3 ms·

Kansas City resident here. Based on the amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth surrounding Google's initially small fiber roll-out, I would say that demand is

Kansas City resident here. Based on the amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth surrounding Google's initially small fiber roll-out, I would say that demand is, in fact, there. That said, by being a virtual monopoly in many of their markets, Time Warner's management might live in some sort of echo chamber. They very well might not recognize "demand" if it was staring them in the face. I'd also argue that the limited consumption of Time Warner's higher-speed offerings might have more to do with their overall QoS than lack of demand. How many people would buy a $50 steak at McDonald's, given their experience with McDonald's $5 hamburgers?

chimeracoder 14y ago
> That said, by being a virtual monopoly in many of their markets, Time Warner's Not virtual. Actual. I, like 80% of the US, have no choice in my cable/Internet provider. > I'd also argue that the limited consumption of Time Warner's higher-speed offerings might have more to do with their overall QoS than lack of demand. When you choose the speed for your Internet package on Time Warner, you're literally choosing how much you want to donate to them each month in exchange for whatever speed they feel like giving you. In fact, when you go log into your account online, they make it almost impossible to see what speed you're paying for (and they certainly don't tell you in your bill). Amusingly, they also implement DNS-based throttling, as my roommate and I found out one evening. The solution is obvious, though not for non-techies.
- function_seven 14y ago
  > Amusingly, they also implement DNS-based throttling, as my roommate and I found out one evening. The solution is obvious, though not for non-techies. Just to be clear, they're delaying the response time of their own DNS servers as a method of throttling?? If that's what you mean, it fails on several levels (use a different DNS, only works on first lookup, does nothing for large file downloads, etc.) Please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    > If that's what you mean, it fails on several levels Yes, it's really pointless. > use a different DNS That's how we first realized that this is what was happening (we spent some time testing this out to confirm it). It's impossible to say for sure on our end, but it seemed that was the case (as opposed to their DNS servers simply being overloaded, for example). Amusingly, the trigger is downloading large files - we were downloading an Ubuntu ISO at the time (> 1 GB) that we first noticed this happening.
  - rprasad 14y ago
    You're not. When I was living in an unfortunate area of the country only served by Time Warner Cable, DNS lookup throttling was their sole means of capping heavy downloaders.
wmf 14y ago
Time Warner provides good service in at least some places. I've gotten almost exactly advertised speed for the last ten years in Austin.
- tlholaday 14y ago
  I have gotten advertised speeds for DOCCIS in New York City. This statement by the Time Warner COO removes 80% of the goodwill I have felt towards Time Warner for the good albeit pricey service. Being his customer makes me feel ill.

chimeracoder 14y ago

> That said, by being a virtual monopoly in many of their markets, Time Warner's Not virtual. Actual. I, like 80% of the US, have no choice in my cable/Internet provider. > I'd also argue that the limited consumption of Time Warner's higher-speed offerings might have more to do with their overall QoS than lack of demand. When you choose the speed for your Internet package on Time Warner, you're literally choosing how much you want to donate to them each month in exchange for whatever speed they feel like giving you. In fact, when you go log into your account online, they make it almost impossible to see what speed you're paying for (and they certainly don't tell you in your bill). Amusingly, they also implement DNS-based throttling, as my roommate and I found out one evening. The solution is obvious, though not for non-techies.

function_seven 14y ago
> Amusingly, they also implement DNS-based throttling, as my roommate and I found out one evening. The solution is obvious, though not for non-techies. Just to be clear, they're delaying the response time of their own DNS servers as a method of throttling?? If that's what you mean, it fails on several levels (use a different DNS, only works on first lookup, does nothing for large file downloads, etc.) Please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  > If that's what you mean, it fails on several levels Yes, it's really pointless. > use a different DNS That's how we first realized that this is what was happening (we spent some time testing this out to confirm it). It's impossible to say for sure on our end, but it seemed that was the case (as opposed to their DNS servers simply being overloaded, for example). Amusingly, the trigger is downloading large files - we were downloading an Ubuntu ISO at the time (> 1 GB) that we first noticed this happening.
- rprasad 14y ago
  You're not. When I was living in an unfortunate area of the country only served by Time Warner Cable, DNS lookup throttling was their sole means of capping heavy downloaders.

wmf 14y ago

Time Warner provides good service in at least some places. I've gotten almost exactly advertised speed for the last ten years in Austin.

tlholaday 14y ago
I have gotten advertised speeds for DOCCIS in New York City. This statement by the Time Warner COO removes 80% of the goodwill I have felt towards Time Warner for the good albeit pricey service. Being his customer makes me feel ill.