lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Avoid the Noid Time Warner is conducting a false advertising campaign. That is to say they lead customers to believe they can get 15 down while at the same time implementing traffic shaping that limits download speed to a little less than 6000 kbps.
I have their Virtual Office Teleworker III with a static IP. I should see something close to 15 mbps down and while I know that under their best effort farce I would never actually see to full 15 mbps I should occasionally see something close. In the past 7 days the best I've seen is 5654 kbps down.
I've opened trouble tickets and played their little script monkey game. They even sent a tech that checked the line signals, he said everything was fine. The following day another tech showed up and only looked at the cable modem lights, verified I could get to the internet, ran a speed test to an internal BHN site with a speed of 5224 kbps and declared it was working fine.
I've sent them an email stating that if this was not rectified by 8/17 I would be making the move to FIOS. Their answer was to open another trouble ticket.
If you have an alternative to Time Warner, use it! |
|
 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | What about the up, is is as represented? Or is it also limited to less than advertised? |
|
|
|
 Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | reply to lesopp
That's if your service is even working. I switched to
AT&T DSL not long after they began implementing traffic
shaping because my cable internet would go down at least
once every day, and almost without fail over the weekends.
It may have seemed a coincidence that the connectivity
losses started shortly after they implemented traffic
shaping, but I thought otherwise. So I cancelled and
haven't looked back.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
|
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
2 edits | reply to swhx7
Up has always been reasonably close to the 2 mbit up. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Something tells me that this may be a marketing ploy...
15Mpbs (peak) but not sustainable.
The thing for me is, that I typically do well on a 3Mbps connection. Sure I'd take a faster speed, but I don't really want to pay $$$ for something that I'm not really taking advantage of.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | I would categorize it as a deceptive practice when less than half the contracted download speed is not achievable on their local network. Remember, this is something they put into place to limit customers download speeds. |
|
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | reply to en102
said by en102:Something tells me that this may be a marketing ploy... 15Mpbs (peak) but not sustainable. He, he,
I can understand how frustrating and traumatizing is to use AT&T's xDSL technologies.
That thing you call "Something tells me blah, blah" is really your mind blocking the fact that TW is delivering 15Mbps down, I repeat 15 Megabits per second down. It is not a ploy, it is sustainable and IT IS HERE!
Wake up from your self hypnotic mental state and welcome TW's new speeds. |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | I would use 15Mbps TW cable... if it was about $35 to $40/month. I personally don't have a need to consume more, and more importantly... I don't have the desire to pay more.
I may end up on TW's 6Mbps service after my DSL-Extreme contract is up, or I may end up on AT&T's U-Verse after my conttract is up, or I may stay where I am.
I don't need to jump to another carrier _just_ because they have 15Mbps service... I need a decent provider with reasonable cost. I have no desire (at this time) to pay $10/month more for bandwidth I'm not using.
I've had my own DS-3 for a while with a full class C of IP addresses to play with... so I know what decent bandwidth is (download Linux CD ISO images in 3 minutes).
If someone could give me a GOOD business case on WHY I need 15Mbps at my house, maybe I'd consider it. That extra $120/year can go towards other more important bills (gas, car, insurance, taxes, vacation, beer etc)
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to en102
Re: A great sign... Still faster than ATT. Uverse Internet is dead right out of the gate. |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | I agree that its faster... and options aren't a bad thing.
I don't think Uverse Internet is dead right out of the gate, but I do think that they may be limiting the potential amount of customers by limiting both DSL speeds and HDTV lines.
I think HDTV capacity is more of an issue than the DSL rate.
Show me the percentage of subs that sign up for 15Mbps service (not geeks on here running bandwidth stats). I'd be surprised if it is more than 10%... mostly due to cost/need.
Similarly, show me the stats on DSL using 6Mbps service (I'm sure its higher than 10%, however, there's also a limit of distance, cutting off many users from 6Mbps access).
Perceived cost and cost are 2 different things.
AT&T's typical scheme has added cheap DSL ontop of expensive POTS. POTS / LD is overpriced, and people are walking away due to either VoIP or Cable.
Uverse is moving the POTS expense to TV expense. I personally think they CAN do it, if they can make it affordable. Bundling in DVR's just makes the entry point more expensive, as does the 3 set minimum.
I don't think AT&T will have people in general jumping ship from TW/Comcast, etc. to use Uverse unless they have issues with their cable service/pricing.
AT&T is losing their POTS customers to VoIP (read Cable) due to the over regulated/over expensive price with POTS.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | reply to en102
Re: Avoid the Noid said by en102:I would use 15Mbps TW cable... if it was about $35 to $40/month. I personally don't have a need to consume more, and more importantly... I don't have the desire to pay more. I may end up on TW's 6Mbps service after my DSL-Extreme contract is up, or I may end up on AT&T's U-Verse after my conttract is up, or I may stay where I am. I don't need to jump to another carrier _just_ because they have 15Mbps service... I need a decent provider with reasonable cost. I have no desire (at this time) to pay $10/month more for bandwidth I'm not using. I've had my own DS-3 for a while with a full class C of IP addresses to play with... so I know what decent bandwidth is (download Linux CD ISO images in 3 minutes). If someone could give me a GOOD business case on WHY I need 15Mbps at my house, maybe I'd consider it. That extra $120/year can go towards other more important bills (gas, car, insurance, taxes, vacation, beer etc) Well, thank you for your very honest answer.
So basically you would like to get that 15Mbps down plan but you can't afford it or have other financial priorities.
I can understand that... no problem. |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | Of course... I'd take a faster / better connection, as long I could justify the cost. Its similar to purchasing text or web packages on a cell phone. Since I don't use them often enough, its cheaper for me to use the $0.15 a la carte text plan, or block it altogether.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
