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

Laws to help DSL penetration?

[MasterOfMagic]

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

In other words, what Mr. Rodney is trying to say is that the United States needs laws to help DSL penetration and to give DSL providers a competitive advantage in the United States. Excuse me Mr. Rodeny, isn't it your department to become competitive?

I have DSL through BellSouth, and I had to call them today because they billed me incorrectly. Two weeks ago I had to call them because I wasn't getting synch. A week before that I had to call them because something else wasn't working. (It's turned out that a BBG is down.) Yet this entire time my friend with cable didn't have to call his provider, got better speeds, and doesn't have to pay a mint to the phone company.

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.

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 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.

One major DSL problem

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

In my experience telephone lines in the Bay Area are not really suitable for reliable DSL service. A bit of weather (like last night, but not also on much milder days too) and signal quality degrades. For voice it just produces crackling on the line but it kills DSL. If I speak to Pac-Bell (or whatever name my local phone monopoly has this week) the response is simply "it's raining, that's normal". DSL runs over ordinary telephone lines which were not designed to carry high bandwidth data.

With Cable I experienced a reliable weather-independent service.

Holds the Cake?

[Tsar]

in the United States cable is winning, but globally, DSL holds the cake.

I'm still giggling over this, and I have no idea why it's so funny. "Holds the cake?" Where did THAT expression come from? I suppose if the shoe were on the other hand, I'd have just turned the other chin, 'cause I hate to kick a man while he's spitting into the wind. But a closed mouth gathers no foot, so I'll say my two scents' worth and walk off into the sunspot.

Thanks for rubbing salt in my wounds

[asdfasdfasdfasdf]

Considering MY DSL provider just tanked.

Thanks Slashdot, for making the holidays truly happy. ;-)

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?

I've Used Both

[TTMuskrat]

I've used both cable modems and DSL and I have to say that I prefer DSL. I had constant mini-outages with the cable modem - ICQ up, ICQ down, ICQ back up, ICQ back down - coupled with several major network issues that kept me disconnected for long periods of time (upwards of 10-13 hours). Of course, this may be only a fault of Time Warner's service. I've yet to have any connectivity problems with my DSL.

Also, I've not noticed that "...cable modems, which in general costs about $10 less a month in the United States than DSL service does." Both my cable and my dsl cost $49.99 a month - though I did get a special on my DSL ($25 for the first 6 mo).

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.

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:cable IS better

[MeNeXT]

Now add to that the fact that Cable is Faster

This is like saying that a 5 lane highway is faster than a 3 lane highway. It's how many people or on that counts, and what speed limit is permited

I see no diff between the two.

Uptake slow because telco at capacity on DSL

[JeffL]

In my local area, the telco, Qwest, appears to be at capacity for providing DSL. Of the many people I have encouraged to get DSL, only those folks living in outlying cities have been able to successfully get it installed. People living here in Boulder, CO have repeatedly been told their line does not qualify, when people living in the same building already have DSL.

It always amazes me to read articles about the US lagging in DSL uptake, or the telcos not signing up as many people as they hoped, when in fact they are turning people away.

Maybe there is an explanation other than capacity, such as Qwest pulling a BT and refusing to signup people who don't request MSN as their ISP.

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.

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:Yo

[grumpygrodyguy]

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


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

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.

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.

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.
.