It’s acknowledged as entirely misleading, yet it might contain some validity.
It’s acknowledged as entirely misleading, yet it might contain some validity.
I returned to the 500 Mbps plan knowing it would slow to around 100 Mbps during peak times. I rarely reached 940 Mbps with gigablast. It consistently hovered near 600 Mbps when traffic was light and dropped to 300–450 Mbps during busy periods. I was satisfied with the 150 plan until evening. The problem lies in the CL—actual speeds were about 66 Mbps due to my old cat3 modem.
An alternative way not covered recently is that DSL may sometimes offer lower latency. However, there hasn’t been solid testing of this for over ten years, and phone companies no longer emphasize it, suggesting the benefit may be fading.
Checking connectivity to 8.8.8.8 and 1.1.1.1 helps gauge proximity to the closest data center. However, the actual distance and number of routing steps can vary significantly between DSL and Cable at the same spot, potentially outweighing any natural differences.
Cox also relies on Fiber. DSL falls short compared to Docsis in most cases. The phone lines sit on poles for a much longer time than Coax. The only advantage Century Link offers seems to be the absence of data limits, since Cox does. The main drawback with Coax internet is sharing a Fiber connection with neighbors. This can lead to slower speeds when many people use it. However, 100 Mbps DSL won't beat 500 Mbps cable internet. I’d also like to mention we previously used Century Link, but their service was extremely poor—we had to switch to LTE internet.
Cox doesn't rely on fiber cables for most of the city. They continue using the outdated copper network established in the 1970s.
Cox employs Fiber to the node just like any other cable provider. If they were still operating with 1970s-style networks, they wouldn’t be able to deliver higher speeds. Unless you’re experiencing very slow connections, they must have Fiber installed. By slow, I mean they’d likely be stuck at Docsis 1 levels. To provide faster speeds, they need Fiber infrastructure. There’s a possibility your city isn’t as modern as most areas, since they weigh the costs of upgrading. That’s true—they consider economic factors before investing. But to stay competitive, they must deploy Fiber. Cox markets itself as offering Gigabit speeds, which means they’re using Docsis 3.1 technology. To run that system, most companies have had to add more Fiber and manage complex network structures like node splits and nested nodes.
What kind of competition exists? Cox dominates the market, and they’re aware of it. If I need an alternative, CL is the option, but their DSL service is unreliable—either you’re in a spot with 100 Mbps or you get a shaky 40 Mbps. The highlight is that the city council rejected other providers like Arlo and Google Fiber because they were financially tied to Cox. CL’s advantage came from acquiring Qwest, which gave them a head start in the city.
Here’s a revised version of your text:
1) Starlink 2) T Mobile LTE Home internet / 5G This is the final version. T Mobile provides 50 Mbps for $50 per month, while Starlink costs around $100 per month, though its actual speed isn’t clear. I’ve seen reviews for both services and they seem genuine. Even though T Mobile is the only cable provider in my area, they still upgrade their network. We don’t have Comcast nearby, but they offer gigabit speeds and similar options. They likely do this to stay competitive with other providers in different cities. Cox is also a major player, though not as large as Comcast, but comparable to Charter or Mediacom. If you rally people together and voice your concerns, this is definitely a place where change can happen—especially in local government. At least there are companies eager to enter, which is encouraging. Wow, someone told a resident our city isn’t good enough for them most of the time.