Authority
Obama Biden '12
join:2000-03-29
Beverly Hills, CA
 ·AT&T Yahoo
 ·Packet8
·magicjack.com
| reply to hihi
Re: ?
said by hihi  :18/1 is awesome problem is pricing... quite expensive 6/1 should be 29.95 a month 10/1 39.95 and 18/1 49.95 I agree - that's what I'm paying AT&T now for 6/1. I'd be a customer at those prices. |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to iansltx
I don't think TWC is going to implement caps on a nationwide level. The Los Angeles area has got a pretty steep competition for TWC, with many FIOS deployments in Verizon Territory, and a healthy U-Verse expansion in AT&T territory which also offers 18/1.5 as an internet subscription for $65.
TWC is a franchised corporation, which means every market has their own digression in implementing speeds, for which price, and on what terms. TWC in Los Angeles would be shooting themselves in the foot if they would implement a cap. They are already losing customers because of a mass-media advertisement onslaught by Fios, U-Verse, DISH, and DirecTV, all available in this area, and they would be absolutely stupid, and inviting a big fat FIOS and U-Verse ad campaign if they implement any caps.
TWC in the Los Angeles area is a micture of TWC, and former Comcast and Adelphia networks after the big breakup of Adelphia, and they have mismanaged the conversion of those two networks so badly they had to fire their entire management, gotten FCC investigations on the process, and have LOST a pretty significant amount of customers who were fed up. TWC is doing pretty good now, as in 2008 they got their act together. But with the volatile competition as it is in this area, I don't think they will want to shoot themselves in the foot.
I know that I for one thing WILL indeed move to a U-Verse subscription if they were to implement caps. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | reply to maartena
As long as TWC keeps giving you 15/2 at that price, you're golden. If they implement caps, however, you'd probably want to move to Sonic... |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to iansltx
I've got 15/2 from Time Warner, and those extra three Mbps downstream isn't worth a whole Mbps less in upstream.
Oh, and $54.95 is what I pay, where those three extra Mbps would cost me at least $25 more.
Yes, Sonic ADSL2+ is faster. But I think I got the better deal and the best bang for the buck comparing the 2. |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to ztmike
said by ztmike :Does 18/1 even balance out to use it? I know you have to have so much upstream to use you're download speed..18/1 is a pretty big difference between the two. It needs to be at LEAST 2meg up.. not that it matters for me though. DSL technology isn't really well suited for upload speeds.... regular DSL maxes out at around 1 Mbps, where DSL2+ can barely get past 1.5 Mbps, and that's about the technological limit there.
Several cable companies that deploy DOCSIS 3.0 and FiOS's fiber drops can bring you higher uploads.... DSL over copper is very fast nearing the end of its technological limits. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
 ·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to funchords
Agreed that Sonic is a service-focused provider. However I'm not so sure about upstream costs bringing down the house; upload bandwidth comes symmetric with download b\w and some companies seem to get away with providing more than one megabit. In the areas where Sonic is deploying ADSL2+, backbone bandwidth is cheap enough, I think, that those costs shouldn't be an issue.
On the other hand, the technical constraints of ADSL2+ are ma much more likely culprit for low upload speeds. Again, Sonic could do much worse (512-896k on AT&T DSL, Embarq, Windstream, Qwest come to mind) so I'm not one to complain. Heck, if Sonic.net had ADSL2+ service in my area, I'd likely switch to the 10/1 tier. 18/1 is a little rich for my blood (and there's no additional upload speed due to the way the tech works) but I could see a heavy 'net user getting that package. Just not me.
I'd get a static IP package except that $25/month is a bit steep for that offering (at least for my applications) and DynDNS does the job on my current connection quite admirably. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to iansltx
I've never thought of Sonic as a company doing things because they can "get away with it." I'm more apt to think that 1 Mbps is the right offering in their estimation -- no malice present. They may also worry that offering 3.5 Mbps would result in P2P consumers uploading 1 TB a month. But either way, these are cool guys that love the net and they have customers that love them back.
If you don't think 1 Mbps is enough, then just tell them! But they also need a way to stay in business. If it's the fear of getting killed on the upstream costs, what's the right solution?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to hihi
Are you sayig ADSL2+ DSLAMs are dirt cheap? 'cuz if they are, I'll start an ISP here 
Seriously, pricing could be better, but Sonic.net is a small company and ADSL2+ is a premium product even in Qwest territory (less so with Windstream\Embarq). So you pay more.
I agree that 1 Mbps uploading isn't enough for a high-end internet connection these days, but if the tech won't support anything above that (technically you have to use a different part of the ADSL2+ standard to get faster uploads than 1 Mbit/s) you're sorta stuck. Considering that in many places cable tops out at 768 kbps or maybe 1 Mbit of upload speed, Sonic looks better. Windstream max's out at 768k, Embarq at 896, Qwest is 896 provisioned, more like 700 actual.
In short, 1 Mbit uplod is still relatively rare on sonsumer internet connections. UVerse and Comcast ave it in their areas, yes, as does OptimumOnline and Insight, but TWC customers are generally speaking a no-go so Sonic can get away with this just fine.
Especially when pushing 18 Mbps of download speed over the pipe. Discounting PowerBoost, no current Comcast or TWC connection can do that, let alone Qwest at a decent price or UVerse at all. Premium product? Absolutely. Worth it to some people? Uh huh. |
|
hihi
join:2007-05-06
Port Orange, FL | reply to iansltx
18/1 is awesome problem is pricing...
quite expensive
6/1 should be 29.95 a month
10/1 39.95
and 18/1 49.95 |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to ztmike
said by ztmike :Does 18/1 even balance out to use it? I know you have to have so much upstream to use you're download speed..18/1 is a pretty big difference between the two. It needs to be at LEAST 2meg up.. not that it matters for me though. Actually its not even 1 up. its 896kbps up.
technology limit, not isp limit.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
burrowowl
Sonic.Net
VIP
join:2003-01-22
Santa Rosa, CA
| reply to ztmike
It has worked great on the circuits we've deployed so far. I know there is increasing demand for greater upstream capacity, but 1mbps up is quite adequate to sustain 18mbps down. Obviously, this product is intended for customers who are primarily consumers of content rather than producers or providers of it.
--
John Fitzgerald
Sonic.net Technical Support |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to bender
Unless you want Sonic to start charging an arm and a leg for VDSL or FTTH, you've got ADSL2+. Their upload speeds are better than Qwest, and the pricing is pretty much in line with their DSL packages.
Which doesn't matter since they're not in Qwest territory, but still, seeing new ADSL2+ deployments from Sonic means there's another competitor in the area...always a good thing. |
|
bender
Bite my shiny metal ass
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
clubs: | reply to funchords
50/1.5 is just silly. no reason to offer that much download and not offer more than a measly 1.5 upload
i wish ISPs would keep it at at least a 5:1 ratio |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to ztmike
said by ztmike :Does 18/1 even balance out to use it? Barely. You'll use about 450 Kbps as overhead for any 18 Mbps download activity. If there is little other Internet use, then you could probably rely on about 400 Kbps upload.
Compare to Virgin's 50/1.5 service, which uses all 1.5 Mbps as overhead.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
bender
Bite my shiny metal ass
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·Vonage
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
·Mediacom
1 edit | reply to ztmike
i'm sure it would be fine.
i have 10/1.5. which is 8mpbs less download and .5Mbps more upload, i know but when im using all 10 i dont even use 256kbps upload for overhead. so i have an additional 1.256Mbps upload leftover when I am using my entire download. so you can figure that about 512Kbps is getting used at 18Mbps, leaving roughly 512Kbps leftover for upstream. |
|
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN
·Comcast
| Does 18/1 even balance out to use it? I know you have to have so much upstream to use you're download speed..18/1 is a pretty big difference between the two.
It needs to be at LEAST 2meg up.. not that it matters for me though.
--
ZZPERFORMANCE |
|
