How was your friend able to get 12mbps? The AT&T person that offered me U-verse said the top speed available was only 6mbps, which isn’t really an upgrade to what I’m getting at Time Warner, so I passed. The U-verse website also list 6mbps as the top speed available, which kinda sucks compared to what Verizon is offering in other cities.
as much as JeopardE loves his Uverse, its internet capabilities blow compared to Verizon FIOS (I checked into both) I will be getting FIOS for both my lines when it becomes available. he is wrong it does not offer 12M like I said...I Checked into both options, and UVerse doesnt souind *that* good. since I have no problems with my TW cable TV worth talking about, Ill stick with them and use FIOS for my internet (at MUCH faster than 6 or even 12M)
Well my friends if you hate TWC...have no fear. You are actually watching Time Warner begin serviced by Comcast and Comcast employees. Comcast will be rolled out offically probably in April...so you only have a little while of TWC broadcasting. Channels will change a bit..I know we are getting the NFL Network which is awesome. We are losing NBATV also. I find it funny that when you call the number, it still says Time Warner, but the person answering it is a Comcast employee.
We'll probably end up with more Oxygen, Lifetime, and DIY type channels. I think there will be a "Trading Spaces" channel also...ARRHHHHHHH!!!!
Losing NBATV??? Dayum!!! I hope we will atleast keep getting HD games on INHD during the week. But I would love some NFL Network action.
I'll cross check with him, but I recall the bandwidth he said he was getting was *significantly* higher than cable. But what I'm looking forward to in U-verse isn't even so much the bandwidth as the vastly improved TV programming. I mean, he's going to be paying like $120/mo or less and he's getting pretty much everything.
Does anyone have AT&T's Uverse? Thinking about switching due to TWC's "price increases" every month. Cannot get Dish or Direct TV due to trees blocking the signal.
OK...I talked to him again. He's getting 6mbps, but reportedly later this year they'll be moving to VDSL2 which will deliver around 20. It's still a much better package deal than TW.
another factor that could be, if he had the lowest service level of cable, and a higher than standard level of DSL, it *could* be significantly higher. but going off rated speeds of both RR and SBC's DSL (with both at comparable services levels) RR is significantly faster on both sides. my standard RR residential line is 6M download with 384k upload (last time I checked, I keep hearing about faster downloads, but havent done a speed test in a while) the SBC DSL we had at our other location was more like 1.5-2M download and 128k upload. cable is more expensive, but for someone like me who NEEDS the fastest possible affordable line...cable is the clearcut winner until the fiber optic (FIOS) becomes available.
possilby for a regular ol consumer....of which Im not, I have specialized needs which do not include a large HD package or sports package or movie channels. for extended digital cable with a cablecard, one box and one HDDVR and only one premium(which Im about to drop since no one watches it) PLUS residential RR(earthlink) is right at 100-110. I dont quite see it as a MUCH BETTER package honestly...my internet speed is what really matters to me, and if I have to pay a few bucks more for the fastest available internet solution, then so be it.
FWIW, I currently use Oplink DSL. I get a tad over 2.5mbps down actual speed -- downloads consistently in excess of 300kB/s. Their service is so much better than SBC/AT&T's. The fact that they eliminate PPPoE directly translates to extra bandwidth and much lower latencies (generally better than cable). And they do offer a 6mbps service for $45/month. Only reason why I don't have that is that I pay for a static IP which to me is more important than the extra speed.
How is the connectivity between 5-10 pm? My RR connection is guaranteed to be down 30 minutes each night. Actually thinking about getting the cheapest DSL available just to have a backup (for week nights and for when TWC/CC accidentially disconnect my services).
so the rates are comparable, thats good. Ive never had great experiences from SBC/ATT so it shouldnt surprise me their service is poor for DSL. I hear ya on the static, thats what I have on the TW biz line (which is the forreal ripoff)...I get slower download speed(2M), higher upload speed(1M) and its over 250/month....but its static, adn it has only gone down on me once(for about an hour) god I cant wait till fiber gets here.
week old news but ... April 3, 2007, 2:35PM Earthlink wireless contract on city agenda By ALEXIS GRANT Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle The City Council on Wednesday is expected to consider a $2.5 million contract with EarthLink Inc. that would allow the company to build the city's wireless network and agree to be its "anchor tenant" for the first five years of the project. While the agreement allows Mayor Bill White to keep his promise of not using taxpayer money to build the network, the city would be required to pay the company at least $500,000 annually for five years to use the service. The contract, obtained by the Chronicle on Monday, details the standards EarthLink is expected to meet, as well as how the city plans to test the network and hold EarthLink accountable. "The mayor wanted to have a real tight agreement, and I think that's pretty much what we ended up with," said Richard Lewis, the city's director of information technology. Two-year buildout Under the contract, EarthLink must provide outdoor coverage to 95 percent of the city's 640 square miles and indoor service to 90 percent of the residential and commercial buildings in that area. The company is expected to invest nearly $50 million in the two-year buildout. Access to the network would allow city and emergency workers to complete jobs in the field using wireless devices. Certain inspectors already work out-of-office, but applications on the wireless network would expand the possibilities, making city government more efficient and effective, Lewis said. City officials had initially hoped network access would be free for city government. But once discussions were under way, it became clear that wasn't feasible, Lewis said. "What we came to understand was that the players in this field really need the city government to be an anchor tenant for network use," he said. "That way they can finance the project." 'Hidden cost' But some locals are critical of that decision, saying it's an indirect way of putting taxpayer money into the project. "There's a hidden cost," said Barry Klein, president of the Houston Property Rights Association. It's not prudent to invest in the project without first seeing whether it works, he added. The city will get some money back from the deal: $1,200 a month for each rooftop where EarthLink installs its transmitters, plus 3 percent of subscriber revenue starting in the third year. And if EarthLink defaults on the agreement to build the network, it would owe the city up to $5 million. Municipal wireless experts said the contract appears to cover all the bases. "It looks fair," said Esme Vos, founder of MuniWireless.com, which follows projects in various cities. "There's something for both sides." Craig Settles, a consultant not affiliated with this project, said the city was smart to agree to serve as EarthLink's main customer because that helps ensure the company's success, which in turn benefits all city residents. "They seem to have avoided the kinds of things that have plagued other cities and their projects," Settles said, adding that EarthLink's proposed rates for Houston city government are decent discounts. Provider choices City workers would test the network, indoors and outdoors, as each of six work phases are completed, to determine whether the project meets certain expectations. Indoor users likely would need a device that strengthens the signal, and EarthLink isn't required to provide service above the second floor of each building. The agreement does not prohibit other companies from building similar networks within city limits, though it's unlikely one would be able to compete with EarthLink's deal. It also allows other Internet service providers to access EarthLink's network so subscribers have choices of providers. The contract sets a wholesale rate, the fee EarthLink would charge to other subscribers, of $12 per month. The company has said it plans to charge about $22 per month for its residential users. EarthLink would provide 40,000 low-income accounts for about $10 a month, though the details of that program are still being worked out by the city's digital inclusion team. The company also would be required to provide free access in libraries, parks and other public spaces equal to 5 percent of the coverage area. alexis.grant@chron.com
I edited the date into above article to make you look foolish I suspect that the contract negotiation between Earthlink and the City of Houston have taken placed over many months, with spurious press releases along the way. My interest inposting was the targeted cost of the service which is $22/month at the high end. PeoplePC may be at the low end closer to $14/month. The days I pay $45/month for Earthlink over RR cable are numbered.
