Dsl Or Adsl

FuntimePhil · December 13, 2008

lol i assure you it is a dsl router required for cable broadband.
run any search on the internet or pop into any pc store. if you want a router for cable broadband you have to buy a dsl one. Adsl will not work

Well, you could use an ADSL router for cable I think, but it'd be a waste of money since you wouldn't use the in-built ADSL modem.

What you need is a normal router which will work fine. You might find some routers advertised as Cable/DSL routers which means they can connect to cable modems *or* DSL modems (e.g. ADSL modems).

the majority of complants we get are customers that cant use there existing adsl routers and weren't informed they wouldnt work. We have to either sell our own dsl router or advise them to go to pc world and ask for a dsl one

Steviewevie · December 13, 2008

the majority of complants we get are customers that cant use there existing adsl routers and weren't informed they wouldnt work. We have to either sell our own dsl router or advise them to go to pc world and ask for a dsl one

Why don't you just tell them to get a cable router ? Saves them confusing a "DSL router" with an "ADSL router".

"DSL routers" as sold at places like PC world are normally labelled as "Cable/DSL routers", i.e. they can connect to both cable modems and ADSL modems.

Try doing a search on the PC world website for "router". You'll see that most of the products are labelled as either "ADSL router" or just "router" or "cable router". There are very few labelled as "DSL router".

I suspect that if your customers are going into PC World and asking for DSL routers, the staff there are asking them what it's for, and as soon as the say cable, they're directing them to the right products.

Kazi · December 13, 2008

DSL and cable is just really a terminology thing really but has become a way if differentiating the very different technologies. Technically you can apply the term to both.
DSL terminology is not usually applied to cable as it was first applied as a "subscription" of digital signal over copper. Subscription meaning to affix, rather than from a customer subscriber point of view. Virgin actually market DSL separately on copper telephone lines in the outlying areas they can't provide to.

I have really pushed cable. I work in both fields, very much at hardware level and not for any particular company as most of you know.

I have BT with DSL, two cable TV boxes and 20mb broadband. (Some of this is for my business, I'm not just a silly geek!!)

In theory cable should knock spots off dsl but does not always deliver in everyday practical use because of headend equipment, business management, bandwidth shaping (which they still don't have right), - there are quite a few reasons. I think geographical oversubscription is the main problem for cable.

I've actually pushed for cable for many years because it should be better. The technology is more stable, controllable and can provide more. The problem is the companies delivering it and their investment.

Over the years there have been many "maximum speeds" over copper. Quite few years ago I remember when they managed a whopping 250k in one test! Never would that be surpassed and had reached the "maximum it will ever get". DSL as the public knows it is limited around the 20mb range but with hdsl and vdsl it goes very much higher already. A lot of this is based over distance rather than copper itself, although they've already got over the 20,000ft limit for 64mb down and 32mb up. New methods are being implemented all the time so that won't stay.

It certainly won't when the DSLAMS are at the end of the street (or close) in the green boxes. Very soon it will be 100mb network to the customers on DSL. (as in trials have already been happening this year).

Bt wanted to bring fibre to the home but the government blocked it (around 1985) to make way for the cable companies. BT and a few backbone providers are looking at implementing it now. Another reason is to get rid of the unsightly overhead copper cables. Once its at the home, short cat6 UTP can easily cope with 10GB/Sec.

In saying that, DSL has had the advantage of slower speeds so equipment has held up a lot more therefore they don't have the loads that cable has on their equipment. Once it gets shifted to the provider then there are other elements involved.

What will happen when the faster speeds become available on DSL will be interesting - they may not have the same issues that cable has because the DSL will be the transport medium only to the local dslam where it is then converted and shifted out to separate ISP companies with their own investment. Contention will virtually cease as it will only be to the local DSLAM.

As I said earlier, I've always pushed for cable because you are absolutely right - it should be better. It isn't always the case though and we can't just go on raw figures. Actual usage and variation is the key to an overall service. Cable isn't as good as it should be, and certainly can't sustain a fair distribution. Pound for pound though, it depends on the deal you get. Once you start moving into higher areas with more of a guaranteed dsl service supporting QOS, etc. I'm afraid it knock spots of cable. The disadvantage is cost so I guess cable wins there.

The biggest problem between cable and DSL is that cable it is effectively one company now and bound by their terms and implementation. With DSL you have a degree of choice. At the moment you are restricted at "last mile" with BT but that is changing where you will have complete choice and companies will be competing a little more.

Overall, it varies significantly between regions on both technologies. You can get 3 month trials of both so sometimes it is better testing.

My 8mb adsl (getting roughly 6mb in reality) is better than my 20MB cable about 60% of the time.

The mad thing is, I stick with cable because I know it should be better because of the technology and hope they will make the changes. There are a few more things coming up soon that will help on the cable side. There are things I see and feel like ringing the necks of the upper management to implement a technology that will make massive changes and put them streets ahead of DSL.

I'm the same with the TV. One of my boxes continually freezes and there is no uplink light. I ring up, no records on me previously ringing. All they do is reset the box and tell me to ring back. Its not the cable connection because if I swap rooms with boxes, the same fault exists on the same box. Its a normal Pace. Hows V+ going by the way? Any software updates due yet? When they get the software a little better I may go for that. (Running Tivo at the mo but will be stuck when I go HD)

Interesting and informative post Geoffers. And no, I want being sarcastic!

Mark W · December 13, 2008

I second that... Very good read

bigdavegrr · December 15, 2008

[rant]

You're trialing 100mb and most people aren't getting a 20mb service? I live 2 miles from the local UBR and have never got more than 16mb. Something isn't right..

[/rant]

Kazi · December 15, 2008

You're lucky to get 16mb. Im about 3 miles away in line length and struggle to anything above 700kbps!! Shocking. Very unhappy with O2....well, Bt as they won't do anything about the sh*te line!