Time Warner shared internet "up to" speeds

Page 2 of 2  
On 5/25/2015 9:32 AM, trader_4 wrote:

phones and put the phones on the digital on higher speed carrier along with the computer data. Of course once could do this using things like Skype, but is not the norm for most people.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 7:37:44 AM UTC-4, Art Todesco wrote:

The VOIP is already with the internet data. That's why it's called VOIP. For example, you get high speed internet service from your cable company. They give you a modem/router that has a phone interface built into it. The conversion to digital happens at the modem/router box. The VOIP traffic then goes out on the same internet cable connection as your other internettraffic.
With that model established and so many good, cheap, cordless phones out there, I don't see the compelling need for changing things and doing the conversion to digital at the phone, as opposed to how it's done now. You'd have to continue to support the phones looking for an analog interface for decades too, so you'd have two differing ways of doing it, for no big advantage that I can see.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/26/2015 01:39 PM, trader_4 wrote:

We got rid of our AT&T landline years ago and ported the number to the T-Mobile@Home $10/mo. add-on to our cell-phone plan. When we switched to a no-contract prepaid plan we couldn't keep T-Mobile@Home, so we bought an Obihai VOIP adapter and ported the number to Google Voice. Now we have another number (which we give only to family members) from PhonePower ($5x.xx per year, IIRC), and the "public" Google Voice number forwards to that. In the house we have six Panasonic cordless phones that serve as an intercom system as well.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 23 May 2015 15:44:39 -0700, cable snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net wrote:

They sell by tier here and they deliver what they sell from what I see. Other areas can get a higher tier than me but they pay for it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/24/2015 08:21 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Have Comcast here, typically see 122 megabit download and 24 megabit upload for $70 month, which includes two dozen TV channels.
Maximum available from AT&T U-Verse is only 6 megabit down and less than 1 megabit up and AT&T wants $52/month, TV service not even available.
IMHO, Comcast is awesome! The US government did a great disservice to the American people for not letting Comcast expand into more areas. Thank God I'm not stuck with AT&T!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are not in Florida I guess. They suck here. When I had them and I had a 24/7 weather station connected to the web, I had to turn off logging because they were filling up the logs with "down" time.
I was sending a packet once a minute and it was failing an average of about 80-90 times a day. When I switched to DSL, it virtually never failed.
My wife has several commercial accounts with Comcast and they suck there too. Support is almost nonexistent.
These cable companies need the same the phone companies had a couple decades ago, breaking up the monopolies. Get some competition in there and they will be cheaper and better or they will be gone,.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/24/2015 9:30 AM, Ed wrote:

Comcast is absolute crap here in SW PA. They simply don't care, no competition. I have DirectTV for TV and Verizon DSL. DirectTV is more expensive but nearly every channel is hidef, many of them are carried on both hi and lo def (different channel numbers of course). I can't say the same for Comcast. If you get almost all the channels in hidef on Comcast then you are lucky.
That new 50"+ TV is gonna look like shi%^% in lodef.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 23 May 2015 11:43:39 -0700, "Col. Edmund Burke"

All of the cable "up to" speeds are a theoretical maximum and will be affected by a number of things, mostly the number of other users on your node.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/24/2015 7:17 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:
> All of the cable "up to" speeds are a theoretical maximum and will be

According to the ATT U-verse guys, U-verse isn't a "shared" network. That's basically why I stayed with ATT. I got the U-verse rate down to the TW rate by threatening to cancel U-verse.
I've had U-verse for a few years and it's always speed tested at the advertised rate or better.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My DSL does too but my neighbor's Comcast, not so much.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/23/2015 01:01 PM, gonjah wrote:

This may be changing soon: It's just been announced that Charter is buying TWC. We've had Charter for 11 years, during which time we've had just three outages, one of which was caused by the gas company digging up the cable.
Charter's advertised "down" speeds seem to be conservative: We're paying for 18mbps down and 4mbps up, and although the "up" speed is occasionally a little lower (never below 3.8mbps in my tests, IIRC), the "down" speed is often over 30mbps. But Charter doesn't offer speeds as high as TWC: Even Charter's "business" package offers only "up to" 60mbps down and 4mbps up, whereas I see that TWC offers a package with "up to" 200/20mbps; even if you don't always get that high a speed, I'd complain if I didn't get at least half of that.
What speed do you get with U-Verse?
Much of the USA is way behind many other parts of the world when it comes to Internet speeds. As mentioned previously, the highest we could get from Charter is 60mbps, whereas a family member in Australia has 100mbps down (not sure about up), and I just read a post by a guy in the Netherlands who has 150mbps and is planning to upgrade to 500mbps.
I wonder whether those higher TWC speeds will be offered to existing Charter customers.
A speed test just now showed 31.64/4.44.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/26/2015 08:00 AM, I wrote:

Well, now I see a report that Charter may face the same regulatory hurdles that Comcast faced when it tried to buy TWC. But Why? Where is the competition that a takeover would kill? Hands up all those who currently have a choice between TWC and Comcast or TWC and Charter? Anybody? (OK, so municipalities -- at least in some areas -- get to choose to which company they grant a franchise, but that's not the same.)

Another poster in that same forum says he pays 469 Swedish Crowns (~US$55.88) per month for 100mbps up and down (although the SpeedTest report he displayed shows only ~94mbps up and down). To that someone responded that Cox (Canadian, eh?) charges $180/month for a 50/10 business service.

Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 May 2015 13:22:29 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"

There are some overbuild areas here where the choice is Comcast or Charter and Comcast or Wave/Astound/RCN/Name Of The Week. Historically in overbuilds the two companies share the customer base right down the middle. Often this means that the potential profits do not justify the build unless one system is really really crappy and all the subs jump to the new company.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 May 2015 18:03:40 -0700, cable snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net wrote:

I think the real answer to all of this is to unbundle all of the cable companies, the same way they did to AT&T and IBM. That is what spurred innovation and lower prices in the phone and computer business. Cable companies should only be selling bandwidth and it should be as a common carrier. Then "last mile" services would be a separate competitive business and content would be sold by the producers
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.