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.

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.

"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

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 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.

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

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 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 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 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.