Montgomery, AL - HDTV - Page 210

That's what we're hoping for. I always compare us to Birmingham since it is closer. I counted today and they have 153 total HD plus HD on demand. We have 100 less at 53. I don't put too much blame on BH for us being behind. It is the mentality in our area. Charter and Knology are also behind in our area. (Charter has stepped up a bit in the past year though). However, BH hasn't added any HD in our area in a while and my impatience gets to me some times. Still, leaving Dish for BH wasn't a bad thing. Dish is always losing channels. The new rumor is AMC is gone by the end of June.

I'm excited for BH's potential in our area once we've gone SDV. Hopefully that is not too far away.

I agree with the compliments of BHNtechXpert. Although I get onto BH here and on my web site a lot for not adding HD faster he doesn't seem to hold it against me and is always very helpful. He's resolved many issues quickly for me. I'm glad I have Brighthouse.

There are some good resources like BHNtechXpert for Charter customers too at this other site (not mine) that I don't think I'm permitted to post. That site is down right now but PM me if you need the web address.

Knology does not seem to have a web presence whatsoever. Bad company.

jtrippe,

Birmingham has about as much HD as Orlando.

The Orlando/Tampa Bay, Birmingham and Bakersfield have about the same amount of HD with Michigan and Indiana a little bit behind.

What I really like is how we get HD every quarter and in the notices, they let you know what could be pulled. A lot of channels stay on month to month agreements for years instead of suddenly finding out they will be pulled.

If the Dish Network rumor is true, I'd be really ticked off especially with "Breaking Bad" returning in July.

Lol that site is BBR and they are back online agai in limited fashion. Things hopefully will go back to normal over the weekend. And agai thank you for the kind words.

You will not experience time of day congestion on our network. What most of you don't know is we don't run our network anywhere near capacity so the so called peak congestion you hear some people refer to does not apply to us. Now thats not to say that your destination point won't be congested because depending on the destination you could see congestion there but that has nothing to do with us. I'm bringing all this up because the oh so common telco mantra is cable is a shared network.....hogwash....all networks are shared that includes fios and so long as you manage it right the customer experience will be consistently excellent regardless of platform you choose to use. As for the peak usage nonsense if you are a BHN customer you are not suffering from this on our network. You could have other drop or premise problems that manifest as the temperature changes during the day but congestion isn't causing it.

I wish I could run a speed test from work but the firewall blocks it. It's 100Mb up and down.

Ya gotta love those IT boys..

Blocks which test? If you are referring to Speedtest.net thats a web based test and it shouldnt be blocked but its also not very accurate. If you are referring to socket based testing like at ispgeeks then yea I can see that...it happens.

HDOrlando Birm does but southern Alabama is a bit behind...we're working on it now and soon (no dates yet) pretty much everyone will be one the same playing field. As you know these things do take time though.

Both,
They have Web Sense and a Enterprise Class Juniper Fire Wall.

Aaaak....seriously? That's simply lame...

I know they do but I like how BHN is trying to get everyone even.

It was hard on the earlier years when other systems had stuff that us in Orlando did not.

Now, most systems get the same stuff at the same time and I do like that. Not only is it good for customers but it's easier for me to keep track of.

testmy.net

It's one of the few speed test sites that doesn't use a flash-based or Java-based test engine, which are very inaccurate. It uses your browser, same as downloading a file from download.com or downloading from an update site.

The key to using this test site is controlling the file size you select to run your tests.

Perform two separate tests, first a download test and select a file size =>20mB's, then run an upload test and select a file size => 10mB's..

Don't know if your IT department also blocks this web site..worth a try...

FTP is blocked also.

It's also a "home brew" test built on no industry standards and essentially does the very same thing as speedtest.net. Flash or Java has nothing to do with the actual test process or engine for that matter. I'm fully aware that they love to tell everyone this but it shows how little they really knows about the tests themselves. The Java and Flash you are referring to is purely eye candy and has nothing to do with the test engine itself. In fact they aren't connected in any way other than to entertain your eyes. The testing platform TMN uses is identical to that of speedtest.net in that they both download/upload a compressed file and time how long it takes make some computations based on the result and then visualize it. The major difference between TMN and Speedtest.net is that STN is industry accepted and certified....TMN is not.

As for the other test platform out there neither STN or TMN are even in the same class. The Visualware platform is used and accepted by pretty much every networking giant on the planet (Cisco, AT&T and on and on and on)...you name it...they use it. Now there's obviously a reason why...because it works and is accurate. You can find sites that use that platform by visiting here... http://myspeed.visualware.com/index.php but before you go willy nilly into it make sure you pick the right test for your connection...there is a difference. Any questions on results you get lemme know.

Well, I respectfully disagree with your analysis...the main reason TMN is recommended by so many network professionals is the methodology used in their tests..other test sites use uncompressed web-page-type data to send to browser, and browsers of course, cache that type of information and unless a user is very computer savvy the second or third time they repeat that test their browser will use much of its cached data and report a shorter time it actually would take to transmit a compressed file, like a .zip or .exe, that's not cached...results...erroneous calculations and erroneous test results.

This becomes even more of a problem for satellite internet customers, like me, that have a built-in latency of 600-700ms and need to control the size of the file used for a download or upload test...TMN is the only test site that allows the user to control the size of a file used in their download or upload speed test...Satellite customers (I have Wildblue/Exede12, 12mbs down and 3mbs up) and we need at least a 12mB file size to allow some of the effects of latency to be averaged out..plus, none of the test file is cached by the browser and the user can run a many back-to-back tests and not have errors introduced in the calculations caused by caching or latency.

The reason ISP's recommend certain test sites is because they will provide better perceived results from the customer, thus reducing customer complaints.

To validate your position, go to a download site, like download.com or filehippo.com and download a very large file, like a 500mB zip or exe file, and watch your browser during the download process and the speed it's reporting..Most download managers, like the one in IE8 or IE9, report the download speed as the download progresses, then when the download finishes will give the "Average" download speed results.

Now compare those speed results with what any of those test sites you use provide. We have a forum for speed tests and results and many, many customers find out that TMN is the only test site that reports a speed accuracy that pretty much matches what they really get from downloading an actual program file, or from streaming video/audio...

Speed test sites recommended by ISP's and networking "giants" are intended to provide favorable, (yet erroneous) speed data to their customers...it really reduces their complaints..

This test site is recommended by US Government agencies for their many employees...free for everyone also, but still not as accurate as TMN..

http://www.broadband.gov/qualitytest...sationId=26522

With 26+ years in this industry I know of no "professional" that recommends the test specific to TMN....none! Second your data to substantiate your claim is flawed. You keep mixing concepts when in reality they are the same. Both TMN and Speedtest.net use browser based testing engines and both can be impacted by browser cache and similar things. While TMN may allow you to change the size of your payload STN does this for you on the fly so it is by no means a fixed payload on either product and yes they both use compressed files and not as you describe. The Visualware product is entirely different using socket based testing and is NOT impacted by browser configuration or limitations. The Visualware product also auto configures itself based on the connecton type and quality taking into consideration all of the concerns you raised.

All of this brings me to a bigger point which is you have testing all wrong. First of all both TMN and STN test using a mutlithreaded http approach which is fine for approximate test values but neither give you an accurate reflection of your connection capacity. Proper testing will begin with your on-net test followed by an off-net standard speed test followed by an application speed test (1 thread only and this is the max speed that any specific application will be able to attain from your PC) and then ultimately a UDP capacity test which gives a very good picture of your ability to stream video and also your connections ability to attain and maintain a given datarate over time.

UDP Capacity tests ramp up the datarate over several tests up to the point where the connection fails or drops packets and once it hits this level it backs down tests again and continues if no packets dropped until it gets to the max capacity of a given connection. With all of this data you can then come to a pretty good concluson as to the health of any connection including satellite.

Honestly speed matters little above 15mbps anyway for most people....datarate consistency is what's king. That is your connections ability to attain a given datarate and stay there over time. This is called QoS and neither TMN or STN offers such a measurement ...you will need to rely on a site that utilizes the Visualware product for that as they are the only testing platform that currently offers it. The link I provided above will guide you to sites that offer it

One thing I want to make perfectly clear is that TMN's mantra for years is they are different and better but if you actually spend the time to look at each test the core methods behind the scenes are in reality no different to any other http based test including STN and a host of others out there. The reality is if they were different and better the industry would accept them as valid off-net testing resources and most do not. When I mean industry I mean broadband in general...not telco, cable, satellite...I'm speaking generally.

Currently the only platforms generally accepted by the industry include STN, Sam Knows and Visualware and that's it. This is primarily because each has taken the time to publish whitepapers on their products, have them independently tested and closely examined over time by the entire industry and have proven themselves. TMN has done none of this....

Well, as I said, you're way off base and your credentials are not so impressive. I'm a retired aerospace Systems Test Engineer, BS in physics, minor in math and a Masters degree in Computer Science.

I have over 47 years experience testing complex systems from all of NASA's manned space vehicles from Redstone through Saturn V, then with Lockheed Missile and Space Co. testing and fielding the Trident-I and Trident-II sub-launched missile systems, not to mention the spy satellites we maintained for the CIA and DOD....

In the 70's I helped pioneer early bulletin board software by writing large portions of software used by all the sysops, with others like Ward Christensen and Irv Hoff, wrote the BBS programs BYE, which answered the phone, established modem connection and speed and logged the user into the BBS, and the program Xmodem, later upgraded it to Kmodem that allowed data files and programs to be downloaded by users with CRC error correction.

So, yes I'm qualified to evaluate any test program methodology, especially internet speed tests..

But you have a vested interest in running an ISP and you want contented customers, I understand that..just please don't try to blow smoke up my informed butt...keep your customers happy, but ill informed..

Your experience as an Aerospace engineer or anything else above in no way has trained you for broadband or network engineering. While your credentials are impressive and whiile it's nice to see you have some depth in your experience (BBS days) you aren't alone in this area. I have 30 years in online communities building (26 in network engineering), management and operation including the creation and operation of two of the largest BBS (in those days) on the west coast in which we pioneered the use of exotic (at the time) things like satellite downlinks, usenet and a whole host of other things. So you aren't talking to a dummy here and your insinuation as such is inappropriate.

Your continued talking up and spamming of TMN is bothersome at multiple levels and I suspect you are closely relatd to them such as moderator (might you be bamafan?) While your devotion to the site is admirable it is misguided from the broadband testing perspective. I realize and respect that you want to have faith in their test however the rest of the industry doesn't quite see it that way. Now if TMN wants to take the time to open up their test to some reasonable expert evaluation and disclose the complete methodology behind the testing, server configuration, qualification and ongoing quality assurance of their satellite testing locations then I'm sure folks would be happy to take a closer look. But just saying that you are better without a shred of accepted documentation to prove it is disingenuous at best especially when there are already three well documented, accepted and heavily integrated platforms in the industry already (Sam Knows, Ookla (aka STN) and Visualware).

For further reading I invite you to take some time here:

http://www.myconnectionserver.com/re...t_results.html

http://www.myconnectionserver.com/re...e_quality.html

http://www.myconnectionserver.com/re...s_matters.html

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/methodology


Look... there is no doubt you are loyal to that site...I think we all get that but telling everyone that TMN is the best site (and is industry accepted when in fact it isn't) is nothing more than your personal opinion and expressing it in any other way is reckless, misguided and certainly doing your fellow readers here a disservice. My goal is to make sure people get the most accurate testing on platforms that won't cause their ISP to pushback for their offnet testing needs. The facts are NO ISP will accept data from third party sources unless it can be confirmed first on the local speed test meaning on their network. Your ISP cannot control anything beyond their local network and while they will assist on offnet issues that are globally impacting they will not normally get involved in one of's involving a specific site and for good reason.

If you really wanted to get good insight into the quality of your connection, help your ISP improve their network and also communicate your provider network capabilities to the rest of the world you would volunteer to be a Sam Knows testing volunteer http://www.testmyisp.com/

In the meantime...

My job it to teach you (1) the proper way to test, (2) whats relevant to your provider and whats not (3) the proper way to communicate your situation to your ISP so they will listen to you. This starts with getting data from industry accepted sources first and also doing your homework onnet. Now you can do it any way you want but don't expect your ISP to accept data from just anywhere or because you say it is what is because you have xyz past experience. It doesn't work that way...you can do it your way...or you can take some good advice from someone who truly does have the experience and knowhow to make your ISP listen to you...your choice...

Well, we've reached the point where we agree to disagree...I have no horse in the race for who provides the most reliable and accurate speed test site...I have no interest in TMN. I've evaluated all of them and have conclusive testing results to prove it's the best reference point for all internet customers..

You have vested interests in your job that clouds your reasoning for hyping one test site over another, I understand that..

No test site is perfect, and any test site can become congested with users at certain times, but TMN stands heads and shoulders above the rest for most reliable results.

We've beat this to death and I'm surprised others have not fussed at us for discussing a subject not normally intended on this forum.

I've never had a problem with explaining my position to any ISP, as a matter of fact, I'm one of the chief moderators on several internet forums..and testing speeds with several different test sites is not frowned upon...but to compare accuracy, check your download speed using a 500mB program file downloaded from a reputable download site, like CNET. download.com or filehippo.com using a browser with a download manager that displays download speed, with the average download speed displayed when the download completes...then go to all the various speed test sites and run a download speed test and see which ones come closest to agreeing with what you just downloaded..

TMN will beat them all..

And just by the above you've demonstrated how little you really understand about speed testing. You can't rely on how long it takes or speed attained or visualized from a given file downloading site as a benchmark because (1) you have no idea what the load is on that server at any given moment (2) Whether they utlilize any load balancing (3) The actual pipe capacity for that server (4) How well they are peered in relationship to you and I can go on and on and on. Your method as described should NEVER be used to benchmark your broadband connection under any circumstances.

I rest my case... after the above it's pointless to continue with you about this because it's obvious that you don't understand or refuse to understand the process and the do's don'ts and nevers. Otherwise you would never have suggested such a method. I'm sorry...when you are ready to take an objective approach and actually spend time utilizing proper methods let me know...I'll be here to help you and interpret the results.

For the rest of you....

Do NOT benchmark speeds utilizing any third party file download site, p2p, newgroups or any other method where you have no idea about the connection quality, capacity, loading or peering of the sending server. Quoting such results to your ISP support rep is an excellent way to get them to ignore you and miss valuable clues as to whats really going on and while it's unprofessional of the rep to do so it happens all the time because they are constantly bombarded by "Easy Chair Experts" who think they know more than the guys actually running the network.

I want your rep to take your information objectively and with the purpose of resolving whatever problem you may be having whether it be connection, configuration or education related.... but this begins with you providing accurate information to demonstrate your case from known reliable sources and methods and not doing what the poster said above....please please don't do it....

It's a well known fact hosting sites with big files INCLUDING MICROSOFT throttle their downloads. Otherwise something as simple as a Service Pack roll out could pull their network to it's knees.

Yes, most all ISP's have a network management policy that kicks in during congested periods.

Here is the one I'm on:

http://www.viasatresidential.com/wp-...012-Jan-13.pdf

An excerpt:

ViaSat determines the nature of relevant traffic using deep-packet
inspection. More specifically, during periods of congestion:

 The network gives high preference for VOIP, video/audio streaming/progressive downloads, and Internet browsing (both HTTP and HTTPS) applications (Level 1 Traffic).

 The network gives second preference to email, small file attachments or transfers, and similar applications (Level 2 Traffic), which are less time-sensitive. In general, small files are files less than 50 MBs, although ViaSat may vary the size of file it considers to be small from time to time in order to best optimize network performance. Under congestion, the subscriber may experience somewhat lower speeds for Level 2 Traffic than for Level 1 Traffic transmitted during this time.

 The network gives lowest preference to software updates, large file transfers, and similar applications (Level 3 Traffic) where, due to the longer duration of the overall transaction, longer delays are more acceptable than for the other levels of traffic (above). During congestion, subscribers may experience longer transfer times for large downloads.

That's why we've always recommended testing be done early in the day, before congestion sets in...once you've established a speed test site that delivers reliable results based on comparison of results from one test site to the other then you can then test with much smaller files during the evening hours when the network congestion is greatest ..

One of the big selling features of testmy.net for test engineers is it's the only reputable test site that allows users to select the file size used for their tests. A rule-of-thumb we always recommend for reliable speed tests is to use at least a x8 file size of the users' rated "up-to" speed package they pay for..example: if your package says speeds "up-to" 50mbs (mega-bits/sec) then you should select a file size of 50mB's (mega-bytes) to perform your test. A service with speeds "up-to" 12mbs would use at least a 12mB file size.

Network management and the ability to test that network are two different subjects...A network management engineer and a systems test engineer have different objectives when evaluating the overall performance on internet services..the two will rarely agree..

That's not at all what he's talking about. He's talking about the very sites you suggest using for benchmarking your speeds and NO most ISP's do not engage in throttling and those few that do clearly document it in their TOS.

Bickering removed. As BHNExpert points out, bandwidth caps and traffic prioritizing aren't the same thing. See your provider's TOS for your specific situation.

WCOV Fox 20 is now on DIRECTV. Looks like they finally reached an agreement.

Good,
I don't have to look at the crawlers anymore!

It's about time. I wish Directv had let us know (maybe they did and I deleted the message?). I wouldn't have known if I hadn't checked here.

Effective today (May 17, 2012), all Bright House Networks digital cable customers who subscribe to HBO may now view HBO Go programming on their Roku Media Appliance, Xbox Gaming Console and select models of Samsung Internet-ready televisions at no additional cost. We're excited to add these devices to our current HBO Go support lineup, which includes desktop and tablet PCs, Apple's iPad®, iPhone® and iPod touch®; as well as select Android devices. These services will also still require Bright House Networks video customers to have a My Services account.

Check your mailbox. A Charter customer told me Charter is about to add about 30 more HD channels. He got a letter in the mail. That would put Charter at well over 100 HD channels in our area. It would mean they've added about 60 HD channels just since December. That is incredible. Charter Montgomery has come a long way. I didn't think they'd have 100 meg internet and over 100 HD channels any time soon but they do/will. My parents live in Montgomery and just switched from Dish to Charter. They're glad they made the move.

I guess and I'm hoping this is the kind of thing that happens for us Brighthouse customers once they've gone switched digital. Mass HD additions.

Brighthouse hasn't added a single HD channel so far this year and neither has Knology. Supposedly Knology is about to add a dozen on June 1. BH might have full capacity until they go SDV by Q4 this year or Q1 next. Meanwhile, Charter, of all companies, leaves the others in the dust for now with HD and internet speeds.