1 recommendation |
en103
Member
2014-Feb-11 11:09 am
I think TimeWarner needs to clarify their statement.Time Warner Cable Still Insists Users Don't Want Faster Speeds
actually means
Time Warner doesn't want to invest to give users faster speeds.... Time Warner is happy to charge you more for what you already have. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
Re: I think TimeWarner needs to clarify their statement.The issue is that up to 100 DS is perfectly fine for the average household, however the UPLOAD (5) is killer once cloud applications start to take hold.
My backups, images, etc would take forever if I had a 100/5 link, whereas I sit on 50/25 which is quite good for cloud apps, but will need to get better...
So will UL still lag or they sit this out and wait until next DOCSIS rollout to address?
The entire industry had concentrated on download, but as applications become more interactive, upload will need to be balanced.
The larger issue is caps, because bigger pipes w/ lower caps is counterproductive. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: I think TimeWarner needs to clarify their statement.DOCSIS upload is limited because of the limited frequency range allocated for it in the way the DOCSIS standard is used, when combined with the frequencies allocated to television video. D3.1 will hopefully significantly reduce the problem of upload, but speed tier offerings will still be quite unbalanced. FTTH is the solution and the cable companies know it. See Cox's recent FTTH build in some new developments. | |
|
| |
RogueTech to en103
Anon
2014-Feb-11 6:30 pm
to en103
said by en103:Time Warner Cable Still Insists Users Don't Want Faster Speeds Actually, they already have the infrastructure to provide much faster speeds. These would be limited only by concurrent users and HUBs which connect copper to fiber (a little bottleneck there). The problem is that they are trying to suck as many pennies out of customers as possible, which is doesn't make them evil - necessarily - as long as there is competition, and therein, lies the main issue and my primary complaint. If competing services were allowed to compete - we would likely have speeds that were 100% - 300% faster, while premiums would likely remain about the same - $45.99 - $59.99/ month. Come on people - they are selling blue sky - you think it costs more to unthrottle the internet? It doesn't. It costs more to put account-specific restrictions in place. Way more. | |
|
| |
Packeteers Premium Member join:2005-06-18 Forest Hills, NY Asus RT-AC3100 (Software) Asuswrt-Merlin
1 edit |
Bill's title is misleadinglast week they tell us they will triple speeds in NYC & LA with MAXX now they say we don't really need the speed?
this article quote is about 1,000mbps - something no residential customer needs. why do you think google is going after hosts running out of people's houses.
the truth is what TWC customers need is more upload so we can fully enjoy cloud storage. I can't wait to get affordable 10mbps upload next year once MAXX kicks in here. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
your name
Anon
2014-Feb-11 11:42 am
Re: Bill's OP title is misleadingDo the customers want higher speeds or just the city government for development reasons? | |
|
| | |
Re: Bill's OP title is misleadingCan't it be both? | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
to your name
"Do the customers want higher speeds"
Not really. They just want what meets their needs today at the best price they can get.
"or just the city government for development reasons?"
They have been told that if you don't have a Gig network in your city you will become the next Detroit. That's what EPB kept telling our City Council. While I can see the upside to having high speed internet available cities are not going to go the way of Detroit if they don't get it in the next 5 years. | |
|
| | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Bill's OP title is misleadingsaid by battleop:They have been told that if you don't have a Gig network in your city you will become the next Detroit. That's what EPB kept telling our City Council. While I can see the upside to having high speed internet available cities are not going to go the way of Detroit if they don't get it in the next 5 years. And gigabit won't turn your city into Mountain View or San Jose, either. In fact, broadband in Silicon Valley isn't that great. There is fiber, but very limited. For the most part, it's a U-verse/cable duopoly. The whole premise is wrong. You do not get gigabit to make your city more competitive. You get it to make the city more pleasant for people to live in -- sort of like having nice parks or a well-stocked library. | |
|
| | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Bill's OP title is misleadingThe city leaders think that Gig=High End Tech jobs. I live in the Gig city and we're all waiting on those high end tech jobs to show up.
They think that working on the factory line at the VW plant is high tech. The type of work they do on the line today was really high tech 20 years ago. Today it's just the norm for a auto plant. | |
|
| | | | ncwred join:2014-01-31 Austin, TX |
to tanzam75
I'm not so sure. When Austin gets Google Fiber (on top of Grande Fiber and AT&T Fiber), I think it'll only accelerate the large shoestring start up scene here, drawing even more people to the area. 4 or 5 coder dudes renting a house together for $1500/mo with a $70/mo 1Gbps connection is rife with potential.
For most cities though I'd agree with what you write. Kansas City never had much of a tech base to build on. | |
|
| | |
to your name
What does that matter?
Customers and the city will both benefit so provide what they are seeking or eventually the city will do it for them (as they should). | |
|
| |
to Packeteers
Re: Bill's title is misleadingActually running a server out of your house is against Googles ToS. You can run a personal server such as a NAS but hosting with it is expressly forbidden.
As a customer I DO want faster speeds. It means that we can expand on existing technologies and have more enriched web experiences rather than buffering the smallest video... | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to Packeteers
I didn't mean to mislead anyone.
Over the last few months, Karl and others have noted countless times how cities and cities and cities have BEGGED Time Warner to upgrade their speeds. Almost always, the cities are left with no recourse other than to complain publicly OR start their own network.
The title has more to do with Time Warner not listening to Louisville for years....and now suddenly feels like they can tell Louisville people that this new system is not needed. Of course, i understand what TW means when they say that the people won't be able to use a program with 1gbps capailities....but the people simply want FASTER INTERNET.
When a city government is publicly asking for bids, it usually means that the council have heard from MANY MANY people who are not happy | |
|
| |
to Packeteers
How about offering business customers a better option than cable modems? | |
|
phazah join:2004-05-02 Findlay, OH |
phazah
Member
2014-Feb-11 11:32 am
build it, they will come..good gods Time Warner... the people want faster speeds, but drop the caps and the excessive prices. people will change the world... | |
|
n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2014-Feb-11 11:40 am
I Agree (sarcastic comment)I agree 100%. I want my bill tripled, low caps and low speed. I am sure that is what TWC focus groups told them. Please please please take my money and give me less in return for it.
Sometimes I wonder where they grow and raise people who lead these companies. | |
|
cowboySo Much For Subtlety Premium Member join:2000-03-14 La Grange, KY |
cowboy
Premium Member
2014-Feb-11 11:41 am
re: Time Warner Cable Still Insists Users Don't Want Faster SpeedsWhat they mean is that we don't want to pay their outrageous rates.
I am full-time work-from-home (programmer) - which means I live and die by my ability to VPN into work (on both sides of the continent, whilst I be in the middle of it).
I had no choice but to go business class for the SLA, QOS, etc.
So I'm paying $230 for 20/2 in Louisville
They just sent me notice for a nice bump - 35/5 ... the additional upstream would be a huge improvement for me! but they want $299 with a multi-year commitment :-(
I am actually considering dropping my business cable to the lowest tier, and bundling residential service at the highest level (since I already have residential TV with them).
I am capable of bonding the two links, and this would save me a significant amount of money and headache. I don't know if QOS would be heavily degraded in this kind of setup, and latency is a huge factor for my work. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
en103
Member
2014-Feb-11 12:55 pm
Re: Time Warner Cable Still Insists Users Don't Want Faster SpeedsWelcome to the club. I don't think having 'business class' helps much - other than to get someone on the phone.
I've had AT&T in the past, and TWC currently. When there's issues - 99% of the time - its a node, fiber cut or outage with a router or DNS which affects all the customers in the area. Eg. TWC's last outage over here put out most of the local businesses (city library), due to a fiber cut. It would be better to have a cable + alternative carrier (dsl or wireless) than to have 2 of the same carrier IMHO. | |
|
| |
to cowboy
Have you thought of residential and a LTE backup solution on your phone or hotspot. That is what I do and saves the company significant money. Both are under $100 for the month.
The lines themselves are no different than residential, nor the equipment.
In Verizon (we have both in my area), they use a different ONT with a bigger backup battery for phone, but it too doesn't help internet. | |
|
| | cowboySo Much For Subtlety Premium Member join:2000-03-14 La Grange, KY |
cowboy
Premium Member
2014-Feb-11 1:43 pm
Re: Time Warner Cable Still Insists Users Don't Want Faster SpeedsActually, that is an interesting option that I had not considered. My phone is vzw, unlimited data - not something I'd want to run 24x7, but would suffice for emergency - or high latency times. I looked at DSL, but here 'tis AT&T, and 3M/768K? - I'd really rather not have to live with that as a backup | |
|
|
Two Faced
Anon
2014-Feb-11 11:43 am
Those crazy commercialsIn my area, they are advertising the crap out of their 100Mbps Internet even though it is only available in what two or three cities. Yea TW, you are full of it. | |
|
| Mele20 Premium Member join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI |
Mele20
Premium Member
2014-Feb-12 9:30 am
Re: Those crazy commercialssaid by Two Faced :In my area, they are advertising the crap out of their 100Mbps Internet even though it is only available in what two or three cities. Yea TW, you are full of it. Not true. I live on a neighbor island in Hawaii. I can get 100/10 and have been able to for some time. I don't live on Oahu in heavily populated Honolulu. Oceanic was first in the nation to get these higher speeds. Granted, for many years the neighbor islands would be 6 months to one year behind the speeds Oahu could get...but not since DOCSIS 3 and plant upgrades. Everyone can get 100/10 now. I got upgraded from 20/2 to 30/5 free so not sure about the high expense. 100/10 is expensive though but below that is reasonable (well, below 75/5 is reasonable). | |
|
|
Wilsdom
Member
2014-Feb-11 11:45 am
What they really want is slower speeds! | |
|
stvnbrs Premium Member join:2009-03-17 Cary, NC
1 recommendation |
stvnbrs
Premium Member
2014-Feb-11 12:01 pm
Disillusional as everTWC charges too much for their terrible service, even if they offered 1Gps where I live, I doubt I could afford it with their current rates. True capitalism would have seen this company destroyed a long time ago, but thanks to oligopoly's and a very poor FCC very little will ever be done for the people. | |
|
TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA
1 recommendation |
TechyDad
Premium Member
2014-Feb-11 12:01 pm
Give Us Caps!Judging by Time Warner Cable's attempt to impose a 5GB cap on all users, their backtrack, and then their re-introducing it as "opt-in for a 5GB cap with overage fees and we'll take $5 off your bill", Time Warner Cable must think user's are clamoring to have their Internet service degraded for a token savings. (One that would disappear once you went over your cap by a few GB.)
It only makes sense, then, that they'd think customers wouldn't want 1Gbps. At those speeds, you'd hit your monthly cap in under a minute. We definitely don't want that and therefore (by applying Cable Company Logic ™), we definitely don't want 1Gbps speeds. | |
|
cabanaDepartment of Adjustments Mod join:2000-07-07 New York, NY
1 recommendation |
cabana
Mod
2014-Feb-11 12:15 pm
Yes ... please keep my pipeline cloggedNo ... please do not give me faster speeds. Thank you for finally listening. I would rather keep exactly what I get now ... a) zero options in my neighborhood other than your company ... this way I can feel safe and secure that I don't have to think about choices b) pay top dollar to have television constantly stalled out ... I particularly enjoy the "please wait" note on a black screen for a premium channel that I pay extra to have in my line up right in the middle of the show. c) I love my voip phone staying stuck on "we are re configuring" ... d) At night ... when everyone else gets on our pipeline ... I love calling neighbors and asking them hey ... is your internet connection any faster than mine ... I need to do xyz ... maybe I can come over and try it from your computer e) I adore having all kinds of fees tacked on to service that is sub par f) I enjoy all the tracking put on my account. Maybe you would like to activate my cameras as well so you can further market to my every move. Keep sending me a cable offer every other day in my snail mail too ... I love seeing what it is "I COULD BE GETTING" ... g)oh .. and looking at my line monitoring graphs and wonder if I am looking at a flat lined heart monitor instead of my cable service performance. Yes ... please ... keep me in the slooooooow lane. Sigh | |
|
| |
anonomeX
Anon
2014-Feb-11 2:55 pm
Re: Yes ... please keep my pipeline cloggedThe old scam joke used to be selling swampland in Florida or somewhere (or maybe a bridge on NY). Now... it's an Internet connection that works reliably for the things you want to do (well, except it's reality [ISP SOP] now and not a joke). | |
|
anonomeX |
anonomeX
Anon
2014-Feb-11 1:05 pm
I would *love* to have 15/2...if that were the speed 24/7/365 and it cost less than $50 ($40 actually).
How 'bout dat? (too hard? ...how 'bout 10/1? ...no? [pity--it was easy 5 or 6 years ago]) | |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag? join:2004-09-07 united state
1 recommendation |
Yeah, I would go back to dial-up if I couldI really miss that modem connecting beep, boop, beep, beep, boop, beep, beep, grind, buzz, buzz, boing, boing, squeal, then silence alerting me that now I can go get a cup of coffee while Yahoo loads. | |
|
|
We all want more speed.But economics is says... nope 20/2 is good enough. | |
|
|
I'm a TWC Internet customer...and I agree with them. I don't want 1Gig service from them. They would probably charge something like $1,000/mo for it! | |
|
| |
Re: I'm a TWC Internet customer...And they would look at you as someone who is perfectly happy with their speeds....because you don't want to take out a mortgage for their laughably unreliable 1gbps service. | |
|
| |
to waycoolphil
I'd pay 1000 a month for fiber symmetrical to my head office. I'd need faster firewalls though since my ASA5510 is only rated 240 Mbit | |
|
1 edit
1 recommendation |
The US will fall way behind......unless we all get in touch with our legislators and DEMAND that they get the FCC to declare all the wired connections common carriers, and invest in fiber to the home in all cities. Stockholm in Sweden decided 20 years ago to do it and now residents have fiber to the home for 30 lousy bucks a month, and have 5 companies to choose from. The city leases its capacity to those companies. Its investment paid for itself in a few years and now the city makes money off of its fiber network. IT CAN BE DONE.
But, alas, our political system is largely bought and paid for, so it will be extremely difficult to knock the cable monopolies off their perches. | |
|
|
Hope Comcast gets the NC market becuase time warner cable sucksSo you say on one hand in two just two markets your going to give them an upgrade called "maxx" and to the rest of your markets you tell them FU.
If this is not proof that they are full of smoke, then I don't know what is. | |
|
|
Wait wait did somebody told this to Pdiddy?LMAO gotta love TWC and their commercials about "we have faster speeds then fios" yet here comes "users don't want faster speeds" talk about double talk to the MAX!!! | |
|
| |
Re: Wait wait did somebody told this to Pdiddy?You guys should sue them over that claim or better yet Verizon should sue them. Had no idea they said that as well. Though being in a TWC only area can do that.
They could care less about the RDU area. | |
|
| | |
Re: Wait wait did somebody told this to Pdiddy?Well I don't have TWC only cable vision but my other family members do fall under their foothold. | |
|
joeMI join:2006-08-15 Mcmillan, MI |
joeMI
Member
2014-Feb-11 3:56 pm
I am a TWC customerSo what do I need...
I need the 30Mbps speed that I'm paying for.
A year ago, we'd get congestion on Sat/Sun nights around 9:20 PM to 10:30 PM. You could set your watch to it.
Now, we get 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM slow downs and fluctuations most evenings. And, it's not a specific site (i.e. Netflix). I have noticeable browsing slow down to multiple web sites.
Bottom-line: 1. Consistent download speeds, even during peak times. 2. Faster uploads to take advantage of cloud storage. 3. For me, 50Mbps down with 25Mbps up would be sweet.
So just do it! | |
|
| |
Re: I am a TWC customerYou just provided the entertainment for the next TWC board meeting. | |
|
|
RyanE117
Anon
2014-Feb-11 6:30 pm
What a coincidence!Comcast says the same thing! | |
|
|
bobkojack
Anon
2014-Feb-11 6:33 pm
too muchThis is like McDonalds charging $500.00 for a hamburger and then when people only buy the overpriced $20.00 six piece McNuggets they claim that people clearly are not interested in hamburgers. No, they are charging too much and are past the markets price point. If Time Warner charged a reasonable price for their top offering they would reach millions, make billions, and their customers would love them. | |
|
|
|