backtop


Print 68 comment(s) - last by dailyjohn.. on Nov 24 at 7:18 PM

I hate my ISP a lot more today

Google announced back in 2010 it was seeking communities to participate in an experiment involving insanely fast fiber-optic broadband. The plan was called Google Fiber and ultimately Kansas City was chosen. The first homes and businesses with Google Fiber had their 1 Gbps service turned on yesterday.

However, anytime we see internet providers offer theoretical peak speeds, we usually take them with a huge grain of salt. However, it looks like Google Fiber is actually incredibly fast in the real world.
 
A Google Fiber user named Mike Demarais ran a speed test only minutes after his service went live according to ArsTechnica. He achieved 696.38 Mbps download and an impressive 620.49 Mbps upload.

"The first thing I did was BitTorrent Ubuntu," Demarais said. "I think that took two minutes, let me try it again right now."

The home where Demarais accesses these incredibly fast internet speeds is operated by Homes for Hackers, and is owned by Ben Barreth. Entrepreneurs can live in the house rent and utility free for three months at a time, only needing to pay for their own groceries.
 
Homes for Hackers is billed as an attempt to kick start high-tech businesses within the city.

Google offers a few different plans for customers. For $120/month you get Gigabit internet (up/down), HDTV service, a Nexus 7 tablet, and 1 TV box. If all you need is gigabit internet, that will only run you $70/month. Google is even offering a "free" internet service (guaranteed for at least 7 years) that provides 5Mb down/1Mb up. However, customers have to pay the $300 "construction fee" that is waived on the two paid packages.
 
There are no data caps on any of Google's packages (including the "free" one).

Source: ArsTechnica



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Um?
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/14/12, Rating: 0
RE: Um?
By Camikazi on 11/14/2012 10:04:28 AM , Rating: 5
BT has a ramp up time (as it connects and starts downloading from seeders) and depending on how many seeders you can get and what they set their upload speed it you might not max out a connection that fast.


RE: Um?
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/14/2012 10:21:49 AM , Rating: 2
That's what I was thinking. If he downloaded it directly from the website, it wouldn't have taken that long.


RE: Um?
By inighthawki on 11/14/2012 2:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
I sincerely doubt Ubuntu's download servers will upload to any single person at a rate of 1Gbps.


RE: Um?
By GulWestfale on 11/14/2012 4:10:58 PM , Rating: 3
you can only DL as quickly as the server is handing it to you... also, i think OP is confusing bits with bytes, as a ubuntu CD is 650MB, not Mb.

whatever his ubuntu DL speed was, i now want to move to kansas. i'm paying $70/month here in quebec for 30/10, and i have a 130GB data cap.


RE: Um?
By Xplorer4x4 on 11/14/2012 10:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
Depends if you are grabbing 12.04 LTS or 12.10. 12.10 is 763 MB. The Kubuntu 12.10 images are a little bit bigger, but the main thing I am pointing out is *buntu is moving away from CD image to DVD images. Trivial but just throwing that out there.


RE: Um?
By jtemplin on 11/15/2012 11:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
"you can only DL as quickly as the server is handing it to you"

Not sure how this is an appropriate response to a commenter who expresses doubt in the notion that there is a 1:1 correspondence between one's maximum quoted bandwidth and a given host's upload bandwidth.

Achieving the max can be achieved thru multiple smaller streams, but may be difficult to find a single provider of reliable (not burst) ~.7 Gb/s upload rate. Based on my experiences using "uber" connections, many (most?) servers throttle their maximum per client bandwidth allotment, as the max was never attainable at a single place. Highest speeds were usually well-ramped-up BT downloads.

im definitely packing for KC right now


RE: Um?
By kattanna on 11/14/2012 10:23:05 AM , Rating: 2
yep. with really fast connections you start to see where the bottlenecks are.


RE: Um?
By martyrant on 11/14/2012 5:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
He should have tested a newsgroup server, obviously. Who the hell tests bandwidth with a BT?


RE: Um?
By BZDTemp on 11/15/2012 5:30:47 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe someone interested in a real world scenario relevant to his own needs :-)

Regardless - the speed measured is far beyond what is available to most of us unless we start paying substantially more than what Google charges. Speeds like this could really make a difference.


RE: Um?
By ksenter on 11/14/2012 10:18:14 AM , Rating: 2
Good point. It should have taken less than 10 seconds.

I wonder where the speed test went to. I imagine the bottleneck is going to be the speed of other people's connections and the routers between you and them.

Unless you're downloading from someone else in Kansas City, who is also on Google Fiber, you're probably not going to hit anywhere near the advertised speeds. But you'd think a torrent with a bunch of seeds would have been faster than the speed he reported. If it took 2 minutes to download 650MB that's only 5.41MB/s or 43.3Mbit/s average. That's still way faster than my ISP, but way under what I'd expect for a popular torrent. Maybe Ubuntu isn't as popular as I would think, or maybe everyone seeding has a low cap on their upload speed.

I'd like to see some more test results. Of course I'd rather have Google's fiber so I could run tests myself. :)


RE: Um?
By lord_beavis on 11/14/2012 1:48:43 PM , Rating: 3
650 MB (Mega Bytes) at 700 Mb (Mega bits) per second. You do the math. Again.


RE: Um?
By ChronoReverse on 11/14/2012 1:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
So about 8 seconds? That's still much less than 2 minutes.

But BT takes a while to spool up. 2 minutes doesn't seem that bad.


RE: Um?
By Ammohunt on 11/14/2012 2:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
Mega Bytes and Mega bits are not the same. 700mbps is 87.5Mbps so 2 minutes is about right.


RE: Um?
By NellyFromMA on 11/14/2012 2:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
That would be 10 seconds or less then roughly. If they were mistaking magebits for megabytes, it should have downloaded instantly.


RE: Um?
By NellyFromMA on 11/14/2012 2:11:28 PM , Rating: 3
errr, please never mistake magebits for anything. *megabits*


RE: Um?
By Ammohunt on 11/14/2012 2:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
You're right maybe is wad a 4GB DVD iso?


RE: Um?
By Prime2515103 on 11/14/2012 2:10:41 PM , Rating: 4
Do you mean 700Mbps is 87.5MBps?


RE: Um?
By Ammohunt on 11/14/2012 2:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks its the damn b's


RE: Um?
By EricMartello on 11/14/2012 3:26:19 PM , Rating: 5
I think that a lot of people here are ignoring some important factors about these high speeds - it's that your device itself will become the bottleneck.

Let's transpose the Mbps into MB/s:

100 Mbps = 12 MB/s
200 Mbps = 25 MB/s
400 Mbps = 50 MB/s
600 Mbps = 75 MB/s
1.0 Gbps = 125 MB/s

When you're talking about megabytes per second (MB/s) you can see that the sequential transfer rate of your device becomes more important.

If you are not using a decent SSD, i.e. one that has a high sustained sequential write speed (a lot of cheaper ones don't) then you are not going to be able to utilize that bandwidth effectively. A lot of people are using laptops and smartphones these days rather than desktop PCs so this is mainly going to affect them.

For people running a laptop with a standard mechanical drive you are probably not going to see much more than 200 Mbps regardless of what the bandwidth is because your computer cannot actually accept data at a faster rate than its storage media.

You will be able to get short bursts at full speed thanks to memory buffers, which means there is some benefit when it comes to streaming media which can exist entirely in the buffer, but beyond that you'd need a system.

Would be great to see this kind of connectivity deployed nationally...I think Verizon has a head start since FiOS is a dedicated fiber line for each customer...and their infrastructure could support these types of speeds.


RE: Um?
By FITCamaro on 11/15/2012 7:33:52 AM , Rating: 2
Even 7200 rpm SATA hard drives can handle 30MB/s write speeds. So up to 200 Mbps you're good. But yeah at 600 Mbps you're definitely gonna need a SSD, Velociraptor, or RAID.


RE: Um?
By SlyNine on 11/15/2012 3:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Harddrives are closer to 100MB write... My old Seagate 1.5TB can almost fully saturate our 1Gbps Ethernet.


RE: Um?
By SlyNine on 11/19/2012 4:40:48 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong, drives are rated in MB/s. your standard notebook drive is closer to 75MB/s or 600 mbps.


RE: Um?
By SlyNine on 11/19/2012 4:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
Just to prove my point. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5042/seagates-new-ba...

Notice. its 145MB/s for sequential performance. not 145mbps. Thats 1160 mbps. why did you guys think HDD speads were measured in bits??


RE: Um?
By EricMartello on 11/19/2012 3:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong, drives are rated in MB/s. your standard notebook drive is closer to 75MB/s or 600 mbps.


Was this ever disputed in my comment? In fact, that is why I posted Mbps with the MB/s equivalent beside them.

Yes, there are 2.5" mechanical drives that can hit 75 MB/s or better max transfer rates in synthetic benchmarks...but are these "standard" in most consumer laptops? That is an unverifiable blanket statement and it is also not the point.

The point is that there are a large amount of mobile devices out there which cannot sustain such high transfer rates and my comment simply brings that fact to attention. If your download speed exceeds the sequential data rate of your device's storage media, the media will become a bottleneck.

quote:

Just to prove my point.

Notice. its 145MB/s for sequential performance. not 145mbps. Thats 1160 mbps. why did you guys think HDD speads were measured in bits??


What point? You arbitrarily claim that standard laptop hard drives can sustain sequential read/writes of 75 MB/s then link to a review of a 3.5" desktop hard drive rather than a 2.5" laptop drive.

Why did you think anyone here was discussing the units for measuring drive speed when we were actually talking about network transfer speed being bottle-necked by slow storage media?


RE: Um?
By SlyNine on 11/20/2012 9:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
"For people running a laptop with a standard mechanical drive you are probably not going to see much more than 200 Mbps regardless of what the bandwidth is because your computer cannot actually accept data at a faster rate than its storage media."

Synthetic benchmarks have NOTHING to do with it. Notebook harddrives can easily hit 40-60, even the slow ones. So that's 320-480. A decent notebook drive could go well beyond that.


RE: Um?
By EricMartello on 11/23/2012 1:49:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm saying that the storage isn't the bottle neck. How is that not obvious? I'm also saying that your argument of 200mbps is invalid, because 200mbps is 25MB/s. Almost any harddrive can hit that in a sequential write. This has NOTHING to do with synthetic and everything to do with whether its a random write or not. Downloads are sequential mostly.


And what you're saying is incorrect since you're presenting it as an absolute, while simultaneously demonstrating a general ignorance on this topic. You're original comment was false and your followup is even more erroneous. I've already indicated that downloads are primarily sequential transfers - not sure why you felt the need to repeat that.

Synthetic benchmarks, which you are basing your claims upon, do not necessarily mirror actual "real world" performance. A mechanical hard drive may be able to score big numbers in a benchmark simply because a large portion of the test occurs within the drive's onboard cache. You're seeing the effects of burst transfers elevating the average measured transfer speed of the drive due to the predictable, repetitive nature of the benchmark I/O.

"Many" laptops shipped with budget hard drives that peak around 40-50 MB/s in benchmarks for sequential writes. 30 MB/s as a real world average for 4200-5400 RPM laptop drives is not inaccurate.

The 2.5" Scorpio Black I have benches at over 100 MB/s for sequential writes but copying to or from that laptop over a gigabit network does not result in sustained speeds at 100 MB/s...in fact, aside from the benchmarks I do not see much more than 75 MB/s in any real world applications including something basic like file copying. This experience is consistent with all mechanical drives that I've owned.

quote:
Synthetic benchmarks have NOTHING to do with it. Notebook harddrives can easily hit 40-60, even the slow ones. So that's 320-480. A decent notebook drive could go well beyond that.


No, not really. The slow drives are peaking around 35-40 MB/s on a good day. Google is offering 1 Gbps internet. That's 1,000 Mbps or 125 MB/s. A typical FAST notebook hard drive like the WD Scorpio Black can sustain around 75 MB/s which is a little more than half of that, and that drive was not standard fare on the typical $499 laptop that consumers tend to spring for.

I never said that everyone with a mobile device is going to have a problem - but I did say that with 1 Gbps network bandwidth, the throughput of your storage media can potentially become a bottleneck and that is entirely accurate.


RE: Um?
By SlyNine on 11/20/2012 9:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
"Why did you think anyone here was discussing the units for measuring drive speed when we were actually talking about network transfer speed being bottle-necked by slow storage media?"

I'm saying that the storage isn't the bottle neck. How is that not obvious? I'm also saying that your argument of 200mbps is invalid, because 200mbps is 25MB/s. Almost any harddrive can hit that in a sequential write. This has NOTHING to do with synthetic and everything to do with whether its a random write or not. Downloads are sequential mostly.


RE: Um?
By Jeffk464 on 11/15/2012 6:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
You know what this means? That's right streamed 4K porn.


Google
By Argon18 on 11/14/2012 12:49:37 PM , Rating: 5
Fast internet is a great thing, but the "who" in this case is terrifying to me. Who being Google. This internet is "free" in the same way that Gmail and the other Google consumer services are "free".

They are zero dollar cost to the consumer, but you have to literally sign away all your rights and freedoms, while simultaneously granting them unlimited access to all your data now and forever. Make no mistake, this "free" Google internet will have terms of service that allow them to track and monitor your every online move , archiving Terabytes of data about you. Not anonymous data either, but data that is tied to you personally.

Imagine your local police department being able to ask for a search warrant, and without ever entering your home, they can get your entire life's history of internet usage. Every email you've sent and received, every web page you've read, every file you've downloaded -- absolutely everything, all neatly packaged up and handed to them by Google.

Know what's even more scary? Current US laws allow for police to request ALL electronic communications to/from you that are older than 6 months, without a warrant!

Scary stuff for anyone who values their privacy.




RE: Google
By Argon18 on 11/14/2012 12:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
And sure, they can request such things from your current "traditional" ISP right now, but most ISP's today like phone and cable companies don't have the means to archive Petabytes of data, and the clever software tools to tie it all together and track it with massive databases. Most ISP's today are just a pipe, with only rudimentary IP logging. Google is a very different animal....


RE: Google
By NellyFromMA on 11/14/2012 2:09:34 PM , Rating: 3
You're going to by lynched for suggesting this up here, so I applaud your bringing it up even more so.

Yes ISPs can and do log at least this level of information, and scarily have been federally protected from privacy suits for what feels like over a decade, but they cannot use that information for marketing nor sell it to others, only national security.

What other companies, most notably Google, did in noticing this was decided they too would start amassing that information, except they were going to use it for commercial ad profits.

Google search definitely brought the internet a few steps forward similar to how Microsoft did the same with Windows coming from DOS.

I'm not much in favor of their overall business practices in the passed 5 years nor am I thrilled with society cumulative shrug off of their right to privacy.

It's alarming something so valuable and entrenched in many of the aspects of our constitution's founding are dismissed by so many today.


RE: Google
By jRaskell on 11/14/2012 1:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Make no mistake, this "free" Google internet will have terms of service that allow them to track and monitor your every online move


And you have access to these terms of service that clearly sign away all your rights and freedoms? If so, by all means post them for everyone else to see.


RE: Google
By NellyFromMA on 11/14/2012 1:59:03 PM , Rating: 3
You may not have heard, but Google profits from EVERY SERVICE IT PROVIDES with effectively the same usage model: gather broad usage information per user, associate info with gmail or other google acct, attempt to funnel you into different market demographics, then leverage Google Ads to the max.

So, obviously the will be similar. Not one of Google's ventures operates otherwise. Part of being a public company driven off of the ads only business model I'm afraid.

No need to nay say, its just common sense deduction based on the reality of how they operate today.


RE: Google
By glenco on 11/15/2012 1:00:14 AM , Rating: 3
this IS Google we are talking about, maybe you haven't heard of them. of course they are in it for the data.


RE: Google
By Ammohunt on 11/14/2012 2:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
if you are that paranoid buy a server hosted on the internet and setup a point to point ipsec tunnel and browse from the hosted server network. Even google can't snoop an encrypted tunnel.


RE: Google
By vectorm12 on 11/14/2012 2:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
Just use TOR and get over it if you're that paranoid about corporations and the Gov spying on you.

If I was hooked up to Google Fibre the first thing I'd do would be to setup a tor-bridge.


RE: Google
By bsd228 on 11/14/2012 2:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
> They are zero dollar cost to the consumer, but you have to literally sign away all your rights and freedoms, while simultaneously granting them unlimited access to all your data now and forever. Make no mistake, this "free" Google internet will have terms of service that allow them to track and monitor your every online move , archiving Terabytes of data about you. Not anonymous data either, but data that is tied to you personally.

Welcome to 2001! Yahoo teamed up with the Bells to offer $15 DSL service in a time when it was generally 30-40 and up. But...they data mined your activity.


RE: Google
By Captain Orgazmo on 11/14/2012 3:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
Paranoid a bit? I don't doubt that Google is profiting at least in some way by offering free internet service, but why else would they offer it? And to say that you would have to
quote:
literally sign away all your rights and freedoms, while simultaneously granting them unlimited access to all your data now and forever
is such insane hyperbole, it needs no counter argument.

You don't have to sign anything, just don't use their service. If you are afraid of being monitored, worry about reasons other than profit. The NSA is already hooked into all the internet backbones, and there is no guarantee that tyranny will never come to the west, so if you think you are at risk using Google, you should be just as diligent with your current service.


RE: Google
By inperfectdarkness on 11/15/2012 2:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
good luck! at 700Mbps, i'm also behind 7 proxies. ;)


By jeffbui on 11/14/2012 12:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
I can't begin to describe how frustrating these unethical cable companies are. My business bill for 1mb/3mb service was bumped from $60 a month to $80 a month right in Los Angeles. I called and complained and they lowered it back to $60 by applying a promotional discount. I just called to cancel service yesterday and they said they told me they renewed me for 3 years at that price.

What's the early termination fee you ask? The remainder of the contract service cost... So I have two years left, that comes out to $1440.00. FML




By Argon18 on 11/14/2012 12:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
Are they allowed to renew your contract without your consent? I doubt it. Especially in California, the state infamous for its crushing mountain of consumer laws. If you really want out, I'd call an attorney and have them send a cease and desist letter to your cable company.


By nocturne on 11/14/2012 5:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
Just a funny note.. how are you expecting to hire an attorney in CA for less than the $1440 termination fee?

Of course, you can just refuse to pay.. just ask them to provide any paperwork where you signed up for extending your contract. They'll keep at you, then just request a supervisor. Keep saying you refuse to pay (never mention an attorney -- best result is getting hung up on) and don't back down, ultimately asking who you can register a complaint with. Typically they are required by law to give you the contact info of a state commission regarding complaints against utility companies (way it is here in OH, so can't imagine CA is any less progressive). Contact an advocate, lodge a complaint.. wait 6 months for the whole thing just to be dropped.


By MadMan007 on 11/14/2012 1:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
Is it not like cell phones where if they change the service contract by changing prices, you can get out with no ETF?


By marvdmartian on 11/14/2012 3:02:13 PM , Rating: 2
I simply hope that this terrifies the high speed internet providers in this country. They've been riding the gravy train for too long, without enough competition (oftentimes, splitting up the pie between themselves, divvying up the country into markets that they have ZERO competition), and enjoying it immensely, while screwing over the customers with high fees and mediocre services.


Typo
By inteli722 on 11/14/2012 10:10:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For $120/month you get Gigabit internet (up/down), HDTV service, a Nexus 7 tablet, and 1 TV box for $120/month.


Methinks there is some editing to be done...

Anyways....WOW. That internet would be amazing! That kind of download speeds would be a huge step up from the 2 MB/s I get now...




RE: Typo
By MadMan007 on 11/14/2012 1:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a typo, although to make the correct comparison your 2MB/s service is 16Mb/s...the Google service is 1000Mb/s, still insanely faster.


RE: Typo
By inteli722 on 11/16/2012 1:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
It actually is a typo. $120/month is mentioned twice.


RE: Typo
By jtemplin on 11/16/2012 2:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
You were a little ambiguous. He probably thought you meant the dollar value was incorrect, you were just pointing out the poorly edited sentence.

Its kind of annoying when people assume nobody can convert megabits and -bytes (except for them, o keeper of knowledge), as seems to be happening all across this comment section.

Your point was that going from 2 MB/s (16mbps, as you know) to 1gbps would be a massive increase. Then this guy decides to try and lecture you on the conversion as if you didn't realize 2 MB/s is way less than 1gbps, which you DID understand. Why else would you have stated it would be a massive upgrade for your connection...


Wow
By th3pwn3r on 11/14/2012 9:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
I guess we can count on Google to come through for us. However, now we'll suffer from and notice other bottlenecks.

Quite a few typos in the article by the way -_-




RE: Wow
By Stuka on 11/14/2012 11:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
You are correct. From where I sit, almost all of "my internet" is held up by the source, not by my connection. Downloading iTunes is pretty much the only thing I can count on to go full speed almost always. Everything else is sluggish, drivers from Nvidia or Asus, Steam, pr0n, all of it is held up by the other end.


By nafhan on 11/14/2012 9:40:18 AM , Rating: 3
I've got the bottom of the line FiOS internet package, and I'm paying about $50 a month for it. I very rarely hit situations where my connection speed is a limiting factor. I've never had an outage over the course of a few years, either. In short, quite happy with it.

What I'm not happy with is Verizon's corporate practices. Thanks to their collusion with cable companies (V got some wireless spectrum, local cable monopolies got an agreement from Verizon to stop rolling out fiber/competing) there's a very good chance that if I move, I will no longer be able to get the quality of internet service that I'm used to. That's frustrating.




I'M.......
By msheredy on 11/14/2012 11:25:35 AM , Rating: 2
...Jealous




Advancement
By Twistedbro5 on 11/14/2012 12:00:02 PM , Rating: 2
If Google goes the right way with this, they could make a very pretty profit and change the way internet is handled for the rest of this country. I would love to see the day i have a chance to try their Fiber. The technology to be improved by this doesn't stop at Google, it will improve small businesses that use the internet for a profit and myself even. I could do so much more so much quicker OMG I WANT IT NOWZ!




I
By wwwcd on 11/14/2012 12:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2307504718.png
for ~$16 per month to all servers in Bulgaria. GbE I have only inside in to my provider network.




Yay
By dsquare86 on 11/15/2012 6:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
Super fast pron downloads!!!




good article on google
By dailyjohn on 11/24/2012 7:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
There is a article in phdguy website http://www.phdguy.com about future of web 10.0 and death of google.




Data caps?
By carage on 11/14/12, Rating: -1
RE: Data caps?
By MarkLuvsCS on 11/14/2012 9:37:46 AM , Rating: 5
"Up to one gigabit upload & download • No data caps • 1 year contract • $300 waived construction fee
Network Box included • 1TB Google Drive • $70/mo + taxes & fees" taken from Google's Fiber website.

Google isn't like your ISPs that are too greedy to reinvest into their infrastructure. Google sees data caps as archaic and bad for business. Their idea behind Google Fiber is to prove it can be cost effectively to promote newer ways of technology to be used for Everyman.


RE: Data caps?
By KCjoker on 11/14/2012 6:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
ISP's too greedy to reinvest? Google isn't risking anything because they REQUIRE a certain number of people in your area to sign up. That's not Google investing because they aren't running infrastructure anywhere they don't have a guarenteed return.


RE: Data caps?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/14/2012 9:51:32 AM , Rating: 3
No data caps on the paid plans, and their "free" service is 5Mb down/1Mb up with no caps. Hell, I'd even take that. My home internet is 10/1 and I pay out that a$$ for it :(

Damn you Time Warner and your cable monopolies in my area!!


RE: Data caps?
By KC7SWH on 11/14/2012 9:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
So I should be happy with my 20/20 connection for $54.00 a month? :)


RE: Data caps?
By g35fan on 11/14/2012 10:03:44 AM , Rating: 2
For real. TWC and others better take this as a wake up call. The worst is when your 1yr bundle package expires and your bill goes from $89+taxes to $155+taxes. If you drop the phone and haggle you are lucky to get it down to $120/month...

I would say that overall TWC's quality of service is high however.


RE: Data caps?
By BillyBatson on 11/14/2012 11:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
TWC's quality of service high?? You must be high on something. TWC is not rated high on anything not their customer service and not their cable or Internet service. We had been with the "same" cable provider for 22 years which is currently TWC and before that was @home, Adelphia, and not sure what it was before that. They have always had poor customer service, old technology, and not the greatest TV quality. 7 months ago we cancelled and switched everything to AT&T Uverse and everything about the service is superior to what TWC provided us for quite a bit less a month. Sure I would rather have google fiber first and Verizon fios 2nd but any of these services are better than TWC in every way.


RE: Data caps?
By Twistedbro5 on 11/14/2012 11:52:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Text They have always had poor customer service, old technology, and not the greatest TV quality. 7 months ago we cancelled and switched everything to AT&T Uverse and everything about the service is superior to what TWC provided us for quite a bit less a month.
Indeed I have also tried TWC compared with AT&T and many others. AT&T's "Box" or port for my area is like 50 feet away from my apartment so DL is usually around 2-10MBps. Compared with TWC's 1-5. This is at a 18MBps cap with 4 computers in the place. TWC is low quality unless you happen to catch a good "spot".


RE: Data caps?
By dgingerich on 11/14/2012 12:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Damn you Time Warner and your cable monopolies in my area!!


I know what you're saying, bud. Here in Denver, I have either Comcast @$60/month for 20Mb/768k or Century Link at 5Mb/1Mb @$40/month, and neither are very reliable or manage traffic very well. I have Comcast, and on evenings, I get maybe 4Mb with periods of 250ms latency and spikes up to 3000ms latency. It makes gaming and downloads annoying at times. Watching Hulu or Netflix means periodically pausing it to let the buffer fill up so I can keep watching. If Google came to town, I'd snatch that up no matter the cost. Neither Comcast nor Century Link are worth spending money on, but I don't have any other choices.


RE: Data caps?
By ComputerJuice on 11/14/2012 2:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
Out here we pay $170 for 35down / 7up. The only other option is 7down / 768k up for $50.

Would be nice to not be at the mercy of Comcast / Centurylink.


RE: Data caps?
By ComputerJuice on 11/14/2012 2:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
Oh wait... we do have 1 other option: business class top tier = 50down / 10up for the low low price of $1300 per month.


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki