Another e-mail from a reader! No, I don't have my e-mail address posted here (to avoid spam), but soon I will add a response form. Anyway, on my claim that DSL is better than cable, Frank Payne, whose website you should visit often if you like to listen to new music that doesn't totally kiss Clear Channel's ass, writes:

I'm going to have to disagree. I've used both quite a bit and cable has been the clear winner in my own personal trials. DSL providers always claim this bullshit about how cable uses a 'shared' network. Well guess what, a network is a network. When everybody's online, it doesn't matter if which service you have, the whole internet is slow. During good times, I typically have a bandwidth limit of 200 - 300 KB/sec. In rare cases during off-peak times, I've gotten sustained transfer rates as high as 450 KB/sec. When I say rare, I mean maybe two or three times a month when I'm on at 6AM, downloading from microsoft.com. In the year that I had DSL, those rare moments never happened and my typical pipeline was around 130 - 200 KB/sec. Again, this is limited experience -- one specific location versus another. The other attractive feature of cable is its use of DHCP. Few consumers need a static IP, and those who don't benefit from not having to hard code IP addresses. From an IT standpoint, that means people can pull their laptop off their desk and plug it in at home without changing network settings.

So far, I don't know anyone with 'premium' DSL, so I don't know if paying for a 1.5 megabit line is really worth it. I would be interested to see what actual impact it has on download speeds from specific sites. My theory is that you can probably achieve a greater total bandwidth by spreading it across multiple consecutive downloads, but I find it difficult to imagine that individual sites would be any faster.

Firstly, perhaps you know something I don't, but I don't see how that's an argument for dynamic versus static IP addresses. If your laptop can automatically figure out where it is (and change all of your firewall and proxy settings automatically without you having to do anything or having had done major tweaking in the first place), I don't think whether your IP is static or dynamic is going to make a lick of difference. Besides, most DSL providers charge extra for static IP anyway, so that has nothing to do with why I say DSL is better than cable.

Sure, it's all a network, but DSL does not have the same slow-down problems that cable does if everyone on your block is downloading "pr0n" at the same time. It's the difference between a switch and a hub. DSL provides a direct connection to the ISPs switch, while cable connects everyone on your block to a localized hub, and then the hubs connect to the Internet switches. That's two hops instead of just one. At prime websurfing times, I've seen friends with cable connections get speeds close to dial-up. I guarantee you that DSL would not have that problem, and I'd rather have a little slower but consistent connection than occasional WTFs.

Furthermore, cable has proven to be insecure. For example, look at the dangers of Rendezvous-enabled Macs on cable modems. Cable shares more resources than DSL does, which can be dangerous unless you know what you're doing. Speaking of which...

If you want to talk about average users, not power users, then DSL is the way to go, especially because of security. There's less to worry about. Sure, as long as you set up your firewall, everything's fine. However, if you're saying "Few consumers need a static IP, and those who don't benefit from not having to hard code IP addresses," I'd say even fewer consumers want to worry about properly tweaking a firewall or specifying which computers have access to their connection. So much for not having to hard code anything.

With what I've read and what I've seen amongst my friends, DSL is the way to go. Unfortunately, cable is winning out because of its already widespread availability. Yet again, Beta is beaten out by VHS.