Help me shop for broadband internet!

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Okay, after 2 years of nagging, my parents are finally sick of Dialup! (Or maybe they're just sick of my nagging)





We're getting a cable line installed pretty soon (for TV), and price is no object (as long as it's under $50 per month), so it's mainly a cable vs. DSL shootout.



Right now we're swaying towards Earthlink Cable, mainly because we've had good experiences with Earlink Dialup (and my parents want to keep their @earthlink.net addresses)



Someone told me that cable is actually slower than DSL if you have lots of cable subscribers in your area. Is this true? If so, what kind of DSL could you recommend?



Also, we'll need to route the internet to 3 computers. Since I'll be moving my computer to a new room of the house in 3 months, I don't want to route a CAT-5 cable through all the walls, and then reroute it shortly after. For that reson, I'm looking into Wi-Fi, at least for my computer. I'm looking at this combination Router/Switch/WiFi Hotspot.



On a related note, are their any studies on the effects of WiFi radiation on human physiology? My every-paranoid mother is suspicious of this.





Thanks.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    resres Posts: 711member
    I always recommend speakeasy DSL to anyone who is looking for broadband. I've had a great experience with them for several accounts, and they have a much nicer TOS agreement than most ISPs
  • Reply 2 of 12
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    Cable is plenty fast for internet browsing, the downstream bandwidth for cable is generally superior to DSL, for cheaper costs. That said, it's usually less consistent, since Cable lines are shared by a neighborhood, so they have a tendency to slow down when a lot of people are using it.
  • Reply 3 of 12
    k squaredk squared Posts: 608member
    I have Comcast Broadband at home and BellSouth DSL at the office. My speeds at home average around 1.8 Mps (or whatever the download symbol is) and at the office it's much slower...around .8 Mps. I'm not sure what the price differance is, but for me, cable is faster.
  • Reply 4 of 12
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by k squared

    I have Comcast Broadband at home and BellSouth DSL at the office. My speeds at home average around 1.8 Mps (or whatever the download symbol is) and at the office it's much slower...around .8 Mps. I'm not sure what the price differance is, but for me, cable is faster.



    That is fast for DSL, less than a half mile from the switch we got like 300-600kbps. We were paying for 768/128. Cable is 3mbps down (during peak HRS it rarely dips below 2) and the upload, while supposedly capped at 128, I have hit 150 on more than one occasion, and that was in the middle of the day.
  • Reply 5 of 12
    ibook911ibook911 Posts: 607member
    In my opinion, basic cable Internet service has the potential to be quicker than basic DSL service.



    My cable internet connection has been very reliable (knock on wood), and I get regular speeds of 3000k down. The lowest I've ever tested it was about 1800k down. My upload ranges from 120k to 200k.



    I think you will be very happy with your Earthlink cable service.
  • Reply 6 of 12
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    I have cable and while it is fast, it used to be faster. I am not too pleased with it, but it is a necessary evil I am willing to live with. I've noticed tech support, for me anyways, has improved. That probably has something to do with Comcast being ranked #1 on the dissatisfaction, second only to cell phone carriers. At least they are trying. \ a good site is DSL Reports; they have a ton of good info. As for price, I think it may be a little over your price range (about $60) but I found that the price and speed vary greatly depending on where you live. Some people here have wicked-cool deals that make me jealous but 500 miles of Cat-5 is pretty expensive. I KNOW WHO YOU ARE! J/K



    Back on topic...

    There are some really good rebates on Netgear right now. You can buy a cheap wireless-b router for about $15. It also has a built-in switch for extra ethernet computers if you want a quick LAN party.



    Quote:

    On a related note, are their any studies on the effects of WiFi radiation on human physiology? My every-paranoid mother is suspicious of this.



    Wireless internet uses the same frequency as your household microwave, just at a lower power. Therefore, to avoid the potato-in-the-microwave effect on your family jewels, poke with a fork and turn after every hour until cooked completely.



    (That was a joke) There is nothing wrong with wireless radiation. Although it is absorbed by the water in your body, it broadcasts such little power it really doesn't matter. Cell phones use more power, and the sun is MUCH more dangerous. Don't worry about it. 8)
  • Reply 7 of 12
    voxappsvoxapps Posts: 236member
    If you're planning to run a server, check the terms of service of your ISP candidates. In my area, it's OK to run a server via DSL, but the cable company won't allow it.



    I use an older Netgear wired/wireless unit (MR-814 802.11b) and it works fine with 2 wired computers and 2 wireless ones, with all four often in use simultaneously. Try to get your broadband connection (where your router will be located) installed centrally in your house or else as close as possible to where you'll most often use your computer.



    The potential radiation is minimal, especially if you allow some space between your body and the router and/or AirPort antenna. A couple of feet is amply conservative. The various WiFi frequencies are the same ones used by cordless phones that people routinely place against their skulls for long periods of time.



    Just to be safe, keep a metal colander near your keyboard and put it on if you feel warm.
  • Reply 8 of 12
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    OK there is one thing I dont get. Why are the isps so stingy with upload bandwidth, why do the ISPs limit upload to like 3.33% of download, why cant I have the uplod I need, not for running a server, but uploading a video or large photoshop doc, why is fast upload reserved for buss. class? $100 is way too much to pay for 384k upload, and why can't I go faster than that without leasing a chunk of T3?



    An upload is just a download in reverse, so why so slow?
  • Reply 9 of 12
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    Most of the information traveling to a cable modem or DSL is caused by downloading, you don't need a lot of upload bandwidth surfing the web. The ISP's try to predict this usage and use your upload bandwidth as extra downloading bandwidth. This speeds up the internet a bit. Industrial internet connections have a set upload and download rate, but you have wasted bandwidth if you are not uploading as much as you are downloading. My cable modem has 2mbps download but 256kbps upload, but I rarely upload large files so I don't notice it much. It also stops people who run servers on cable modem networks from sucking up bandwidth from other users.
  • Reply 10 of 12
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    I *completely* second the recommendation for Speakeasy DSL... these folks are *FANTASTIC*, and do not block *any* ports for *any* services. Not only that, but you not only don't get treated like crap for running a Mac, but most of the tech folks there *love* dealing with us... because we're always easy support calls.



    For instance, a couple of months ago after a particularly nasty storm here, our DSL was out... for the second time in two years. I called, the tech said "Well, it's 11pm... let me call Covad and have them check their connections... how long will you be up?" As it turned out, he didn't get me called back until the next morning, because Covad dropped the ball getting back to him, but I got an email from him first, apologizing, and stating that the Covad folks had indeed found a problem, and he'd keep me up to date. And he did.



    Also, their online help ticket system is fantastic... you get to see all the behind the scenes chatter between the techs, Covad, other companies... it's unreal. I really really like their transparency.
  • Reply 11 of 12
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    I'll see if Speakeasy is available where I live, but I'm definitely looking at the Earthlink. I think I'll have to sample my neighbor's connection (I think it's Comcast, which is what the Earthlink Cable is 'powered by', so it'll give me a sense of the speed)





    Do you think it's worth the extra $10 for the G instead of the B connection? I might have a small LAN party with friends, and I wouldn't want to clog up another port, so I'd be using wireless connection to my router, while my friends would be using CAT cables...would there be a noticible difference between playing UT2004 on 802.11G than playing on Gigabit ethernet? (I know that it wouldn't make a difference online, but on a LAN, what gives?)
  • Reply 12 of 12
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    If your computer can handle 802.11G, than it is 5x faster. Couldn't hurt and the price is good. For LAN parties, you wouldn't want lots of people using wireless because sharing a wireless hubs causes latency (higher ping time) with the more people who use it. But both B & G can support a few wireless connections.



    All in bits per second, not bytes/s

    Ethernet = 100mbps* (like the switch in your router)

    Cable connection = 2mbps (roughly)

    802.11b = 11mbps

    802.11g = 54mbps

    internet games = 170kbps per user



    As you can see, you have plenty of bandwidth for internet games and LAN parties.



    *Lets not confuse anyone about full duplex and stuff.
Sign In or Register to comment.