[WinMac] DSL vs. Cable Modems

Darryl Lee(lee[at]darryl.com)
Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:41:40 -0700 (PDT)

Ah, it's a can of worms. Anyways, sorry i'm not properly attributing
all these quotes, but i'm feeling lazy... (And sorry this is so long!)

Anyways, my data comes from personal experience (i have PacBell's
personal ADSL service, and my dad has @Home's cable modem service),
as well as this recent article in Salon:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/09/23/cable_dsl/index.html

> >2. People are saying not to get cable modems, but to get DSL
> >instead. DSL is just as much a security risk as cable modems,
>
> No, it isn't! DSL is safer because it's not a shared line
> (usually - some types of DSL can be but they aren't used all that
> often). Also, if you're using NAT on your DSL line, the chances for
> hacking the machines on the other side of the router are boardering
> on NIL.

In the first generation of cable modems, it *was* easy to sniff the
line. But the engineers got a clue and programmed the modems to do
filtering, turning the cable modems into bridges, much like DSL
modems. i've also heard that they use some form of encryption on
their packets, but i'm not sure about that.

By the way, there's nothing really preventing you from running NAT
on a cable modem. (Um, except some sleazily written service
agreements. But really, with NAT, it's hard to tell if it's 3
computers behind NAT, or one really busy websurfer. :)

> >and nowhere near as easily available. Please don't assume that DSL
> >is universally available. It's not. It's months and years away for
> >people who don't live in places like NYC, Chicago, SF, etc.
> >
> That is certainly an issue - no question!

But DSL certainly seems to be more available than cable. i mean, DSL
is designed to work over the same copper as POTS (plain old telephone
service). And at least in the US, there's plenty of that copper.

But can you get cable TV everywhere? Not to mention the fiber that is
required for cable modems? i'd say that they've got a *long* road
ahead of them.

Anyways, three months ago i did some calling around to see what
options were available in about 15 field offices our company had
around the country. Let's just say that *no* cable modem companies
were even planning to offer service to *businesses*. Most of the
the telephone companies/DSL providers i spoke to were at least
*planning* on rolling out DSL to most places.

I'd say that's your main problem. Unless you have a home business,
the cable company won't even *talk* to you about giving you a modem
for your office. (@Work, the business division of @Home, actually
puts in DSL, T1s, etc.)

> Another thing to keep in mind with Cable vs. DSL is that
> Cable modems are designed to be "half-duplex" in that the download
> speed is high, but upload speeds SUCK (some cable modems use standard
> 56K for uploads). That means that if you are going to be doing a lot
> of data sends (Email, FTP uploads, etc.) you may want to look beyond
> cable.

Sure, but you could say the same of ADSL (Asymmetrical). And at least
around here, it's a significant amount more to go to SDSL (Symmetrical).

i'd say that DSL's strength is that it can be both a consumer solution
(ADSL), or a business solution (SDSL, or faster ADSL).

On the other hand, not *all* cable modems are asymmetrical. (And i
really don't think half-duplex is quite the right term, Leonard. :)

@Home started out symmetrical, but as demand/usage has grown, they've
had to fine tune things, which may include cranking down upload speeds
in favor of providing better download speeds (which makes up the bulk
of consumer traffic. Can you say porn? :)

Finally, Omar and Leonard wrote about DSL routers:

At 10:41 AM -0400 10/1/99, Omar Ch?vez wrote:
> 2) A DSL router works like a charm (and it's a lot safer than a cable
> modem). For improved security, hook it up to a Mac, not a PC -or better
> yet, get a dedicated gizmo such as the WebRamp (which comes with
> built-in firewall).

Again, these days, a lot of cable modems are *acting* like two-port
switches or routers. And again, cable modems can be hooked up to a
Mac or dedicated NAT box just as easily as a DSL router.

ALSO, tell me again what makes a PC (presumably with Windows) inherently
more insecure than a Mac? Just turn off file sharing. It's not like
it's a Linux box where you have to disable all the ports. >:P

(Don't get me wrong, i'm using Linux right now, but i *do* have to
be more paranoid then i would if this were a Windows machine. Then
again, i'd be crashing a lot more, which would make it even harder
for hackers to get at me, right? :)

Leonard wrote:
> Most of the DSL routers out there include DHCP and NAT
> functionality, so that you really don't need to hook it up to any
> computer - it's also a mini hub.

Yes, there are a *lot* of DSL routers out there that do this, and
they're quite cool. BUT, unlike ISDN, most DSL providers don't really
give you the option of using whatever cool equipment you just bought
from Fry's.

Maybe because the technology is still relatively "new" (at least to
the public), most DSL providers are enforcing the use of very specific
equipment that they will sell you.

My home DSL modem is an Alcatel 1000. But can i just go out and buy
one of these fancy shmancy DSL routers and plug it in? No *way*.

Am i happy about this? Well, on the one hand, choice would be nice,
but on the other hand, have you ever had problems with an ISDN set-up?
From the point of view of troubleshooting a bad connection, having one
less variable to deal with is *always* a good thing.

Anyways, i'm rambling on a bit, but i just wanted to rebut some of
the points made in past couple of days. How many of you folks
actually are running on DSL/Cable? Show of hands?

* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Fri Oct 01 1999 - 10:50:05 PDT