Royal Oak, MI
Re: I beg to differ (Michigan)
said by sirwoogie:This was the thing that most angered me with ATT. They advertise "up to" speeds and set it up so that you will never get the top speed. When I had U-Verse 6/1, I would actually get 5.7/.95. With my 15/1 cable internet I get 15.6 (sometimes 16.4!)/1.1. I'm actually getting what I pay for, and then some.
Coupled with the fact they don't provision the speed so that I can get "up to" 3Mbps (they sync at 3008/512.... thus I get about 2.5Mbps/420Kbps), they're dinging me on the front AND the back because of the overhead!
Re: I beg to differ (Michigan) it wasnt he barks at people without having all the facts.
"uncapped" ADSL sync
said by sirwoogie:Been there, done that. And this is where you are doing it wrong. They indeed cannot have every single profile for every single speed, so I can't imagine anyone stepping forward to honour your request as is, as it's already outside of their protocol.
I could sync to about 4.5Mbps and about 1Mbps up according to my line conditions at the 2Wire. I said I'd be willing to pay for the 6/1 tier as long as they provisioned for something like 4Mbps (they don't do uncapped provision, which I get). They refused as then they'd have to support other tiers
I've had a similar situation with the old Sprint, and "please provision non-standard 4Mbps" will get you absolutely nowhere, guaranteed.
HOWEVER, the good news is, it is almost certain that you could be put onto the 6Mbps profile and automatically sync at 4.5Mbps. NO NEED FOR A 4Mbps PROFILE! It's a tiny detail, but it makes a huge difference to the argument. So, I suggest you forget about "4.5Mbps" part whatsoever, and persist that your line supports higher speeds, and require to speak with some local/whatever provisioning engineer/whomever who could provision your line to 6Mbps. Make sure to tell them you accept all responsibility for line instability. After many attempts, when I finally got this right (as above), it worked great with the old Sprint, and was definitely worth it. In my situation, however, it didn't involve the billing department (long story; basically, faster speeds were already cheaper and billing upgrade was no-questions-asked), but I think it's still worth a try even in your case where both billing and engineering would have to be involved at the same time.
said by MovieLover76:... and until customers are willing to discontinue services from these ISPs, they will continue to charge what the market will pay. It is not about choice, it is about being willing to say no and shut off services until the market changes its pricing. No one will die from not having internet. Shut off the service and wait for the pricing to change. The issue is that no one is willing to be inconvenienced by not having internet at their finger tips.
While I understand to a point some sort of caps on wireless use, though I don't like the caps they've set which are set way too low in order to make money, not for a legitimate network management, which probably could be better handled with throttling.
But on wireline internet access their is simply no need for caps, wireline internet is not as limited of the resource as spectrum is and their are very simple things they can do to ensure everyone gets good speeds, spliting nodes throttling very heavy users based on network congestion (not as a purely punitive measure for using a lot of bandwidth). Bandwidth is getting cheaper not more expensive.
it's just a money grab and an excuse to put off network investment.
·Time Warner Cable
Re: I'm not as certain about Karl's speculation
said by djrobx:I moved to UVerse soon after the cap was announced. I probably would not have moved otherwise. It is plausible that they figured they could scare some people (like me) off ADSL this way, and get others to reduce usage so they could delay backhaul upgrades on old ADSL equipment that they want to retire. I would love to see their numbers.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if AT&T were holding off on U-verse caps for strategic reasons.
Find your USNG coordinates: