Qwest ADSL2+ Available To 1 Million Homes Halfway to 2008 goal.... While Verizon shells out $23 billion to run fiber to the home to nearly half their footprint, less-profitable Qwest is promising to spend $300 million to run (up to 20Mbps) ADSL2+ service to two million customers by the end of this year. According to the latest data from Qwest, the company now offers their Qwest Connect Quantum (20Mbps/896kbps) and Qwest Connect Titanium (12Mbps/896kbps) tiers to one million living units in eighteen different markets. Qwest marketing man Dan Yost rejoices at his company's sheer awesomeness: "This milestone not only represents solid progress in our advanced fiber-optic Internet expansion, but illustrates our standing commitment to deliver the broadband speeds, capabilities and value that our customers want," said Dan Yost, executive vice president of product for Qwest. "With access to our Qwest Connect Titanium and Qwest Connect Quantum services, customers and communities are on the cutting-edge of Internet technology and its boundless benefits." Which would actually be true, if 896kbps upstream speeds over copper were cutting edge. You'll notice that in all marketing for their ADSL2+ service, Qwest tries very hard to pretend they're actually investing in last mile fiber, and almost never mentions the service's upstream speeds.
|
  RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
1 edit | 896kbps? What the heck is wrong with them? 20Mbps down and a measly 896kbps up? | |
|  | | | Re: 896kbps? How much upstream is used when one is using a full 20mbps down? | |
| | | Bink
join:2006-05-14
Denver, CO
kudos:4 | Re: 896kbps? When maximizing the download on my 7Mbps connection I generally don’t use more than 150Kbps for upstream TCP ACKs—so I imagine a full 20Mbps connection would require about 450Kbps for upstream ACKs. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | If ANY of the providers use marketing as a service, it's Qwest. They tried to compete with Comcast's digital voice by all the sudden one day putting out ads that said "Qwest digital phone".. and then all the sudden it's "Qwest Fiber Internet"... This is one time I will honestly say that Qwest is on it's last leg.. it can't continue to survive in the markets it does.. many of them have either Comcast or Cox as competitors and they're both wiping the land with Qwest. | |
| | | RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Re: 896kbps? said by fiberguy:If ANY of the providers use marketing as a service, it's Qwest. They tried to compete with Comcast's digital voice by all the sudden one day putting out ads that said "Qwest digital phone".. and then all the sudden it's "Qwest Fiber Internet"... This is one time I will honestly say that Qwest is on it's last leg.. it can't continue to survive in the markets it does.. many of them have either Comcast or Cox as competitors and they're both wiping the land with Qwest. Sounds like a government bail out soon.. | |
| | | | | said by fiberguy:If ANY of the providers use marketing as a service, it's Qwest. They tried to compete with Comcast's digital voice by all the sudden one day putting out ads that said "Qwest digital phone".. and then all the sudden it's "Qwest Fiber Internet"... This is one time I will honestly say that Qwest is on it's last leg.. it can't continue to survive in the markets it does.. many of them have either Comcast or Cox as competitors and they're both wiping the land with Qwest. Qwest has been on it's last leg for years. Nothing new. Qwest doesn't exactly have the best territory of them all, having to serve many small communities where cable companies tend to not invest themselves in. BTW, technically, Qwest's phone has been digital for quite some time. Don't tell me that Comcast's own tactics are any better or less dirty. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: 896kbps? said by fibercableboy :said by fiberguy:If ANY of the providers use marketing as a service, it's Qwest. They tried to compete with Comcast's digital voice by all the sudden one day putting out ads that said "Qwest digital phone".. and then all the sudden it's "Qwest Fiber Internet"... This is one time I will honestly say that Qwest is on it's last leg.. it can't continue to survive in the markets it does.. many of them have either Comcast or Cox as competitors and they're both wiping the land with Qwest. Qwest has been on it's last leg for years. Nothing new. Qwest doesn't exactly have the best territory of them all, having to serve many small communities where cable companies tend to not invest themselves in. BTW, technically, Qwest's phone has been digital for quite some time. Don't tell me that Comcast's own tactics are any better or less dirty. I am well aware of the territory issue.. but still, they have cities like Seattle, Denver, the Twin Cities metro (certainly not a small city) and then Des Moines, Phoenix.. they may have small cities, but they too have very large ones.
As for their "digital phone" defense.. don't even try that with me. Just because you have something digital about 23,000 feet away and then send it out analog over the lines doesn't make it digital. With that reasoning, cable TV has been digital for quite some time!
Comcast's "own tactics" to which you know nothing of, is true digital phone. The phone terminates at your home in digital form. With digital phone, there was an RSU on the side of the house that put the service on the house wire and an RiSU inside apartments that did the same thing. With digital voice, it terminates inside the home, even closer, often to a cordless phone, in digital form.
Sorry, but that argument, which has been had, is old, tired, and never going to pass. | |
| | | | | | | Re: 896kbps? said by fiberguy:Comcast's "own tactics" to which you know nothing of, is true digital phone. The phone terminates at your home in digital form. With digital phone, there was an RSU on the side of the house that put the service on the house wire and an RiSU inside apartments that did the same thing. With digital voice, it terminates inside the home, even closer, often to a cordless phone, in digital form. Sorry, but that argument, which has been had, is old, tired, and never going to pass. Since when can you tell someone that they don't know anything about Comcast's tactics? I read just fine, thanks. Comcast certainly plays just as dirty, or dirtier, than Qwest. You'd realize this if didn't have a clear bias, Jack Cafferty.
No one asked about or disputed Comcast's digital phone service. Are you trying to sell something?
Sorry, but you certainly seem to be full of yourself by judging from all of yours posts on dslreports.com | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: 896kbps? Sorry to tell you, Mr Anon, but the TOPIC in my post was about digital phone.. are you trying to come in and change the topic and context of what I was talking about? If so, next time, please let me know.. it might help, Johnny Bravo.. 
Do you have any idea just how effective the "yea, but.." argument is? It reminds me something like this:
Mother: "Timmy, you can't have ice cream because you didn't finish your vegetables...!"
Timmy: "Yea... but Steve didn't eat his!!!"
So, deflecting the issue away from the conversation point being made with something someone else may or may not have done is doing simply means you have no legit argument of your own.
And, the next time you want to worry about something someone else says on BBR, get an account and put yourself on record.. otherwise, with posts like yours, all you're doing is trolling.
Be gone.. don't you have a bridge to ask riddles at? | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 896kbps? Unless your real name is Fiber (Cable) Guy, you're just as anonymous as the rest of us.
Perhaps you should review your own post because your topic was not simply about digital phone:
said by fiberguy:If ANY of the providers use marketing as a service, it's Qwest. They tried to compete with Comcast's digital voice by all the sudden one day putting out ads that said "Qwest digital phone".. and then all the sudden it's "Qwest Fiber Internet"... This is one time I will honestly say that Qwest is on it's last leg.. it can't continue to survive in the markets it does.. many of them have either Comcast or Cox as competitors and they're both wiping the land with Qwest. You claim that someone doesn't know about Comcast's tactics is ludicrous, arrogant and shows how you simply spout of about how you think you know better, and how you think everyone else who has a differ opinion is wrong and needs to read a long rant from you.
Apparently, it's OK for you to blast someone posting as an Anonymous by claiming that they are simply trolling and should be working at bridge. You are a hypocrite by deflecting off the subject yourself. You prove you cannot argue unless you get personal and make such childish comments. Using a page from your book, it implies you have less substance yourself.
It still stands that you are very full of yourself. | |
| | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: 896kbps? RIF - Reading is fundamental...
said by fiberguy:If ANY of the providers use marketing as a service, it's Qwest. They tried to compete with Comcast's digital voice by all the sudden one day putting out ads that said "Qwest digital phone".. and then all the sudden it's "Qwest Fiber Internet"... This is one time I will honestly say that Qwest is on it's last leg.. it can't continue to survive in the markets it does.. many of them have either Comcast or Cox as competitors and they're both wiping the land with Qwest. Further, learn the difference, here, regarding the difference between a registered and an anonymous account.
You bore me. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: 896kbps? Let's just gloss over the fact that your topic discussed Qwest's marketing and how they're on their last legs because Comcast and Cox is wiping the land with Qwest. You're known to bend things to suite your argument.
I find it funny that you can't hold a discussion without acting high and mighty and usually restoring to some form of personal attacks. It's classic text book case of substance lacking. Ironic you accuse others of tactics that you're well known for playing yourself. You work in Comcast's management, right?
Good night. You're not worth the time. | |
| | | | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: 896kbps? Thanks Judge Judy!
Please feel free to pass over my posts - since you don't read them anyway. You spend more time trying to tell me how I communicate instead of dealing with the topic at hand. This is typical of people who have nothing to offer.
I won't respond to your posts anymore.. don't bother. | |
|
| | | | | | said by fiberguy:said by fibercableboy :said by fiberguy:If ANY of the providers use marketing as a service, it's Qwest. They tried to compete with Comcast's digital voice by all the sudden one day putting out ads that said "Qwest digital phone".. and then all the sudden it's "Qwest Fiber Internet"... This is one time I will honestly say that Qwest is on it's last leg.. it can't continue to survive in the markets it does.. many of them have either Comcast or Cox as competitors and they're both wiping the land with Qwest. Qwest has been on it's last leg for years. Nothing new. Qwest doesn't exactly have the best territory of them all, having to serve many small communities where cable companies tend to not invest themselves in. BTW, technically, Qwest's phone has been digital for quite some time. Don't tell me that Comcast's own tactics are any better or less dirty. I am well aware of the territory issue.. but still, they have cities like Seattle, Denver, the Twin Cities metro (certainly not a small city) and then Des Moines, Phoenix.. they may have small cities, but they too have very large ones. As for their "digital phone" defense.. don't even try that with me. Just because you have something digital about 23,000 feet away and then send it out analog over the lines doesn't make it digital. With that reasoning, cable TV has been digital for quite some time! Comcast's "own tactics" to which you know nothing of, is true digital phone. The phone terminates at your home in digital form. With digital phone, there was an RSU on the side of the house that put the service on the house wire and an RiSU inside apartments that did the same thing. With digital voice, it terminates inside the home, even closer, often to a cordless phone, in digital form. Sorry, but that argument, which has been had, is old, tired, and never going to pass. I'd rather have reliable than digital. My parents lost power (as well as thousands of other people) for 48 hours after an ice storm last year. Funny thing about that copper telephone service. It worked the entire time. I was able to call my mother, who was home by herself, and check to see if she was ok. (Sure, she has a cell phone, but sometimes she forgets to charge it, and then I can't reach her.) The neighbor's cable phone service, by contrast, was out immediately. Now let's see, which would I rather have? The reliability or the digital thing. Hmm... tough choice there. The storm was so bad that it knocked out power to Qwest's CO, but they have backup batteries and generators, so the phones kept on working. I'll take reliable. You can wank it to your digital phone service.
As far as DSL goes, the DSL they can get isn't as fast as cable -- well maybe it is during peak usage hours -- hahaha! But it's sure a hell of a lot cheaper. They don't subscribe to cable TV, and Internet without cable is over $60 here from the cable co. For that price they get reliable local and long distance phone service, and reliable DSL. In fact, it's so reliable it's been out one day in the 3+ years they've had it -- over 99.9% reliable. That's great for me because that means they don't call me up and ask me to troubleshoot it for them. | |
|
|  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
1 edit | AT&T has them beat with their highest U-Verse tier, at
least on the upload side: it gets 10Mbps down, 1.5Mbps up.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
| |
| | | RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Re: 896kbps? said by Doctor Four:AT&T has them beat with their highest U-Verse tier, at least on the upload side: it gets 10Mbps down, 1.5Mbps up. "AT&T has them beat".. a phrase hardly ever heard!  | |
| | | | | | Re: 896kbps? Yeah but only on the upload and not by much, Quest has them beat with DOUBLE the download. | |
| | | | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: 896kbps? Hell, AT&T's basic Uverse package 1.5/1Mbps has it beat on the upload
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 896kbps? Your basic package does. When I checked yesterday, the base package they were offering my locale was 768 and it didn't hit 1mbps till after the $40 mark. Which is odd cause TWC now has at least 1mbps on all tiers, even the basic package, and no requirement that you must order TV service as well.
I was going to switch to uverse when they finish rolling it out here, but after hearing than they absolutely require ordering their rather crappy TV service and that their HSI is more expensive for less speed. With TWC I have their 'basic' package which is 8mpbs/1mbps for $40 w/o TV or voip. Uverse wants $45 for 6mbps/1mbps plus another $44 or more for TV. I have no idea what AT&T is thinking, it seems like they don't want any competitive advantage here. | |
| | | | | | |  djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | Re: 896kbps? What area are you in?
-- Rob | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 896kbps? Southern California. AT&T is still installing the uverse equipment and I've only seen one vrad of the 20 or so I see on my way to work that's looks finished, so I question when they say it's already available in the area. I doubt if they'll actually service my block at all, they never did for dsl. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: 896kbps? The two nearest VRADs around me I've found fallowing the path of the telephone lines haven't been serviced by Edison for power yet. The first one is over 3000ft just walking down the street, the telephone lines snake around and take the long way there. The second one is 4000ft away if you fly to it. Their might be closer VRADs than those, but since my lines come of that pole in my back yard directly, I believe I'm limited to the nearest one to them. It looks like they shot for just covering the condo development on the previous block like they did for DSL. Theirs only 35 homes on my block and it fingers out from nearby city, surrounded by a park, a storm drain overflow/park and a large hill, and butts up on the border of the unincorporated area between the next city.
It doesn't looking good.
The uverse installation in the area seem to be at a stand still. I haven't seen any AT&T works at any of the VRADs since mid July. I drive by a dozen everyday all I different stages including pouring the pad. It looks like their installing another generator at their CO in Tustin, but I don't see why that would cause the delays. | |
|
| | |  Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 | there is an 15ms to 20ms lantcy penalty with VDSL | |
| | | | | | | Re: 896kbps? very true. Any gamer is better off getting something that is NOT DSL.
In fact that 15-20ms latency penalty is with all DSL flavors and providers. | |
| | | | | | djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | Re: 896kbps? My ADSL had gateway pings of 7ms.
Cable varied from 6-10ms.
My U-verse VDSL is 21-24ms. | |
| | | | | |  GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | Sorry, no. The penalty is based on the distance between your DSLAM and your ISP's closest PoP, and your upstream and downstream speeds. Non-interleaved DSL connections can easily provide 6-7ms on the first hop or less. The DSL or Cable factor should not be the primary thing on a gamers' mind when choosing an ISP. More important, for example, would be the ISP's connectivity. This is probably moot if you only play on servers in the city you live in, but if you play against people from other cities, the better connected your ISP is, the less latency you're likely to suffer.
Obviously, geographical distances are insurmountable, but the more upstream providers an ISP has, the more likely you are to get a more direct route. | |
| | | | | |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| said by deviationer:very true. Any gamer is better off getting something that is NOT DSL. In fact that 15-20ms latency penalty is with all DSL flavors and providers. My gaming with DSL is much more stable than my friend's that both have Comcast. Their speeds are higher, but I host so there is not any lag.
--
"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
|
|  bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
 ·Comcast
| 896kbps, and the mentality behind it, is why I don't, and won't, use Qwest for my residential or business services. PPPoA on my 896k up DSL? $.05/min LD on my $700/mo PRI? No thanks.
It'll suck for the Denver economy, but I wonder who's going to occupy that building downtown when these guys fail?
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau | |
| |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by Rob:What the heck is wrong with them? 20Mbps down and a measly 896kbps up? Technology limit. thats what happens when you're using a tired old technology such as DSL.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| | | rantou
join:2002-06-04
Richardson, TX | Re: 896kbps? Thank you for that comment. I thought I was going to have to chime in and explain that it was the limit of the technology -- I have to deploy the ADSL2+ equipment for the ISP I work for and sure enough it's the limit of the technology, no getting around it with ADSL2+.
I do wish that when the ADSL2+ spec was released that it supported a bandwidth control option so that you could assign more upstream bandwidth within the data stream. | |
| | | | djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | Re: 896kbps? Really? They left ADSL2+ with the same upload limit as the original G.DMT ADSL? That's really lame if true.
-- Rob | |
|
| | RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by dvd536:said by Rob:What the heck is wrong with them? 20Mbps down and a measly 896kbps up? Technology limit. thats what happens when you're using a tired old technology such as DSL. That doesn't make any sense. Other providers who use ADSL2 can offer 1Mbps upload. | |
| | | | GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | Re: 896kbps? Indeed. Bell Canada's standard service is 7mbit down, 1088kbit up. They use the same upstream on their 10 and 16 megabit services. At THAT point, it's a technological limitation.
However, an addition to the spec (ADSL2+) supports up to 3.5 megabits per second upstream if the equipment supports annex M. (my modem does, for example), although this becomes a bit distance constrained. This is helped by deploying remote DSLAMs closer to the customer premises.
By any chance is that 896kbit upstream rate advertised as the actual throughput rather than the sync rate? Because after ATM and other overhead is taken into account, the actual throughput on 1088kbit upstream isn't all that far off from 896kbit. | |
| | | | | veldy
join:1999-08-04
Minneapolis, MN | Re: 896kbps? said by Guspaz:By any chance is that 896kbit upstream rate advertised as the actual throughput rather than the sync rate? Because after ATM and other overhead is taken into account, the actual throughput on 1088kbit upstream isn't all that far off from 896kbit. 896Kbps is the rate before overhead, which is about 15% about 780Kbs give or take. I think I was usually seeing the low 80Kbps range. It is simply not enough.
Annex M (and L) are only available, by my understanding, if the phone line they are running the DSL on does not have a voice number running on it at the same time. In other words, it uses the voice spectrum to increase the upstream bandwidth.
My current line is "naked DSL", meaning there is no voice attached to it [I use VOIP] and I think the only way I can stay with QWest [they have me on a trial plan at the moment, so I can afford to bounce between QWest and Comcast for competitive trial] so I don't see any reason why they aren't advertising the faster upload speeds [maybe for a fee if they have to install a new pair] ... but to compete, they need to do MUCH better than what they are doing on the upload side. | |
|
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | Hell.... Even Comcast gave me a free boost to 2mbps upload, anything else is slow! | |
| | | | Re: Hell.... wish i could see where they plan to roll future fiber out to  | |
|
| | Went cable instead I was stuck at 6.0/768k and I was waiting for U-Verse. That was until Comcast offered me 16M/2M for less than my Speakeasy line. That upload is pretty paltry. | |
| | RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Re: Went cable instead said by kwayzcat:I was stuck at 6.0/768k and I was waiting for U-Verse. That was until Comcast offered me 16M/2M for less than my Speakeasy line. That upload is pretty paltry. And how has your Comcast service been? | |
| | |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Re: Went cable instead said by Rob:said by kwayzcat:I was stuck at 6.0/768k and I was waiting for U-Verse. That was until Comcast offered me 16M/2M for less than my Speakeasy line. That upload is pretty paltry. And how has your Comcast service been? My 16/2 Comcast connection has PowerBoost uploads at ~3Mbps for the first 90 seconds or so before steadying out at ~2Mbps. This has really been great when I upload the occasional 200MB file. It does not take long at all and I can continue to work online with a minimal impact on my service. I love it, and would have a difficult time switching to a slower upload speed. | |
| | | | | Service has been pretty dang good. I haven't had any major outages. The speed is nice, especially the upload. | |
| | |
1 edit | By my reply I don't mean to be a Comcast fanboy. The point I'm trying to make is that DSL and its variants are becoming more stale and irrelevant every minute. Qwest is offering something that, quite plainly, pales in comparison to current offers by Comcast and Verizon FIOS.
My experience: I tried getting ADSL2+ from Covad but at 10K feet from the CO I couldn't even get 8.0M/1M, while I already had 6.0M/768K. So I figured I would wait for U-Verse. As much as I hate AT&T I really wanted the extra bandwidth. But instead of waiting for U-Verse I found out I could get Comcast Business NOW with a static IP and faster download/upload speeds than AT&T will ever offer with U-Verse.
DSL technologies can't keep up with cable and fiber, its a reality that has been repeated on this site ad-nauseum and can be clearly seen in the products being offered by the different technologies. | |
|
| | AT&T has ADSL2+, but gives crap speeds -.- AT&T Southeast has ADSL2+, but gives crap speeds
My maximum sync rate? 22 Mbps down, 508 Kbps up
My sync rate? 8128 Kbps down, 508 Kbps up
My internet speed? 6.5 Mbps down.. ~400 Kbps up (though i pay for 512.. overhead stinks) | |
| | GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | Re: AT&T has ADSL2+, but gives crap speeds -.- It's very odd that you'd see an attainable max speed of 508kbit up and 22mbit down. Almost impossible, in fact, unless you had some sort of wiring issue. The upstream part of the frequency spectrum is the lower part, which is the best quality. On the other hand, if you're paying for 512kbit upstream and syncing at 508, that might be a provider-imposed limit.
That said, 8128 happens to be the exact maximum supported sync rate on ADSL (regular type). If you're syncing at 8128kbit down, I'm inclined to believe that you're either on ADSL rather than ADSL2+, or you've been capped at that speed.
For an 8128/508 sync, 6.5/400 is more or less what you should expect to get, so that's not really crap... | |
|
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | My Comcast connection is great except............. My comcast connection has 2,456,897,901 Kbps down and 1,364,657,908 Kbps up but because of comcast's packet shaping I can only use 15mps down and 988megs up for e-mail. Anything else it's whatever comcasts want to packet shape out of existence.
--
Send a prayer to Allah, eat Beans. | |
| | | | Re: My Comcast connection is great except............. I inquired with Qwest and they offered me blazing fast 1.5MB. Wow all the back to my ATT Broadband days in 1998. I have 16/2 with Charter. I always get the posted speeds. | |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | 7% Whooo Hooooo!
Now only 7% of Qwest customers can get next gen broadband. Compare that to 28% of Verizon's customers can get FIOS.
Qwest sucks [USF $]. | |
| Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
| Not in Tucson Not available to me in Tucson. Cox now has 20/2. I'm under contract with "price for life" through November. If they can't get me higher than the current 7/768 by then, it'll be time to switch.
I'll just have to live with the "security" of blocked ports. | |
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
1 edit | Qwest has a new Billboard: "AT&T... OR VERIZON... PLEASE BUY US OUT. PLEASE!"
OR ANYBODY! PLEASE!
.... | |
| | dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Qwest has a new Billboard: said by KrK:"AT&T PLEASE BUY US OUT. PLEASE!" .... Make that verizon not ATT.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Qwest has a new Billboard: Fixed it. | |
|
 MSaukMSaukPremium
join:2002-01-17
Sandy, UT | wow at my house we are stuck at 1.5 down 768 up! Wish we could see those type of speeds! I like qwest but to bad our fastest speed is 1.5 down! lmao What is this, 7 years ago?
Give me a break
--
MatthewSauk.com | |
|  jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | time warner "Qwest tries very hard to pretend they're actually investing in last mile fiber, and almost never mentions the service's upstream speeds."
They are not alone. When I initially looked at getting time warner internet around here i couldn't find the upspeeds anywhere on the website i called in. Have hours on the phone multiple times ( no joke) i finally got my answer. The sales and customer service people had no clue what the upspeed was and acted like it didnt matter or people never asked. no one knew and they all quoted me different installation charges also. With customer service for a NEW buyer the way it is i cannot believe they are still in business, at least in this market. Now what also took a long time was to talk to the tech support people even though i was not a customer yet just to find out the upspeed and then wait on hold again if i want to sign up . I am not waiting 45 minutes to talk to sales, 45 to talk to tech support then 40 or so minutes again to talk to sales to take my order. I dont see how they can compete.
But my point is time warner also likes to hide the upstream amount nor do they know the upstream amount, nor could they deliver it either (tests prove it).
--
Learning how to invest? Sign up to get 3 free trades for you and for me each. PM me | |
|  fcislerPremium
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY |  Give you speed back to '99
OOL is 15/2, on THEIR MOST BASIC TIER.
Limitation of the equipment is SUB 1mb? Why spend the money to upgrade then??? Spend that money in real fiber, or wait until it has matured
I'm wondering what 20/896 will cost....$95/mo?
Wow...
According to Wikipedia, ADSL can do UP TO 3.5 upload. | |
| | GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | Re: Give you speed back to '99 3.5 up with annex M, but that's distance constrained. But you can do more than 896 with standard equipment. Bell Canada uses 1088kbit upstream sync on theirs. Annex M probably wouldn't get most people to 3.5, but it could probably beat out 1088. | |
|
| | Getting the 7M today from Qwest I don't know.. I like Qwest. Its nice not having to pay Comcast's predatory price for their HSI when one opts out for their ingress infested crappy CATV picture with bi yearly price hikes. At least in my area, the Qwest DSL is enormously more stable with almost non existant outages.. ( one in over two years for me). Well see how long people like Comcast if they truly start with the capping and throttles. I don't expect Qwest to follow suite as soon. This will be a nice draw for cable HSI customers to change to Qwest DSL.
I really don't see whats so evil about Qwest. With CC its quite easy to see. After they were caught using Sandvine to block P2P 24X7 they denied it. And then they lied that they only did it during times of congestion. Comcast are a bunch of control freaks and will continue to play around with their networks regardless if their are issues with bandwidth. At this point, how can anyone believe these liars any differently. If anything has taught us anything over the last couple of years its that Comcast cannot be trusted. And I'll say one more time as I have in other posts that Qwest was also one of the few telcos that told the Bush admin they would not allow them to illegally wiretap their customers. I really respect them for that and sticking to the 4th amendment. For a big corporation this is really a big deal.. especially in the current environment this country is in. I also know the Bush admin took away many lucrative government contracts because they stood up to Bush and friends. For this, I respect Qwest even more. If I wanted, I can upgrade up to 12M for Qwest. Even if Comcast offered me double that for the same amount I would support Qwest. I guess I just don't see much evil in Qwest. | |
| | Bink
join:2006-05-14
Denver, CO
kudos:4 | Re: Getting the 7M today from Qwest I agree with you whole heartedly. Comcast is the epitome of a controlled, filtered and packet mangled Internet—and if you want that, well, enjoy. But if you want a real Internet connection, Qwest still provides this. | |
|
| | it's the ADSL2+ Anyone that knows anything knows that this is a limitation of the ADSL2+ technology that they're using, and not something Qwest can just adjust. It's not their fault that the technology has that limitation. Of course, they DID decide to use ADSL2+ and not VDSL2, which DOES seem like a boneheaded move. Someone really ought to ask them about that decision. | |
| | GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | Re: it's the ADSL2+ Anybody who knows anything knows that ADSL2+ can sync at speeds higher than 896kbit. Bell Canada's ADSL2+ service syncs at 1088kbit up. If you want to go beyond that, Annex M supports upstream syncs of 3.5mbit, but that is distance constrained (and not all equipment supports it). | |
|
| | Ordered, be here on tuesday. $175/mo after taxes and fees, I was forced to buy the modem at $145. Three year agreement. Qwest rep wouldn't show me an SLA, but verbally guaranteed no loss of services. Awesome. :|
Qwest rep also "promised" that the upload rate will be raised in my area very soon to 2mb. I won’t hold my breath.
Installation is on 8/19, ill post my stats then.
Cox finally pushed me over the edge when they cut off service for a 3rd time in two months because of DMCA violations. They said they can detect illegal bit torrent files on my computer. I was downloading a Linux Mint iso for peet’s sake! The 1 800 number the Cox warning page tells you to call is always busy. When I finally was able to speak to the reps they all apologized and said I should stay away from torrent files because of viruses. Nice. One rep said Linux is not supported on their networks!!!!
Say what you will about Qwest’s crappy upload speeds, but one thing you don’t have to worry about is them halting service for bogus DMCA violations. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·