Similar Posts

Subscribe
Notify of
11 Answers
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MaxSensibel
5 months ago

Because it is sometimes worse because in the cable network you often have to do with a poorer distribution of resources, so more users share the bandwidth.

As so often, the difference is difficult to judge, because it depends on the provider, the service, the services included.

If there is an adequate alternative, I would take Telekom rather than a cable system operator, as a functioning service is important to me.

lisaloge
5 months ago

Most providers need to buy more or less complete at DSL at Deutsche Telekom. These include most lines and also most DSLAMs. For cable, most of the infrastructure is Vodafone, other providers need to shop here.

The speeds that can be achieved in cable are higher than in DSL. But technology is not as stable because it is a bus system and not a point-to-point connection as with DSL.

Consequently, more effort must be made to provide a DSL connection. And he has to be paid anyway.

So cable internet can be cheaper, paid with stability.

And all this is relative: I would pay more for Vodafone with cable internet for the same bandwidth 10 euros a month than for my current DSL connection. Why would I do that?

lisaloge
5 months ago
Reply to  Waterfight

Prices are actually determined by the Federal Network Agency. And Deutsche Telekom will not offer cheaper than the competition – although it could.

There are differences between providers, of course, depending on how they calculate.

I currently pay just under 30 euros a month, including two mobile contracts and cloud storage.

lisaloge
5 months ago

You get that by not looking for a new provider every two years. So, a fidelity tariff.

The mobile phone cards are really primarily intended for calling and offer the same conditions as the fixed network. There are not many data there.

jhg7u654
5 months ago

Because the providers for cable networks can use existing TV lines and have to build less extra infrastructure. There is also more competition for cables, which presses the prices.

kevin1905
5 months ago
Reply to  jhg7u654

I.d.R. have more houses Kupfeldoppelader than a house cable connection.

It is also usually the opposite for the selection of suppliers. There is often only one supplier for cable, 1 for fiberglass in the region, if at all and for DSL one has half dozens to choose (Telekom, Vodafone, O2, 1&1, etc.)

jhg7u654
5 months ago
Reply to  kevin1905

Your argument suggests that copper double conductors may be widespread, but they are often slower and more outdated than cables. And as far as providers are concerned, it is clear that there is more choice at DSL, but competition alone does not lower the price if technology is itself more expensive. Cable network can deliver more speed for less coal, and that counts at the end.

jhg7u654
5 months ago

Sure, right, cable providers have also expanded, but compared to DSL, the difference remains: TV cable networks were already extensively there long before internet ran over. The expansion has therefore been cheaper than the copper double conductor. As far as competition is concerned, in many cities there are more cable providers than you think, and price pressure is often generated by deals and promo actions. This explains why cable internet is still often cheaper.

Thomasg
5 months ago

You wrote yourself that there is more competition for cables, but that’s not the case. And what does the providers use existing lines? Certainly, the providers simply took over some networks, but they have also built up massive new networks and expanded and modernized the existing ones. It’s not different than Deutsche Telekom’s phone network.