reply to kd6cae
Re: TWC should at least offer more speed
What will it take for TWC to actually give customers more? Even AT&T is able to get me a 24/3 connection. I was very turned off by Time Warner's "surgical" approach to upgrades in the LA area, and I'm not sorry I dumped them. AT&T may also be taking the cheapest route with their VDSL upgrade strategy, but at least I can appreciate that they're trying to innovate. The U-verse TV product has some flaws, but it's got a lot of potential. It would be amazing with just a bit more bandwidth.
Time Warner in my area is still shoveling buggy DVR software that Comcast delivered in 2003 on DVRs with 160gb of space. TW seems very content with being as mediocre as possible. Now they're going to hold DOCSIS 3 over our heads as a bargaining chip for caps? REALLY? Pathetic.
If Time Warner is so cash starved, why has Comcast been able to upgrade their customers without the ridiculously low caps and without all the whining from their CEO?
Your funeral. Delivered.
AT&T does the same type of "surgical" upgrades. I can throw a stone at houses that have U-Verse. They are beyond 20,000ft from the CO just like me. Unfortunately, the two subdivisions were built 10 years apart and they didn't exist when my subdivision existed. AT&T must have installed remote terminals in their subdivision but ignored mine. It's now been two years since they announced U-Verse in my area and nothing has been done to bring U-Verse to my subdivision.
Finally Clear is offering service in St. Louis. For the first time in 11 years, I actually have a competitive choice for HSI. $40/month for 6/1 service (slow compared to Charter's 8/1 with speed boost) but it's cheaper. Charter charges $49/month, Clear is $40/month.
By this time I would have thought AT&T would be more of a competitor to Charter in my area. They've done nothing in all that time.