Anyone else using DSL?

[bigred]

Fed up with pricer cable and silly bandwidth limits, I am reverting to DSL. I don't do "streaming" much so I don't think (?) it should be bad (famous last words right...). Just wondering if anyone else is still using and if they feel it's good enough for general browsing.

[lionking]

We don't have cable to our township (yet) and have ADSL+, and it does the job satisfactorily for my needs (even though we are 5km from the exchange). Video streaming works, I can download at 300+k/sec, sites load up okay.

When cable comes by though, I will change over in a flash.

[bigred]

Great, thx. I would too if I could get back the ol unlimited bandwidth (or a limit really high such that I could watch movies etc if I wanted). Bastages.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by bigred

Great, thx. I would too if I could get back the ol unlimited bandwidth (or a limit really high such that I could watch movies etc if I wanted). Bastages.

What bandwidth do you have with your cable plan? I have a 200Gb plan, which is more than adequate.

[a_unique_person]

I've had ADSL and Cable. Cable is faster, but ADSL for a single person who isn't into high bandwidth applications will usually be very happy with it. You do have to be more careful about the quality of the phone lines and distance from exchange. Check out what you should expect the performance to be first.

[Dancing David]

I have friends with DSL, they don't stream , and it is quite adequate.

[marplots]

I am tired of the cable monopoly here. But I'm a bit rural and can't get DSL yet. If it comes my way, I'm jumping on it. Cable rates keep creeping up, and up and up.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by bigred

Fed up with pricer cable and silly bandwidth limits, I am reverting to DSL. I don't do "streaming" much so I don't think (?) it should be bad (famous last words right...). Just wondering if anyone else is still using and if they feel it's good enough for general browsing.

I've gone in the opposite direction.

I'm presently subscribed to the fastest DSL service - 5 mpbs download speed, with 15 GB of bandwidth -- that they offer in this area. The last bill from the provider was $166 (we had used 266GB of bandwidth), and I was told there was nothing they could do to get me faster service, so I contacted my local cable company. On August 7th, they're coming to hook me up with their service instead. My d/l speed will jump tenfold, my bandwidth will increase to 250GB, and best of all, they're going to combine my internet and phone service and charge me a lot less.

If I only had one computer, and only occasionally used the net for email, online banking, and such, I probably would have stayed with the DSL service.

RayG

[Babbylonian]

I have what they've termed "fiber DSL." It's basically just fast ADSL with about 11 Mbps down and 768 kbps up, no bandwidth caps. I love it and am able to game/stream with no big problems, except that I can't really host games very well. I've been playing a ton of Mass Effect 3 multiplayer and the times I tried to host games there were a lot of complaints about lag/latency issues.

Anyway, I certainly wouldn't change to cable. I considered it briefly when I went through a brief period of losing my broadband about once a week (lasted about 3 months, then they finally got it fixed). In the end I decided that giving Comcast money was just a terrible idea.

[sentry579]

I'm using DSL and seldom have any trouble. The only time things are really slow is during a download of something like a 600 page pdf file. Video and all else is fine.

[quadraginta]

Is "bandwidth" being used as a synonym for "data transfer limit/month" here, or something like that?

[Kaylee]

I'm using DSL and usually have no problems. I even occasionally watch shows on hulu.com via my laptop.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Is "bandwidth" being used as a synonym for "data transfer limit/month" here, or something like that?

I'd call such a "bandwidth cap" which is a term I've seen often enough that I consider it common usage. It's an appropriate term since if your ISP only lets you download, say, 2 GB per month then you have only 2 GB of bandwidth per month.

I certainly couldn't live under such a constraint given that the Innertubez are the only way I've gotten TV and movies into my home - apart from the occasional disc (maybe once every couple months) - for about the last 5 years.

[Kilgore Trout]

I went from DSL to cable recently. I started streaming with Netflix and DSL was okay, but I wasn't getting full quality that I do now with cable. I wouldn't have minded so much but my problem was more with AT&T.

I had problems with horrible support and service and even once exposed wires in the yard (I was told it was a "budget problem" and they couldn't do anything about it... I thought... I pay my bill on time, I do not have a "budget problem." I had to threaten calling the county before they did something.) Once a guy showed up at the door to try and sell me television service, noting that I probably saw their trucks around to speed up service. I told him the service is the same speed it has been for months. I will never do any business with AT&T again.

So... So long as your carrier isn't AT&T, I'd say DSL is probably just fine. If it is AT&T, God help you. Well something help you.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

I'd call such a "bandwidth cap" which is a term I've seen often enough that I consider it common usage.

I wouldn't. It's an arbitrary limit on service. Not a measure of the potential or actual data throughput of the system.

If you run Speedtest on your computer you'll get a figure for the bandwidth of your system. If you convert it to GB/month it will be different from your service provider's cap on usage.

That's because they aren't the same thing.

Quote:

It's an appropriate term since if your ISP only lets you download, say, 2 GB per month then you have only 2 GB of bandwidth per month.

<snip>

Most providers will sell you more if you're willing to pay for it, won't they?

When they do that doesn't change the bandwidth of your system, just the total on the bill they send you.

I admit it's a little nit-picky, but the difference is significant enough that people who know better shouldn't perpetuate the mistake.

Why is it harder to say "data cap"?

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

I admit it's a little nit-picky, but the difference is significant enough that people who know better shouldn't perpetuate the mistake.

Why is it harder to say "data cap"?

No, it's a lot nit-picky when most folks seem to know what I'm talking about when I use the "wrong" term.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

No, it's a lot nit-picky when most folks seem to know what I'm talking about when I use the "wrong" term.

In the absense of appropriate context I wouldn't have. It was only because of the usage that intent was decipherable.

How many misinformed people does it take to be "right"?

What term do you use as a substitute when you actually want to talk about bandwidth and not about an artificial limit on data download? There really is a reason to be able to distinguish between the two.

When I read the first sentence of the OP,

"Fed up with pricer cable and silly bandwidth limits, I am reverting to DSL."

I was momentarily puzzled because the bandwidth of residential cable broadband is intrinsically greater than that of DSL. It took a double-take to glom onto the idea that what was really being complained about was data caps.

The service we have here doesn't cap or tier for total data throughput (although they do add a surcharge for faster access, which really is more bandwidth ), so I admit that such a limit is a little alien to me, but that still doesn't explain why it is burdensome to call it what it actually is, instead of something which is essentially a different issue altogether.

Note the possibility implied by the above. My ISP has three levels of access speed (i.e., "bandwidth"), with correlated increases in monthly fees. If they were to also set caps on data throughput per month (gods forbid!) then your usage of the term would be hard-pressed to intelligibly describe the difference.

Yet there clearly is one.

I guess you could say there was a bandwidth cap on the bandwidth cap, but that sounds a bit silly, don't you think?

The world of computing and the interwebz is already confusing enough for the layman. We don't do anyone any favors by misusing meaningful terms just because "most folks seem to know" what you mean. The "seem to" is the critical part here. Later on they're liable to get stymied when a term they "seem to know" ends up meaning something else altogether. Chances are they'll get all pissy toward the one who is actually using it properly. They'll know they are right.

The "seem to" part won't be apparent to them.

Did you overlook my two questions?

Most providers who set caps on throughput will sell you more if you're willing to pay for it, won't they? Even at DSL speeds there's enough bandwidth available to your system for more than 2GB/month of throughput. (See, there's that pesky difference again.)

Why is it harder to say "data cap"?

[Finster]

I used to have the cheapest Comcast cable plan. We use Netflix streaming and with Comcast it used to cut out and reload 3-4 times during a one hour TV episode and we almost never got HD quality. After Comcast doubled their price we switched to DSL for less than we were paying before the increase. Now we almost always have HD quality with Netflix and almost never have it cut out and reload. Customer service is vastly improved as well.

[bigred]

Well I'm glad we aren't getting pedantic.

It's how much internet cloudy stuff I'm allowed to use in a month. Not speed. I don't care what you call it but FYI the industry typically/often calls it simply "bandwidth."

Anyway it came and I installed today (amazingly I was up and running within minutes, no snags)....slower as expected but too slow even for DSL. And I'm amazed at the speeds you folks are quoting above as they told me up front I could expect ballpark 1.5Mps vs the 3 or 4+ I could get (at least) with cable.

Just now I tried downloading something and was cruising along at a blazing 80Kps. Yes K. I've yet to crack 100 on various tries. I know things aren't usually as advertised on speeds but cmon wtfo? And no I'm not streaming/doing anything else on it.

[bigred]

Talking to tech spt now - their suggestion? Clear browser cache Are you kidding me? When this didn't work, I got to a 2d level "specialist." Who never said a word.

So I closed the chat window and re-entered to get someone else - I explained everything above. Their response? Clear your cache.

When I clued in the clueless, instead of getting a 2d level person (who might actually speak??) they gave me a 1800 # with (surprise) a wealth of phone menus, none which include "to talk to an actual human

POS Earthlink tech "support" are they all this bad??

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by bigred

Talking to tech spt now - their suggestion? Clear browser cache Are you kidding me? When this didn't work, I got to a 2d level "specialist." Who never said a word.

So I closed the chat window and re-entered to get someone else - I explained everything above. Their response? Clear your cache.

When I clued in the clueless, instead of getting a 2d level person (who might actually speak??) they gave me a 1800 # with (surprise) a wealth of phone menus, none which include "to talk to an actual human

POS Earthlink tech "support" are they all this bad??

in my experience sadly, ATT and Comcast, yes, they all suck. Hopefully the smaller outfits are still good.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by bigred

Talking to tech spt now - their suggestion? Clear browser cache Are you kidding me? When this didn't work, I got to a 2d level "specialist." Who never said a word.

So I closed the chat window and re-entered to get someone else - I explained everything above. Their response? Clear your cache.

When I clued in the clueless, instead of getting a 2d level person (who might actually speak??) they gave me a 1800 # with (surprise) a wealth of phone menus, none which include "to talk to an actual human

POS Earthlink tech "support" are they all this bad??

Mostly. Dealing with the tech support of any large organization, certainly at the first level, isn't dealing with a human being who knows anything [at all] about technology; you're talking to a script.

One thing, though: When you say the speed you're getting is "100k," do you mean 100 kbps (kilobits/second) or 100 kBps (kilobytes/second)? The former would be completely unacceptable on a connection capped at 1.5 Mbps while the latter would still be bad (equal to about 800 kbps compared to 1,500 kbps possible) but it could be the upper limit depending on the local line conditions and your physical distance from the DSLAM (the hardware that routes your DSL from the company's nearest location).

Unfortunately, most ISPs use the bits/second measurement while a lot of software uses the bytes/second measurement

My connection is capped at 12 Mbps but in practice I get about 10 Mbps.

Also, you say you're talking to Earthlink. Do they provide your physical DSL connection or are they just the ISP you're using via a DSL connection to your local phone company? If they're just the ISP, you may need to talk to the company providing the actual connection; in that case, Earthlink can only give you as much speed as your physical connection can actually handle.

[bigred]

Thx. No they are "it" - this is what they call a "dry loop" ie no active phone line.

I guess if I have to tolerate slow d/l speeds I can live with it, not like I'm doing that much anyway - but damn it's painful when I do and I do expect something at least in the ballpark of what's advertised.

[monoman]

I read somewhere recently that dial-up is on the increase in America for the first time in years because of the recession.

Has anyone state-side heard anything about this?

TBH I didn't know it was possible to get dial-up anymore.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by monoman

I read somewhere recently that dial-up is on the increase in America for the first time in years because of the recession.

Has anyone state-side heard anything about this?

TBH I didn't know it was possible to get dial-up anymore.

It's possible, yes. I don't know if I'd believe in any significant increase in use, though, especially since residential landlines seem to be on the decrease. I only have one because my employer requires it. They've also provided me with a modem to use if my broadband goes down, but I will not use it under any circumstances; if my Internet is down, I either treat it as a "sick day" or move my PC someplace else (like my sister's place).

[mortimer]

I'm so screwed if the local cable company puts a bandwidth limit on me. I have 30M/5M which is fantastic considering I work from home, with the need to download large files often. But I'm pushing 500GB downloaded this month, between work, Netflix, and *ahem* other activities.

[The Don]

When I lived in Bristol I got 10-15 Mbps over ADSL with no cap on download for £16 a month (including national and international calls).

Now I've moved out into the boonies I get 1.5-2 Mbps so streaming (like BBC iPlayer is off the cards, so we download instead). They do offer an enhanced service for an extra £10 a month but we can't justify the extra cost because neighbours report a maximum speed of 4Mbps.

I work from home and generally speaking performance and reliability is acceptable. We do need a new line to be put in but BT cannot get access to the field next door to do it. to compensate us for our poor service, our provider has thrown in free calls to mobiles.

[Temecula]

I live in a small town and had to switch from AT&T dsl because the customer service was nothing short of horrible. They could not handle anything without screwing it up and leaving me without internet for days, even upgrading to a faster speed caused them to accidentally shut my internet off, and our recent move unleashed a nightmarish 20+ hour trek into the depths AT&T's metro manilla customer service hell. I had to cancel after that. Thankfully our small town has a local cooperative for our municipal utilities that also provides Cable and Cable internet with NO CAP and faster speeds than AT&T.

This post is just an opportunity to bag on AT&T as hard as a can. They are horrible.

[Hazel]

Originally Posted by bigred

Fed up with pricer cable and silly bandwidth limits, I am reverting to DSL. I don't do "streaming" much so I don't think (?) it should be bad (famous last words right...). Just wondering if anyone else is still using and if they feel it's good enough for general browsing.

My friend uses DSL because it is all she can get where she lives. It seems to me the big drawback is its dependence on the telephone. Last week a county crew accidentally cut her phone line. As a result she has no internet. She is still waiting for the telephone crew to show up. They promised to be there yesterday and you know they do not work weekends.

Temecula, your story is so familiar as to not even be news any more.

[Tiktaalik]

I'm using DSL. Up to less than a year ago, I only had dial-up, so I'm awestruck by DSL.

[Ryokan]

25Mb ADSL with 10Mb upload speed and unlimited download. I've never seen a Norwegian internet provider put a limit on download, actually, unless you're talking about for phones. I'm quite happy with it, and have no problems streaming anything.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by Hazel

My friend uses DSL because it is all she can get where she lives. It seems to me the big drawback is its dependence on the telephone. Last week a county crew accidentally cut her phone line. As a result she has no internet. She is still waiting for the telephone crew to show up. They promised to be there yesterday and you know they do not work weekends.

To be fair, plenty of cable companies will leave you hanging, too. At my last place we used Comcast for Internet and were down twice for 2 weekdays.

[Hazel]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

To be fair, plenty of cable companies will leave you hanging, too. At my last place we used Comcast for Internet and were down twice for 2 weekdays.

True but you can at least reach a human being at Comcast as well as other cable companies. Just try reaching a real person at AT&T!

Where I used to live, I had Comcast. True it was down more often than what I now have but I always got a fast response and a good explanation of what had gone wrong - like the time a whole neighborhood was taken out by a vandal. What truly amazed me was that they called later to ask if I was back online and was all well. I am sure they didn't do it just for one customer. How many companies do that these days?

I just spoke with my friend who has DSL. The men never showed up yesterday. She called today and finally got a live person. They had no record of the job - they said. Now they tell her they can't come until next Wednesday.

In all fairness, I realize I am talking about AT&T more than about DSL. Perhaps another company does better. Maybe the answer to the original question is "depends on the server".

[bigred]

Originally Posted by Hazel

Where I used to live, I had Comcast. True it was down more often than what I now have but I always got a fast response and a good explanation of what had gone wrong - like the time a whole neighborhood was taken out by a vandal. What truly amazed me was that they called later to ask if I was back online and was all well. I am sure they didn't do it just for one customer. How many companies do that these days?

Pretty much none, including Comcast in my experience. Where did you live that Comcast gave great customer service? Mars? I've had them several times and they were as bad as any.

Anyway downloads still fargin slow but bearable and streaming not as bad as I expected, though often you do have to wait awhile for things to load. And God bless that unlimited bandwidth/cap/whatever you want to call it. Re-capturing my old LP albums again.....love ya bittorrent

[Hazel]

Originally Posted by bigred

Pretty much none, including Comcast in my experience. Where did you live that Comcast gave great customer service? Mars? I've had them several times and they were as bad as any.

Anyway downloads still fargin slow but bearable and streaming not as bad as I expected, though often you do have to wait awhile for things to load. And God bless that unlimited bandwidth/cap/whatever you want to call it. Re-capturing my old LP albums again.....love ya bittorrent

I was in Independence, MO, and the service was indeed good. I don't mean they had fewer problems. I mean they cared when something went wrong. Do you suppose it had something to with the City Council having control over who operated in their city? I don't know. I have a friend in Vermont who had bad service from Comcast. So, it all depends. All I know is that, if they are ever available where I am now, I'll switch in a minute.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by bigred

Thx. No they are "it" - this is what they call a "dry loop" ie no active phone line.

I guess if I have to tolerate slow d/l speeds I can live with it, not like I'm doing that much anyway - but damn it's painful when I do and I do expect something at least in the ballpark of what's advertised.

Even if you are on a "dry loop", the local phone company is most likely responsible for the hardware that connects you to earthlink.

Tier 1 tech support is almost always worthless if you are not clueless. They will have you do things like clear your cache (why, I don't know. It never fixes a slow connection), reboot your computer, reboot your modem. Most likely you have already done all of those things, but you have to play along to get to the tier 2 support, who, if you're very lucky, might actually be able to solve a problem that can't be solved by rebooting, etc.

[CORed]

Answering OP. My internet service has been DSL since I upgraded from dialup (shudder) years ago. I have upgraded the speed a few time. I am currently on 12 megabit/sec down, 900kb up VDSL. I am very happy with this service, although the upload speed is a bit slow. With just me using the connection, it streams beautifully.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by Hazel

I was in Independence, MO, and the service was indeed good. I don't mean they had fewer problems. I mean they cared when something went wrong. Do you suppose it had something to with the City Council having control over who operated in their city? I don't know. I have a friend in Vermont who had bad service from Comcast. So, it all depends. All I know is that, if they are ever available where I am now, I'll switch in a minute.

It might be related to the political situation in your city, but most places the cable company is operating under some sort of franchise regulated by the local government. More likely you were just fortunate enough to have a good local manager who actually gave a damn about customer service. They'll probably fire him if the bean counters figure they can save a few bucks a year by screwing over the customers.

[Hazel]

Originally Posted by CORed

It might be related to the political situation in your city, but most places the cable company is operating under some sort of franchise regulated by the local government. More likely you were just fortunate enough to have a good local manager who actually gave a damn about customer service. They'll probably fire him if the bean counters figure they can save a few bucks a year by screwing over the customers.

I'd call you a cynic except that I know you are right. There was tough competition among those cities. Too many complaints from customers and City Councils pulled franchises and gave them to someone else. So, I imagine they all tried to stay on their toes. What we had was a good City Council.