Octopus Overlords

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 4:49 pm I'm pretty sure that's not a required disclosure.

I wish it were. I'm having serious broadband anxiety regarding our move from the Municipality of Longmont and the Sorcerer's Ubercheap Gigabit Fiber Loop to Firestone, CO (and the Goblet of Who Knows What We're Getting Into).

That's step two, yes. Step one was was to get them to provide to me in writing whatever BS they're trying to sell.

And I absolutely agree. Give me a "bundle discount". But don't pretend to discount something on one side and force me to take on another service to make up the difference (and more). If I was using my landline for long distance, I'd grumble but I'd do it. Forcing me to pay for a service that I'll never use is extortion. They might as well tell me I'm going to now pay another $10 a month to get unlimited telegraph services.

In speaking with RM9 and Trent, I came to the conclusion that for me to call Century Link world HQ would be a long distance call. So if that's now included in my new plan, I'm going to call them daily and complain.

The Meal wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 5:36 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 4:49 pm I'm pretty sure that's not a required disclosure.

I wish it were. I'm having serious broadband anxiety regarding our move from the Municipality of Longmont and the Sorcerer's Ubercheap Gigabit Fiber Loop to Firestone, CO (and the Goblet of Who Knows What We're Getting Into).

High Speed Internet: Firestone, Colorado. Looks like Xfinity is available at <= 250 Mbps. There's a map overlay there as well.

I've concluded that Xfinity is available at our new specific address, but it isn't across the street.

Anxiety.

Ouch.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 4:10 pm

How the F is that even remotely legal?

I believe the term is 'bait and switch.'

Sears was famous for it.

I'm so confused. I had a detailed breakdown of everything provided to me via telephone last week. However, as a follow up when I asked them via email to provide all that information to me in writing - namely the need for me to bundle a long distance service plan with my DSL speed upgrade - they're unable to do so. Like...flat out refusing to provide say anything other than, "please call our customer service representatives..." blah blah blah.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

After an especially painful download from GOG that never exceeded 2 Mbps yesterday, I decided it was time to investigate. I vaguely recalled someone telling me years ago that I'd need a newer modem to enjoy higher speeds, so I started with a call to my ISP.

The tech there said that my equipment supports the 50/5 service that I'm paying for. He walked me through bypassing my router and plugging my laptop directly into the modem to run a speed test. Sure enough, I scored 54/4.9. So the router is to blame. I plugged it back in and ran the test again; 25/5. Took the laptop back upstairs and ran it again; still 25/5, so it's not distance or obstacles, but the hardware itself. My desktop machine is also getting 25/5.

I had checked for firmware a couple days ago to satisfy the FBI warning, and there is none. The tech suggested doing a factory reset, which would wipe out my network but might improve the speed. My Netgear router is 10 years old, so I'm skeptical that that would work, and I don't want to go through that hassle to find out. If I'm going to rebuild my network from the ground up anyway, I would rather do that with a new router. That's an expense I'd rather not expend right now. I don't think doubling my speed from 25 to 50 would have a dramatic effect on day-to-day use anyway. We don't stream video and I rarely download big files, and in any case GOG must have been throttling the connection yesterday.

Just out of curiosity, though, what would I need to look for in a router to achieve the 50Mbps that I'm paying for? Will pretty much any new router handle that or do I need to look for some minimum specs?

Give us your current model number.

I remember when they raised me from 30mbps to 60 mbps. I had one of those famous linksys wrt54g. I dont recall it all now ...its a post on here someplace....but it would not do over so much...maybe 50. I tried new firmware and everything. I think it SHOULD have worked but didn't. I got this ASUS I use now. I hated to switch because all you hear are horror stories on how crappy routers are and always needed a reboot and resetting and crap. That Linksys was a rock. never any trouble. But this ASUS has been the same way for me luckily.

I think most routers today are gig routers. Mines supposed to be good for a gig speed. Its at 100mbps now and it grabs 115 .Down should be 5 but its grabbing 11.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:34 pm Give us your current model number.

RangeMax NEXT model WNDR3300 2.4 GHz 802.11n
Firmware version V1.0.45_1.0.45NA
Mode Up to 270Mbps at 2.4GHz (LOL nope).

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:47 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:34 pm Give us your current model number.

RangeMax NEXT model WNDR3300 2.4 GHz 802.11n
Firmware version V1.0.45_1.0.45NA
Mode Up to 270Mbps at 2.4GHz (LOL nope).

As your attorney, I advise you to flash it with DD-WRT firmware. You may see some performance improvements with a third-party firmware.

Or you may brick your router and have to buy a new one. Either outcome is a win.

The Meal wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 5:43 pm I've concluded that Xfinity is available at our new specific address, but it isn't across the street.

Anxiety.

Have heard from the current occupant on this topic (and many others):

We are currently using CenturyLink for internet at pretty good speeds (140 Mbps at $60/month), which isn't the Gig you are used to in Longmont, but it's fast enough to support a 4K stream, an HD stream, and all of our connected stuff, so you shouldn't notice much of a difference. That said, I just bought a new router in March when we upgraded internet speeds to support it. The router wasn't cheap ($200 ish), but I'm happy to leave it for you free of charge if you are going to use CenturyLink.

Sounds good to me!

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:17 pm Just out of curiosity, though, what would I need to look for in a router to achieve the 50Mbps that I'm paying for? Will pretty much any new router handle that or do I need to look for some minimum specs?

50Mbps is pretty low by today's router standards. You can get an N300 router from Amazon for under $20 that will do the job.

I'm so far away from the phone company (where I get my internet) that I can't use the highest speeds as the distance makes it more unreliable.

gilraen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:17 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:17 pm Just out of curiosity, though, what would I need to look for in a router to achieve the 50Mbps that I'm paying for? Will pretty much any new router handle that or do I need to look for some minimum specs?

50Mbps is pretty low by today's router standards. You can get an N300 router from Amazon for under $20 that will do the job.

That's pretty much what I figured. This router was middle-of-the-pack 10 years ago. It still works as well as it ever did, and it might keep chugging away for another 10 years, but the world has left it behind. Stupid world.

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:42 pm

gilraen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:17 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:17 pm Just out of curiosity, though, what would I need to look for in a router to achieve the 50Mbps that I'm paying for? Will pretty much any new router handle that or do I need to look for some minimum specs?

50Mbps is pretty low by today's router standards. You can get an N300 router from Amazon for under $20 that will do the job.

That's pretty much what I figured. This router was middle-of-the-pack 10 years ago. It still works as well as it ever did, and it might keep chugging away for another 10 years, but the world has left it behind. Stupid world.

You could always use the routers backup feature (if it has one) then wipe it and test with the laptop plugged into it only. Then if speed increases you know the router can handle it. If not, restore from backup so you dont have to redo the whole network all over until you get a new one.
Plus, unless you have a bunch of forwarded ports or something, resetting it and using the same IP subnet, SSID and password should let everything reconnect as normal.

The Meal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:14 pm

The Meal wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 5:43 pm I've concluded that Xfinity is available at our new specific address, but it isn't across the street.

Anxiety.

Have heard from the current occupant on this topic (and many others):

We are currently using CenturyLink for internet at pretty good speeds (140 Mbps at $60/month), which isn't the Gig you are used to in Longmont, but it's fast enough to support a 4K stream, an HD stream, and all of our connected stuff, so you shouldn't notice much of a difference. That said, I just bought a new router in March when we upgraded internet speeds to support it. The router wasn't cheap ($200 ish), but I'm happy to leave it for you free of charge if you are going to use CenturyLink.

Sounds good to me!

Here's something else: both Xfinity and CenturyLink have a 1 TB monthly data cap.

Xfinity will give you 2 courtesy months to exceed it, and then will charge you for extra data (or offer you an unlimited plan for an extra $50/month).

CenturyLink will just drop your service if you exceed the cap for 3 months.

Depending if you are streaming lots of music and video and have people over who are on your guest wi-fi with a bunch of devices - this may be an issue.

Heard an AT&T commercial that was spouting some crap about their speed(it sucks) and their amazing price(it sucked) then at the end they said theres a data cap and every gig over is $10 hahaha. I download some games that are 90 gig. I just roll my eye at them, curse them, And just ignore them .

gilraen wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:02 pm

The Meal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:14 pm

The Meal wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 5:43 pm I've concluded that Xfinity is available at our new specific address, but it isn't across the street.

Anxiety.

Have heard from the current occupant on this topic (and many others):

We are currently using CenturyLink for internet at pretty good speeds (140 Mbps at $60/month), which isn't the Gig you are used to in Longmont, but it's fast enough to support a 4K stream, an HD stream, and all of our connected stuff, so you shouldn't notice much of a difference. That said, I just bought a new router in March when we upgraded internet speeds to support it. The router wasn't cheap ($200 ish), but I'm happy to leave it for you free of charge if you are going to use CenturyLink.

Sounds good to me!

Here's something else: both Xfinity and CenturyLink have a 1 TB monthly data cap.

Xfinity will give you 2 courtesy months to exceed it, and then will charge you for extra data (or offer you an unlimited plan for an extra $50/month).

CenturyLink will just drop your service if you exceed the cap for 3 months.

Depending if you are streaming lots of music and video and have people over who are on your guest wi-fi with a bunch of devices - this may be an issue.

Thank you for the heads-up. I'll have to check my current router logs to see how close I come to 1TB per month. We've been streaming more music lately, so if we're approaching that figure then this could become a very real issue.

The Meal wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:14 pmThank you for the heads-up. I'll have to check my current router logs to see how close I come to 1TB per month. We've been streaming more music lately, so if we're approaching that figure then this could become a very real issue.

You're probably already aware, but Comcast's data metering in particular is known to vary greatly from personal router logs. Be sure to give yourself a healthy margin when making the choice.

Just caught the tail end comment so forgive me if there is more context I missed.

Music is so incredibly tiny compared to video that I have a hard time imagining that streaming music would ever be a problem with a terabyte cap.

I just did a quick calc and the numbers are so big/small/whatever that I need someone to sanity check it for me.

If you stream music at 320 [k]bps 24 hours/7 days a week, you'd need somewhere around 10,000 months to reach a terabyte of data. Is that right, anyone? Someone embarrass me and show me how I messed up the calc.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:44 pm Just caught the tail end comment so forgive me if there is more context I missed.

Music is so incredibly tiny compared to video that I have a hard time imagining that streaming music would ever be a problem with a terabyte cap.

I just did a quick calc and the numbers are so big/small/whatever that I need someone to sanity check it for me.

If you stream music at 320 bps 24 hours/7 days a week, you'd need somewhere around 10,000 months to reach a terabyte of data. Is that right, anyone? Someone embarrass me and show me how I messed up the calc.

I didn't check the math, but Kbps, not bps.

edit: Now that I have checked the math, I think you had that accounted for properly and it was a typo.

It is a typo, but I re-kajiggered the math so many times that I'm not sure if I used the correct kbps or lost it somewhere in the middle and started using bps.

In any case, 1 terabyte is a LOT of music, especially when stacked end to end.

edit: My goal here was not to step on anyone's toes, it's just that I've operated on the premise that music can literally be ignored as far as data usage is concerned, so when I saw a reference to it, it made me question my assumptions (which were so old I couldn't remember why I had them). doing the math just made it worse, since the the results I got seemed a little crazy.

Music being a drop in the bucket compared to video is a good point. And we are cutting the cord (well, demolishing the dish?) alongside this move, so our streaming video uptake will only go up. Still, our entertainment consumption availability is not also going to increase, so I'll have to estimate our current screen time vs. our current stream time.

Thanks for the information and awareness.

The Meal wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:55 pm Thanks for the information and awareness.

See my edit above. My post was meant purely to re-verify my old assumptions and not intentionally a "well, actually..." moment.

Good luck getting organized.

FWIW, we cut the cord a few years ago and stream video whenever we are in the house (never music though). So maybe 5-7 hours a day. We stream in HD but not 4k. We have up to two concurrent streams most of the time. We average 250-300 GB/month.

We go from 600GB one month to over 900GB the next, and half the time I have no idea why.

I should say that my usage is according to my router log. We have Charter and don't have a cap nor is their metering of our usage available to see.

Still not armed with our personal data, but from a bit of research... 1 TB is Big. Like 3+hours of 4k TV watching (10 GB/hr) every day Big. Or 4-5× that amount of HD watching Big. Considering no significant online gaming in our house and no regular gigantic downloads each month, it would seem we're not on the verge of hitting that mark without a fairly significant paradigm shift.

But I'll check our router data and when it shows up at <150GB per month, I'll feel that much more confident.

Edit: The wired Ubiquiti router doesn't natively keep stats of data flow. However our Plume wifi system has noted 138.05GB used in the past month. Considering we were out of the house for about 6/30ths of that month an additional +20% on 140 brings me up to roughly 170 GB wifi usage. I can't imagine the wired devices (basically YouTube on my desktop) could add more than another +20% on top of that, so we're comfortably 75% below the monthly cap with our current usage. Even with using the internet for all screen time, I think we're well under the point of being concerned. If the CenturyLink caps don't grow with more consumer usage in the years ahead we may eventually bump into their cap, but that time seems to be firmly in the future. I'm certainly not feeling any urge to pay for additional capacity above 1TB with our current situation.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:44 pm Just caught the tail end comment so forgive me if there is more context I missed.

Music is so incredibly tiny compared to video that I have a hard time imagining that streaming music would ever be a problem with a terabyte cap.

I just did a quick calc and the numbers are so big/small/whatever that I need someone to sanity check it for me.

If you stream music at 320 [k]bps 24 hours/7 days a week, you'd need somewhere around 10,000 months to reach a terabyte of data. Is that right, anyone? Someone embarrass me and show me how I messed up the calc.

320/8=40K Bytes per second.
40*60=2400K Bytes per minute.
240*60=144 MegaBytes Per hour
1TB=1,000,000 MegaBytes so
1,000,000/144=over 6944 Hours to reach 1TB
6944/24=289 days or there abouts.

Yep. I...I'm still not sure what I did to screw it up so badly. 10 months versus 10,000 months.

I'd quibble about data being base 2 and not 10 but that doesn't change the numbers by 3 orders of magnitude.

Presumably there is an extra kilo conversion in (my previous calcs) there some where that broke it.

gilraen wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:56 pm We go from 600GB one month to over 900GB the next, and half the time I have no idea why.

I have 3 kids that basically stream youtube all day if they are home. You can tell when Christmas holidays are just by looking at the data usage. Still, youtube is low quality most of the time so we barely hit our cap of 400GB unless they are home for 2+ weeks (summer holidays we push past the cap. It's still cheaper to pay the overages when they occur than bumping up to the next cap year 'round).

If I didn't download my steam installs or patch them during the unlimited usage hours of 2am to 8am, I'd break my cap on a regular basis. Basically 2am to 8am data is free and doesn't count towards my cap.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:26 am Yep. I...I'm still not sure what I did to screw it up so badly. 10 months versus 10,000 months.

I'd quibble about data being base 2 and not 10 but that doesn't change the numbers by 3 orders of magnitude.

Presumably there is an extra kilo conversion in (my previous calcs) there some where that broke it.

Probably. I usually just go here http://www.t1shopper.com/tools/calculat ... ulator.php to do a quick sanity check.

Interestingly with 10mbps it takes over 10 days to download 1TB and with 100mbps it takes just over a day. Gigabit 2 hrs 26 mins. Good information if you are trying to close a deal upselling someone....

Yep. Every time PUBG patches we are reminded who has decent speeds or not.

The 50+ GB patch for The Elder Scrolls Online is the last straw.

I miss the days when a patch felt like a "Patch" - like a little glue and rubber you'd put on a tire to keep the air in. Now a "Patch" feels like they're replacing the entire bike each time there's an air leak.

So many "patches" are actually pay add-ons for the game, they just want to pre load them.

Good point dbt.