All things equal, what's better: 2 DSL vs. Cable?

P

Parmenides

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
6,578
I'm at a really small office that couldn't have cable because it wasn't available. So instead, two DSL lines were setup for it. But now cable is available.

I don't know the exact numbers for upload/download per price, but I'm told 2 DSL lines add up to roughly the same price per speed as would be with a single cable line.

Assuming that 2 DSL lines add up to cable in price and speed, is one better than the other?
 
Would those 2 DSL line provide any type of redundancy, or would both probably go out in the event of a problem?
 
And by "add up to roughly the same price per speed" are you combining the speed of the 2 lines and getting the speed you'd get with cable or is one line of DSL equal to the line of cable and you're loadbalancing it with the other?
 
1 cable and 1 DSL :D

i know that wasn't the answer you were looking for, but it would be the best
 
Depends on your requirements. Won't make a difference if you have a light internet usage.
 
that depends... how are the 2 DSL lines currently setup?
ie, are you using a router with load balancing? is half the office running off each DSL modem? are you using a router with failover capability?

what are the business requirements in relation to an internet connection?
 
It's not very redundant. If our neighboring office went out after a storm, we'd probably be completely out too. Of course if failure happened near our end (e.g. one of the modems dies), then yeah, there are some points of redundancy.

kevinzak said:
And by "add up to roughly the same price per speed" are you combining the speed of the 2 lines and getting the speed you'd get with cable or is one line of DSL equal to the line of cable and you're loadbalancing it with the other?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, from what I understand the DSLUpload + DSLUpload = CableUpload. Same goes for download. At least it 'generally' amounts to the same.


edit... yes, one router to do the load balancing. Reliability is much more important than speed. Same ISP for both DSL lines. Yeah 1 cable and 1 DSL would be ideal, if the costs are acceptable, but I think it's just a matter of cable vs. dsl.
 
Last edited:
if reliability is the importance then... it wouldn't matter.

well.. are these "business" connections?

since generally ISPs have better terms for the business-level accounts.
 
Business cable connections tend to blow the doors off of the fastest DSL package you can get my a multitude of several times. With most DSL packages maxing at about 7 down and 3/4 up...and with many biz cable packages starting at 8/1 and going waaaay up from there (like 50/10)....
 
Comcast business 50/10 with a 5 block for $200/month. Actually I could get Comcast 100/10 here if I wanted even faster download.

That will blow away anything you can get for a DSL connection. Now you could always go with a different option like FIOS if you can get it or QMOE.
 
the part of business cable internet services that normally sucks is the lack of an SLA. Most branch offices don't need 50Mbps down, they need high % of uptime. T1 or bonded T1's is what I always try to go with for the sake of reliability, but it does come at a cost.

I've got fiber to two of my offices, bonded T1's at another, and business grade cable at the 4th, the cable connection gives me the most headaches.
 
Waaay too many variables to even answer this question, but in my experience, I'd rather have cable over DSL.
 
Berg0 said:
the part of business cable internet services that normally sucks is the lack of an SLA. Most branch offices don't need 50Mbps down, they need high % of uptime. T1 or bonded T1's is what I always try to go with for the sake of reliability, but it does come at a cost.

I've got fiber to two of my offices, bonded T1's at another, and business grade cable at the 4th, the cable connection gives me the most headaches.
Click to expand...

I have to say my experiences with many of each type over many years......reliability of broadband is up there, and to be honest...if I think back to my biggest pain in the butt experiences, my worst two were with T-1's.

I know technically that theoretical supposedly magical "SLA" isn't there with broadband...but I haven't seen SLA's with T-1's amount to poop when I've had clients had issues with their T's. And I've seen business cable internet have awesome support and if there was an issue it was solved quickly.
 
I agree with goodcooper 1 Cable and 1 DSL. Even drop to the most basic DSL for a lifeline connection to save money. 2 different connections should always leave you with at least 1 working and you are already setup to deal with 2 connections as that has been your setup for some time.
 
YeOldeStonecat said:
I have to say my experiences with many of each type over many years......reliability of broadband is up there, and to be honest...if I think back to my biggest pain in the butt experiences, my worst two were with T-1's.

I know technically that theoretical supposedly magical "SLA" isn't there with broadband...but I haven't seen SLA's with T-1's amount to poop when I've had clients had issues with their T's. And I've seen business cable internet have awesome support and if there was an issue it was solved quickly.
Click to expand...

it absolutly varies with region, carrier/broker and infrastructure. I've had remote T1's in the middle of nowhere (Nav Canada, weather reporting for airports) on leased copper through a bandwidth broker that absolutly sucks, and it was due to the regional teleco's poor line quality, but it was the only option for the location. So, T1 isn't always the answer, but on average it's better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top