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

Hmm.. interesting...

[McFly69]

Thats funny.... Steve wrote to us with an article about the rise of DSL throughout the world. Is this why they I am losing my Directv Dsl so others can use it throughtout the world??

DSL is better

[ccgr]

I would prefer DSL over cable but alas I cannot get either. Too far for DSL and even though I have access to digital cabel they don't offer cable internet. Wireless is not an option, trees int he way. And Satellite has limits on downloading (169MB in 8 hours!) I'm stuck with 56K woe is me

nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nice, but for those of us still in the boonies (I connect at 24kbps on my 56 modem, due to phone line quality) who will never see cable or DSL, what kind of alternatives are there? Wireless is a no-go (no LOS to a good point for a central AP), satellite sucks for gaming (which is my killer app for bandwidth), so I guess I have to wait for my neighbors to realize that they too need a fast connection - then we can form a Network Neighborhood with a leased line and wireless with coffee can antennas.

I believe

[Apreche]

That there are two main factors in this.

The first is that the US is large and other countries, for the most part, are small. Geographically speaking that is. I understand the DSL has a limited range and that you must be within X miles of certaint equipment in order for it to work. Cable modems don't have this limitation.

The other reason is that in america a great deal of the telephone wire (which DSL runs on) is complete crap. I went to Israel a couple years ago. The pay phones are so cool, they don't take change, only cards, and they have lcd screens. Not only that, but I was in this guys house, and I thought I saw a cat5 plug in the wall, but I was wrong. It was the telephone. Their telephone infrastructure is 1000 times more modern than ours.

That's the big problem with america. Our country is so large that in a time of rapid technological change we can't change our infrastructure fast enough to keep up with the rest of the world. It's feasable for say japan to cover its entire country in an amazing wireless network. Not so for the US. Cable modems require no new infrastructure. They just require people who already have cables coming into their house to get another wire run inside. DSL requires the phone company to update its stuff and put up new equipment.

From my experience though, DSL is cheaper, faster, and more reliable. And if your provider doesn't suck, they don't limit your bandwith.

DSL wins when their is no cable

[hhawk]

Most of the places around the world don't have cable like we do (large and going pass most homes), and they also have teleco companies with huge national power. SO while DSL is winning, it isnt' because it's the better choice, it's winning more by default and by the control of the marketplace by Teleco companies.

DSL Limitations

[bravehamster]

I think one of the main reasons DSL isn't catching on so quick in the US is the distance limitations. With the urban sprawl and wide open spaces and all, there's an awful lot of people not within the required distance. Other countries tend to be more densely populated than the US, and thus more people are able to get DSL. Also, I don't know how it is in other countries, but most people would rather deal with the cable company than the phone company.

Re:US vs other Nations

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why South Korea has a large percentage of broadband users. When you have 90% of the country living in or around Seoul it's so much easier to deploy dsl. Not only that, but many asian country's urban centers have higher population densities than large U.S. urban areas.

Free FrontPage, that'll cure the world's ills.

[VT_hawkeye]

Riiiiiiiiiight.

Funny, I can put together a pretty nice-looking website with any of several Windows text-editors. And there are free/low-cost WYSIWYG packages out there (some are old, but still usable).

I hope that's sarcasm, because if not, you're inventing a problem that doesn't exist in order to promote a class-warfare agenda.

Re:Laws to help DSL penetration?

[glwtta]

What am I missing? Do DSL companies not want customers? Can they not do regular network maintanence or bill correctly? It seems that cable internet providers can do all this and cheaper. Kind makes me want to switch to cable.

I have DSL through Covad (ATT is the actual ISP), I've had it for a few years now, I've never had to call them once, it's never been down and it's probably faster than your friend's cable (of course, it may not be). It's expensive, but mostly because I need decent upstream bandwidth (oddly enough, for work).

The point being that comparing two companies isn't necessarily comparing cable to DSL.

Building on the existing infrastructure

[crystall]

I may be totally wrong about this, but can't cable modems use existing cable lines, where DSL needs either fiber or at least better than two-wire phone line? So it makes sense that since the USA has a fairly large existing cable infrastructure that the growth might be faster in that area.

In the case of my area (Salem, Oregon, an hour south of Portland), cable was much more readily available to a larger subscriber area than DSL was, at least at the time we first subscribed. Plus DSL was more expensive at that time as well.

Price of your (A)DSL connection?

[charon.de]

Hi,

would be interested in what you pay for your connection?

I'm paying about 40 EUR/month, (24/7 ADSL 768/128 Kbit) with unlimited traffic via German Telekom (T-DSL). Which is running very reliable.

IMHO this isn't really cheap, but much cheaper then the metered ISDN access before.;)

Cable isn't an option for most people here.

Thx for reading

The reason why DSL beats Cable outside of the U.S

[frooyo]

is because the U.S is NOT densly populated. For example, Europe is extremely dense in population thus make DSL an easy choice with many people close to the relay stations (within 3 miles). Where as in the U.S. you have mountains, deserts, artic tundra where lower population live so they must use cable.

Also, much of Europe and Asia use satelite for television so people don't have the option to use the exist co-ax that is running into their homes as almost all have in the U.S (for Internet access).

This all goes back to why Europe and Asia are ahead of the U.S in mobile phones. To cover the population of lets say Japan, with relay towers is relatively simple because of the dense population. Thus making new technology easily upgradable (for relay towers) because they don't need as many and they are not spread over long distances.

Re:DSL and Cable are great...

[dirvish]

All the local ISPs in my area are selling DSL. I guess they are just re-selling Pac Bell's DSL...is that your point?

More but not cheaper!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Boston cable cost me $30 a month about $100 for rental of the modem.

In Ireland ADSL is costing me 199 setup, 270 modem (4 port), 204 a month for uncapped access (or I can take 100 a month for 3GB cap).

So the Irish Telco (eircom) is really screwing the consumers at the moment. The sad thing is, it's being touted as great+cheap! :(

Re:cable IS better

[BShive]

Funny, my experience with Cable is the exact opposite of yours. If I had the choice right now I'd switch to DSL in a heartbeat. Many times the Cable/DSL debate comes down to the quality of the provider, not one technology being better than the other.

I'd gladly switch..

[MImeKillEr]

.. from cable to DSL. The only thing thats keeping me? The contract.

With cable, I can drop them any time I feel like it. With DSL, I have to sign at least a 1 year contract. Then there's the issue of the bandwidth caps.

I'd gladly give up any instance of having TWC at the house. I could get DSL for easily $15 cheaper/month but won't for these two reasons.

Re:Cable's winning in the US

[nixman99]

So... any idea why cable's more popular in the US?

Here in the UK and elsewhere in the world, premium TV is done primarily by satellite, so cable isn't an option for most people. Also, in a lot of countries, the phone company has a monopoly on communications.

I don't understand why DSL is $70-80 in the States. Even with a near-monopoly, I get 512/128 ADSL from BT for ~$45/month.

Re:Yo

[grumpygrodyguy]

Too bad capitalism is keeping the broadband market f**ed up.


Capitalism? Capitalism only works if companies have to compete for customers.

Why government action?

[Animats]

"If you show a politician some of these numbers, this should get them into action," Rodey said.

What's the problem? The product is available and more people sign up every year. Wait a few years, and everybody with disposable income who wants a fast Internet connection will have one.

What the telcos are really whining about is competition. They want the third-party providers, like Covad, to go away, so they can have a protected monopoly with unregulated prices.

Re:Why government action?

[raygundan]

I seem to recall that the phone companies had the advantage of being legal monopolies (until as recently as 1984) for many years, in addition to getting right-of-way. All that "infrastructure" can hardly be considered the sole provenance of the phone companies, as they had huge government-granted advantages building it. I think it is only fair that lines the public helped to pay for be opened to competitors. I don't know if they are being offered below cost or not, but I suspect the phone companies may be overstating their cost to seem like victims.

Personally, I think parallel infrastructure is a huge waste, and would like to see the phone companies pool their resources on one large network and compete on service and quality. But that's a giant pipe dream-- nothing that practical or reasonable will happen in my lifetime, the way things are going.

Re:cable IS better

[XyouthX]

I've had 2.5Mbit DSL now for about 2 years. No problems. Before that I had cable, with way more problems such as fluctuating speed.

It seems like there is one common denominator when people have problems with DSL: PPPoE.

Here in Sweden (and I know this goes for at least Denmark also, as I work for denmarks 2nd largest ISP) none of the major DSL operators make use of DSL and there are way less problems than what I've experienced with PPPoE in the US (Verizon, NYC).

And to be honest, I don't really see the point of a sign-on procedure for a static always-on connection.
I wonder why ISPs choose to use PPPoE? It just doesn't seem worth the trouble.

Hmm.

[wideBlueSkies]

>>In the U.S., (cable modem providers) are beating the hell out of us," Rodey acknowledged. "But globally we're beating the hell out of them

What are cable installations like outside the US? Do the providers offer ISP services? Is there a correlation between offered cable ISP service, and DSL installations?

Without seeing the numbers, I can guess 2 reasons why DSL may be winning worldwide:

1. There's no cable/broadband alternative.

2. Even if there is, it may be that the support provided by the local telcos is superior to that offered here in the states.

Cable in the US, when it's available is faster and more reliable than DSL. THe cable companies seem to have everything set up OK. But the telcos here in the states, well.... their infrastructure, customer service, and corporate culture related to DSL leave a lot to be desired.

The lineman that came to my home to fix my DSL troubles last year was a smart guy. He knew his stuff about both phone lines, and computers. But he was stuck on how DSL itself worked. He said Linemen aren't given any DSL related training, and are just thrown into the field.

He tried to call the DSL office for help, none was provided. So I thanked him for his help, and he left. I had cable broadband running by the end of that day.

This guy works for a company who's name starts with a V, and has Darth Vader as their spokesman from time to time.

Maybe this kind of thing doesn't happen outside the US.

My experiences...

[wumarkus420]

As a college student, I have lived in numerous places and have had first-hand experience with 3 different cable connections (Adelphia, Cox, and Comcast), and 4 different DSL providers (Covad, Sprint FastConnect, Verizon, and my current provider - Cavalier Telephone). In every single case, DSL has been the most reliable and consistent connection for me. First of all, I do not understand how the $10 cheaper price for cable makes any sense. Cable is actually $5-$10 more expensive for people who aren't already cable subscribers. For us people with DirecTV - paying the cable companies is something we find insulting. Second - uptime. Cable service in my area (northern virginia) has a tendency to go out more often than the electricity. Thunderstorms are a 99% guarantee of downtime with cable modem service for us. Even if there is a network outage, I almost never see a DSL sync drop out, even during heavy storms. Third - bandwidth consistency. Adelphia offered me 3Mbps. Guess what, I was lucky to get 512Mbps even on a Sunday afternoon. I would honestly take a 768kbps DSL connection over a 1.5Mbps cable connection that wasn't consistent. Of course, all of these are related to my personal experience, and I cannot speak for anyone else. I'm sure there are plenty of people with crappy DSL service and excellent cable providers. However, that has not been the case in the DC area for myself. And the PPPoE argument is pointless. Get yourself a Linksys router and you won't know the difference anyways.

server friendly DSL providers?

[fifedrum]

My issue with DSL vs Cable: port blocking.

The cable company apparently wants nothing to do with hobby servers on their network, blocking ports and what not. Several in my family have the service and get terrible upload speeds, and blocked ports.

It seems the DSL providers in the area don't block ports, but you get worse upload speeds than cable.

Are there any server friendly DSL providers out there? I'm in Rochester, NY, and many of the so-called national DSL providers don't offer service in my area. I'm plenty close enough to the POP and get decent speeds with DSL now, but want 512 Kb ADSL that won't cost a mint every month.

It's not much to ask.

Re:Next month news: DSL Dropping....

[SwissCheese]

My memory is a little vague here, but IRC, in Japan, there is a govermental plan to reach a certain coverage (20% ?) of fibre-to-the-home to a certain date (2005?).

Ah, but as pointed out here before by others, Japan has a much higher population density than the US. This means that it is much easier and cheaper to reach a higher percentage of the population with fewer fiber runs.

Something is rotten in the Heartland of America

[CKW]

.
I don't buy all these "we're too thinly populated" excuses from America. Canada isn't any more heavily industrialized than America, and yet our DSL providers are *way* ahead of yours.

I think the heart of it is something in the culture and management of the respective telco industries in each country. Canadian telco's embraced DSL as their future, and worked hard to have the infrastructure in place. In Canada ILEC's are forced to share their back ends with third party DSL providers, and so far they haven't resorted to dirty tricks.

In the US, it sounds like they're dragging their feet, and crying loudly about not wanting to share their lines. Not only that, but it sounds like a lot of your copper is pretty crappy (rain taking out DSL service??, never heard of it up here), and your CO's spread thinly - I'm guessing that it's a result of "cheapest at all costs" operating methods.

There are 48, yes forty-eight, different DSL providers in Toronto. I've got 3500 kbps DL and 800 kbps UL for $70 CDN per month, available to over 30% of Canada's population, growing all the time. More than half of Canada has access to 1200/160 DSL service. And my Mom will have access to DSL in RURAL SASKATCHEWAN (one town of 1000 people every 20 miles) in two years.

You need to quit making excuses, and start screaming at your corporate and governmental "masters" for better results.
.

Lack of broadband

[blueforce]

I live in a semi-rural area about 20 miles outside of the city where I work. I have absolutely no options for Broadband (except satellite but that's a joke).

Funny thing is though - My local phone company is Verizon! Huh? Why can't I get DSL? Because they don't think enough people would sign up to make it profitable - so the goon on the phone says. The local cable company is Adelphia. I'd guess it's the same story from them but never bothered to check it out since I have Dish Network.

Here's an even better stick-in-the-eye. My folks live in the 'burbs - up there they have Ameritech for the local phone company. Two weeks ago, my dad gets this call from SBC - "Sir, we wanted to let you know that DSL is available in your area now, would you be interested?" My dad says yes so they send out a box the next day with the modem, nic card, etc. Well, he's supposed to "go live" last Monday. Monday comes, he hooks everything up (all on his own even!) but doesn't get a signal. So, being the patient guy he is, he waits until Tuesday. Tuesday morning he checks it out - still no signal. So, like any patriotic citizen, he calls tech support. Somebody walks him through the proverbial steps 1-4 but still nothing. This guy says he'll write up a work order and forward it to the local techs - "usually it's something really simple". Well, about 15 minutes goes by when the phone rings - it's Ameritech. This guy tells my dad, "Hey, I got this work order and tested your line. Sorry, pal. Your phone line won't support a DSL signal. Box 'er up and send it back. Man, if that ain't a swift kick in the stones! Oh, but he did say that they're working on running fiber in the area right now.... it should be available sometime in '04.

I gotta tell ya, I'm so sick of hearing about broadband and the lack thereof, I could spit. Just recounting this makes me fume. I'm so tired of beaureacratic corporate bullshit. Be sure to thank your congress person for de-regulation and the wonderful Telecomm legislation we have.

Re:The reason why DSL beats Cable outside of the U

[Hobbex]

I don't know if you really grok the difference in scale between the US and Finland. 90% of Finland's land mass (337,113 km^2) is equivalent to 3.2% of the US's land mass (9,363,130km^2).

So the USA has 30 times as much land to cover, but it also has 50 times the population (and 70 times the GNP) of Finland to pay for coverage. Population density is the only worth while measurement here.

Incidentally, we have fairly decent GSM coverage in the Southeastern US, as long as we're relatively close to an interstate highway.

I don't think many Americans understand what good coverage is. I've trecked through the tundra for days and found myself in places where the only manmade structure visible for miles is a cell tower on nearby mountain giving perfect coverage. Close to an interstate highway? I'm talking places with no roads.

Of course, this is not all good, since the Nordic governments have, for political reasons, made coverage of rural areas a condition for receiving GSM licenses, meaning that it is us city dwellers who are paying for all the underused towers...