Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["tkarches AT imapmail.org" <tkarches AT imapmail.org>]

cristobalpalmer AT gmail.com wrote:
> On 7/24/07, Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk> wrote:
> > For all the ranting and raving against time-warner, their network
> > fills my needs very adequately and for a reasonable price.  Would more
> > bandwidth be nice? Sure, but who wouldn't say that.  And quite simply,
> > we are not all entitled to service that fulfills our every whim.
>
> You lost me here. Who said anything about being entitled? This is
> about rational people wanting to have an effect on policy that has
> direct consequences in their lives. But let's look at TWC, now that
> you mention it:
>
> (1) TWC is my only option for something that resembles "broadband"
> (2) TWC is not providing me true broadband (I get about 5M down, 512K
> up even though I'm paying the extra $10 for 8M/1M)
> (3) TWC routinely has problems that cause me to lose connectivity.
> (4) TWC is owned by a company that has an interest in what comes across my 
> wire.
>
> did I mention TWC is my only option? How is having one for-profit
> option better than having one city-run option? Before anyone suggests
> Bellsouth (my other "option"), let me point out that you should google
> for "cozy duopoly".

I would suggest Clearwire.

I dumped TWC for Clearwire. Overall slower connection, but with latency 
that I don't have to measure with a minute hand. Slightly cheaper too.

As long as we are willing to accept the crap that we are served, crap is 
all that will be served.

Once I get my DTV antenna (on which I can receive better free content 
than with my $10 cable plan), I'll be TWC free.

I'm using them for VOIP also, freeing me from the evil BellSouth.

Clearwire customer support has been excellent, FYI.

--tom

--
Tom Karches
email : tkarches AT imapmail.org
mobile : 919.345.4591