dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
15456
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to dez_nutz

Member

to dez_nutz

Re: So Charter is going to go to metered service huh?

said by dez_nutz:

If I am chicken little than you are captain stupid if you think that a business would not use something like this to the fullest extent to get more money out of its customers. Like going over in cell minutes, do they charge you a normal rate for minutes over? No they milk the hell out of it...
And yet you still use a cell phone. And as you say Charter is a BUSINESS. It's their pipe they paid for it. Who are you to tell them what they can do with it? You could always build you're own network if you hate it so much.
That's all great for you that you can just switch to at&t or someone else, but not everyone has that option. I have two companies that offer broadband in my area. Charter pipeline and a local telco who is overpriced and services are unreliable.
So Charter should let you do whatever you want because the other company refuses to even provide Charter's crappy level of service? Hmmmm. Why not complain to the even crappier company to improve their service? If McDonald's gives me a crappy burger I'm not going to demand that Burger King give me a discount.
You sure post a lot pro charter crap and diss anyone that says otherwise not to be a fanboy ass kisser. I will have to take your word on that because I don’t remember your other posts.
Anyone that has read my thoughts on Charter's HD offerings compared to DirectTV for the same price and especially the NFL Network issue knows my feelings about Charter. And it isn't very good.
Since this topic is about opinions on something that could be used to negatively impact me, I going to look at it that way. You and I are not the ones that will be setting the cap or deciding the fees so I like to expect the worst. Should they do it, hopefully it will remain within an acceptable range. Since I don't have the same fallback as you, don't expect me to be positive about it like you because I can't just up and switch companies... When you have been raped by a telco for as long as I was, seeing anything considered that could affect my alternative I am not going to welcome with open arms.
I'm not worried because Charter won't do anything until TW's little experiment is over and they analyze that data. Then they'll come up with their own experiment. If Charter goes with metered service my guess it won't be before 2010. So until then I'm not worried. Who knows what will be available in your area or mine or anyone's by then.

WyckedKnight
We the corporations by the corporations
join:2004-07-12
Van Nuys, CA

WyckedKnight to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
OK guys take a step back and take a deep breath in hold and exhale.:D this is all in speculation even my post above may not be fully accurate i just posted it just to let peeps know what i had heard. the legality of any u.s. HSI provider being able to cap would only cripple themselves as most will just look else where or even go back to dial up. ;( I'm sure some 3rd party company will step in and offer maybe even a wireless connection that can been shared by allot of people and still provide fasts speeds for their users. for me I've taken a lets wait and see attitude towards Charter but let's just say a person can only take so much before he/she snaps. so let's all hold hands and sing kuumbya..

dez_nutz
join:2007-02-21
Arab, AL

dez_nutz to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

And yet you still use a cell phone. And as you say Charter is a BUSINESS. It's their pipe they paid for it. Who are you to tell them what they can do with it? You could always build you're own network if you hate it so much.

So Charter should let you do whatever you want because the other company refuses to even provide Charter's crappy level of service? Hmmmm. Why not complain to the even crappier company to improve their service? If McDonald's gives me a crappy burger I'm not going to demand that Burger King give me a discount.
Yes I use a cell phone service that has unlimited minutes and I sacrificed better quality service because of it. It's charter's pipe that they are charging me to use. Who am I to tell them what to do? This is about my opinion, I am not telling them to do anything. Just because that is the only option and I use it doesn't mean I can't give my opinion on it.

Your burger king comment and response to the 16mbps with the TOS I feel is twisting the points I was trying to make. As far as the tos... Paying for a 16mbps connection and only able to get 1mbps will more than likely bring a lawsuit. I wouldn't be the one filing it, but if some lady can sue McDonalds for coffee being hot, I don't see how Charter could avoid one for that... Charter has been good about giving credits for downtime and latency when it's something on there end, but this about your hypothetical idea that they will charge full price for something they can't deliver. In reality, I am not asking for a discount because someone else's services are bad, I am hoping they don't change theirs so there service is just as bad. It would be like McDonalds giving you a 3 day old burger and then you go to burger king and get the same thing all because McDonalds did it. Keeping the BK and McD comparison, my little town only has BK or McD to choose from and that is why I am worried about it.
useless7
join:2006-07-16

useless7 to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by Lazlow:

BF69

If you go through the TW metered threads one of them gives that stats that 95% of their customers are using less than 5gb.
I don't care what they say, it's BS and I know it and you know it.
Personally I do not think charter needs to worry about bandwidth hogs any more now than they have had to in the past. I still have not seen anything from time warner that says that the tiers will be tied to certain speeds.
they have 4 speed tiers and 4 badwidth caps. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Satelite has caps and your cap is based on the speed tier you're on.
His number is pretty accurate, whether you agree or not. Remember, MSOs run their own DNS, there is caching and such. ( locally on machines and some networks )

Here is part of the problem. When Charter ( and other MSOs ) offer higher DL speeds ( more bandwidth ) for more cost, people jump at it. One reason Charter doesnt have the lowest tier anymore.

I agree with some of your assessments on how people use the bandwidth, how it is hoggish to download all day and such, remember that currently that is perfectly acceptable. I see a lot of people get on here crying about their speeds, I wish Charter had local speed test sites everywhere...because people normally are getting their speed on net. Because 1 server isnt giving you 16MB .. we get complaints. Most server CANT give you that much bandwidth. Course when its 500k down and 1M there is a problem.
mworks
join:2006-06-13
Rose Hill, NC

mworks

Member

My concern with caps is that its just an excuse not to spend money on infrastructure and increase profits.

example:
A town with 5000 subscribers.
Your network can't handle them all at full usage so you cap them at 50GB.

A couple years later the subscriber numbers are now 6000.
Your network can't handle them all at full usage so you cap them at 40GB.

Where does it end ?
useless7
join:2006-07-16

useless7

Member

said by mworks:

My concern with caps is that its just an excuse not to spend money on infrastructure and increase profits.

example:
A town with 5000 subscribers.
Your network can't handle them all at full usage so you cap them at 50GB.

A couple years later the subscriber numbers are now 6000.
Your network can't handle them all at full usage so you cap them at 40GB.

Where does it end ?
Valid concern, 2 points.

1. That is not a reality as far as Charter goes. So premise 1 is something that is false.

2. Since the first premise is false, this is not a logical extension.

I mean, you can make scenarios up all day.....
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to useless7

Member

to useless7
said by useless7:

His number is pretty accurate, whether you agree or not. Remember, MSOs run their own DNS, there is caching and such. ( locally on machines and some networks )
We'll agree to disagree. more people are using 2 or more computers in the home. Now I know if you have say 10 Meg you can't use more than that no matter how many computers you have. My point is that an internet connection is on more often so logically more bandwidth is being used.

More and more people are doing online gaming.

More and more people are going to start using service like Amazon Unbox, Netflix online, Apple TV and XBOX Live for not only regular Tv and movie downloads but HD.

A HD download form XBL is 6 GB. SO downloading 1 HD movie is already putting you in the top 5% supposedly. I really doubt that.

As I said 5 GB a month is 167 MB a day. That's not much. Hell just in the last 20 minutes I've used 11 MB of bandwidth and all I've done is pretty much come here and respond to these posts. I think I went to yahoo to check my mail and maybe read a news story, but I certainly didn't download any video. At that rate within 5 hours I'm exceeding 167 MB. I can tell you that MORE than 5% of Charter's customers go to YouTube and other video sites. It doesn't take but watching a few videos a day and normal surfing to exceed 5 GB a month.

Even if 95% use 5 GB or less NOW, within a couple of years that number will be well under 50% and the 95% threshold will be closer to 50 Gb than to 5 GB. Even you can't disagre with that.
DemonChicken
join:2006-10-15
Boon, MI

DemonChicken

Member

Its as simple as, don't limit your downloads, and no one who is a geek and knows what they are talking about like myself (to a lesser extent of knowlege than most other people here) will get your service. Albiet, some people say its P.O.S. so that might influence some decisions. Limiting bandwidth is like limiting sex, its bad for everyone, and someone is going to get hurt.

If I had the option of 8mb DSL or 16mb Cable that was metered, I'd jump on DSL.

MacLeech
The one and only
Premium Member
join:2001-07-14
SoCal

1 edit

MacLeech to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298 See ProfileSO :

downloading 1 HD movie is already putting you in the top 5% supposedly.
Where did you ever get that figure from?

That 5GB a month made you a top 5% user.
LowRider
join:2006-06-23
Dallas, GA

2 edits

LowRider

Member

said by MacLeech:

said by 88615298 See ProfileSO :

downloading 1 HD movie is already putting you in the top 5% supposedly. I really doubt that.
Where did you ever get that figure from?

That 5GB a month made you a top 5% user.
there i corrected you on what he really said

MacLeech
The one and only
Premium Member
join:2001-07-14
SoCal

MacLeech

Premium Member

said by LowRider:

said by MacLeech:

said by 88615298 See ProfileSO :

downloading 1 HD movie is already putting you in the top 5% supposedly. I really doubt that.
Where did you ever get that figure from?

That 5GB a month made you a top 5% user.
there i corrected you on what he really said
That "correction" doesn't change the premise of the statement.

Where did he get the idea that using more than 5 GB per month puts a user in the top 5%? He doesn't believe it, but who does he think said or believes that?
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

said by MacLeech:

That "correction" doesn't change the premise of the statement.

Where did he get the idea that using more than 5 GB per month puts a user in the top 5%? He doesn't believe it, but who does he think said or believes that?
You don't pay attention much do you?
said by Lazlow:

If you go through the TW metered threads one of them gives that stats that 95% of their customers are using less than 5gb. It is not my number it is theirs. I agree the number sounds fishy because I do not personally know of anyone who uses less then 50GB per month (Including my 72 year old widow neighbor lady that I set up linux for) and yes I have checked those #s as well as my own. I did find the quote right out of their memo that said 5% of the users were using 50% of the total bandwidth. Which would (if true) put the 5GB number in the right ballpark.

MacLeech
The one and only
Premium Member
join:2001-07-14
SoCal

1 edit

MacLeech

Premium Member

said by 88615298:

said by MacLeech:

That "correction" doesn't change the premise of the statement.

Where did he get the idea that using more than 5 GB per month puts a user in the top 5%? He doesn't believe it, but who does he think said or believes that?
You don't pay attention much do you?
said by Lazlow:

If you go through the TW metered threads one of them gives that stats that 95% of their customers are using less than 5gb. It is not my number it is theirs. I agree the number sounds fishy because I do not personally know of anyone who uses less then 50GB per month (Including my 72 year old widow neighbor lady that I set up linux for) and yes I have checked those #s as well as my own. I did find the quote right out of their memo that said 5% of the users were using 50% of the total bandwidth. Which would (if true) put the 5GB number in the right ballpark.
Thank you for pointing out where you got that idea from, that's what I was asking for.

TWC spokesholes never said using more than 5 GB per month put a user in the top 5% of bandwidth users, so I was wondering where that came from. I see Lazlow seems to have made it up.

Thanks, I'll leave now.
useless7
join:2006-07-16

1 edit

useless7

Member

said by MacLeech:

TWC spokesholes never said using more than 5 GB per month put a user in the top 5% of bandwidth users, so I was wondering where that came from. I see Lazlow seems to have made it up.

Thanks, I'll leave now.
rofl!!!

Cheap shot, and gone!

Pretty accurate BTW. ( Lazlow's number )

Check this blog out, »blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=914

has links to the EFF site, where they recommend metered service.

»www.eff.org/wp/packet-fo ··· t-affair

Very interesting read concerning all of this. You might not e that the entire thing is based around Comcast and their actions, which have a direct correlation to any type of metered service.

sadbuttrue
@charter.com

sadbuttrue to MacLeech

Anon

to MacLeech
said by MacLeech:

said by 88615298:

said by MacLeech:

That "correction" doesn't change the premise of the statement.

Where did he get the idea that using more than 5 GB per month puts a user in the top 5%? He doesn't believe it, but who does he think said or believes that?
You don't pay attention much do you?
said by Lazlow:

If you go through the TW metered threads one of them gives that stats that 95% of their customers are using less than 5gb. It is not my number it is theirs. I agree the number sounds fishy because I do not personally know of anyone who uses less then 50GB per month (Including my 72 year old widow neighbor lady that I set up linux for) and yes I have checked those #s as well as my own. I did find the quote right out of their memo that said 5% of the users were using 50% of the total bandwidth. Which would (if true) put the 5GB number in the right ballpark.
Thank you for pointing out where you got that idea from, that's what I was asking for.

TWC spokesholes never said using more than 5 GB per month put a user in the top 5% of bandwidth users, so I was wondering where that came from. I see Lazlow seems to have made it up.

Thanks, I'll leave now.
haha. ownage. nice MacLeech
useless7
join:2006-07-16

useless7

Member

Just realized none of you will read that, but you might read this.

Comcast advertises "unlimited" but it isn't, bc they forge RSTs, which throttle bit torrent seeding. They do this via packet sniffing all traffic, sending the RST to the source. accomplished by putting these at certain agg points on the network.

If they lose their court case, they may have stop the RST or advertise a metered service, or some other type of internet that is "unlimited except for seeding"

Hopefully you see what I am getting at here.

Basically if you have Comcast you have a type of metered service already.
useless7

useless7 to sadbuttrue

Member

to sadbuttrue
said by sadbuttrue :

haha. ownage. nice MacLeech
If ignorance is bliss, yes its ownage. but of a different kind.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow to MacLeech

Member

to MacLeech
MacLeech

This topic had me very concerned so I read everything I could find on the internet about it. That involved reading information from a variety of websites. If I did not make it clear before, I admit I cannot find where I originally saw the numbers (a point which I thought I had already made clear). After reading 40-50 threads on the topic it can be difficult to remember where one particular piece of information came from. The fact that Useless (who handles this exact type of thing for Charter) confirms that the information is in the right ballpark, leaves me with no compelling reason to spend hours trying to track down the exact source of the information. If this offends you just ignore my posts. If it really offends you, search through ALL the threads about metered service on the internet.
DemonChicken
join:2006-10-15
Boon, MI

DemonChicken

Member

What is the proposed GB cap, and how much does it cost if you go over? I don't want t scour the thread to try to find that info.
LowRider
join:2006-06-23
Dallas, GA

1 edit

LowRider

Member

said by DemonChicken:

What is the proposed GB cap, and how much does it cost if you go over? I don't want t scour the thread to try to find that info.
i don't believe Charter has said, and even mentioned if they will go to this. i could be wrong, cause i think this whole thread started from an article that mentioned Charter in it but there was no confirmation from Charter on the subject.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

3 edits

88615298 (banned)

Member

said by LowRider:

said by DemonChicken:

What is the proposed GB cap, and how much does it cost if you go over? I don't want t scour the thread to try to find that info.
i don't believe Charter has said, and even mentioned if they will go to this. i could be wrong, cause i think this whole thread started from an article that mentioned Charter in it but there was no confirmation from Charter on the subject.

I quoted a pretty higher up person at CHARTER.

"Eventually, we will go usage-based," predicted Marwan Fawaz, CTO of Charter Communications Inc., last month at the CableNEXT conference in Santa Clara. "

the one good thing about a cap is that at least it will be known. because we all know that the cable companies do in fact have caps now that are invisible and we have no idea what the cap is and most people don't know how much they are using, even if they did state what the cap was.

If your connection all of a sudden goes to shit now they can just say it's a technical problem, not that you violated any invisble cap since they deny having one the first place. In which it may every well be a technical issue and not an overage one, but you'll never know since they supposedly don't have caps now, but they do.
useless7
join:2006-07-16

useless7

Member

doesnt get much higher than that.


WyckedKnight
We the corporations by the corporations
join:2004-07-12
Van Nuys, CA

WyckedKnight to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
The thing about hidden caps, from my understanding is that they are illegal. Thus why the FCC is investigating Comcast for those invisible caps.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

said by WyckedKnight:

The thing about hidden caps, from my understanding is that they are illegal. Thus why the FCC is investigating Comcast for those invisible caps.
They are investigating Comcast for BitTorrent throttling not invisible caps. And throttling bittorrent is not against the law. HOW Comcast is doing is, potentially.

Show me a link where invisible caps are illegal.

WyckedKnight
We the corporations by the corporations
join:2004-07-12
Van Nuys, CA

WyckedKnight to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
I do apologise i miss read the section about Comcast..
info i was read was from the lionk post in the first thread of this topic. here's the link i read from.
»www.lightreading.com/doc ··· site=cdn
Was also told some time back that invisable capping was illegal though, but i didn't trust that source as well.
useless7
join:2006-07-16

useless7 to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
In court, it does not have to be clear. If Comcast uses a "Unlimited Internet " advertising campaign, the TOS can state differently and it is possible they lose in court. If the TOS does not mention the Bittorrent throttling or invisible caps, then they have a bigger problem (potentially).

When there is a court battle that is "people" vs " big company" the people have a pretty good shot. Basically it is what everyone is waiting for.

Both invisible caps and Bittorrent throttling are types of metered service in my opinion.

MrMike1
Premium Member
join:2008-02-02

4 edits

MrMike1 to UneedTinFoil

Premium Member

to UneedTinFoil
said by UneedTinFoil :

If they implement such a service, they already have it covered in their TOS:

»www.charter.com/Visitors ··· ies.aspx

12. NO EXCESSIVE USE OF BANDWIDTH

If Charter determines, in Charter’s sole discretion, that Customer is using an excessive amount of bandwidth over the Charter network infrastructure for Internet access or other functions using public network resources, Charter may adjust, suspend or terminate Customer's account at any time and without notice, or require Customer to upgrade Customer’s service level and pay additional fees in accordance with Charter's then-current, applicable, published rates for such Service.
They already cap my service with this policy. Of course there is not a description of what they consider excessive amount of bandwidth or who makes this determination. I get capped all the time. I pay for 5 meg service and do not get it due to this loophole agreement. I guess, 1 too many views of YouTube videos.

I haven't determined if it is just a tech making this descision or if it is just an automated process. I am betting on the tech, due to my bandwidth going down, but not going back to its "paid for" state until I call and complain.

But it gets worse. They disguise this capping with bandwidth test sites that use http protocol resulting in higher throughput. If I use a java or flash based test, it reflects a more accurate bandwidth. Tell me if I am wrong on this, as I go by feel rather than knowledge.

Do not consider this post as flaming Charter. Its just business. I should get what I pay for and should be treated as a customer rather than a violater of TOS.

Never received a notification of a supposed violation, so I guess it does not happen. Oops, it states I do not have to be notified either. I do however notice a lack of bandwidth. I realize I do not help the situation being an avid online gamer, a YouTube fan, rerun watcher of My Name is Earl from NBC. Anyway, lemme know what ya think of my rant if you want, or not. Thanks for reading this.

I know my reference to capped is incorrect, I mean reduction in bandwidth.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

said by MrMike1:

said by UneedTinFoil :

If they implement such a service, they already have it covered in their TOS:

»www.charter.com/Visitors ··· ies.aspx

12. NO EXCESSIVE USE OF BANDWIDTH

If Charter determines, in Charter’s sole discretion, that Customer is using an excessive amount of bandwidth over the Charter network infrastructure for Internet access or other functions using public network resources, Charter may adjust, suspend or terminate Customer's account at any time and without notice, or require Customer to upgrade Customer’s service level and pay additional fees in accordance with Charter's then-current, applicable, published rates for such Service.
They already cap my service with this policy. Of course there is not a description of what they consider excessive amount of bandwidth or who makes this determination. I get capped all the time. I pay for 5 meg service and do not get it due to this loophole agreement. I guess, 1 too many views of YouTube videos.

I haven't determined if it is just a tech making this descision or if it is just an automated process. I am betting on the tech, due to my bandwidth going down, but not going back to its "paid for" state until I call and complain.

Never received a notification of a supposed violation, so I guess it does not happen. Oops, it states I do not have to be notified either. I do however notice a lack of bandwidth. I realize I do not help the situation being an avid online gamer, a YouTube fan, rerun watcher of My Name is Earl from NBC. Anyway, lemme know what ya think of my rant if you want, or not. Thanks for reading this.

I know my reference to capped is incorrect, I mean reduction in bandwidth.
This is exactly the one area I which I said a cap( one that is known ) would be a good thing. Right now you're getting capped. Well maybe. Even you youself are not sure and Charter isn't going to tell you. In a metered system they'd HAVE to tell you, and they HAVE to provide you with the tools to determine how much you have used.

liarliar
@charter.com

liarliar to MrMike1

Anon

to MrMike1
said by MrMike1:

They already cap my service with this policy. Of course there is not a description of what they consider excessive amount of bandwidth or who makes this determination. I get capped all the time. I pay for 5 meg service and do not get it due to this loophole agreement. I guess, 1 too many views of YouTube videos.

I haven't determined if it is just a tech making this descision or if it is just an automated process. I am betting on the tech, due to my bandwidth going down, but not going back to its "paid for" state until I call and complain.

But it gets worse. They disguise this capping with bandwidth test sites that use http protocol resulting in higher throughput. If I use a java or flash based test, it reflects a more accurate bandwidth. Tell me if I am wrong on this, as I go by feel rather than knowledge.

Do not consider this post as flaming Charter. Its just business. I should get what I pay for and should be treated as a customer rather than a violater of TOS.

Never received a notification of a supposed violation, so I guess it does not happen. Oops, it states I do not have to be notified either. I do however notice a lack of bandwidth. I realize I do not help the situation being an avid online gamer, a YouTube fan, rerun watcher of My Name is Earl from NBC. Anyway, lemme know what ya think of my rant if you want, or not. Thanks for reading this.

I know my reference to capped is incorrect, I mean reduction in bandwidth.
I usually just blindly believe what I read on the Internet, but please give some proof

MrMike1
Premium Member
join:2008-02-02

3 edits

MrMike1 to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
Courtesy of Speedtest(dot)net
Date IP Address Download Upload Latency Server Distance Share
2/3/2008 8:56 PM GMT xx.xx.xxx.xxx 4764 kb/s 475 kb/s 103 ms Clifton, NJ ~ 600 mi Open
2/3/2008 8:55 PM GMT xx.xx.xxx.xxx 4801 kb/s 484 kb/s 66 ms New York, NY ~ 650 mi Open
2/2/2008 10:15 PM GMT xx.xx.xxx.xxx 4799 kb/s 480 kb/s 34 ms Stanton, MI ~ 50 mi Open
2/2/2008 5:27 PM GMT xx.xx.xxx.xxx 4862 kb/s 486 kb/s 37 ms Stanton, MI ~ 50 mi Open
2/2/2008 4:24 PM GMT xx.xx.xxx.xxx 5028 kb/s 487 kb/s 35 ms Stanton, MI ~ 50 mi Open

Courtesy of DSLreports(dot)com

Share your test history with others: »/testh ··· 50/84e10

03-02-2008 03:59 PM f-speed 2019 Kbps 474 Kbps Speakeasy (New York NY) charter.com
03-02-2008 03:58 PM f-speed 4345 Kbps 474 Kbps NAC (Parsippany NJ) charter.com
03-02-2008 11:14 AM f-speed 2308 Kbps 480 Kbps Speakeasy (New York NY) charter.com
03-02-2008 11:13 AM f-speed 2574 Kbps 472 Kbps NAC (Parsippany NJ) charter.com
03-02-2008 11:11 AM j-speed 1422 Kbps 479 Kbps New Jersey, USA charter.com
03-02-2008 10:19 AM f-speed 4339 Kbps 478 Kbps Speakeasy (New York NY) charter.com
03-02-2008 10:15 AM Line quality 0% loss latency 45.6ms
03-02-2008 09:24 AM f-speed 2550 Kbps 473 Kbps Sprint (Chicago IL) charter.com
02-02-2008 05:09 PM f-speed 2374 Kbps 478 Kbps Sprint (Chicago IL) charter.com
02-02-2008 02:15 PM Line quality 0% loss latency 46.0ms
02-02-2008 01:53 PM f-speed 2467 Kbps 472 Kbps Speakeasy (New York NY) charter.com
02-02-2008 12:59 PM j-speed 856 Kbps 486 Kbps New Jersey, USA charter.com

Funny thing about this is, look at my time and date for the rant and then the time and date for the bandwidth test.

Granted, it isn't "proof" and I am not saying it is anything more than a coincidence. Ironic though.