DSL Rising

Steve wrote to us with an article about the rise of DSL throughout the world. What I find most interesting is the discussion about cable vs. DSL; in the United States cable is winning, but globally, DSL holds the cake.

Comments

US vs other Nations

[vor]

Many areas of the US can't get DSL service due to their distance from the phone company central office. So they are left with no choice but to get cable, if it's availible.

I fell into this category, as even though DSL was availible in my town (a suburb outside of NYC), I was wayyyy too far from the central office to get DSL. Only just recently did my local cable supplier begin offering broadband.

In smaller countries with more concentrated populations, more people live within the appropriate distance from the central office. Hence the larger amount of people with DSL service.

I chose DSL because...

[PotatoHead]

Cable was too restrictive. Sure, the speed is better in my neck of the woods, but choice matters more to me.

With DSL, in Portland, OR at least, I get to choose from a number of different speeds and ISP's.

For me this is the difference between a *real* connection to the Internet, and a download only one.

(Shameless plug --If you do not live here, skip!)
www.spiretech.com

- Shell account on server via SSH or (gasp!) telnet.
- Some level of free web site hosting.
- Good connectivity
- Only real user restriction is that you do not abuse the connection. So running a commercial site is out, but all the hobby level stuff is ok.
- IP address by username in dns. Not static, but very useful. eg: user_name@dsl.spiretech.com

These things matter a lot to me. I use my home connection for many different activities. Many are related to my job, but some are just for learning.

So, you basically trade choice and connectivity for speed. For me that's fine. Maybe others see the same?

Re:cable IS better

[darkfrog]

I think the majority of the problem is the DSL providers making it HELL to use. Mostly the Bells trying to control their network by installing their sh*t all over your computer, giving you USB modems that suck, and generally giving crappy service. I had an excellent small time DSL provider that gave me INCREDIBLE service without the headaches and I would go back to them in a heartbeat, but the bells are completely worthless from day 1. Cable on the other hand almost always use ethernet modems from my experience and don't tend to install much if any special software on your PCs and don't hassle you as much...
just my experience and $.02

Cable is Better in YOUR area

[MosesJones]

My DSL has DHCP, an accessible IP, has a small cable I plug into the phone socket which isn't exactly much.

Oh and Cable isn't in my area. In most of Europe Satellite TV rules the roost, except for major cities and even there Sat tends to have an edge. Europe didn't spend the 50s,60s and 70s installing a cable TV network, it went straight from terrestrial to Satellite. This means that the only network that is EVERYWHERE is the Phone network hence DSL.

So you'd want DSL if you were in a place where the investment in the Phone infrastructure has been going for the 40 years that cable investment has been going in the US.

This is why no-one is suprised (except the Slashdot editor) that Cable is big in the US and DSL big everywhere else. Its sort of like saying "Hey look CDMA is big in the US but GSM is big everywhere else".

Re:Cable is Better in YOUR area

[suss]

Europe didn't spend the 50s,60s and 70s installing a cable TV network, it went straight from terrestrial to Satellite.

I don't know where you're from, but here in the Netherlands, cable-tv has a coverage of 98% or more in all homes.

Still, DSL is getting more and more popular, because the cable providers (like Casema and UPC) are simply offering a godawful excuse for service.

reasons

[Martin S.]

Two main reasons

1) Network topology. Cable is a ring, so all the consumers are sharing the bandwidth, the local connection forms the bottle neck. xDSL is star, each customer has exclusive use until the backbone. It suffers less contention. This benefits the consumer.

2) Cost. Cable expensive to install, you need to install a new cable ring and new run to each subscriber. XDSL operate of the existing twisted copper pair of the local loop. This benefits the ISP.

AIH, We are rolling out a broadband Interactive DTV using IP over ADSL because of these advantage.

Re:reasons

[jratcliffe]

A few corrections:

1. Cable isn't a ring, it's a tree-and-branch.
2. xDSL has contention at the DSLAM, not the backbone.
3. It's only expensive to install cable in an area where it doesn't already exist (as many others have said, it's extremely extensive in the US and some parts of Europe, much less extensive in others).
4. You're probably rolling out video over DSL because who in the hell would want thin-pipe IP video over a cable connection that was designed to deliver TV-quality video in the first place?

Latency vs. Bandwidth

[martinde]

One thing that I like about DSL over cable (having used both in my area) is that the latency of the DSL is better. I think most people are probably more latency sensitive than bandwidth sensitive. When you are clicking links, you want that instant feedback.

The actual ranking...

[Gerein]

For those who are interested, the actual numbers can be found here.

Top five for those who are too lazy to click:

(country, DSL-lines in 1000, lines per 100 population)

1. South-Korea, 6076, 12.7
2. USA, 5837, 2.0
3. Japan, 4223, 3.3
4. Germany, 2800, 3.4
5. China, 2220, 0.2

Numbers are supposely from september, but I know that Germany is at >3000000 lines right now, so maybe they're not too accurate (or Germany's market is growing real fast... :-))

Look out for China, it'll lead this ranking soon, just because of being HUGE.