Re: should you get DSL or Cable ?
From: JW (JustPostYourReply_at_ToThisNewsGroup.pls)
Date: 01/09/05
- Next message: Alan: "Re: how do I find my ip address?"
- Previous message: NobodyMan: "Re: e- mail problems"
- In reply to: JW: "Re: DSL vs. Cable"
- Next in thread: Alias: "Re: should you get DSL or Cable ?"
- Reply: Alias: "Re: should you get DSL or Cable ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:00:02 GMT
yes, i do have DSL, and my brother has cable. yes, my brother can kill
more online enemies faster than i can. no, i don't really care.
yes, web pages and Email download faster on my brother's PC using cable.
no, i don't really care. Since it takes me 30-60 seconds to peruse a
web page or Email message, i don't really care that it takes 0.5-0.8
seconds longer using DSL for a web page to fully display. yes, i
probably would care, if i often received huge Email attachments, or
spent much of my time downloading giant files from KaZaa, music sites,
or porn sites.
no, my brother does not mind spending $240 more per year than i do.
yes, my brother hates waiting 48-96 hours to get his cable problem
fixed. every time i had a DSL problem, it was fixed while on the phone.
Should you get cable or DSL ? it all depends. if you are like 99% of
average home users, and spend 99% of your Internet Time using a web
browser, Email program, instant messaging / voice conversation program,
or listening to internet radio, then $240-$300 more per year probably
will not make a difference.
if you spend 99% of your Internet Time downloading giant files from
KaZaa, online music stores, or porn sites, and often receive large Email
attachments, then definitely spend the extra $240-$300 per year for Cable.
JW wrote:
> i think some of you are missing the point, and some of you "get it".
> allow me to restate in simpler terms, since i have been told i have
> problems communicating clearly, and some other readers later might miss
> the point too. the point is not which technology has more Mega bps,
> more Mega hertz, or fewer microseconds response time. the point is not
> whether somebody can hear 3000 hertz, whether 0.005% THD is less
> appropriate than 0.05%, or even if you spend $1000 a month to have T1
> piped in. and i'm certainly not talking about the worst case DSL
> scenario (corroded connections, phone line submerged in a marsh, 5 miles
> from the nearest central office) versus the best case cable scenario (a
> dedicated cable, protected in underground PVC, that nobody else in the
> neighborhood shares). What an unrealistic comparison. the point (that
> a few are picking up on) is
>
> 99% of home users only care about whether they can perceive a
> significant difference or not in how fast the web page displays. now to
> state this even more simply for those who still might not understand, if
> it takes less than a second for a web page to fully display, then 99% of
> home users really don't care whether the technology is 1.5 Mbps, 1.5
> MByte per sec, T1, T3, DSL, LSD, cable, twisted-pair, or Twisted Sister.
> All the talk about specs is just a bunch of techno-gibberish. A factor
> i have found 1000 times more important than techno-gibberish is that
> some ISPs i signed up with did not have sufficient resources to handle
> rush hour congestion, not to mention gridlock on the shared cable when
> Victoria Secret had their online-only lingerie show.
>
> 99% of home users don't understand techno-gibberish and don't care to
> learn, so for 99% of home users (and 90% of managers), you have to
> translate that into something visible, tangible and meaningful (it's
> called end-results). An example of translating techno-gibberish into
> meaningful terms is by saying "Cable will allow XYZ.com home page to
> display in 0.02-0.08 seconds. Because DSL is 10 times slower, the same
> home page from the same web site will take DSL a whopping 0.2-0.8
> seconds to fully display, Not factoring in rush hour congestion on the
> web server or ISP. Furthermore, Cable will allow you to kill 20%-50%
> more online enemies per minute than DSL, when playing Mercenary 7.
> However, Cable will cost you $240-$300 more per year, Cable will take
> 72-96 hours longer to get service, and if your neighbor has the right
> cable gadgets, he can Eavesdrop on your every activity because you all
> share the same cable."
>
>
>
> JW wrote:
>
>> at some extreme point, isn't talking about 3 Mega bps vs. 1.5 Mega bps
>> very similar to talking to the audio expert at the home theater store
>> who says, "If you can afford it, it would better to buy ABC brand
>> speakers than XYZ brand speakers, because XYZ brand has 0.005% THD and
>> ABC brand has less than 0.003% THD." It is totally hilarious from the
>> perspective of an outside observer who knows what THD means, and knows
>> that neither one of them can hear a 3000 hertz frequency, much less
>> hear the difference between 0.005% THD and 0.003% THD.
>>
>> the point in this case how much does 3 Mega bps vs. 1.5 Mega bps
>> really affect any result that i care about ? if i spend hours playing
>> online war games, or often download files that take over 2 minutes to
>> download, then i would want the fastest speed possible. but if i
>> spend most of my time with a word processor, email program, online
>> chat, and surfing web pages, like over 90% of home users do, then i
>> have to ask myself, "How much does download speed even matter ? Does
>> it matter if the web page takes a whopping 0.2 seconds to display
>> instead of the much faster 0.02 seconds to display ?"
>>
>> if it really mattered to me, then i would fork up the extra $20 a
>> month, in order to kill my enemies online faster than they can kill
>> me. but since i don't use my PC like a PlayStation, i save $20 a
>> month, and can barely see the difference in how fast the web page
>> displays. and when i play music, what does it matter if my JBL
>> speakers have 0.001% greater THD, if i cannot hear the difference ?
>>
>>
>> John wrote:
>>
>>> I hope this is the right group or someone can point me. I am trying
>>> to get some accurate information on this choice I have. I see TV adds
>>> that say Verizon DSL is faster than cable. What would be the benefits
>>> of one over the other for a home PC and home network of maybe 4 or 5
>>> systems. I have a cable modem and wireless-G BB router
>>> W/SpeedBooster(whatever that means) on Comcast BB now. I am looking
>>> for a package including cell and cable TV and ISP that could possibly
>>> save me a few dollars a month. I have the Verizon DSL package here
>>> and can install it for a evaluation period but I am hesitating is
>>> this installation will be more trouble than it is worth. I don't want
>>> to waste time and screw up my BB configuration and wonder if one
>>> system can be used with both connections at once and make comparisons
>>> or should I just forget about DSL and stick with Comcast BB.
>>> Thanks for any insight.
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
- Next message: Alan: "Re: how do I find my ip address?"
- Previous message: NobodyMan: "Re: e- mail problems"
- In reply to: JW: "Re: DSL vs. Cable"
- Next in thread: Alias: "Re: should you get DSL or Cable ?"
- Reply: Alias: "Re: should you get DSL or Cable ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
