Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
Bad experience and not typical. Stability is the one thing I found ADSL superior to cable for. Every time I've had cable I've had at least a few days a year of downtime. ADSL my downtime per year was measured as a matter of hours. At one time I cancelled 50Mb VM and moved to 15Mb ADSL as VM was flaky.
|
I do agree that bad experiences can mar your feelings towards a technology and lord knows mine was horrific enough. I've had my fair share of VM issues as well, it's just a case of different experiences which I believe is ultimately why Superblade7 doesn't want to go near ADSL again (Then again he might have entirely different reasons).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
YMMV. xDSL is actually fundamentally a more stable technology than cable as it can adapt to line conditions and impairments. Both are hosed however if the access network is very bad.
|
I can't agree with this, though. I wouldn't say either technology is "Fundamentally" more stable than the other. Cable/DOCSIS adapts to line conditions in much the same way ADSL does, we just don't see a "Sync" rate that declines, instead we see things like QAM dropping to QPSK and the like. I would even argue that the shielded copper from a cable network is less prone to issues than unshielded copper (or the dreaded aluminium) DSL uses. Virgin
seems to have a history of issues but I think that's less to do with the technology and more to do with the lack of investment and maintenance on the network itself.
One thing I will say, though, that very much works in Virgin's favour - it's a lot easier to get a fault tech out for a Virgin fault than it is for a BT fault.