Jump to content

Study shows you’re probably not getting the broadband speeds you’re paying for


Paynefanbro

Recommended Posts

My Comcast speed tier is 25/5. I generally get 16-22 down and 4-6 up. When it works. I get a lot of latency and it goes down at least once a day. With Sprint, I generally get 19-25 Mbps down and 5-6 up inside my house and up to about 33 Mbps down and 9 up outside in my yard. So far, my Sprint LTE has never gone down and always 100% reliable. It is really sad that I have to turn wifi off my phone just so I can have a reasonable internet experience at home. This speaks of the reliability on the part of Comcast and on the part of Sprint. If Sprint ever decided to get in on the wired fixed internet business, I would be first in line. I love their reliability and customer service.

 

I did read that ATT is bringing their gigabit speed fiber service to the Jacksonville market...I really hope that includes St Augustine.

 

 

Edit: Added a comparison between my Sprint LTE speed and my Comcast Xfinity "high speed" wifi speed.

 

Sprint tmp_Screenshot_2014-04-24-11-15-33-1132887326.png

Comcast tmp_Screenshot_2014-04-24-11-15-541059730614.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm really surprised by all these posts. I had no idea other parts of the country had such faster internet speeds. Here in the Lehigh Valley, PA, the two major cable providers are Service Electric and RCN. RCN offers three speeds, 25, 50, and 75 down. And Service Electric has a variety of options topping out maybe at 20 Mbps. The average cable package from SECTV comes with 7 mbps.

 

Other parts of the Valley have Blue Ridge Cable, and they have 1.5, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 50 Mbps. Most people that have DSL top out at 3 Mbps from Verizon. And a small section of the city of Allentown can get Fios.

 

I guess we're still behind the times! Especially since I can't get cable or DSL in my house.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comcast in chicago is our best ISP. I pay $60 for 25/5. I used to have that 50mbps package but downgraded as those are unnecessary speeds. I think people overestimate what they really need, and the isp's win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comcast in chicago is our best ISP. I pay $60 for 25/5. I used to have that 50mbps package but downgraded as those are unnecessary speeds. I think people overestimate what they really need, and the isp's win.

I take advantage of it for the upload speed. My 1+ GB YouTube videos upload pretty fast with 11 Megs upstream. I'll eventually downgrade it after I move out and after the promo ends. My parents alone couldn't possibly load up a connection like that.

 

It is nice to have a connection like that when you got many visitors over using wifi and watching videos and stuff. I never notice a hit in the connection speed at all! Back in the day on att DSL, my sister who is an editor for a very popular wearable camera company came to visit and had our 3/512 connection on its knees for two days uploading a single video. That event was one of the final straws breaking before deciding it was time to get with the times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would probably cry if I saw the stat for centurylink. I have written to my town and county leaders with the same nonsense response. I have contacted centurylink about when my area is going to get upgraded with no response. I do know that somebody has been running fiber in my area. I guess I need to do some digging to find out who.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am jealous of those whose upload options are higher 5mbps or higher. The best option i can get on upload is 2mbps. Whats the deal with suddenlink/northland having such low upload speeds compared to the rest of the country

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thankfully in a Verizon FiOS area, so my speeds are awesomely awesome and consistent. The sucky part is that Verizon has stopped expanding their network, and there are so many areas in NY which will never see it.

 

I HATE TWC, more than anything else in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thankfully in a Verizon FiOS area, so my speeds are awesomely awesome and consistent. The sucky part is that Verizon has stopped expanding their network, and there are so many areas in NY which will never see it.

 

I HATE TWC, more than anything else in the world.

Verizon is not done expanding in NYC. They signed a 12 year contract to build out FiOS to every neighborhood in NYC. That was done in 2008. Verizon built out FiOS to SoHo and parts of Upper Manhattan last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verizon is not done expanding in NYC. They signed a 12 year contract to build out FiOS to every neighborhood in NYC. That was done in 2008. Verizon built out FiOS to SoHo and parts of Upper Manhattan last year.

 

Yes, but what constitutes expansion? If a building is wired only for TWC, will they bring fiber there?

 

That's the problem I see here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but what constitutes expansion? If a building is wired only for TWC, will they bring fiber there?

 

That's the problem I see here.

That's exactly what they did at my friend's home. They never had fiber from Verizon in the neighborhood. He always complained about his TWC internet but he kept seeing Verizon trucks in his neighborhood. A few months later they set up a booth demoing FiOS in his neighborhood and he was able to switch to FiOS in his home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Charter subscriber and pay for 30Mbps down/4Mbps up. I just got this:

3466299642.png

 

(I've had bursts up to 45Mbps in the past - I think one of the kids is streaming Netflix now)

 

I have a friend who works at Charter, and was told to expect a free 100Mbps upgrade to the service in late June. All I need to do is get one of those SecureFi Almond+ routers.... if they'd ever release them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get a consistent 22/3.5 on Windstream, paying for 24/4. I don't mind the slight speed drop because the latency is amazing (usually sub-15ms). We previously could only get 3/768k, 6/768k, or 12/768k. Now Windstream does FTTN and VDSL2 last mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...