PDA

View Full Version : DSL Speed



Gully
12-14-2005, 05:06 PM
I want to upgrade my DSL speed so I called my provider today and they have the following options:

128
256
640
1.5

I know next to nothing about this other than I'm currently at 128. Does anyone have a recommendation? I'd like to be able to be able to watch streaming video and right now this never works (not just the NDSU stuff either).

Thoughts?

MN_BISONS
12-14-2005, 05:39 PM
Gully, check with your local cable provider to see what they have to offer. I recently dumbed my DSL for cable internet and I'm very happy.

BISON_PRIDE
12-14-2005, 05:50 PM
Just my advice, and I'm no expert. *If you don't have to pay to upgrade I'd go for the 1.5. *I'd look at cable also, Midcon usually has a good deal. *If no to both of these, I'd call around the area and see who offers a sweet deal, it's beginning to be very competative.

kchats
12-14-2005, 07:12 PM
Always get the fastest service anyone provides.

Tatanka
12-15-2005, 01:31 AM
Always get the fastest service anyone provides.
++ I have Qwest DSL and am very pleased. I get 1.5 down and 1.1 up. Very quick.

Also, with a cable modem you are sharing bandwidth with everyone else. At peak times your real bandwidth is less. With DSL you aren't sharing with anyone.

kchats
12-15-2005, 01:41 AM
I am on SBC Yahoo! DSL and I have download of 1.5 Mbps and I think around 1 Mbps upload. I got something in the mail regarding upgrades to bring my speed to 3 or 4 Mbps but when I called the number I couldn't get through and now that number no longer is in service.

Bisonguy
12-15-2005, 02:18 AM
Ask what people use in your area, and compare the costs.

The bus, or "shared" aspect of cable has been grossly exagerated by the TelCos that want to sell you DSL. The cable companies usually understate their speeds to account for any sag due to excess traffic.

DSL usually has greater upload speeds than cable, which can be advantageous if you do a lot of online gaming or web content uploading. DSL, however, usually has slower download speeds than cable for the same cost, and is sensitive to the distance you are located from a Central Office.



I use cable, as I have a 3 Mb down/ 300k up service for $30/month. Most everyone I know that has used DSL in Fargo (especially from Qwest), now uses cable.

kchats
12-15-2005, 02:42 AM
Of course the cable company generally charges the customer for basic cable for the right to have cable internet so if you have DirecTV you get stuck paying for something you don't want or need in the basic cable package. I know cell phone users that don't have a land line feel the same way about the basic phone charges required to have DSL. My parents recently got high speed internet via satellite and I'm not sure what their speeds are and who their provider is. I think they now have fast uploads as well via satellite.

I am so happy to be with satellite TV (DirecTV) I will never have cable again so I will never have cable internet either.

Gully
12-15-2005, 02:48 AM
Thanks everyone for the info. That's one of the things I like about this board. Ask just about anything and you'll find someone with the answer.

Bisonguy
12-15-2005, 02:49 AM
Of course the cable company generally charges the customer for basic cable for the right to have cable internet so if you have DirecTV you get stuck paying for something you don't want or need in the basic cable package. *I know cell phone users that don't have a land line feel the same way about the basic phone charges required to have DSL. *My parents recently got high speed internet via satellite and I'm not sure what their speeds are and who their provider is. *I think they now have fast uploads as well via satellite.

I am so happy to be with satellite TV (DirecTV) I will never have cable again so I will never have cable internet either.

Yeah, it's a pick the lesser of two evils type of decision. Telcos vs. Cablecos


Last I saw on satellite was uploads of 128k, and they were actually still using 56k modems for uploads about a year ago. The big problem with satellite is latency. If you ever want to do any sort of online gaming, satellite won't work. Also, any realtime info will be way behind (I would feel real bad for anyone listening or watching a game via a satellite internet while I'm updating the scores here via radio- They might be MINUTES behind everyone else).

BisonBryce
12-15-2005, 05:23 AM
I think configuring Cable is easier (but i had bad luck with DSL when i lived in MSP).

Tatanka
12-16-2005, 01:55 AM
Maybe this guy can solve the DSL v Cable Modem debate...
http://www.56k.dk/ondmis.dk/fpics/internetvi.jpg

GFBisonFan
12-16-2005, 03:40 AM
must be cold or he was in the pool :o

runtheoption
12-16-2005, 03:31 PM
Looks familiar. Anyone remember "Tron"?

MplsBison
12-18-2005, 04:13 PM
If you really want the best service then you should get fiber optic line installed to your house.

Expensive, though.

Bisonguy
12-18-2005, 04:37 PM
If you really want the best service then you should get fiber optic line installed to your house.

Expensive, though.

Yeah, and that would require that an optical fiber node is near his home. Then there's the fairly steep service charge of around $10-20k a month for an OC-1.

In the FM area, some of the new construction in Dilworth are starting to run optical fiber into the house. Funny thing is that Dilworth will probably be the last in the area to bring up a residential optical service.

MplsBison
12-18-2005, 09:33 PM
Then there's the fairly steep service charge of around $10-20k a month for an OC-1.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Fios

Bisonguy
12-18-2005, 09:51 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Fios


Right. There will be residential fiber technologies emerging, but currently there's none in the region and Verizon's service is extremely limited geographically.

Even some of the local TelCos in the FM area are looking at FTTP services within the next couple of years.