 | | 5 meg up? LAME! Ok, 60 meg down is nice, but 5 up? Man that is a disappointment! | |
|
 | | | Re: 5 meg up? LAME! said by houkouonchi:Ok, 60 meg down is nice, but 5 up? Man that is a disappointment! Yeah no kidding... I'd take 50/20 over 60/5 any day! | |
|
| | cahiattPremium
join:2001-03-21
Smyrna, GA | Re: 5 meg up? LAME! I'd like to see how they pull it off. They just left my office two hours ago after installing an 8x2 CBN line. We're getting 7.2 meg down and a whopping 300k up.... | |
|
| | |  DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | Re: 5 meg up? LAME! That almost sounds like an Ethernet duplex mismatch. | |
|
| | | | cahiattPremium
join:2001-03-21
Smyrna, GA | Re: 5 meg up? LAME! To give them some credit, they did reprovision the modem and now we are getting about 7.7 meg down and 1.9 meg up. Have seen the download drop to the 3 to 4 meg range but upload has been consistent so far. | |
|
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: 5 meg up? LAME! Make sure the bandwidth test machine has an optimized TCP RWIN/MTU. If the test machine is Windows, I've seen some not-so-minor speed test improvements when the TCP stack is tweaked.
I also would not test using wireless. As good as today's WiFi is, wires still have an edge.
However, based on your last comment, I don't recommend you do this. After they re-provisioned the modem it sounds like you are very close to achieving your package speeds. Tweaking won't buy you that much and you would have to do it to every desktop in your office. If you pay for 8 and you are getting 7.7, I think 300Kbps is within the protocol "overhead" range.
Regarding when it slows down, is this to all sites? Sometimes it really can be the site on the other end. | |
|
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by houkouonchi:Ok, 60 meg down is nice, but 5 up? Man that is a disappointment! Because they know that 60mb downstream will go largely unused as opposed to upload with ALWAYS will be used.
minimum should have been 10mbit up.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | Charter is committing fraud at the moment in AL They cannot even provide 1mb at night to the entire state of AL but continue to charge and not acknowledge a problem
For weeks
»only 3mb download on 16/2 plan Pelham,AL
Maybe they need to fix and provide current customers with actual reasonable service before they worry about this | |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | T3 Cheaper than a T3 in the download category. Might as well call it fiber.  | |
|
| | | Re: T3 Actually is fiber. Fiber to the node. | |
|
| | Charter Announces 60Mbps Internet Service Yeah Right... | |
|
| | ??? how is 5 Mbps up lame? I have somewhere in the 15Mbps down with only 768kbps up - sure I would like more - but most folks I know are on DSL with speeds around 384kbps up/down. | |
|
| | | Re: ??? DOCSIS3 cable is capable of up to 107MBps up. ADSL2 can only offer 896kb up.
In the future DOCSIS can be expanded for gigabit speeds as well. | |
|
| |  IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Re: ??? said by fifty nine:DOCSIS3 cable is capable of up to 107MBps up. ADSL2 can only offer 896kb up. In the future DOCSIS can be expanded for gigabit speeds as well. ADSL2+ Annex M is good for 2.5Mbit, ADSL2 1.3Mbit.
DOCSIS isn't going to offer near 107Mbps per customer upstream for quite some time. | |
|
| | | | | Re: ??? said by Ignite:said by fifty nine:DOCSIS3 cable is capable of up to 107MBps up. ADSL2 can only offer 896kb up. In the future DOCSIS can be expanded for gigabit speeds as well. ADSL2+ Annex M is good for 2.5Mbit, ADSL2 1.3Mbit. DOCSIS isn't going to offer near 107Mbps per customer upstream for quite some time. 4 channel DOCSIS3 already can.
The cable companies probably won't deploy it yet because there's no real need for it for home users right now. In fact most home users would get by just fine with less than 512k. | |
|
| | | | IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Re: ??? said by fifty nine:4 channel DOCSIS3 already can. The cable companies probably won't deploy it yet because there's no real need for it for home users right now. In fact most home users would get by just fine with less than 512k. Every customer gets their own node, 4 ports of a CMTS card, and 25.6MHz of upstream spectrum @ 64QAM?
Note that I said 'per customer' not 'per MAC domain'. What the technology can do across what's probably 1000+ modems sharing the bandwidth is irrelevant as, unlike DSL, it's not a dedicated link between CPE and provider.
DOCSIS 3 upstreams won't exceed those levels until analogue is gone from cable networks and plant has loads of work done on it due to NTSC restricting subsplit sizes, upstream spectrum is 5 - 40MHz at best in North America, and not all of that usable due to noise.
Theory wise, sure, practically, not going to happen.
Also worth bearing in mind that the oft quoted '160Mbit downstream 120Mbit upstream' capabilities of 4 channel in both direction are not actually the case either. Real maximum downstream throughput with wind in sails and down hill will be around 152Mbit and upstream around 106Mbit. | |
|
| | | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Can or Will.
Just because 4 channel DOCSIS can offer 107Mbps upstream doesn't mean that they will be selling it anytime soon.
Similarly - VDSL2 offers connections +50Mbps - I don't see AT&T pushing for it either.
With the economy with its tail between its legs - don't expect much - many will be dropping to a lower tier (or cancelling services). Companies will still make money - as lower tiered services are typically priced higher/kbps in order to make them appear less attractive for use. | |
|
| | | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Is there a single provider that has upstream bonding working yet?
Last time I looked only the Arris CMTS even claimed to support upstream bonding right now. | |
|
| | | | Cakk
join:2009-03-31
Chesterfield, MO | Well it depends what they do. | |
|
| |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | said by fifty nine:DOCSIS3 cable is capable of up to 107MBps up. ADSL2 can only offer 896kb up. In the future DOCSIS can be expanded for gigabit speeds as well. I have "last mile" fiber-to-the-premises. My modem, wait, I don't have a modem. Should I use my GPON ONT and router to call out my upload capabilities? I'm already at the gigabit speeds with the current technology and work towards next generation and hybrid PON's capable of reaching 10 gigabit speeds are already being tested. | |
|
| | |
1 edit | Re: ??? If it's anything you won't see anytime soon is gigabit to the home in the US.
You see it in Europe and Asia but as we know we are pretty much way behind them in broadband.
FiOS is only in a "one upmanship" game with Cable. They're not going to go gigabit unless the cablecos get near that, and they won't.
Besides, I have a few hundred servers that I manage and the total bandwidth they use (upload) barely crosses 250MBps. Most times the firewall is loafing around 130MBps. We do have 2GBps connectivity.
So it is quite unlikely that there's even a real need for gigabit connectivity to the home right now. | |
|
| | | I got 10mbit down and 10mbit up with roadrunner. So to me, 60mbit down and only 5mbit up is really lame. | |
|
| | | Because everyone knows that you can't upload pictures to the grandparents on 5Mbps. | |
|
| | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Re: ??? The biggest problem is trying find a site that will upload your photos and videos for you to share that can even take advantage of a 2 Mbit upload.
Who can blame these sites? Our ISP's have generally been keeping our upload transfer rates at such a pathetically low level, there was no need to provide higher upload speeds from a practical standpoint. Hopefully, with the continual increase in upload speeds, we will start to see more sites offering much better performance when uploading files. | |
|
| | |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: ??? said by jmn1207:The biggest problem is trying find a site that will upload your photos and videos for you to share that can even take advantage of a 2 Mbit upload. The vast majority of sites on the internet cant handle more than 10Mbps upload OR download. Heck, a good portion of sites are still served by T1's these days.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
| |
|
| | | | IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Re: ??? said by wifi4milez:The vast majority of sites on the internet cant handle more than 10Mbps upload OR download. Heck, a good portion of sites are still served by T1's these days. So why do we have datacentres with 100Mbit+ ports connecting to multi-gigabit switches when the vast majority of sites are still on 10Mbps?
Seriously are the majority of internet sites hosted on regular ethernet or lower bandwidth? How many sites sit off T1s?
We're talking actual websites, etc, right? Even my cheapy hosted site for a few bucks a month achieves over 10Mbit in both directions... | |
|
| | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: ??? said by Ignite:said by wifi4milez:The vast majority of sites on the internet cant handle more than 10Mbps upload OR download. Heck, a good portion of sites are still served by T1's these days. So why do we have datacentres with 100Mbit+ ports connecting to multi-gigabit switches when the vast majority of sites are still on 10Mbps? Seriously are the majority of internet sites hosted on regular ethernet or lower bandwidth? How many sites sit off T1s? We're talking actual websites, etc, right? Even my cheapy hosted site for a few bucks a month achieves over 10Mbit in both directions... Many data centers serve end user customers (banks, media companies, etc.) who host their applications there. These customers do have a need for high bandwidth, however most of it is for internal use. Also keep in mind that data centers have multiple gigabit switches simply because of the number of customers they serve.
You are correct that the standard bandwidth for websites is now slowly migrating towards 10Mbps (due to the ease in provisioning a 10/100 port), however even when using ethernet often times sub 10Mbps bandwidths are chosen by the website provider. Dont take my word for it however, if you search around you will find that many sites still do not even support connections at 10Mbps simply due to the fact that they dont need to. Many people in this country can not get 10Mbps, so why would content providers (or websites) pay to support the few end users who can?
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
| |
|
| | | | | | IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Re: ??? said by wifi4milez:Many people in this country can not get 10Mbps, so why would content providers (or websites) pay to support the few end users who can? Because they have to operate on the assumption that more than one person at a time will be using their website / content perhaps. A content provider on a 10Mbps port serving 5 customers concurrently wouldn't really be providing at much pace. | |
|
| | | | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: ??? said by Ignite:said by wifi4milez:Many people in this country can not get 10Mbps, so why would content providers (or websites) pay to support the few end users who can? Because they have to operate on the assumption that more than one person at a time will be using their website / content perhaps. A content provider on a 10Mbps port serving 5 customers concurrently wouldn't really be providing at much pace. While that is true to some extent, 10Mbps is still not the standard for many sites. Even those that do have higher bandwidth connections limit how much resources a given client can take up. They do this for the very reason you just mentioned; if a single user with a high capacity connection accesses the site they want to make sure others still can.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
| |
|
| | | i agree. i also fail to see what is 'lame' about 5 Mbps up. most residential users don't upload lots of crap often enought to warrant the need for 5 Mbps. if you run a game server, backup to somewhere online, p2p, or do a lot of remote connection stuff from elsewhere back to home, i just don't see the need. | |
|
| | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Re: ??? Most residential users don't upload a lot of crap because their upload performance is terrible. There are only a few affordable applications that can take advantage of faster upload speeds, and since most users can't upload very fast anyway, it was never profitable to allow for users to upload lots of data at high speeds. It was generally a waste of resources that very few could take advantage of before.
Hopefully as we start seeing better upload performance, more and more practical uses will be created. | |
|
| | | Wel lconsidering here at cablevision i get 38/5 (advertised as 30/5) service with free web hosting, ports 80 and 25 open all for $60 a month with expandinjg free wifi for customers this deal just plain stinks.
I just dont udnerstand why the other cable companies like charter and comcast have such high prices. | |
|
 coastjamPremium
join:2001-03-05
Atascadero, CA | Charter Announces 60Mbps Internet Service Yeah Right...let them get their current service correct first. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
|
| | A Little too Late.. I think it's a little too late. They can barely keep current offers at advertised speeds. | |
|
| |
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Better than Comcast Here in Houston (4th largest city in the US), the highest speed Comcast offers is 8/2 for over $60/mo. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | Seriously? Like, whoa!!
5M up is kind of lame actually. Charter never has given away the upload though.
I'm on their 5/512 and get advertised speeds constantly.
Heck, even Verizon has higher upload on slower download around here, and I CAN'T get their maximum speed here due to filters some where along the lines. I'm only 6,000 feet from anything.
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ | |
|
| | Bunch of Bull----! I have the 10 meg package. I've tried the 16 meg and even Charter claims they have a long way to go to make the 16 meg service stable. I had tons of issues. Now they're going 60! Good luck with that. | |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·Comcast Digital ..
| Ok, I will bite! What about CAPS? Taking one for the team: Caps, caps, caps. Ok, now I officially opened up that can of worms, time to put on that flame suit.
--
Satan is always busy. He makes bad things look good and good things look bad! Watch that Devil. | |
|
| | | Re: Ok, I will bite! What about CAPS? Charter said no caps (for now), according to the Multichannel News story. | |
|
| | morahnus and moraynus Really? 60/5, not 60/6?
Who's idea of a stupid docis 3 joke came up with a 60/5 megabit tier idea? If your going to be stupid.. you need at least 10% UPLOAD AS THERE IS DOWNLOAD... AND IT SHOULD BE 60/60 WITH DOCSIS 3.0 NOT 60/5. | |
|
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: morahnus and moraynus said by tmc8080:Really? 60/5, not 60/6? Who's idea of a stupid docis 3 joke came up with a 60/5 megabit tier idea? If your going to be stupid.. you need at least 10% UPLOAD AS THERE IS DOWNLOAD... AND IT SHOULD BE 60/60 WITH DOCSIS 3.0 NOT 60/5. it would be if it wasn't in america.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| fix the current network first! They can't even make their 10 Mbps or 16 Mbps product work reliably. Why would anyone shell out $130/month for a completely unreliable (though intermittently fast) Internet connection?
I had Charter Internet for about a year and regularly had at least 1 or 2 outages a day sometimes 5 or 6, each one up to 30 minutes per outage. My wife works from home and her VPN connection to work would constantly disconnect. It wasn't a problem with the wiring from the pole to our house or the coax in our house -- it was a problem with Charter's piss-poor backbone network. When you'd run a traceroute, the network would just drop off at the 3rd or 4th hop. But, hey, we still had 10 Mbps of bandwidth on a road to nowhere! Thanks, Charter!
Charter would be better off fixing their oft-broken backbone network than spending money they don't have to attach DOCSIS 3.0 equipment to a network that doesn't work. | |
|
| | | Re: fix the current network first! said by goillini:Charter would be better off fixing their oft-broken backbone network than spending money they don't have to attach DOCSIS 3.0 equipment to a network that doesn't work. I have them in Madison for 8 years. Never a problem. My 16MB is rock solid. The "backbone" is fine. | |
|
| | AT&T Response? With Comcast, Charter, and many other cable companies starting to deploy DOCSIS 3.0 speeds, how much longer can AT&T milk their copper? 50 & 60 Mpbs speeds are more than double AT&T's highest tier... Is it time for them to finally go FTTP? Yes, I saw their earnings report yesterday, but the longer they wait, the more they get passed up by superior technology. FTTP is going to take them years to deploy... | |
|
| | | Re: AT&T Response? AT&T is already doing FTTP in some areas. | |
|
| | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: AT&T Response? said by fifty nine:AT&T is already doing FTTP in some areas. That is correct, but like Qwest (who also has limited FTTP deployments) they are still only offering their standard speed tiers so there is no additional benefit to the end user.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
| |
|
| | | | Yeah, they are pretty much only doing FTTP in greenfield deployments. Its not like they are overlaying copper with fiber in a substantial number of places. If they want to keep up, they better get the ball rolling on FTTP. But apparently I'm speaking to soon as AT&T is already announcing delays to current U-verse buildouts:
»AT&T Slows U-Verse Build Out
What a joke... | |
|
| | quit bitchin, you wont get the new speed package anyways To those that complain. You are the ones that will never see those speed because you dont want it or can not afford it.
For those that can afford it, have fun 
Simple: if you dont like the new package, dont get it.
For me personally, Charter runs 99.5% of the time very well. I do get advertised speeds. I can not complain.
Granted this pricing is a little steep, but the idea of "Charter" offering this is AMAZING! Who would think it would be Charter taking this action? This is GOOD NEWS to me. At least they are giving additional options and not sticking to the same speed packages year after year.
I am happy with Charter here in St Louis. I will testing out this new speed package ASAP. Why? 1- I have needs for this kind of speeds, and 2- I am willing to spend a little bit more to get a lot more speed. Who knows, the 16 meg package price "may" go down here in ST Louis
So those that complain, if you dont like it--> dont get it. If you can not afford it ---> dont get it.
Simple.
Enjoy your 16meg speeds | |
|
| | too costly then again so is cox if they charged $60 or 70 for it and made it 60/60 then it would be worth it.
i could move like an hour away from me and get a 50/50 connection with 100/100 intranet fiber for $57 a month. cox is raping us now here with a 15 mb down 1.5 up connection for about 57 (67 without cable or phone) | |
|
| | | Re: too costly then again so is cox I might add. I can get the 60/5 for $114.99 right now.
Guess what? Charter employee's are testing 100 meg just like they tested 60 meg here in St Louis. | |
|
| | | | Re: too costly then again so is cox I think this is a geat move for Charter it's nice to see them step up. I have the 16x2 now and I don't have any problems at all if they over the 60meg in my area most likely I will upgrade | |
|
| | | scrapir
join:2003-12-20
Fond Du Lac, WI | Re: too costly then again so is cox I've never had any problems with charters internet. I'm not a big gamer though. I live in WI and anytime I move I'll tell them I want a new drop. Maybe people having problems should check there modem signal levels? I'm on 16/2 without a problem. | |
|
| | DAMN 60mb, and all the dmca notices i can shake a stick at :P | |
|
| | | Re: DAMN ohh and i live in the subs of stl and cant even get on demand yet, but i can get 16/2 and it works fine... | |
|
| |  Charter 60Mbps
| |
|
| | | Re: Charter 60Mbps said by Tech12 :
If any of you belive that Charter will deliver that kind of speed, then I have some swamp property down in Florida that I'm letting go real cheap! They can't take care of what they have now. They are on the way out anyway.
That's your problem, Charter can not deliver in your swampy property. TIME TO MOVE!!
Anyways, they have been delivering at or close to advertised speeds here in St Louis for a long long time. Maybe 6-8 years? Been too long
Oh, the swamp stays with you | |
|
|
|
