dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5284
share rss forum feed

njt462

join:2006-11-28
Troy, MO

[HSI] Charter Tech Slips Up Take it for it's worth

Well my Motorola SBG6580 took a crap so I decided to call Charter Support for them to send me a new modem since there is no longer rental fees on it.

While talking to the tech I asked her how they feel about losing their title as the fastest cable internet provider in the country?

She asked what do I mean? I said haven't you heard the devil has 300megs. She said yes I have heard but we are prepared for it we are going to match it and release a 300meg package in the quick future and we are going to get our title back very soon by going to 500megs.

I asked her will there but regular 30, ultra 100, and super ultra 300? She said the rumors she is hearing is it will be passed on via a speed increase at no additional charge. Regular 30 would become regular 60 and ultra 100 would become ultra 300 is the rumors she is hearing around the office.

If this is happening wont Charter have to wait until the new DOCSIS 3.1 or whatever they call it come out? Because, doesn't most DOCSIS 3 modems have a max download of 300megs?

KoRnGtL15
Premium
join:2007-01-04
Grants Pass, OR
kudos:1
So much fud. Like Charter is really going to take a HUGE loss and upgrade current Ultra customers to those crazy speeds. Lets work on channel bonding with uploading first. And you know. Increase the speed compared to the pathetic speed that it is at right now.


chaud
Serious Business

join:2004-07-09
Anderson, SC
reply to njt462
That would be in line with Comcast doubling 25mbps to 50mbps and 50mbps to 105mbps.

What I really would like to see is upstream bonding. 60/6+ would be amazing.

njt462

join:2006-11-28
Troy, MO
reply to njt462
Well I asked the lady what was the next step after 500megs? Running fiber to the locations and doing 1Gbps?

The tech told me that is probably how it is going to. Of course that is why the title says take it for what it is worth. I am thinking upload speeds might finally increase after 500meg download and if they start going to fiber there after.


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
reply to njt462
When and if Charter ever gets up to those speeds, they will more than likely do away with that puny 30Mbps tier and just have the highest 2 tiers, thusly giving customers next to no choice, just like they are basically doing right now.

I'm praying the current path Charter is taking bites them dead in the a** real hard!!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

whoaru99

join:2003-12-17
said by cork1958:

When and if Charter ever gets up to those speeds, they will more than likely do away with that puny 30Mbps tier and just have the highest 2 tiers, thusly giving customers next to no choice, just like they are basically doing right now.

I'm praying the current path Charter is taking bites them dead in the a** real hard!!

Why do you wish ill will on Charter? I understand and in many cases agree that some of their direction doesn't seem customer friendly, but wish ill will on them? I don't want to see any company fall on hard times because the majority of their employees are not the ones making the big decisions.


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
Not necessarily wishing ill will on Charter at all, in that regard, as I wouldn't want to see anyone lose their job.

Mainly venting my frustration on how stupid some companies, including Charter, seem to be ran, and not really much you can do about it except b**ch!!

And it makes me feel good to do it and get it off my chest.

I know if I ran my 4 stores that me and 3 other partners have, like Charter seems to like to run theirs, we'd be losing customers in droves!!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to njt462
said by njt462:

If this is happening wont Charter have to wait until the new DOCSIS 3.1 or whatever they call it come out? Because, doesn't most DOCSIS 3 modems have a max download of 300megs?

I can see this happening for 2 reasons. Number 1, we have Verizion already doing it, and comcast doubling all their tiers for no cost increase(yet). Number 2, even the trial google fiber runs have smashed all local competitors numbers in terms of speeds, so, with charter being the laggard in the cable markets that will have 300mbps, they will lose their high end customers. Currently, with D3, you can bond 8 channels up and 4 channels down, for a total of 320mbps down and ~140mbps up. I can easily see charter deploying a 300mbps tier(and later 500mbps once more channels can be bonded with D3.1), and past that, if current tech trends continue, they will have a gigabit cable modem in the next 5 or so years(which I dont see the 500mbps coming anytime soon, probably 3 or 4 years from now anyways). My fear, is that they all leave their puny caps in place. Seriously, at 100mbps down, and 5 up, you can burn thru your current 500GB cap overnight(about 8 hours to be close). That would make it so you can have all that fast speed, but have no room to use it, not because of speed limits, but because you can only drive on the roads so much before you are kicked off.
Personally, I would like to see more upload speeds first(maybe with the ultra100, give us 20mbps uploads now?), because thats what we need more of now.

said by njt462:

I am thinking upload speeds might finally increase after 500meg download and if they start going to fiber there after.

I doubt charter will ever go to FTTH, because they have too much invested in their HFC network to back out of it, and with their nodes not having enough fibers to feed each house, they would have to make new fiber runs, and unless the cost of running fiber declines, i dont think that will ever happen. There will be a gigabit cable modem by the time they hit the speed cap on D3.1.


anhisr

join:2001-12-01
Ballwin, MO

1 recommendation

reply to njt462
I noticed only one person mention the fact. If they do not raise the caps, it does not really matter how much faster I can get to those caps.

bdnhsv

join:2012-01-20
Huntsville, AL
reply to njt462
I'd agree with Chubby on most of their comments. It doesn't matter how much faster they make it at this point if they still enforce caps, and they really don't have much incentive in most places to make it faster as they don't have any serious competition in most markets. I don't see them trying to build FTTH anytime soon as it would cost billions and billions of dollars for them to do that and they already are drowning in debt. Lastly, every time they increase their residential speeds they are hurting their commercial business which is where most of their revenue growth is at the moment. It's hard to explain to a small business owner why they have to pay 300 or 400 dollars per month for a cable modem speed that is less than what they can get at home for $100. It also is making it harder for them to sell lower end fiber services as well.

speedxdesign

join:2010-02-25
Alexandria, MN
reply to njt462
Makes me wonder even more now if all this fiber being laid in town is in fact being done by Charter.

As much as I like the speed, I want more upstream with channel bonding.


mmainprize

join:2001-12-06
Houghton Lake, MI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to njt462
This would be nice a free speed bump. But right now charter has just left us long time customers with two years contracts sitting at old prices and speeds 15 megs, while they now only offer 30 megs for the price my bill states i am paying be for my discount.

Same with my TV service i am paying about 100 a month after discounts, but not getting what they now sell for 100 a month.

This is how charter treats it long time loyal customers. Well the gray train at some point will jump the tracks if they keep this up.

So i hope this free speed bump includes customer like me and they bump me to the speed i am paying for before any contract discounts i may be getting.


INtheKnow

@charter.com
said by mmainprize:

This would be nice a free speed bump. But right now charter has just left us long time customers with two years contracts sitting at old prices and speeds 15 megs, while they now only offer 30 megs for the price my bill states i am paying be for my discount.

Same with my TV service i am paying about 100 a month after discounts, but not getting what they now sell for 100 a month.

This is how charter treats it long time loyal customers. Well the gray train at some point will jump the tracks if they keep this up.

So i hope this free speed bump includes customer like me and they bump me to the speed i am paying for before any contract discounts i may be getting.

You can move from your contract to the new pricing without penalty at any time as long as you keep the same level of service or opt for more services.
As for the FTTH inital cost are more to build fiber but not much because there is no expensive RF actives to buy, also maintance costs go down. And there is no cost for plant powering other than headend and OTN sites. We will probably start to see new build as as FTTH or as HFC with no actives other than the node. On existing plant nodes will continue to be split until no actives. then next step is to reclaim all 750Mhz or 860Mhz to be used for data and stream video over IP. 137 channels avilable for downstream bonding. How fast do you want to go?


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting
reply to anhisr
said by anhisr:

I noticed only one person mention the fact. If they do not raise the caps, it does not really matter how much faster I can get to those caps.

Exactly. It could be 433,375 Gbps - but with the caps in place, it just means you can hit your limit faster.
It's like having a Bugatti Veyron as a daily driver for dropping the kids off at soccer and picking up groceries.

I would be more than happy with the 30 Mbps package, but I was afraid of hitting the cap. I went with the 100 Mbps package for this reason only. We don't have cable TV. We do our viewing via OTA and IP.

Caps exist for one reason only: To keep people from using other services to get their media content. There is no "bandwidth crunch". There's no issues on a properly managed HFC local system; and there is a glut of dark IXC fiber across this country. Anybody claiming "bandwidth crunch" is a big fat liar.
--
...because I care.


Dogg
Premium
join:2003-06-11
Belleville, IL
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to mmainprize
said by mmainprize:

This would be nice a free speed bump. But right now charter has just left us long time customers with two years contracts sitting at old prices and speeds 15 megs, while they now only offer 30 megs for the price my bill states i am paying be for my discount.

Same with my TV service i am paying about 100 a month after discounts, but not getting what they now sell for 100 a month.

This is how charter treats it long time loyal customers. Well the gray train at some point will jump the tracks if they keep this up.

So i hope this free speed bump includes customer like me and they bump me to the speed i am paying for before any contract discounts i may be getting.

No offense, but you can't have it both ways. You signed a contract to guarantee your price. Whether that be beneficial to you or to Charter is irrelevant.
--
Google is your Friend

kruser
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Eastern MO
reply to anhisr
said by anhisr:

I noticed only one person mention the fact. If they do not raise the caps, it does not really matter how much faster I can get to those caps.

I've never looked at caps that way.
I myself would like the speed increase not because I can hit my cap faster, but rather for the simple fact that I can get what I need faster and get back to work on whatever it is that I'm doing.
I don't care if I have a 6Mbps DSL connection or a 1Gbps fiber connection, I'll still consume the same amount of data that I do today. Just because I have a faster connection does not make me download more.
Of course the servers out there need to be hooked to fast enough pipes so you can actually use the faster speeds being discussed.

If I were a user that already hits his caps, then your reasoning is valid as it would just cause you to hit those caps faster as you stated. No benefit for you at all. For me, it would be a benefit as I'd get my files faster so I could resume working faster.
So it depends on your usage patterns really if a faster speed would be a benefit or a waste.

And then, how many sites will even be capable of supplying data at some of these fast speeds being discussed? What, maybe 10 - 20%?
I spend much of my time doing remote computing into work over a VPN. I have Charter's Ultra 100 package at home and at work. But, the slow 5Mbps upload speeds limit my work to the upload speed of the slowest connection. So I'm in the group that would love to see faster uploads via upload channel bonding. Or even better, true symmetrical speeds. That would allow me to get my remote work done much faster.
Even though I have Ultra 100 packages at work and at home, I really only have a 5Mbps connection across the VPN tunnel as the upload can only reach 5 mbps on each end.

When I need to download a large multi-gigabyte file, the Ultra 100's download speeds are fantastic as long as the files source server(s) can pump out the data that fast. Otherwise it is kinda senseless in much the same way as your thoughts on reaching your cap much quicker are.

What we need is a push for symmetrical connections where the up and down speeds are the same on all forms of internet connectivity for each package sold by all providers. Get rid of the faster download - slow upload mentality and make everything symmetrical period. And also remove all caps. There are other ways of dealing with a user that abuses a network such as those that unlock a cable modem and ruin it for everyone on his side of the node. But don't penalize or limit those that truly use (and need) the bandwidth for legal purposes.

I don't know what caps you have and what you do to exceed them (if you do) nor do I care. That is your business but I feel that some regulation is needed and caps should be declared illegal or set much higher if the providers can truly show they are needed. And maybe hold the provider into being a bit more responsible in providing service and maybe fine them when their networks cannot meet the demand or force them to reduce all customers daily bills until they fix their networks to the point it can meet the demand based on the number of customers they have. And of course a bit of regulation to keep them from just making up for it via higher monthly costs passed right back to the customers.
They (providers) know damn well how many customers they have. There needs to be some regulation that forces a provider to be able to provide say 80% of their customers full speed 24x7x365 figuring the other 20% are not going to consume full bandwidth all the time.
That is just a figure I pulled out of my head. Maybe a 50% ratio would be more realistic? The providers claiming the need for caps in the first place usually say they are in place to help out by knocking off the 1 to 3% of their customer base that abuse the network. If that is true, I'd say there is no need for caps at all. Deal with that small amount of customers in another way.
Surely a crafty lawyer could word something into the TOS that would allow them to deal with the 1 to 3% that do abuse the network instead of resorting to caps for all.

And then you have the providers that say they will allow you to exceed your caps but they will just charge you overage fees. That does not make sense as they are basically admitting their network can handle the demand otherwise they would boot the user or limit their bandwidth if the 1 to 3% were truly affecting others on the network. That pretty much tells me they are just doing this to create a reason for asking for more money from their customers. I don't think me or you paying an overage fee is going to magically increase their network bandwidth!

Of course I guess if they were forced to eliminate caps, they would just start the practice of billing by the byte which I'm surprised is not done more today than it is.
Look at almost any utility, you pay for what you actually consume and rarely a fixed rate. If they start billing by the byte, would the internet then be considered a utility?
And they had better make sure if it is your byte and not their byte that they are billing you for!
They way it is now, many providers do not provide an accurate meter to tell you exactly how many bytes you consumed. Some do not provide a meter at all. I wonder how that is legal. Most usage based things like true utilities, must have certified metering devices that meet criteria established by the Department of Weights & Measures (are they still called by that name?). I guess they can do it because the internet is not considered a utility.

Sorry for turning what was intended to be a simple comment on your comment into a rant but this cap crap gets me all worked up!

kruser
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Eastern MO
reply to nunya
said by nunya:

and there is a glut of dark IXC fiber across this country.

There sure is. I remember reading how much dark fiber exists underground many years ago and was astounded at the amount.
And much of it still sits down there doing nothing to this day!
I say "down there" as a lot of it is in underground conduit that was installed years and years ago. Did not a lot get installed way back when they planned the nation's interstate highway system?
If not, I think they at least planned for it by laying in the conduits while building the highways and bridges and pulled the fiber at a later date.
I definitely recall reading about how much dark fiber runs parallel to the nations interstates as that was the perfect opportunity to install it when they had the ground cleared and opened up.


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting
It's actually astounding what's just laying there. Before the telecom / "dotcom" crash of 2001, they were plowing this stuff in like gangbusters. Besides all of the obvious gross mis-management (MCI-Worldscum anybody?), I think the fiber glut certainly helped speed the downfall in the race to the bottom.

At the same time all this BS was going down, great strides were being made in DWDM, making much of the newly placed fiber almost valueless. Pennies on the dollar. Why would anybody rent new backhaul when they could double, triple, or even quadruple their throughput on the same old strands they were already using? Throughput went from 10 Gbps to over 1.5 Tbps almost overnight.
--
...because I care.

kruser
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Eastern MO

2 edits
said by nunya:

It's actually astounding what's just laying there.

I actually just asked this in another thread but do you know who owns (or controls) most of the dark stuff today?
I'd guess it too be many and maybe part of the reason it remains dark.
I was commenting that Google could snatch it up to help speed up their nationwide fiber deployment project.

edit: this also reminded me of an old train trestle bridge down in Crestwood. We used to play under the bridge back in the late 60's maybe. There was a large conduit that ran under the bridge. It was affixed to the brdge itself.
As a kid, I always wondered what was inside it. I always figured it was railroad communications really. Several years later I found out.
A new batch of "kids" played under the same bridge but this batch were worse then our batch. They caught the old wooden bridge on fire and it took out phone service in that area as well as much further away.
I don't recall if it was an AT&T (the real original AT&T) conduit or Southwestern Bell's but it contained a very large copper bundle as well as "dark" fiber. That was the first time I'd heard the term dark fiber. The reason I remembered it was the cost too repair the damage to the conduit and what it contained approached a million dollars and that would have been back in the mid 70's maybe.
I recall them (whoever them were) saying the damage to the fiber was the most costly. And then the mention that much of the fiber was unlit or dark. I always assumed that the fiber was partially used. So after many years, I finally learned what was inside the conduit!


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting
Most of it went to absorbing companies (ILECs and RBOCs) when they bought the failure companies assets.
Most of the rest got pieced out by bankruptcy courts (sold at auction by court order) to smaller companies.
Verizon. AT&T. CenturyLink (Lightcore). Google has a lot. Level 3. Allied. American.
Some has actually been abandoned.
--
...because I care.

kruser
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Eastern MO
I bet what parts have been abandoned cost a fortune back in the day.

Makes you wonder if they occasionally test some of the dark fiber.
I'd imagine some has been damaged from foundation shifts over the years when laid in under bridges or highways and from excavators unaware it is even there when digging.
I think I recall seeing a map showing some of the paths some of it took.


mmainprize

join:2001-12-06
Houghton Lake, MI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to Dogg
said by Dogg:

said by mmainprize:

This would be nice a free speed bump. But right now charter has just left us long time customers with two years contracts sitting at old prices and speeds 15 megs, while they now only offer 30 megs for the price my bill states i am paying be for my discount.

Same with my TV service i am paying about 100 a month after discounts, but not getting what they now sell for 100 a month.

This is how charter treats it long time loyal customers. Well the gray train at some point will jump the tracks if they keep this up.

So i hope this free speed bump includes customer like me and they bump me to the speed i am paying for before any contract discounts i may be getting.

No offense, but you can't have it both ways. You signed a contract to guarantee your price. Whether that be beneficial to you or to Charter is irrelevant.

Yes i have a contract/agreement to get internet/TV/Phone for a set price.
They have now changed what the minimum internet speed is, i am still buying there minimum internet, but they left me at a no longer offered speed step and did not give me what they claim is now the normal minimum speed.

Same with the TV package, I am paying the same price now $105 after discounts, 1DVR and 1HD box, but getting two less tiers and a few other channels then, what that much money now gets.

Now what they want me to do is change to the new pricing to get the few things i pointed out, but in the end i will have to buy more then i now have to get the same things i now have and my bill would go up by 20 to 25 dollars.

So i stay where i am, and fell like i am getting screwed some how.

whoaru99

join:2003-12-17
Lots of people never considered that housing prices could drop either.


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
So, what you're saying is wait until the next recession starts, although this is one is far from over as some forecasters seem to think, for prices to drop in the cable industry?

That could be what Charter is trying to do. Make themselves go bankrupt again, file chapter 13 this time, get bailed out by the government, THEN they can afford to lower prices? Is that what you're saying, because that's when that will probably happen!

Hey mmainprize,
I hope it feels like they used some kind of lubricant on you!!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/


INtheKnow

@charter.com
reply to mmainprize
said by mmainprize:

said by Dogg:

said by mmainprize:

This would be nice a free speed bump. But right now charter has just left us long time customers with two years contracts sitting at old prices and speeds 15 megs, while they now only offer 30 megs for the price my bill states i am paying be for my discount.

Same with my TV service i am paying about 100 a month after discounts, but not getting what they now sell for 100 a month.

This is how charter treats it long time loyal customers. Well the gray train at some point will jump the tracks if they keep this up.

So i hope this free speed bump includes customer like me and they bump me to the speed i am paying for before any contract discounts i may be getting.

No offense, but you can't have it both ways. You signed a contract to guarantee your price. Whether that be beneficial to you or to Charter is irrelevant.

Yes i have a contract/agreement to get internet/TV/Phone for a set price.
They have now changed what the minimum internet speed is, i am still buying there minimum internet, but they left me at a no longer offered speed step and did not give me what they claim is now the normal minimum speed.

Same with the TV package, I am paying the same price now $105 after discounts, 1DVR and 1HD box, but getting two less tiers and a few other channels then, what that much money now gets.

Now what they want me to do is change to the new pricing to get the few things i pointed out, but in the end i will have to buy more then i now have to get the same things i now have and my bill would go up by 20 to 25 dollars.

So i stay where i am, and fell like i am getting screwed some how.

You are not taking into account that by moving into the new price structure you will get a free modem that will get you the speed as advertised and your taxes on phone will go away saving you about $20 and you can get 2 dvrs for less than what you are paying now. So your bill will most likely go down or stay the same with faster internet.


cablegeek01

join:2003-05-13
USA
kudos:1
reply to nunya
said by nunya:

said by anhisr:

I noticed only one person mention the fact. If they do not raise the caps, it does not really matter how much faster I can get to those caps.

Exactly. It could be 433,375 Gbps - but with the caps in place, it just means you can hit your limit faster.
It's like having a Bugatti Veyron as a daily driver for dropping the kids off at soccer and picking up groceries.

I would be more than happy with the 30 Mbps package, but I was afraid of hitting the cap. I went with the 100 Mbps package for this reason only. We don't have cable TV. We do our viewing via OTA and IP.

Caps exist for one reason only: To keep people from using other services to get their media content. There is no "bandwidth crunch". There's no issues on a properly managed HFC local system; and there is a glut of dark IXC fiber across this country. Anybody claiming "bandwidth crunch" is a big fat liar.

I'm going to disagree on that point. There is definitely a "bandwidth" crunch when it comes to HFC. 37.5Mbps (useable bandwidth) per downstream channel shared across all users on that channel. There are only so many downstream channels available, especially when a cable company is still supporting analog video channels for people that refuse to go digital.
Additionally, " properly managing" a local system costs a lot of money. A node split, and an additional line card for a CMTS can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars when all is said and done. That can be hard to justify.

Eventually (with the emergence of DOCSIS3.1, or DOCSIS PON (DPoE)) bandwidth will be less of a concern, but right now most cable MSOs are walking a fine line between an oversubscription model that's profitable, and one that provides ample bandwidth to each subscriber. It's very difficult to provide both, and offer a reasonable price to the end user.

Back to the original post; I don't see coming 500Mbps any time soon over DOCSIS (there are currently no 16 channel cable modems on the commercial market). Maybe in 2-4 years.
300Mbps is hard enough to reach, and I think Comcast is setting themselves up for a lot of heartache by offering 100% of the available bandwidth of an 8 channel bonding group to a single user. Unless an MSO has enough RF bandwidth (say 2-3 8 channel bonding groups available), it just seems dishonest. You'd definitely have to be a 750+Mhz all digital cable plant to even attempt it.


INtheKnow

@charter.com
said by nunya:
"Caps exist for one reason only: To keep people from using other services to get their media content. There is no "bandwidth crunch". There's no issues on a properly managed HFC local system; and there is a glut of dark IXC fiber across this country. Anybody claiming "bandwidth crunch" is a big fat liar."
The Caps are there to keep people from running a buisness off a residential account period. otherwise people would have servers galore running slowing down the true residential customers. I have 13 devices connected to my network and i never have hit the limit and yes we have netflix sometimes going on 2 or more devices at the same time all from my 30Mbps no problems the bottleneck if there is one is my 1st gen Ipads slowing down my wireless.


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting

1 edit
reply to cablegeek01
Breaking up a cascade has never been cheaper or easier. 1) There is glut of cheap labor. You know and I know this is contracted out to the lowest bidder. 2) The equipment is cheap. The telco's aren't the only ones who know about DWDM. Charter has been using node segmentation for some time (kudos to Charter for this).
These days there is absolutely no excuse for a 2000 sub node to be anywhere in the plant. Hell, these days there really isn't any excuse for a 1000 sub node. The latest figures put the average standard (physical split) break-up @ $25 per address passed at breaking off into 250-500 subs. That's dirt cheap! And it only gets cheaper with modular and logical splits.
Plus, not everyone has cable. Not every cable sub has internet.

The cable company is sitting in the cat-bird seat right now. Even buildouts from the early 90's are easily upgradeable. The phone companies sure don't have this luxury. All they have is overbuild FTTP. And they've been too busy pissing away their time trying to milk ancient infrastructure.
--
...because I care.

whoaru99

join:2003-12-17

3 edits
reply to cork1958
said by cork1958:

So, what you're saying is wait until the next recession starts, although this is one is far from over as some forecasters seem to think, for prices to drop in the cable industry?

That could be what Charter is trying to do. Make themselves go bankrupt again, file chapter 13 this time, get bailed out by the government, THEN they can afford to lower prices? Is that what you're saying, because that's when that will probably happen!

Hey mmainprize,
I hope it feels like they used some kind of lubricant on you!!

Hehehe...that's quite a stretch.

A contract was signed that seemed like a good deal at the time, based on the assumption that prices would never go down or that you'd never get more for the same/similar price. Nobody was forced to sign the contract, nobody was forced to buy a house at the peak of the market. But people did, got burned, and that's too bad but those same people would be crowing how smart they were had it gone the other way vs. complaining they have been screwed by the man. As someone mentioned earlier you can't eat your cake and have it too (actually some do by just walking away leaving others to hold the bag).


Oh_No
Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL
reply to KoRnGtL15
said by KoRnGtL15:

So much fud. Like Charter is really going to take a HUGE loss and upgrade current Ultra customers to those crazy speeds. Lets work on channel bonding with uploading first. And you know. Increase the speed compared to the pathetic speed that it is at right now.

Offering more speed does not mean any additional cost if they already built their network to handle those speeds.