I just scanned all the posts, and didn't see anyone comment on what I see as the truth of the issue:
1) In places where you can get cable Internet access, and no DSL, cable is much faster than DSL (duh!). Service from the cable company is not unlikely to be poor.
2) Conversely,in places where you can get DSL, and not cable, DSL is much faster than cable (duh! again). Service from the DSL company (likely the ILEC/RBOC) is not unlikely to be poor.
3) In places where you can get both, sometimes the cable is better/faster, and sometimes the DSL is better/faster. It all depends on service provider and locale. Cable has the potential to be substantially faster than DSL, but often isn't due to poor network design. Reliability is more important than speed to many users, and often (not always) the RBOC DSL providers are more reliable, perhaps because of the telco heritage.
"This" is better than "that" because of "x" arguments, in this space, are pointless. It all depends on the local providers and their implementations of the techologies.
http://www.broadbandreports.com/ is a good resource.
You post is 100% spot on. Most of the blanket arguments of DSL vs. Cable are useless and meaningless.
For instance, in my area, I can get both Cable (Cable One) and DSL (SBC/Yahoo). The Cable theoretically maxes out at 800kbps, but typically runs at about 600 - 700kbps.
I'm about a mile from the telco CO, and my DSL typically runs at 1.2 to 1.5Mbps. That's why I have DSL.
As you said, each situation is different and you need to know what the real speeds are in your location as well as the reliability factor of each to make an informed decision.