dsl is.
|
It is limited by distance, but not for the same reasons as DSL is. DSL is dependant on the distance to the exchange that's capable of swithcing a DSL line and that distance is a lot shorter than a cable to node requirement.
You can sometimes get cable in the boondocks for instance where you cannot get DSL, but there's still a distance requirement.
Quote:
4. Cable is virtually never down, unless the modem dies or the provider blows a node.
|
Again, not true. Check dslreports.com for some really bad cable networks. Oversubscription is a major problem even in small cities, and frequently my cable connection drops for no reason or is slower than dialup.
Quote:
5. Cable is cheaper than dsl.
|
Depends on what upstream/downstream you're talking here. Most cable co's now work on the 128 down 500 or more up. DSL is generally at least 128 down 728ish up or more, so I'd expect to pay more for that.