| Charter not that bad I am happy to see they are working towards DOCSIS 3.0.
Given the nearly half billion dollar loss last year, I hope they can afford it.
Charter could be better, but it is not that bad.
I live in a small town that doesn't always get the newer features (no video on demand yet, for example.) Still, they did a free upgrade from 3 to 5 mpbs, with only $5 a month more for 10mbs. I have had problems with their network keeping this speed, but right now it is very fast (although in a hour it may drop to under 1mbps.)
Consider the only other internet options are Clear-wire (gasp)
or local Fairpoint Communications DSL which provides 768kpbs/128kpbs for $39.95 a month or 1.5mps/512kbps for $69.95 but you HAVE to also by phone service to get this service at all. Rather than get local phone service I just use cell phones.
Their HD tv is nothing to brag about, but at least it is offered and they don't required 2 year contracts like some satellite companies do. For a town without much competition they do fairly well.
I still think our entire country needs some low cost service in the $10 to $20 a month range for those who can't afford $60 a month. Most places offer a lifeline phone service for low income people. Just like universal mail service united the country, lack of affordable internet access may be making us a nation of haves and have nots. As more people go under during the current recession, how many will have to drop their $100 to $150 a month cable tv and internet service? It seems many schools now assume you have internet access. Many public and government services are best accessed via the internet instead of driving to a local office (or perhaps not so local.)
If it WERE legal, I would happily let a few neighbors without internet access in on a small portion of my bandwidth (like 1mbs/128kbps) if I had a router that could enforce it. At that low speed those who can afford it would buy high speed, but those who couldn't and are next door could have some of mine. A volunteer program would avoid the support costs that make it uneconomic for big companies to provide low cost services. I still wonder why the local phone company can't charge under $20 for its very slow DSL.
Better yet, given the increased number of people dropping local wired phone connections, they should include it FREE with their phone service, and charge a little more for higher speeds.
(just the ramblings of an old man who first dialed into a computer at 10 characters per second with a teletype. Before that is was punched cards.)
Maybe I should run for office on a platform for internet access in every home instead of a chicken in every pot  |
