http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19386335 en Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:22:44 EDT Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:22:44 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19388641 Big Dawg 23 : Not everyone has issues. I have the 10MB and test at 9.84MB down and 982K up. When I download large files like a new software it comes down at a 1.1mb/s. I love Charter. I expect to get good speeds if I go to 16/2 at no cost.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19388641 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:14:26 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19387013 rradina : That plan didn't work out well for folks that still buy American cars. It's been 30 years and American car companies still lag imports. Recently, only GM actually experienced a sales increase. Meanwhile Toyota is set to overtake Ford as the #2 auto producer in America.

I also use Charter. I get good service even though I believe it's too expensive due to lack of competition. SBC (now AT&T) put DSL in area COs back in 1998 but since then they have done nothing to increase coverage. If you don't qualify for DSL, Charter is the only choice. I believe Charter's prices reflect a lack of competition.

I would jump on 768/128 for $14.99/month or 1.5/256 for $25/month. I'd also go back to satellite in a heartbeat and save a ton of money.

Maybe someday the free-market will grant me a choice. I'm really hoping WiMax becomes all that is promised. From what I've seen, however, the prices are rather expensive considering there is no plant to maintain. Shouldn't it be cheaper to erect a few dozen towers and not have to maintain a fiber/coax/copper plant? For that matter, why can't WiMax use existing cell towers and the existing backhaul? If WiMax works, it seems like it could be implemented quickly, cheaply and provide a real choice to those with no HSI or those with only one choice.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19387013 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:45:50 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19386520 bgetchel : Hi DH,

That's a very reasonable question. The answer is two-fold.

First, I get the advertised speed about 20% of the time. It comes in handy when they are able to actually deliver, like on an 8GB download a couple of nights ago. Second, I'm really a closet optimist masquerading as a pessimist. I would LOVE to see Charter get their act together and deliver on their promise (and what I'm paying for).
--
Da Biff]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19386520 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:30:41 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19386335 DHRacer : Not to be mean or anything, but if your service is that bad, why don't you just downgrade yourself to like the 3M package and then you'd be paying less for the actual 1M service you're getting now...?

Or is there some reason you're staying with the 10M package (like the upload?)?

--
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19386335 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:02:37 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19386275 bgetchel : The real irony is, I pay $80/mo for 10/1 service and only get greater than 1Mbps (yes, 1/10th of 10Mbps) on rare occasions. They might as well tell people that they're upgrading everyone to 1000 Mbps for free, because we'll still only get 1Mbps.

How they can make such bogus claims is beyond me. They can't even deliver the speeds they're currently advertising. How in the world are they going to deliver on these new speeds -- magically pull this bandwidth out of their posterior orifice?

Charter is ridiculous. They can't even deliver on their most basic service performance claims. If dialup weren't my only alternative I'd be gone. Unfortunately, I am beginning to think dialup actually may outperform Charter's highest "performance" "broadband" package.
--
Da Biff]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19386275 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:52:52 EDT