Does anyone use Time Warner Cable internet and have you run a speed
test? I just got off the phone with U verse to cancel service and the
guy said the "up to" speeds TW claims are usually not even close. I have
U verse and it consistently runs at the advertised speed.
I have TW internet and usually get about 16 MB on the uplink It is for the
15 MB service. A friend across town gets about the same. Get 1 MB for the
uplink. The uplink does not make that much difference to me as I seldom
send any large files.
I do have my own modem as they started charging for them a year or so ago.
Paid about $ 20 for something they want aboutg $ 5 per month.
I had the TV with them up to about 2 weeks ago. Canceled when they wanted
to put some kind of digital box on every TV and will start charging for
those boxes. Went to Direct TV, so will see how that plays out for the next
Are you distinguishing B and b? MB and Mb are two different measurement.
I have 50Mb down/3Mb up plan and no issues with all the devices
connected wired(Gbit), WiFi(-N and -AC modes) to it thru a router. No
stuttering in real time AV streaming always regardless time of the day.
DirectTV is the best out there but be prepared for the usual rate climb.
Started out at $79/month 3 years ago, up to $105 now with no additions
I would go for Comcast's triple play but I hate those bast^&%$ enough to
pay the extra.
Years ago, I read that TW does far better than AT&T in delivering
advertised speeds. Elsewhere, I've read that TW normally provides a
little more than advertised.
I live 400 yards from the telephone office. By looking at my modem's
user interface, I concluded that AT&T was deliberately setting me lower
than their advertised speed.
The only motive I could see was to push me into paying for a higher
tier. I know customers who fell for it. Instead, I switched to TW.
A pitfall to cable is that one node can serve an arbitrarily large
"neighborhood." If there are too many others on your node, congestion
can slow traffic at busy hours. I had a little trouble for my first
month with TW. It has been fine ever since. I guess they added a node.
My big problem with TW was their policy of jacking up prices. Before
long, my bill had more than doubled. About that time, I discovered that
TW had quietly introduced the Everyday Low Price tier: 2mbs down and
1mbs up for $15.
That was adequate, but by now they were charging $8 a month for their
modem. I bought a better one for $65. They sent me a box and a FEDEX
label for their obsolete modem. I put it in their box, taped it shut,
and left it on my porch.
I consistently get 9.5% above the advertised 2mbs down speed. My up
speed also exceeds the nominal figure.
Yes, if you are over certain distances, they bump your speed down one
notch. In my case, I'm connected to a remote site just down the
mountain. I think I'm being bumped down to 3MB (from 6MB) because they
think I'm over 15K feet, which I don't believe, as you can see where the
cable runs by following their pedestals. BTW, they still charge the
same. Also, prior to Frontier buying the copper base phone system from
Verizon, the speeds where ok during the day or wee hours in the morning,
however, late afternoon and early evening were a disaster. The speeds
were slower than dialup. I complained and the guy in India (Bob) said
that I can't power the modem from an outlet strip; it must be plugged
directly in the wall. When Frontier bought the system, they had to add
lots and lots of bandwidth to make DSL work at close to advertised
speeds. Now I routinely get about 2.8MB down. I've got to give Frontier
credit, they've really fixed what Verizon couldn't or actually what they
didn't want to fix, because they knew they were selling off that part of
the business. Same goes for the batteries in the remote site. If there
was a power failure, the batteries might last for a minute and then
there was not dial tone. Frontier has fixed all that. Sounds like
Frontier it great? Not. I could, but won't go into all their problems.
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 8:24:00 AM UTC-4, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Even decades ago they had what amount to concentrators, if you will,
where your copper phone line terminated, was multiplexed with signals
from other folks lines, and then went on T1 or similar back to the CO.
Typical place they were used would be a new subdivision that was
away from the CO. Easier/cheaper to get them all on one line instead
of physically connecting each new house direct to the CO.
Yes but, these (analog type) multiplexer devices don't multiplex DSL
signals. They usually have a digital multiplexers next to them for DSL.
In my case, they have a remote switcher for regular telephone service
and right next to that cabinet, there is another cabinet with DSLMs for
lines with DSL. The 2 meet in yet a 3rd cabinet, which also has the line
protectors for lightning.
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:04:31 AM UTC-4, Art Todesco wrote:
The devices I cite above are not analog, they are digital. With copper
phone wires using the above methods, the analog interface ends at the
SLC equipment at the subdivision. From there back to the CO it's on a
T1 or similar, ie a digital line. T1 is 1.5 Mbits and carries 24 voice
channels. This stuff has been around for many decades, back to the 70s.
And presumably your data then winds up riding on some higher speed
link back into the network, no? At some point your traffic rides on
the same pipe/s with other traffic, the only question is where it
Agree. But the line to your house is analog. Even DSL to you house is
analog ... that's why you have a modem.
Actually, it's regular DSL and rides parallel to the regular voice
stuff. That's why you have to strip off the DSL carrier when going to a
regular phone, using filters. At the remote site, the data is then
combined with all the other data (DSLM) from others and leaves via
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 7:33:13 AM UTC-4, Art Todesco wrote:
In that sense, what is the internet service that the cable company
provides? It's digital, but it too rides on a carrier outside the
house. I see what you're saying, it is encoded, and not just a
simple string of ones and zeros. Examples of things that would be pure
digital would be Ethernet and fiber optics I guess. Even there though
it's still an analog world when it comes to transmitting and receiving.
An ethernet transceiver makes a call on whether it's a one or a zero
by the voltage it sees on the wire.
Good point. DSL is unique in that the voice is done the same
way as it always has been, coexisting on the same twisted pair
that now has data. At least for most people. I guess you could
add any of the independent VOIP services, like Vonage, connect
your existing phones to it and then the VOIP would ride on the
same DSL pipe. How well that would work, IDK, would depend on
how fast your DSL is.
I forgot one thing, someday maybe, the telcos might go the way of cable,
etc. and have only digital coming to you house on the copper pair, like
DSL or Uverse. A box at your house would strip off the telephone bits
and provide an analog line for "old fashioned" phones. Or maybe we could
use digital phones! Probably not as phones seem to be going wireless. I
just hate talking on these when you have to keep saying "you just
dropped out, repeat!" and "no it's not me it must be you". Who know what
the future will bring. Back in the 70s, no one would accept the
relatively poor quality of today's cell phones, but we do. Or was that
the old AT&T speaking!!!
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:13:37 AM UTC-4, Art Todesco wrote:
IDK what you mean here. The Telcos have been offering DSL, which is
digital, for two decades. That era is winding down, for the most part
as they move to better technologies for most customers.
That's how the Telcos have been doing DSL. Many carriers are
way beyond that, at least in some areas. Verizon FIOS for example,
is fiber into your house. Cablevision here provides VOIP service,
where they give you a cable/modem/router that converts to the
analog interface for your phones.
Or maybe we could
Your experience with cell phones is a lot different than mine.
I've had Verizon for a long time and then Virgin Mobile which
rides on Sprint for the last year. I really don't have a problem
with poor call quality. Verizon is better, but Sprint is close.
It all depends where you use them, what the coverage is. Here
in NJ, those work fine for me. If I go into some rural or mountain
area, like snowboarding in Vermont, then yes, there I have had
areas with dropped calls, poor coverage, etc.
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.