Does anyone use Time Warner Cable internet and have you run a speed
test? I just got off the phone with U verse to cancel service and the
guy said the "up to" speeds TW claims are usually not even close. I have
U verse and it consistently runs at the advertised speed.

https://purchase.timewarnercable.com...g&gclsrc=aw.ds

"gonjah" who has a little trouble trying to write in
standard english, wrote in message ...
Does anyone use Time Warner Cable internet and have you run a speed test?
I just got off the phone with U verse to cancel service and the guy said
the "up to" speeds TW claims are usually not even close. I have U verse
and it consistently runs at the advertised speed.

http://lemonparty.org


Time Warner Cable is about to spring a BIG-ASS rate hike on its unsuspecting
customers.

"gonjah" wrote in message
...
Does anyone use Time Warner Cable internet and have you run a speed test?
I just got off the phone with U verse to cancel service and the guy said
the "up to" speeds TW claims are usually not even close. I have U verse
and it consistently runs at the advertised speed.

https://purchase.timewarnercable.com...g&gclsrc=aw.ds

I have TW internet and usually get about 16 MB on the uplink It is for the
15 MB service. A friend across town gets about the same. Get 1 MB for the
uplink. The uplink does not make that much difference to me as I seldom
send any large files.

I do have my own modem as they started charging for them a year or so ago.
Paid about $ 20 for something they want aboutg $ 5 per month.

I had the TV with them up to about 2 weeks ago. Canceled when they wanted
to put some kind of digital box on every TV and will start charging for
those boxes. Went to Direct TV, so will see how that plays out for the next
two years.

i use TWC, and at 15 bucks a month, i love it

not sure about speed

marc

wrote in message
...
i use TWC, and at 15 bucks a month, i love it

not sure about speed


I think they say it is 3 MB. I am almost ready to go to that as the next
speed up is over $ 50.

You can test what you have he
http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/su...peed-test.html

On 5/23/2015 3:25 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

I had the TV with them up to about 2 weeks ago. Canceled when they wanted
to put some kind of digital box on every TV and will start charging for
those boxes. Went to Direct TV, so will see how that plays out for the next
two years.


I switched from cable to DTV a few years back too. Out crappy cble
company had plenty of outages and slim HD offerings. DirecTv has been
good but I don't think I'm saving any money.

TWC is over subscribed in my neighborhood.
Speed is good during the day. Once the kids get home from school and
people start streaming movies in the evening the speed was worse than DSL.

On 5/23/15 1:01 PM, gonjah wrote:
Does anyone use Time Warner Cable internet and have you run a speed
test? I just got off the phone with U verse to cancel service and
the guy said the "up to" speeds TW claims are usually not even close.
I have U verse and it consistently runs at the advertised speed.

https://purchase.timewarnercable.com...g&gclsrc=aw.ds


Years ago, I read that TW does far better than AT&T in delivering
advertised speeds. Elsewhere, I've read that TW normally provides a
little more than advertised.

I live 400 yards from the telephone office. By looking at my modem's
user interface, I concluded that AT&T was deliberately setting me lower
than their advertised speed.

The only motive I could see was to push me into paying for a higher
tier. I know customers who fell for it. Instead, I switched to TW.

A pitfall to cable is that one node can serve an arbitrarily large
"neighborhood." If there are too many others on your node, congestion
can slow traffic at busy hours. I had a little trouble for my first
month with TW. It has been fine ever since. I guess they added a node.

My big problem with TW was their policy of jacking up prices. Before
long, my bill had more than doubled. About that time, I discovered that
TW had quietly introduced the Everyday Low Price tier: 2mbs down and
1mbs up for $15.

That was adequate, but by now they were charging $8 a month for their
modem. I bought a better one for $65. They sent me a box and a FEDEX
label for their obsolete modem. I put it in their box, taped it shut,
and left it on my porch.

I consistently get 9.5% above the advertised 2mbs down speed. My up
speed also exceeds the nominal figure.

On Sat, 23 May 2015 17:51:58 -0400, J Burns
wrote:


I live 400 yards from the telephone office. By looking at my modem's
user interface, I concluded that AT&T was deliberately setting me lower
than their advertised speed.


So is it true that Internet speeds from the phone companies depend on
how close you are to those central offices? And the price is the same
if you get 25 or 8?

Crazy

On 5/23/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2015 17:51:58 -0400, J Burns
wrote:


I live 400 yards from the telephone office. By looking at my modem's
user interface, I concluded that AT&T was deliberately setting me lower
than their advertised speed.


So is it true that Internet speeds from the phone companies depend on
how close you are to those central offices? And the price is the same
if you get 25 or 8?

Crazy

I believe so.

On 5/23/2015 7:48 PM, J Burns wrote:
On 5/23/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2015 17:51:58 -0400, J Burns
wrote:


I live 400 yards from the telephone office. By looking at my modem's
user interface, I concluded that AT&T was deliberately setting me lower
than their advertised speed.


So is it true that Internet speeds from the phone companies depend on
how close you are to those central offices? And the price is the same
if you get 25 or 8?

Crazy

I believe so.

Yes, if you are over certain distances, they bump your speed down one
notch. In my case, I'm connected to a remote site just down the
mountain. I think I'm being bumped down to 3MB (from 6MB) because they
think I'm over 15K feet, which I don't believe, as you can see where the
cable runs by following their pedestals. BTW, they still charge the
same. Also, prior to Frontier buying the copper base phone system from
Verizon, the speeds where ok during the day or wee hours in the morning,
however, late afternoon and early evening were a disaster. The speeds
were slower than dialup. I complained and the guy in India (Bob) said
that I can't power the modem from an outlet strip; it must be plugged
directly in the wall. When Frontier bought the system, they had to add
lots and lots of bandwidth to make DSL work at close to advertised
speeds. Now I routinely get about 2.8MB down. I've got to give Frontier
credit, they've really fixed what Verizon couldn't or actually what they
didn't want to fix, because they knew they were selling off that part of
the business. Same goes for the batteries in the remote site. If there
was a power failure, the batteries might last for a minute and then
there was not dial tone. Frontier has fixed all that. Sounds like
Frontier it great? Not. I could, but won't go into all their problems.

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 8:24:00 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015 07:42:48 -0400, Art Todesco
wrote:



Yes, if you are over certain distances, they bump your speed down one
notch. In my case, I'm connected to a remote site just down the
mountain. I think I'm being bumped down to 3MB (from 6MB) because they
think I'm over 15K feet, which I don't believe, as you can see where the
cable runs by following their pedestals. BTW, they still charge the
same. Also, prior to Frontier buying the copper base phone system from
Verizon, the speeds where ok during the day or wee hours in the morning,
however, late afternoon and early evening were a disaster. The speeds
were slower than dialup. I complained and the guy in India (Bob) said
that I can't power the modem from an outlet strip; it must be plugged
directly in the wall. When Frontier bought the system, they had to add
lots and lots of bandwidth to make DSL work at close to advertised
speeds. Now I routinely get about 2.8MB down. I've got to give Frontier
credit, they've really fixed what Verizon couldn't or actually what they
didn't want to fix, because they knew they were selling off that part of
the business. Same goes for the batteries in the remote site. If there
was a power failure, the batteries might last for a minute and then
there was not dial tone. Frontier has fixed all that. Sounds like
Frontier it great? Not. I could, but won't go into all their problems.


These days the "central office" can just be another box on the side of
the road. It only has to get your copper signal up on the fiber.

Even decades ago they had what amount to concentrators, if you will,
where your copper phone line terminated, was multiplexed with signals
from other folks lines, and then went on T1 or similar back to the CO.
Typical place they were used would be a new subdivision that was
away from the CO. Easier/cheaper to get them all on one line instead
of physically connecting each new house direct to the CO.

On 05/24/2015 08:21 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2015 15:44:39 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 23 May 2015 17:51:58 -0400, J Burns
wrote:


I live 400 yards from the telephone office. By looking at my modem's
user interface, I concluded that AT&T was deliberately setting me lower
than their advertised speed.


So is it true that Internet speeds from the phone companies depend on
how close you are to those central offices? And the price is the same
if you get 25 or 8?

Crazy

They sell by tier here and they deliver what they sell from what I
see. Other areas can get a higher tier than me but they pay for it.


Have Comcast here, typically see 122 megabit download and 24 megabit upload for $70 month, which includes two dozen TV channels.

Maximum available from AT&T U-Verse is only 6 megabit down and less than 1 megabit up and AT&T wants $52/month, TV service not even available.

IMHO, Comcast is awesome! The US government did a great disservice to the American people for not letting Comcast expand into more areas.
Thank God I'm not stuck with AT&T!!!

On 5/24/2015 7:17 AM, wrote:

All of the cable "up to" speeds are a theoretical maximum and will be
affected by a number of things, mostly the number of other users on
your node.


According to the ATT U-verse guys, U-verse isn't a "shared" network.
That's basically why I stayed with ATT. I got the U-verse rate down to
the TW rate by threatening to cancel U-verse.

I've had U-verse for a few years and it's always speed tested at the
advertised rate or better.

On 5/23/2015 3:25 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"gonjah" wrote in message
...
Does anyone use Time Warner Cable internet and have you run a speed test?
I just got off the phone with U verse to cancel service and the guy said
the "up to" speeds TW claims are usually not even close. I have U verse
and it consistently runs at the advertised speed.

https://purchase.timewarnercable.com...g&gclsrc=aw.ds

I have TW internet and usually get about 16 MB on the uplink It is for the
15 MB service. A friend across town gets about the same. Get 1 MB for the
uplink. The uplink does not make that much difference to me as I seldom
send any large files.

I do have my own modem as they started charging for them a year or so ago.
Paid about $ 20 for something they want aboutg $ 5 per month.

I had the TV with them up to about 2 weeks ago. Canceled when they wanted
to put some kind of digital box on every TV and will start charging for
those boxes. Went to Direct TV, so will see how that plays out for the next
two years.


DirectTV is the best out there but be prepared for the usual rate climb.
Started out at $79/month 3 years ago, up to $105 now with no additions
or changes.

I would go for Comcast's triple play but I hate those bast^&%$ enough to
pay the extra.

John

On 5/24/2015 9:30 AM, Ed wrote:
On 05/24/2015 08:21 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2015 15:44:39 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 23 May 2015 17:51:58 -0400, J Burns
wrote:


I live 400 yards from the telephone office. By looking at my modem's
user interface, I concluded that AT&T was deliberately setting me lower
than their advertised speed.


So is it true that Internet speeds from the phone companies depend on
how close you are to those central offices? And the price is the same
if you get 25 or 8?

Crazy

They sell by tier here and they deliver what they sell from what I
see. Other areas can get a higher tier than me but they pay for it.


Have Comcast here, typically see 122 megabit download and 24 megabit
upload for $70 month, which includes two dozen TV channels.

Maximum available from AT&T U-Verse is only 6 megabit down and less than
1 megabit up and AT&T wants $52/month, TV service not even available.

IMHO, Comcast is awesome! The US government did a great disservice to
the American people for not letting Comcast expand into more areas.
Thank God I'm not stuck with AT&T!!!


Comcast is absolute crap here in SW PA. They simply don't care, no
competition. I have DirectTV for TV and Verizon DSL. DirectTV is more
expensive but nearly every channel is hidef, many of them are carried on
both hi and lo def (different channel numbers of course). I can't say
the same for Comcast. If you get almost all the channels in hidef on
Comcast then you are lucky.

That new 50"+ TV is gonna look like shi%^% in lodef.

John

On 5/24/2015 9:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 8:24:00 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015 07:42:48 -0400, Art Todesco
wrote:



Yes, if you are over certain distances, they bump your speed down one
notch. In my case, I'm connected to a remote site just down the
mountain. I think I'm being bumped down to 3MB (from 6MB) because they
think I'm over 15K feet, which I don't believe, as you can see where the
cable runs by following their pedestals. BTW, they still charge the
same. Also, prior to Frontier buying the copper base phone system from
Verizon, the speeds where ok during the day or wee hours in the morning,
however, late afternoon and early evening were a disaster. The speeds
were slower than dialup. I complained and the guy in India (Bob) said
that I can't power the modem from an outlet strip; it must be plugged
directly in the wall. When Frontier bought the system, they had to add
lots and lots of bandwidth to make DSL work at close to advertised
speeds. Now I routinely get about 2.8MB down. I've got to give Frontier
credit, they've really fixed what Verizon couldn't or actually what they
didn't want to fix, because they knew they were selling off that part of
the business. Same goes for the batteries in the remote site. If there
was a power failure, the batteries might last for a minute and then
there was not dial tone. Frontier has fixed all that. Sounds like
Frontier it great? Not. I could, but won't go into all their problems.


These days the "central office" can just be another box on the side of
the road. It only has to get your copper signal up on the fiber.

Even decades ago they had what amount to concentrators, if you will,
where your copper phone line terminated, was multiplexed with signals
from other folks lines, and then went on T1 or similar back to the CO.
Typical place they were used would be a new subdivision that was
away from the CO. Easier/cheaper to get them all on one line instead
of physically connecting each new house direct to the CO.

Yes but, these (analog type) multiplexer devices don't multiplex DSL
signals. They usually have a digital multiplexers next to them for DSL.
In my case, they have a remote switcher for regular telephone service
and right next to that cabinet, there is another cabinet with DSLMs for
lines with DSL. The 2 meet in yet a 3rd cabinet, which also has the line
protectors for lightning.

On 5/24/2015 9:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 8:24:00 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015 07:42:48 -0400, Art Todesco
wrote:



Yes, if you are over certain distances, they bump your speed down one
notch. In my case, I'm connected to a remote site just down the
mountain. I think I'm being bumped down to 3MB (from 6MB) because they
think I'm over 15K feet, which I don't believe, as you can see where the
cable runs by following their pedestals. BTW, they still charge the
same. Also, prior to Frontier buying the copper base phone system from
Verizon, the speeds where ok during the day or wee hours in the morning,
however, late afternoon and early evening were a disaster. The speeds
were slower than dialup. I complained and the guy in India (Bob) said
that I can't power the modem from an outlet strip; it must be plugged
directly in the wall. When Frontier bought the system, they had to add
lots and lots of bandwidth to make DSL work at close to advertised
speeds. Now I routinely get about 2.8MB down. I've got to give Frontier
credit, they've really fixed what Verizon couldn't or actually what they
didn't want to fix, because they knew they were selling off that part of
the business. Same goes for the batteries in the remote site. If there
was a power failure, the batteries might last for a minute and then
there was not dial tone. Frontier has fixed all that. Sounds like
Frontier it great? Not. I could, but won't go into all their problems.


These days the "central office" can just be another box on the side of
the road. It only has to get your copper signal up on the fiber.

Even decades ago they had what amount to concentrators, if you will,
where your copper phone line terminated, was multiplexed with signals
from other folks lines, and then went on T1 or similar back to the CO.
Typical place they were used would be a new subdivision that was
away from the CO. Easier/cheaper to get them all on one line instead
of physically connecting each new house direct to the CO.

I forgot one thing, someday maybe, the telcos might go the way of cable,
etc. and have only digital coming to you house on the copper pair, like
DSL or Uverse. A box at your house would strip off the telephone bits
and provide an analog line for "old fashioned" phones. Or maybe we could
use digital phones! Probably not as phones seem to be going wireless. I
just hate talking on these when you have to keep saying "you just
dropped out, repeat!" and "no it's not me it must be you". Who know what
the future will bring. Back in the 70s, no one would accept the
relatively poor quality of today's cell phones, but we do. Or was that
the old AT&T speaking!!!

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:04:31 AM UTC-4, Art Todesco wrote:
On 5/24/2015 9:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 8:24:00 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015 07:42:48 -0400, Art Todesco
wrote:



Yes, if you are over certain distances, they bump your speed down one
notch. In my case, I'm connected to a remote site just down the
mountain. I think I'm being bumped down to 3MB (from 6MB) because they
think I'm over 15K feet, which I don't believe, as you can see where the
cable runs by following their pedestals. BTW, they still charge the
same. Also, prior to Frontier buying the copper base phone system from
Verizon, the speeds where ok during the day or wee hours in the morning,
however, late afternoon and early evening were a disaster. The speeds
were slower than dialup. I complained and the guy in India (Bob) said
that I can't power the modem from an outlet strip; it must be plugged
directly in the wall. When Frontier bought the system, they had to add
lots and lots of bandwidth to make DSL work at close to advertised
speeds. Now I routinely get about 2.8MB down. I've got to give Frontier
credit, they've really fixed what Verizon couldn't or actually what they
didn't want to fix, because they knew they were selling off that part of
the business. Same goes for the batteries in the remote site. If there
was a power failure, the batteries might last for a minute and then
there was not dial tone. Frontier has fixed all that. Sounds like
Frontier it great? Not. I could, but won't go into all their problems.


These days the "central office" can just be another box on the side of
the road. It only has to get your copper signal up on the fiber.

Even decades ago they had what amount to concentrators, if you will,
where your copper phone line terminated, was multiplexed with signals
from other folks lines, and then went on T1 or similar back to the CO.
Typical place they were used would be a new subdivision that was
away from the CO. Easier/cheaper to get them all on one line instead
of physically connecting each new house direct to the CO.

Yes but, these (analog type) multiplexer devices don't multiplex DSL
signals. They usually have a digital multiplexers next to them for DSL.

The devices I cite above are not analog, they are digital. With copper
phone wires using the above methods, the analog interface ends at the
SLC equipment at the subdivision. From there back to the CO it's on a
T1 or similar, ie a digital line. T1 is 1.5 Mbits and carries 24 voice
channels. This stuff has been around for many decades, back to the 70s.


In my case, they have a remote switcher for regular telephone service
and right next to that cabinet, there is another cabinet with DSLMs for
lines with DSL. The 2 meet in yet a 3rd cabinet, which also has the line
protectors for lightning.


And presumably your data then winds up riding on some higher speed
link back into the network, no? At some point your traffic rides on
the same pipe/s with other traffic, the only question is where it
starts.

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:13:37 AM UTC-4, Art Todesco wrote:

I forgot one thing, someday maybe, the telcos might go the way of cable,
etc. and have only digital coming to you house on the copper pair, like
DSL or Uverse.

IDK what you mean here. The Telcos have been offering DSL, which is
digital, for two decades. That era is winding down, for the most part
as they move to better technologies for most customers.


A box at your house would strip off the telephone bits
and provide an analog line for "old fashioned" phones.

That's how the Telcos have been doing DSL. Many carriers are
way beyond that, at least in some areas. Verizon FIOS for example,
is fiber into your house. Cablevision here provides VOIP service,
where they give you a cable/modem/router that converts to the
analog interface for your phones.


Or maybe we could
use digital phones! Probably not as phones seem to be going wireless. I
just hate talking on these when you have to keep saying "you just
dropped out, repeat!" and "no it's not me it must be you". Who know what
the future will bring. Back in the 70s, no one would accept the
relatively poor quality of today's cell phones, but we do. Or was that
the old AT&T speaking!!!

Your experience with cell phones is a lot different than mine.
I've had Verizon for a long time and then Virgin Mobile which
rides on Sprint for the last year. I really don't have a problem
with poor call quality. Verizon is better, but Sprint is close.
It all depends where you use them, what the coverage is. Here
in NJ, those work fine for me. If I go into some rural or mountain
area, like snowboarding in Vermont, then yes, there I have had
areas with dropped calls, poor coverage, etc.

On 5/25/2015 9:15 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:04:31 AM UTC-4, Art Todesco wrote:
On 5/24/2015 9:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 8:24:00 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015 07:42:48 -0400, Art Todesco
wrote:



Yes, if you are over certain distances, they bump your speed down one
notch. In my case, I'm connected to a remote site just down the
mountain. I think I'm being bumped down to 3MB (from 6MB) because they
think I'm over 15K feet, which I don't believe, as you can see where the
cable runs by following their pedestals. BTW, they still charge the
same. Also, prior to Frontier buying the copper base phone system from
Verizon, the speeds where ok during the day or wee hours in the morning,
however, late afternoon and early evening were a disaster. The speeds
were slower than dialup. I complained and the guy in India (Bob) said
that I can't power the modem from an outlet strip; it must be plugged
directly in the wall. When Frontier bought the system, they had to add
lots and lots of bandwidth to make DSL work at close to advertised
speeds. Now I routinely get about 2.8MB down. I've got to give Frontier
credit, they've really fixed what Verizon couldn't or actually what they
didn't want to fix, because they knew they were selling off that part of
the business. Same goes for the batteries in the remote site. If there
was a power failure, the batteries might last for a minute and then
there was not dial tone. Frontier has fixed all that. Sounds like
Frontier it great? Not. I could, but won't go into all their problems.


These days the "central office" can just be another box on the side of
the road. It only has to get your copper signal up on the fiber.

Even decades ago they had what amount to concentrators, if you will,
where your copper phone line terminated, was multiplexed with signals
from other folks lines, and then went on T1 or similar back to the CO.
Typical place they were used would be a new subdivision that was
away from the CO. Easier/cheaper to get them all on one line instead
of physically connecting each new house direct to the CO.

Yes but, these (analog type) multiplexer devices don't multiplex DSL
signals. They usually have a digital multiplexers next to them for DSL.

The devices I cite above are not analog, they are digital. With copper
phone wires using the above methods, the analog interface ends at the
SLC equipment at the subdivision. From there back to the CO it's on a
T1 or similar, ie a digital line. T1 is 1.5 Mbits and carries 24 voice
channels. This stuff has been around for many decades, back to the 70s.

Agree. But the line to your house is analog. Even DSL to you house is
analog ... that's why you have a modem.

In my case, they have a remote switcher for regular telephone service
and right next to that cabinet, there is another cabinet with DSLMs for
lines with DSL. The 2 meet in yet a 3rd cabinet, which also has the line
protectors for lightning.


And presumably your data then winds up riding on some higher speed
link back into the network, no? At some point your traffic rides on
the same pipe/s with other traffic, the only question is where it
starts.

Actually, it's regular DSL and rides parallel to the regular voice
stuff. That's why you have to strip off the DSL carrier when going to a
regular phone, using filters. At the remote site, the data is then
combined with all the other data (DSLM) from others and leaves via
digital fiber.

On 5/25/2015 9:32 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:13:37 AM UTC-4, Art Todesco wrote:

I forgot one thing, someday maybe, the telcos might go the way of cable,
etc. and have only digital coming to you house on the copper pair, like
DSL or Uverse.

IDK what you mean here. The Telcos have been offering DSL, which is
digital, for two decades. That era is winding down, for the most part
as they move to better technologies for most customers.
Yes I agree and what I mean is basically quit using regular analog
phones and put the phones on the digital on higher speed carrier along
with the computer data. Of course once could do this using things like
Skype, but is not the norm for most people.


A box at your house would strip off the telephone bits
and provide an analog line for "old fashioned" phones.

That's how the Telcos have been doing DSL. Many carriers are
way beyond that, at least in some areas. Verizon FIOS for example,
is fiber into your house. Cablevision here provides VOIP service,
where they give you a cable/modem/router that converts to the
analog interface for your phones.


Or maybe we could
use digital phones! Probably not as phones seem to be going wireless. I
just hate talking on these when you have to keep saying "you just
dropped out, repeat!" and "no it's not me it must be you". Who know what
the future will bring. Back in the 70s, no one would accept the
relatively poor quality of today's cell phones, but we do. Or was that
the old AT&T speaking!!!

Your experience with cell phones is a lot different than mine.
I've had Verizon for a long time and then Virgin Mobile which
rides on Sprint for the last year. I really don't have a problem
with poor call quality. Verizon is better, but Sprint is close.
It all depends where you use them, what the coverage is. Here
in NJ, those work fine for me. If I go into some rural or mountain
area, like snowboarding in Vermont, then yes, there I have had
areas with dropped calls, poor coverage, etc.

On 05/23/2015 01:01 PM, gonjah wrote:
Does anyone use Time Warner Cable internet and have you run a speed
test? I just got off the phone with U verse to cancel service and the
guy said the "up to" speeds TW claims are usually not even close. I have
U verse and it consistently runs at the advertised speed.

https://purchase.timewarnercable.com...g&gclsrc=aw.ds

This may be changing soon: It's just been announced that Charter is
buying TWC. We've had Charter for 11 years, during which time we've had
just three outages, one of which was caused by the gas company digging
up the cable.

Charter's advertised "down" speeds seem to be conservative: We're paying
for 18mbps down and 4mbps up, and although the "up" speed is
occasionally a little lower (never below 3.8mbps in my tests, IIRC), the
"down" speed is often over 30mbps. But Charter doesn't offer speeds as
high as TWC: Even Charter's "business" package offers only "up to"
60mbps down and 4mbps up, whereas I see that TWC offers a package with
"up to" 200/20mbps; even if you don't always get that high a speed, I'd
complain if I didn't get at least half of that.

What speed do you get with U-Verse?

Much of the USA is way behind many other parts of the world when it
comes to Internet speeds. As mentioned previously, the highest we could
get from Charter is 60mbps, whereas a family member in Australia has
100mbps down (not sure about up), and I just read a post by a guy in the
Netherlands who has 150mbps and is planning to upgrade to 500mbps.

I wonder whether those higher TWC speeds will be offered to existing
Charter customers.

A speed test just now showed 31.64/4.44.

Perce

On 05/26/2015 08:00 AM, I wrote:

Does anyone use Time Warner Cable internet and have you run a speed
test? I just got off the phone with U verse to cancel service and the
guy said the "up to" speeds TW claims are usually not even close. I have
U verse and it consistently runs at the advertised speed.

https://purchase.timewarnercable.com...g&gclsrc=aw.ds


This may be changing soon: It's just been announced that Charter is
buying TWC. We've had Charter for 11 years, during which time we've had
just three outages, one of which was caused by the gas company digging
up the cable.

Well, now I see a report that Charter may face the same regulatory
hurdles that Comcast faced when it tried to buy TWC. But Why? Where is
the competition that a takeover would kill? Hands up all those who
currently have a choice between TWC and Comcast or TWC and Charter?
Anybody? (OK, so municipalities -- at least in some areas -- get to
choose to which company they grant a franchise, but that's not the same.)

Charter's advertised "down" speeds seem to be conservative: We're paying
for 18mbps down and 4mbps up, and although the "up" speed is
occasionally a little lower (never below 3.8mbps in my tests, IIRC), the
"down" speed is often over 30mbps. But Charter doesn't offer speeds as
high as TWC: Even Charter's "business" package offers only "up to"
60mbps down and 4mbps up, whereas I see that TWC offers a package with
"up to" 200/20mbps; even if you don't always get that high a speed, I'd
complain if I didn't get at least half of that.

What speed do you get with U-Verse?

Much of the USA is way behind many other parts of the world when it
comes to Internet speeds. As mentioned previously, the highest we could
get from Charter is 60mbps, whereas a family member in Australia has
100mbps down (not sure about up), and I just read a post by a guy in the
Netherlands who has 150mbps and is planning to upgrade to 500mbps.

Another poster in that same forum says he pays 469 Swedish Crowns
(~US$55.88) per month for 100mbps up and down (although the SpeedTest
report he displayed shows only ~94mbps up and down). To that someone
responded that Cox (Canadian, eh?) charges $180/month for a 50/10
business service.

I wonder whether those higher TWC speeds will be offered to existing
Charter customers.

A speed test just now showed 31.64/4.44.

Perce

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 7:37:44 AM UTC-4, Art Todesco wrote:
On 5/25/2015 9:32 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:13:37 AM UTC-4, Art Todesco wrote:

I forgot one thing, someday maybe, the telcos might go the way of cable,
etc. and have only digital coming to you house on the copper pair, like
DSL or Uverse.

IDK what you mean here. The Telcos have been offering DSL, which is
digital, for two decades. That era is winding down, for the most part
as they move to better technologies for most customers.
Yes I agree and what I mean is basically quit using regular analog
phones and put the phones on the digital on higher speed carrier along
with the computer data. Of course once could do this using things like
Skype, but is not the norm for most people.


The VOIP is already with the internet data. That's why it's
called VOIP. For example, you get high speed internet service
from your cable company. They give you a modem/router that has
a phone interface built into it. The conversion to digital
happens at the modem/router box. The VOIP traffic then goes out on
the same internet cable connection as your other internettraffic.

With that model established and so many good, cheap, cordless phones
out there, I don't see the compelling need for changing things
and doing the conversion to digital at the phone, as opposed to how
it's done now. You'd have to continue to support the phones looking
for an analog interface for decades too, so you'd have two differing
ways of doing it, for no big advantage that I can see.

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 7:33:13 AM UTC-4, Art Todesco wrote:
On 5/25/2015 9:15 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:04:31 AM UTC-4, Art Todesco wrote:
On 5/24/2015 9:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 8:24:00 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015 07:42:48 -0400, Art Todesco
wrote:



Yes, if you are over certain distances, they bump your speed down one
notch. In my case, I'm connected to a remote site just down the
mountain. I think I'm being bumped down to 3MB (from 6MB) because they
think I'm over 15K feet, which I don't believe, as you can see where the
cable runs by following their pedestals. BTW, they still charge the
same. Also, prior to Frontier buying the copper base phone system from
Verizon, the speeds where ok during the day or wee hours in the morning,
however, late afternoon and early evening were a disaster. The speeds
were slower than dialup. I complained and the guy in India (Bob) said
that I can't power the modem from an outlet strip; it must be plugged
directly in the wall. When Frontier bought the system, they had to add
lots and lots of bandwidth to make DSL work at close to advertised
speeds. Now I routinely get about 2.8MB down. I've got to give Frontier
credit, they've really fixed what Verizon couldn't or actually what they
didn't want to fix, because they knew they were selling off that part of
the business. Same goes for the batteries in the remote site. If there
was a power failure, the batteries might last for a minute and then
there was not dial tone. Frontier has fixed all that. Sounds like
Frontier it great? Not. I could, but won't go into all their problems.


These days the "central office" can just be another box on the side of
the road. It only has to get your copper signal up on the fiber.

Even decades ago they had what amount to concentrators, if you will,
where your copper phone line terminated, was multiplexed with signals
from other folks lines, and then went on T1 or similar back to the CO.
Typical place they were used would be a new subdivision that was
away from the CO. Easier/cheaper to get them all on one line instead
of physically connecting each new house direct to the CO.

Yes but, these (analog type) multiplexer devices don't multiplex DSL
signals. They usually have a digital multiplexers next to them for DSL.

The devices I cite above are not analog, they are digital. With copper
phone wires using the above methods, the analog interface ends at the
SLC equipment at the subdivision. From there back to the CO it's on a
T1 or similar, ie a digital line. T1 is 1.5 Mbits and carries 24 voice
channels. This stuff has been around for many decades, back to the 70s.

Agree. But the line to your house is analog. Even DSL to you house is
analog ... that's why you have a modem.

In that sense, what is the internet service that the cable company
provides? It's digital, but it too rides on a carrier outside the
house. I see what you're saying, it is encoded, and not just a
simple string of ones and zeros. Examples of things that would be pure
digital would be Ethernet and fiber optics I guess. Even there though
it's still an analog world when it comes to transmitting and receiving.
An ethernet transceiver makes a call on whether it's a one or a zero
by the voltage it sees on the wire.



In my case, they have a remote switcher for regular telephone service
and right next to that cabinet, there is another cabinet with DSLMs for
lines with DSL. The 2 meet in yet a 3rd cabinet, which also has the line
protectors for lightning.


And presumably your data then winds up riding on some higher speed
link back into the network, no? At some point your traffic rides on
the same pipe/s with other traffic, the only question is where it
starts.

Actually, it's regular DSL and rides parallel to the regular voice
stuff. That's why you have to strip off the DSL carrier when going to a
regular phone, using filters. At the remote site, the data is then
combined with all the other data (DSLM) from others and leaves via
digital fiber.

Good point. DSL is unique in that the voice is done the same
way as it always has been, coexisting on the same twisted pair
that now has data. At least for most people. I guess you could
add any of the independent VOIP services, like Vonage, connect
your existing phones to it and then the VOIP would ride on the
same DSL pipe. How well that would work, IDK, would depend on
how fast your DSL is.

On 05/26/2015 01:39 PM, trader_4 wrote:

I forgot one thing, someday maybe, the telcos might go the way of cable,
etc. and have only digital coming to you house on the copper pair, like
DSL or Uverse.

IDK what you mean here. The Telcos have been offering DSL, which is
digital, for two decades. That era is winding down, for the most part
as they move to better technologies for most customers.
Yes I agree and what I mean is basically quit using regular analog
phones and put the phones on the digital on higher speed carrier along
with the computer data. Of course once could do this using things like
Skype, but is not the norm for most people.


The VOIP is already with the internet data. That's why it's
called VOIP. For example, you get high speed internet service
from your cable company. They give you a modem/router that has
a phone interface built into it. The conversion to digital
happens at the modem/router box. The VOIP traffic then goes out on
the same internet cable connection as your other internettraffic.

With that model established and so many good, cheap, cordless phones
out there, I don't see the compelling need for changing things
and doing the conversion to digital at the phone, as opposed to how
it's done now. You'd have to continue to support the phones looking
for an analog interface for decades too, so you'd have two differing
ways of doing it, for no big advantage that I can see.

We got rid of our AT&T landline years ago and ported the number to the
T-Mobile@Home $10/mo. add-on to our cell-phone plan. When we switched to
a no-contract prepaid plan we couldn't keep T-Mobile@Home, so we bought
an Obihai VOIP adapter and ported the number to Google Voice. Now we
have another number (which we give only to family members) from
PhonePower ($5x.xx per year, IIRC), and the "public" Google Voice number
forwards to that. In the house we have six Panasonic cordless phones
that serve as an intercom system as well.

Perce

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 1:26:49 PM UTC-5, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 05/26/2015 01:39 PM, trader_4 wrote:

I forgot one thing, someday maybe, the telcos might go the way of cable,
etc. and have only digital coming to you house on the copper pair, like
DSL or Uverse.

IDK what you mean here. The Telcos have been offering DSL, which is
digital, for two decades. That era is winding down, for the most part
as they move to better technologies for most customers.
Yes I agree and what I mean is basically quit using regular analog
phones and put the phones on the digital on higher speed carrier along
with the computer data. Of course once could do this using things like
Skype, but is not the norm for most people.


The VOIP is already with the internet data. That's why it's
called VOIP. For example, you get high speed internet service
from your cable company. They give you a modem/router that has
a phone interface built into it. The conversion to digital
happens at the modem/router box. The VOIP traffic then goes out on
the same internet cable connection as your other internettraffic.

With that model established and so many good, cheap, cordless phones
out there, I don't see the compelling need for changing things
and doing the conversion to digital at the phone, as opposed to how
it's done now. You'd have to continue to support the phones looking
for an analog interface for decades too, so you'd have two differing
ways of doing it, for no big advantage that I can see.

We got rid of our AT&T landline years ago and ported the number to the
T-Mobile@Home $10/mo. add-on to our cell-phone plan. When we switched to
a no-contract prepaid plan we couldn't keep T-Mobile@Home, so we bought
an Obihai VOIP adapter and ported the number to Google Voice. Now we
have another number (which we give only to family members) from
PhonePower ($5x.xx per year, IIRC), and the "public" Google Voice number
forwards to that. In the house we have six Panasonic cordless phones
that serve as an intercom system as well.

Perce

I have two MagicJacks, one original USB only and one that works on the network too. I have 12/2mbs Internet service from the cable company and the voice quality for the MagicJacks is excellent. Since I'm not at home right now, I get my messages from the two MJ numbers via my Email. 8-)

[8~{} Uncle VoIP Monster

Ralph Mowery wrote:
wrote in message
...
i use TWC, and at 15 bucks a month, i love it

not sure about speed


I think they say it is 3 MB. I am almost ready to go to that as the next
speed up is over $ 50.

You can test what you have he
http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/su...peed-test.html





Are you distinguishing B and b? MB and Mb are two different measurement.
I have 50Mb down/3Mb up plan and no issues with all the devices
connected wired(Gbit), WiFi(-N and -AC modes) to it thru a router. No
stuttering in real time AV streaming always regardless time of the day.

On Tue, 26 May 2015 13:22:29 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:



Well, now I see a report that Charter may face the same regulatory
hurdles that Comcast faced when it tried to buy TWC. But Why? Where is
the competition that a takeover would kill? Hands up all those who
currently have a choice between TWC and Comcast or TWC and Charter?
Anybody? (OK, so municipalities -- at least in some areas -- get to
choose to which company they grant a franchise, but that's not the same.)


There are some overbuild areas here where the choice is Comcast or
Charter and Comcast or Wave/Astound/RCN/Name Of The Week. Historically
in overbuilds the two companies share the customer base right down the
middle. Often this means that the potential profits do not justify the
build unless one system is really really crappy and all the subs jump
to the new company.