dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
6785

anhisr
join:2001-12-01
Ballwin, MO

anhisr to neofate

Member

to neofate

Re: [HSI] Ultra 100/5 Service - Speed increases discussion

Ultra in St Louis went to 125 since the base internet is now 100.

neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL

neofate

Premium Member

said by anhisr:

Ultra in St Louis went to 125 since the base internet is now 100.

Thanks,.. but St. Louis is the "Golden Child" for Charter -- you guys don't count! Go away! hehe.. seriously,.. I'm happy for you , but what happens in St. Louis doesn't really apply to the rest of the country

anhisr
join:2001-12-01
Ballwin, MO

anhisr

Member

A lot of the time it is what they intend to do in the future.

KoRnGtL15
Premium Member
join:2007-01-04
Grants Pass, OR

KoRnGtL15 to neofate

Premium Member

to neofate
Nothing is happening to Ultra any time soon.
Chubbysumo
join:2009-12-01
Duluth, MN
Ubee E31U2V1
(Software) pfSense
Netgear WNR3500L

Chubbysumo to mixdup

Member

to mixdup
said by mixdup:

If nothing changes soon I will probably drop down to the 60mbps plan because I hardly max out the 100mbps plan anyway.

This is exactly what charter wants. They actually call me and ask if I want to drop down to the lower plan, or ask when I pay my bill. They want to move as many people off of the 100 tier as they can so they only provide 1 speed tier. I will continue to pay for and get the ultra tier because I WANT the speed, and the higher cap, as well as the faster upload speed. In all honesty, its not worth pay more for a business service with only slightly more upload speed. If the business services ran with better upload speeds, I would switch to a faster tier without issue, but with current business tiers only maxing out at 7mpbs, its not worth the increased bill for it yet. If business jumped to 25mbps and residential stayed the same, I would move to business services. I want the upload, and don't really care about the download to a point.

neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL

neofate

Premium Member

I agree -- That said,.. Charter has had the "Ultra" tier hidden away for as long as I can remember..

They've always advertised their regular single speed tier (for a long time it's been 30Mbps ) -- as they can offer this pretty much everywhere.

While I don't recall ever seeing Ultra 100 being advertised on television.

So.. I don't think they are ever going to get rid of it,.. as it is extra cash and frankly now a pretty big rip off to customers who use it. Though it's our decision to pay it of course. That is extra money for them.. and not enough people use the Ultra tier to severely effect the network saturation..

Further, they will always have the business tier(s) -- which allows for residential Ultra speeds to remain by default.

Speaking of business - it seemed with the new pricing and speed changes that some business package was right about the same price as Ultra and you got a little more speed out of it plus the business CSR's.

Anyone know the business pricing Tier = $Price

I know there is a one time "install/setup" fee for business regardless of if the lines/modem etc is already run.
Sajuuken
join:2012-03-24
Slidell, LA

Sajuuken to Chubbysumo

Member

to Chubbysumo
I think a lot of us want more upload & some of us really need higher cap.

I'm sitting on ultra & having a hard time with people in the house running netflix, torrents, updates, games, etc. By a hard time, I mean the upload become saturated.

I even have a pfsense box running squid to cache everything just to improve the overall experience. Even then, I still probably break the 250gb limit set on the 30/60 tier. They put users in a real bind this way. 100 tier users should have at least 10 up, if not 25.

All we have around here is AT&T to compete with Charter and I believe the max is 18 or 45 which is not adequate.

It makes me wonder if it's simply worth getting dual 60 tier connections for 120/8. Multi-Wan isn't a big deal if you run something like a pfsense box & want to spend 10 minutes or so configuring it.
ryu4000
join:2006-11-18
Picayune, MS

ryu4000

Member

said by Sajuuken:

I think a lot of us want more upload & some of us really need higher cap.

I'm sitting on ultra & having a hard time with people in the house running netflix, torrents, updates, games, etc. By a hard time, I mean the upload become saturated.

I even have a pfsense box running squid to cache everything just to improve the overall experience. Even then, I still probably break the 250gb limit set on the 30/60 tier. They put users in a real bind this way. 100 tier users should have at least 10 up, if not 25.

All we have around here is AT&T to compete with Charter and I believe the max is 18 or 45 which is not adequate.

It makes me wonder if it's simply worth getting dual 60 tier connections for 120/8. Multi-Wan isn't a big deal if you run something like a pfsense box & want to spend 10 minutes or so configuring it.

I would love more upload too uploading videos i make from my camera at 1080p there pretty big files i don't see why they don't do 60/30 i think it should always be half of the download instead of the wicked 60/4 it just doesn't look right and 100/5 is far worse looking.

neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL

neofate to Sajuuken

Premium Member

to Sajuuken
I have a PFsense box.. and they are great.. I actually ran dual 10Mbps from Charter back some years ago.

That is an idea.. to pay $50 x 2 for faster service.. just have to aggregate the modems via router.. be it PFsense,.. I even have a Cisco dual wan router that would do it.

I remember Pfsense when I ran it (5years ago).. had Round robin, not sure what other aggregate options it had.

But that's cheaper.. and 120/8 -- Which should really be exactly what Ultra is.. considering the cost to be honest. Hrmm..
Sajuuken
join:2012-03-24
Slidell, LA

Sajuuken

Member

said by ryu4000:

I would love more upload too uploading videos i make from my camera at 1080p there pretty big files i don't see why they don't do 60/30 i think it should always be half of the download instead of the wicked 60/4 it just doesn't look right and 100/5 is far worse looking.

You know, it would be really nice to see a dynamic download/upload scale, based on usage. By that, I mean, for ultra... I have 105mb (100 down / 5 up), but split that to meet the needs of the consumer. 30 down & 75 up if I'm pushing video to youtube or what have you.

It'll never happen, but it would be a nice compromise since they can't push 150/150 like FIOS, or at least claim they can't. Cox in New Orleans offers 10gbps speeds if you're willing to pay. Being in South East Louisiana affords me pretty decent speeds since hurricanes force us to nearly constantly upgrade our infrastructure.
said by neofate:

I have a PFsense box.. and they are great.. I actually ran dual 10Mbps from Charter back some years ago.

That is an idea.. to pay $50 x 2 for faster service.. just have to aggregate the modems via router.. be it PFsense,.. I even have a Cisco dual wan router that would do it.

I remember Pfsense when I ran it (5years ago).. had Round robin, not sure what other aggregate options it had.

But that's cheaper.. and 120/8 -- Which should really be exactly what Ultra is.. considering the cost to be honest. Hrmm..

I got sick of routers dying due to high LAN traffic. We're talking backing up several terabytes of data at a time. It just seems to kill every router I've owned, including my "solid" D-Link Dir-655 & Asus RT-N66U, 5 years & 2.5 year life spans respective.

This is why I built a pfsense box with Intel nics & a pci-e slot so I can up to up 4 lans, not including a switch. Good for people who want to run VLans, keep your wireless separate from your wired, guest networks, etc.

I have to say, the OS is just becoming more & more robust. Running squid & snort (caching & intrusion prevention) is just awesome. If more & more people were comfortable with this type of thing, we'd either see routers being created with stable firmware & far more options, even packages.

Anyways, how easy was it to set it up & did you find any reasons to get away way from it other than not having the need?

I say it's 10 min from what I've read, but obviously can't attempt to make it work yet. lol

I forget what I pay for ultra since it's packaged. It makes me wonder what 100/5 costs vs 60/4 x2 right now. I guess at least for the 2nd line, it would be $30 a month for a year.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

said by Sajuuken:

You know, it would be really nice to see a dynamic download/upload scale, based on usage. By that, I mean, for ultra... I have 105mb (100 down / 5 up), but split that to meet the needs of the consumer. 30 down & 75 up if I'm pushing video to youtube or what have you.

It'll never happen, but it would be a nice compromise since they can't push 150/150 like FIOS, or at least claim they can't.

How are you gong to get 75 Mbps on upload with 1 channel? You would need at least 3 channels bonded to get that. And if Charter had 3 channels on upload trust me they would have upload MUCH higher than 5 Mbps.
Sajuuken
join:2012-03-24
Slidell, LA

1 edit

Sajuuken

Member

Very true. I forgot about that, lol.

I was thinking in general & not holding my ideas to the way the ISP has it set up. Technically, they could do it... right? There has to be 8 channels if you have ultra in your area.

So what is the max anyways? If people are St. Louis are getting a speed bump (125/5 I guess), each channels can handle more. What's the max per channel?

As for "if they had 3 channels on upload," Charter CAN push more upload, they simply don't do it. How much more, I don't know. 5 isn't the max.

Also, i was just daydreaming.

My point is that the asyncronous connection is so disproportionate, it's simply frustrating. Verizon FIOS has "low" tier of 25/25, which would be a boon to most people here as they need more upload. That's why my notion of using a router set up w/ two wans is not frowned upon.

Charter can do 25/25, right? 50/50 perhaps? I'm not saying they it's a software only change (maybe it is?) but you're just designating which channels are dedicated to upload or download, generally speaking, right?

It's just sad that all ISPs are like drug dealers, but don't have terf wars. I'd love to see Verizon & Google pressure everyone else to remember its 2014 & not 2007.

Charter has been pushing fiber where I live. I have nice big fat white & orange post in my front yard where they put it maybe 5 or 6 months ago. Doing a quick google search led me to Charter's business fiber page. I'm seeing the following speeds:

60/4 (what that other huge speed bump thread has been talking about)
80/5
100/7

Now, I'd rather not have to issues & take 7 just so I don't have to run two modems, make both WANs shake hands properly & the overall BS. It's not worth it for 1 extra 1mbps of upload.

Here's the link:

»www.charterbusiness.com/ ··· tab_id=1
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

said by Sajuuken:

I was thinking in general & not holding my ideas to the way the ISP has it set up. Technically, they could do it... right? There has to be 8 channels if you have ultra in your area.

The have 8 channels for DOWNLOAD. Upload and download are on different frequencies.

So what is the max anyways? If people are St. Louis are getting a speed bump (125/5 I guess), each channels can handle more. What's the max per channel?

Theoretically you can get around 38 Mbps per channel on downlink and 27 Mbps per channel on uplink. Of course theoretically I have a chance with Kate Upton.

As for "if they had 3 channels on upload," Charter CAN push more upload, they simply don't do it. How much more, I don't know. 5 isn't the max.



No but I would say I wouldn't expect more than 10-12 Mbps per channel. I'm assuming and hoping they are just waiting until the all digital conversion is complete then they will start working on upload. Once digital conversion is done and 8 channel bonding is done what else do they really have to work on?
Sajuuken
join:2012-03-24
Slidell, LA

Sajuuken

Member

said by 78036364:

he have 8 channels for DOWNLOAD. Upload and download are on different frequencies.

So I take it there's only a single channel for upload?
said by 78036364:

Theoretically you can get around 38 Mbps per channel on downlink and 27 Mbps per channel on uplink. Of course theoretically I have a chance with Kate Upton.

Very true. Just like how maybe a 1/3 of the time, my download on speed net or charter is 33mbps - 50mbps when I'm paying for 100, lol.
said by 78036364:

No but I would say I wouldn't expect more than 10-12 Mbps per channel. I'm assuming and hoping they are just waiting until the all digital conversion is complete then they will start working on upload. Once digital conversion is done and 8 channel bonding is done what else do they really have to work on?

I think most people here with ultra would love 10 up. I wouldn't even discuss dual WANs if that was the case.

I guess we'll have to wait & see when that happens.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

said by Sajuuken:

So I take it there's only a single channel for upload?

Yes a check of your router will confirm that. 192.168.1.1 for most

I guess we'll have to wait & see when that happens.

If by mid 2015 we haven't at least heard of plans to increase upload I would understand people complaining.
Sajuuken
join:2012-03-24
Slidell, LA

Sajuuken

Member

said by 78036364:

Yes a check of your router will confirm that. 192.168.1.1 for most

Someone who has a pfsense box can point me in that direction. I never can find the simplest stuff, lol.

Red Hazard
Premium Member
join:2012-07-21
O Fallon, IL

Red Hazard to neofate

Premium Member

to neofate
When I realized a few weeks ago that Charter raised the lower tier to 100 Mbps in the STL area, and that if I wanted my Ultra to be increased from 100 to 125, it would cost me $13 more a month per Chat, I said screw it and drop me down to the lower tier. The Chat rep said OK but you will be only getting 30 Mbps. I knew better and said OK and now get 100/4 (vice 100/5) which dropped my bill from $103 to $55. $116/mo for 125/5 Ultra was the last straw.

KoRnGtL15
Premium Member
join:2007-01-04
Grants Pass, OR

1 edit

KoRnGtL15

Premium Member

said by Red Hazard:

When I realized a few weeks ago that Charter raised the lower tier to 100 Mbps in the STL area, and that if I wanted my Ultra to be increased from 100 to 125, it would cost me $13 more a month per Chat, I said screw it and drop me down to the lower tier. The Chat rep said OK but you will be only getting 30 Mbps. I knew better and said OK and now get 100/4 (vice 100/5) which dropped my bill from $103 to $55. $116/mo for 125/5 Ultra was the last straw.

They had the nerve to increase it even more by $13 when you had Ultra before? Assuming you wanted the higher speed and should have been upgraded for free? Unless since you was on the old tier. This was their way of moving you to the new tier with latest pricing. That is pretty crappy and shady if they do that.

Jaybonaut
join:2012-05-29
Sheboygan, WI

Jaybonaut to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
said by 78036364:

Yes a check of your router will confirm that. 192.168.1.1 for most

No, go to 192.168.100.1 for most modems. Your router won't tell you how many channels your modem uses for upload.

Red Hazard
Premium Member
join:2012-07-21
O Fallon, IL

Red Hazard to KoRnGtL15

Premium Member

to KoRnGtL15
said by KoRnGtL15:

said by Red Hazard:

When I realized a few weeks ago that Charter raised the lower tier to 100 Mbps in the STL area, and that if I wanted my Ultra to be increased from 100 to 125, it would cost me $13 more a month per Chat, I said screw it and drop me down to the lower tier. The Chat rep said OK but you will be only getting 30 Mbps. I knew better and said OK and now get 100/4 (vice 100/5) which dropped my bill from $103 to $55. $116/mo for 125/5 Ultra was the last straw.

They had the nerve to increase it even more by $13 when you had Ultra before? Assuming you wanted the higher speed and should have been upgraded for free? Unless since you was on the old tier. This was their way of moving you to the new tier with latest pricing. That is pretty crappy and shady if they do that.

That's exactly what happened. I thought the upgrade to 125Mbps would be free and I mentioned that I was paying almost double for 100Mbps (down) as the lower tier (since it was upgraded) and basically he said T.S. So I went back to Chat later and got someone else and downgraded to about what I already had for almost a half price reduction. If they had been fair with me, they would still be getting $103/mo vice $55, but I am content with the final results.

KoRnGtL15
Premium Member
join:2007-01-04
Grants Pass, OR

KoRnGtL15

Premium Member

That is terrible. 30mb users got their upgrade to 60mb for free. Well until they raise the price again. Nothing is free. Ultra should be upgraded the same way. They just don't want people on the old pricing. God forbid they let us save a few bucks and reward us for keeping it.

Trendecide
join:2010-05-21
Belleville, IL

Trendecide to neofate

Member

to neofate
Also just found out about my "automatic upgrade" and that dropping my 125/5 service to the 100/5 service would save me roughly $60/month. Thinking I'm going to do it since I was content with the 100/5 before.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned) to KoRnGtL15

Member

to KoRnGtL15
said by KoRnGtL15:

That is terrible. 30mb users got their upgrade to 60mb for free. Well until they raise the price again. Nothing is free.

The price for 30 meg now is lower than when it was 18 meg. and that was a few years ago. In fact Plus pricing is about the same as it was in 2007.
jwill58
join:2004-06-07
Russellville, AL

jwill58 to neofate

Member

to neofate
This is my speed via my new ASUS Wireless Router for my Laptop .I will post the same info for my desktop which is hardlined from the back of the same Router. Im paying $211.00 for 100/5 service with 2 HDTV boxes and I furnish my own Modem and Router.(»www.speedtest.net/my-res ··· 37342667) These are the numbers from my latest bill.
I would be very curious to see what more speed would cost. I also think we pay too much for this fast service....but I wont cancel just yet !
Service from 09/01/14 through 09/30/14
Previous Balance 211.59
Payments Received -211.59
Remaining Balance $0.00
Charter TVĀ® 93.98
Charter InternetĀ® 102.99
Other Monthly Charges 4.99
Taxes, Fees and Charges 9.63
Current Charges $211.59
Zero Balance - Do Not Pay

jwill58

KoRnGtL15
Premium Member
join:2007-01-04
Grants Pass, OR

KoRnGtL15 to neofate

Premium Member

to neofate
My crystal ball says Charter might comment on Ultra speed increases this month.

jasond02
@71.15.150.x

jasond02

Anon

Just hit this on a speedtest in the Union City, TN area.....

»www.speedtest.net/result ··· 2354.png
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

said by jasond02 :

Just hit this on a speedtest in the Union City, TN area.....

»www.speedtest.net/result ··· 2354.png

You on residential or business? Your area just went all digital yesterday

Also why not use the Union City server for the test?

jasond02
@71.15.150.x

jasond02

Anon

I'm on residential service and for some reason I never do get a decent result from the server here.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

Have you tried any other servers or speed tests? Did your modem restart before you took that speed test?

jasond02
@71.15.150.x

jasond02

Anon

I have tried the local server here but only get around 80mbps. I just tried the Charter server again and hit 119mbps. I just came home and ran a speedtest. I am assuming they increased speeds overnight or during the day today.