John H. Wrote in message:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:08:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/27/2018 12:57 PM, amdx wrote:
On 2/26/2018 11:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/26/2018 12:38 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:35:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/26/2018 12:26 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:52:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/26/2018 11:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:26:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/26/2018 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:00:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/26/2018 7:48 AM, justan wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message:
On 2/25/2018 10:33 PM, wrote:
I am really serious about cutting the cord. My wife says
after the
olympics but that was today.
I am already transitioning to streaming, I am working my
way through
the Amazon Prime documentaries They have just about
anything that PBS
ever aired. I talked about the American Experience show
about the MLK
assassination the other day. Today I am watching Frontline
season 27
ep 8. This is contemporary with the 2009 crash and it is
pretty
interesting, carving through some of the myths we may have.



I occasionally watch something from Amazon Prime's
inventory. My large
HD TV is not "smart" (connected to the Internet) so I use
the Sony PS4
to stream stuff from Amazon. Their prime account entitles
you to many
movies and archived shows as you mention for free.

I can also access Hulu, Netfix and other sources but I don't
watch
enough to bother with them.




Smart tvs are cheap nowadays. I paid 800 for a 60 inch smart
plasma tv at good old Walmart. A side benefit is that I
can heat
the house with it.



Mine can become "smart" if I buy a Roku wireless streaming
stick that
plugs into the TV's USB port. It's a 65" and I bought it
before having
Internet connectivity became built-in on most TVs. Accessing
the 'net
via the PS4 is just as effective and it works fine. I just
don't watch
TV enough to warrant buying another TV just for built-in Internet
connectivity. Most of the time I just use a little 23" HD TV
that sits
on my desk beside my computer monitor.


Just hook an old PC to it. With a 2.4gz wireless mouse you end
up with
a TV that is a whole lot smarter than the ones sold as smart.
We have
both here. The PC connected wins every time in every category.
The best combo seems to be my "travel" laptop connected to some no
name TV. When the lap top turns off the TV goes to sleep and I
have it
set to hibernate when you close the lid. Open the lid, the pc
comes to
life and the TV comes on.
You can get to any streaming service that way along with being
able to
play music or look at your pictures using whatever PC app you
like.



I don't collect or save old PCs. When they crap out or become so
obsolete they can't run current apps efficiently I buy a new
one. I
"do" have an older Win 7 laptop that I no longer use regularly
but I
keep it as a backup or possible traveling computer. Somewhere I
have an
old XP laptop as well but it is painfully slow compared to Win 7
and Win
10. I wouldn't even bother with it.


Besides, the little Roku thingy is much smaller and easier to
mess with.



I still don't really understand how people who want to get rid of
services like Comcast cable TV and Internet and go to streaming
only are
going to have access to the Internet.

I think I posted the results of the tests I did that compared
download
speeds of AT&T's 4G WiFi service that I have in my truck and the
download speeds of the Comcast (cable) WiFi router in my house.
Comcast
was consistently 3 to 4 times faster, sometimes even more. The AT&T
test (I did several for each) often reported that although web
browsing
would be ok, videos may be slow, especially if more than one
device was
connected to the WiFi server. The Comcast speed report consistently
said that it's speed would allow web browsing and HD video
downloads to
several devices at the same time.



For me, cutting the cord would be cutting the TV and telephone
cords. The internet cord would stay
whole. The TV cord is over $100/month, and that's without a bunch
of movie channels. The telephone
cord is another $40/month.


How much is your Internet service?

I don't have that problem. I have just have what's called "expanded
basic TV". I can always order something "On Demand" but I can't
remember the last time I did. Forget what it costs but it's cheap
compared to the Internet service. I don't have phone service via
cable.
Just use my cell phone. It's a second account on her cell phone
service and compared to her cell phone bill, mine contribution to it is
peanuts.

I pay $55 for internet.


Ok. I pay a little less ... $49/month. The AT&T WiFi in the truck is
$20/mo. for unlimited service but it's not anywhere near as fast. I
may cancel it. Don't really know why I even got it.

I have buddy the recently switched from Comcast to WOW, because
Comcast wouldn't negotiate their price. Wow gave him internet for
$39.99. He recommended Wow to a friend and the friend got the same
100Mbps service for $29.99. My buddy was a bit perplexed!
Mikek



The problem is that WOW isn't available in many places. In many areas
Comcast is the only game in town.


We now have a choice of Verizon or Cox. I've been with Cox since early 90's, but just about every
year my bill jumps up $40-$50, sometimes more. And then I call, argue for an hour, threaten to go to
Verizon, and my bill stays around $150-160, with 'promotions'. In September all my promotions run
out and the lady says my bill would go to $240. We'll see how many promotions I can qualify for in
September.


Thst's too much to pay for tv. Our fiber cable and internet is
free, but I put up a small OTA emergency antenna and I get about
60 channels with it.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:59 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:08:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/27/2018 12:57 PM, amdx wrote:
On 2/26/2018 11:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/26/2018 12:38 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:35:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/26/2018 12:26 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:52:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/26/2018 11:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:26:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/26/2018 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:00:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/26/2018 7:48 AM, justan wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message:
On 2/25/2018 10:33 PM, wrote:
I am really serious about cutting the cord. My wife says
after the
olympics but that was today.
I am already transitioning to streaming, I am working my
way through
the Amazon Prime documentaries They have just about
anything that PBS
ever aired. I talked about the American Experience show
about the MLK
assassination the other day. Today I am watching Frontline
season 27
ep 8. This is contemporary with the 2009 crash and it is
pretty
interesting, carving through some of the myths we may have.



I occasionally watch something from Amazon Prime's
inventory. My large
HD TV is not "smart" (connected to the Internet) so I use
the Sony PS4
to stream stuff from Amazon. Their prime account entitles
you to many
movies and archived shows as you mention for free.

I can also access Hulu, Netfix and other sources but I don't
watch
enough to bother with them.




Smart tvs are cheap nowadays. I paid 800 for a 60 inch smart
plasma tv at good old Walmart. A side benefit is that I
can heat
the house with it.



Mine can become "smart" if I buy a Roku wireless streaming
stick that
plugs into the TV's USB port. It's a 65" and I bought it
before having
Internet connectivity became built-in on most TVs. Accessing
the 'net
via the PS4 is just as effective and it works fine. I just
don't watch
TV enough to warrant buying another TV just for built-in Internet
connectivity. Most of the time I just use a little 23" HD TV
that sits
on my desk beside my computer monitor.


Just hook an old PC to it. With a 2.4gz wireless mouse you end
up with
a TV that is a whole lot smarter than the ones sold as smart.
We have
both here. The PC connected wins every time in every category.
The best combo seems to be my "travel" laptop connected to some no
name TV. When the lap top turns off the TV goes to sleep and I
have it
set to hibernate when you close the lid. Open the lid, the pc
comes to
life and the TV comes on.
You can get to any streaming service that way along with being
able to
play music or look at your pictures using whatever PC app you
like.



I don't collect or save old PCs. When they crap out or become so
obsolete they can't run current apps efficiently I buy a new
one. I
"do" have an older Win 7 laptop that I no longer use regularly
but I
keep it as a backup or possible traveling computer. Somewhere I
have an
old XP laptop as well but it is painfully slow compared to Win 7
and Win
10. I wouldn't even bother with it.


Besides, the little Roku thingy is much smaller and easier to
mess with.



I still don't really understand how people who want to get rid of
services like Comcast cable TV and Internet and go to streaming
only are
going to have access to the Internet.

I think I posted the results of the tests I did that compared
download
speeds of AT&T's 4G WiFi service that I have in my truck and the
download speeds of the Comcast (cable) WiFi router in my house.
Comcast
was consistently 3 to 4 times faster, sometimes even more. The AT&T
test (I did several for each) often reported that although web
browsing
would be ok, videos may be slow, especially if more than one
device was
connected to the WiFi server. The Comcast speed report consistently
said that it's speed would allow web browsing and HD video
downloads to
several devices at the same time.



For me, cutting the cord would be cutting the TV and telephone
cords. The internet cord would stay
whole. The TV cord is over $100/month, and that's without a bunch
of movie channels. The telephone
cord is another $40/month.


How much is your Internet service?

I don't have that problem. I have just have what's called "expanded
basic TV". I can always order something "On Demand" but I can't
remember the last time I did. Forget what it costs but it's cheap
compared to the Internet service. I don't have phone service via
cable.
Just use my cell phone. It's a second account on her cell phone
service and compared to her cell phone bill, mine contribution to it is
peanuts.

I pay $55 for internet.


Ok. I pay a little less ... $49/month. The AT&T WiFi in the truck is
$20/mo. for unlimited service but it's not anywhere near as fast. I
may cancel it. Don't really know why I even got it.

I have buddy the recently switched from Comcast to WOW, because
Comcast wouldn't negotiate their price. Wow gave him internet for
$39.99. He recommended Wow to a friend and the friend got the same
100Mbps service for $29.99. My buddy was a bit perplexed!
Mikek



The problem is that WOW isn't available in many places. In many areas
Comcast is the only game in town.


We now have a choice of Verizon or Cox. I've been with Cox since early 90's, but just about every
year my bill jumps up $40-$50, sometimes more. And then I call, argue for an hour, threaten to go to
Verizon, and my bill stays around $150-160, with 'promotions'. In September all my promotions run
out and the lady says my bill would go to $240. We'll see how many promotions I can qualify for in
September.


Thst's too much to pay for tv. Our fiber cable and internet is
free, but I put up a small OTA emergency antenna and I get about
60 channels with it.

That's for everything. If I don't get the discounts I may try an outdoor antenna. I've got one, just
too lazy to put it up yet.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:49:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/27/2018 1:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:36:00 -0600, amdx wrote:

I have 30Mbps

I often wonder how that translates to the real world. I had a lot of
conversations with various tech support groups leading up to switching
my web host and the problems that prompted that.
The consensus was running a speed test to your ISPs test site was
meaningless other than what the max is you can get. When you go to 3d
party sites, that is a test of your servers and their servers but the
real issue is what you can actually get when talking to a web site or
other service. I know my news server is not even close to being able
to keep my 10mb pipe full. I have also had times when Amazon was not
able to keep a stream going without buffering, even tho I still had
plenty of capacity on my end. (I could start a Netflix). It was just a
new show on Prime and I am guessing they were slammed.
That huge capacity may be good for multiple users hitting multiple
byte hungry sites but I am not sure it is of a lot of value for 1 or 2
users. My wife's place was running the whole club on one Comcast line
and they finally had to buy another one, not because of throughput but
simply because one IP address could not support the number of unique
sub net IPs they had on the LAN. Granted all of them were not
streaming cat videos on Facebook but it was more than a few.



Years ago when we wintered in Florida we had DSL because cable was not
available. It worked ok but videos and HD media was not as
popular and as heavily downloaded back then. When I opened the guitar
shop in 2009 the building was not wired for cable so I had to get DSL
again. That's when I really starting to notice the difference between
the shop's DSL Internet speed and the speed of Comcast cable we had at
the house.

I used to update the shop's website daily and the program I used
reloaded all of the website's content which would take forever on DSL.
I ended up doing it at home after the shop closed. On cable the
complete site would upload in less than 30 seconds. At the shop it
sometimes took 5-10 minutes and often it would hang up and I'd have to
start all over again.

There is a difference, especially when more and more devices are added.
Now with two or cell phones constantly connected, multiple computers,
tablets, Smart TVs, etc., I can't see how DSL can be quick enough, but I
don't have it anymore so I don't know.

They are making DSL faster than it used to be. That is probably the
difference. From what I can see it takes about 3mb to stream HD and
that used to be fast DSL. Now I get a solid 10. We can stream 2 shows
at once and I am still browsing. My problem with Comcast has always
reliability. They are still running on the same "plant" Media One put
in 20 years ago when 8mb was fast broadband.
The speed is good if your neighbors are not banging it too hard since
you are sharing the pipe but they are down a lot and not real
responsive about fixing it. My wife used to fight with them about once
a week and she had a commercial account plus 799 residential
customers.

On 2/27/2018 5:06 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:59 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:08:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/27/2018 12:57 PM, amdx wrote:
On 2/26/2018 11:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/26/2018 12:38 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:35:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/26/2018 12:26 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:52:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/26/2018 11:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:26:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/26/2018 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:00:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/26/2018 7:48 AM, justan wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message:
On 2/25/2018 10:33 PM, wrote:
I am really serious about cutting the cord. My wife says
after the
olympics but that was today.
I am already transitioning to streaming, I am working my
way through
the Amazon Prime documentaries They have just about
anything that PBS
ever aired. I talked about the American Experience show
about the MLK
assassination the other day. Today I am watching Frontline
season 27
ep 8. This is contemporary with the 2009 crash and it is
pretty
interesting, carving through some of the myths we may have.



I occasionally watch something from Amazon Prime's
inventory. My large
HD TV is not "smart" (connected to the Internet) so I use
the Sony PS4
to stream stuff from Amazon. Their prime account entitles
you to many
movies and archived shows as you mention for free.

I can also access Hulu, Netfix and other sources but I don't
watch
enough to bother with them.




Smart tvs are cheap nowadays. I paid 800 for a 60 inch smart
plasma tv at good old Walmart. A side benefit is that I
can heat
the house with it.



Mine can become "smart" if I buy a Roku wireless streaming
stick that
plugs into the TV's USB port. It's a 65" and I bought it
before having
Internet connectivity became built-in on most TVs. Accessing
the 'net
via the PS4 is just as effective and it works fine. I just
don't watch
TV enough to warrant buying another TV just for built-in Internet
connectivity. Most of the time I just use a little 23" HD TV
that sits
on my desk beside my computer monitor.


Just hook an old PC to it. With a 2.4gz wireless mouse you end
up with
a TV that is a whole lot smarter than the ones sold as smart.
We have
both here. The PC connected wins every time in every category.
The best combo seems to be my "travel" laptop connected to some no
name TV. When the lap top turns off the TV goes to sleep and I
have it
set to hibernate when you close the lid. Open the lid, the pc
comes to
life and the TV comes on.
You can get to any streaming service that way along with being
able to
play music or look at your pictures using whatever PC app you
like.



I don't collect or save old PCs. When they crap out or become so
obsolete they can't run current apps efficiently I buy a new
one. I
"do" have an older Win 7 laptop that I no longer use regularly
but I
keep it as a backup or possible traveling computer. Somewhere I
have an
old XP laptop as well but it is painfully slow compared to Win 7
and Win
10. I wouldn't even bother with it.


Besides, the little Roku thingy is much smaller and easier to
mess with.



I still don't really understand how people who want to get rid of
services like Comcast cable TV and Internet and go to streaming
only are
going to have access to the Internet.

I think I posted the results of the tests I did that compared
download
speeds of AT&T's 4G WiFi service that I have in my truck and the
download speeds of the Comcast (cable) WiFi router in my house.
Comcast
was consistently 3 to 4 times faster, sometimes even more. The AT&T
test (I did several for each) often reported that although web
browsing
would be ok, videos may be slow, especially if more than one
device was
connected to the WiFi server. The Comcast speed report consistently
said that it's speed would allow web browsing and HD video
downloads to
several devices at the same time.



For me, cutting the cord would be cutting the TV and telephone
cords. The internet cord would stay
whole. The TV cord is over $100/month, and that's without a bunch
of movie channels. The telephone
cord is another $40/month.


How much is your Internet service?

I don't have that problem. I have just have what's called "expanded
basic TV". I can always order something "On Demand" but I can't
remember the last time I did. Forget what it costs but it's cheap
compared to the Internet service. I don't have phone service via
cable.
Just use my cell phone. It's a second account on her cell phone
service and compared to her cell phone bill, mine contribution to it is
peanuts.

I pay $55 for internet.


Ok. I pay a little less ... $49/month. The AT&T WiFi in the truck is
$20/mo. for unlimited service but it's not anywhere near as fast. I
may cancel it. Don't really know why I even got it.

I have buddy the recently switched from Comcast to WOW, because
Comcast wouldn't negotiate their price. Wow gave him internet for
$39.99. He recommended Wow to a friend and the friend got the same
100Mbps service for $29.99. My buddy was a bit perplexed!
Mikek



The problem is that WOW isn't available in many places. In many areas
Comcast is the only game in town.


We now have a choice of Verizon or Cox. I've been with Cox since early 90's, but just about every
year my bill jumps up $40-$50, sometimes more. And then I call, argue for an hour, threaten to go to
Verizon, and my bill stays around $150-160, with 'promotions'. In September all my promotions run
out and the lady says my bill would go to $240. We'll see how many promotions I can qualify for in
September.


Thst's too much to pay for tv. Our fiber cable and internet is
free, but I put up a small OTA emergency antenna and I get about
60 channels with it.

That's for everything. If I don't get the discounts I may try an outdoor antenna. I've got one, just
too lazy to put it up yet.



I was really surprised how many digital channels (many in HD) were
available when I set up a TV and a cheap, rabbit ear antenna in the
"barn" garage at our previous house. We were well outside of the
recommended range being almost 40 miles south of Boston and even further
from Providence, RI, yet still got 50-60 channels. I tried a couple of
antenna types and the best one had a built-in RF amplifier. It was only
about $19.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:58:54 -0600, amdx wrote:

Now a days, you need to carry a pair of channel locks and your
favorite shower head. Just don't forget it when you leave.
Mikek

That seems to be true everywhere but Northern California.
This was Tahoe (Squaw Valley Resort)
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...strictions.jpg

OTOH right around the corner in Tioga Pass they lock up the water.
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...he%20Water.jpg

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:17:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/27/2018 5:06 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:59 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:

snippage

Thst's too much to pay for tv. Our fiber cable and internet is
free, but I put up a small OTA emergency antenna and I get about
60 channels with it.

That's for everything. If I don't get the discounts I may try an outdoor antenna. I've got one, just
too lazy to put it up yet.



I was really surprised how many digital channels (many in HD) were
available when I set up a TV and a cheap, rabbit ear antenna in the
"barn" garage at our previous house. We were well outside of the
recommended range being almost 40 miles south of Boston and even further
from Providence, RI, yet still got 50-60 channels. I tried a couple of
antenna types and the best one had a built-in RF amplifier. It was only
about $19.

I came across this site when thinking of the outdoor antenna. Don't know how accurate it is, but
it's pretty cool. https://www.fcc.gov/media/engineering/dtvmaps

Another one: https://www.antennasdirect.com/transmitter-locator.html

On 2/27/2018 5:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:49:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/27/2018 1:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:36:00 -0600, amdx wrote:

I have 30Mbps

I often wonder how that translates to the real world. I had a lot of
conversations with various tech support groups leading up to switching
my web host and the problems that prompted that.
The consensus was running a speed test to your ISPs test site was
meaningless other than what the max is you can get. When you go to 3d
party sites, that is a test of your servers and their servers but the
real issue is what you can actually get when talking to a web site or
other service. I know my news server is not even close to being able
to keep my 10mb pipe full. I have also had times when Amazon was not
able to keep a stream going without buffering, even tho I still had
plenty of capacity on my end. (I could start a Netflix). It was just a
new show on Prime and I am guessing they were slammed.
That huge capacity may be good for multiple users hitting multiple
byte hungry sites but I am not sure it is of a lot of value for 1 or 2
users. My wife's place was running the whole club on one Comcast line
and they finally had to buy another one, not because of throughput but
simply because one IP address could not support the number of unique
sub net IPs they had on the LAN. Granted all of them were not
streaming cat videos on Facebook but it was more than a few.



Years ago when we wintered in Florida we had DSL because cable was not
available. It worked ok but videos and HD media was not as
popular and as heavily downloaded back then. When I opened the guitar
shop in 2009 the building was not wired for cable so I had to get DSL
again. That's when I really starting to notice the difference between
the shop's DSL Internet speed and the speed of Comcast cable we had at
the house.

I used to update the shop's website daily and the program I used
reloaded all of the website's content which would take forever on DSL.
I ended up doing it at home after the shop closed. On cable the
complete site would upload in less than 30 seconds. At the shop it
sometimes took 5-10 minutes and often it would hang up and I'd have to
start all over again.

There is a difference, especially when more and more devices are added.
Now with two or cell phones constantly connected, multiple computers,
tablets, Smart TVs, etc., I can't see how DSL can be quick enough, but I
don't have it anymore so I don't know.

They are making DSL faster than it used to be. That is probably the
difference. From what I can see it takes about 3mb to stream HD and
that used to be fast DSL. Now I get a solid 10. We can stream 2 shows
at once and I am still browsing. My problem with Comcast has always
reliability. They are still running on the same "plant" Media One put
in 20 years ago when 8mb was fast broadband.
The speed is good if your neighbors are not banging it too hard since
you are sharing the pipe but they are down a lot and not real
responsive about fixing it. My wife used to fight with them about once
a week and she had a commercial account plus 799 residential
customers.



I am not promoting Comcast by any means but the problems you cite must
be somewhat unique to your area. Up here Comcast has been very
reliable. Really can't remember the last time it was down for any length
of time since we moved here 2 years ago. It might occasionally drop for
a minute or two if Comcast is working on a distribution amplifier nearby
but even that is very rare. It even has worked fine in a major
ice/snowstorm last winter when we lost power for a few hours. Plugged
the router, main cable box and a TV into the generator and everything
was fine.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:01:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


First thing I do when I replace a shower head is remove the flow
restrictor. Helps a little. Restrictors are fine for the sinks but not
for the shower, IMO.

My current house has a separate shower and tub. I wish the shower had
the water supply the tub has. It must be fed with 3/4 inch pipe. When
I need to refill the humidifier I can fill a gallon jug of water from
the tub faucet in 10 seconds flat using cold water only. It's even
faster if I use both hot and cold. Takes 60 seconds or more from the
kitchen sink faucet.

All of the new faucets and shower valves I have bought in the last 20
years are internally limited by the size of the passages and the
cartridge., There is not much you can do about them. After bothering
Price ****er about the kitchen faucet for a few weeks they sent me the
"experimental" cartridge that was a little better but when it went bad
there was no getting another one. If my wife was not so much of a
"style" person I would have the old 2 handle faucet that moved 10
gallons a minute. The delta bathroom faucets have a 1/8" ID pipe
feeding the spout. Not much you can do about that either.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:06:57 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:59 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:

Thst's too much to pay for tv. Our fiber cable and internet is
free, but I put up a small OTA emergency antenna and I get about
60 channels with it.

That's for everything. If I don't get the discounts I may try an outdoor antenna. I've got one, just
too lazy to put it up yet.

Digital TV has made the antenna thing a lot less rewarding. In
Maryland I could get all of the DC stations with a coat hanger and if
you had any decent antenna at all you got Baltimore as well as DC.
With a rotor you could point it south and get Richmond (Important to
my Ex when the skins games were blacked out)
These days, with a deep fringe antenna and an amp I have trouble
getting the Ft Myers stations 30 miles away.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:28:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/27/2018 5:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:49:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/27/2018 1:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:36:00 -0600, amdx wrote:

I have 30Mbps

I often wonder how that translates to the real world. I had a lot of
conversations with various tech support groups leading up to switching
my web host and the problems that prompted that.
The consensus was running a speed test to your ISPs test site was
meaningless other than what the max is you can get. When you go to 3d
party sites, that is a test of your servers and their servers but the
real issue is what you can actually get when talking to a web site or
other service. I know my news server is not even close to being able
to keep my 10mb pipe full. I have also had times when Amazon was not
able to keep a stream going without buffering, even tho I still had
plenty of capacity on my end. (I could start a Netflix). It was just a
new show on Prime and I am guessing they were slammed.
That huge capacity may be good for multiple users hitting multiple
byte hungry sites but I am not sure it is of a lot of value for 1 or 2
users. My wife's place was running the whole club on one Comcast line
and they finally had to buy another one, not because of throughput but
simply because one IP address could not support the number of unique
sub net IPs they had on the LAN. Granted all of them were not
streaming cat videos on Facebook but it was more than a few.



Years ago when we wintered in Florida we had DSL because cable was not
available. It worked ok but videos and HD media was not as
popular and as heavily downloaded back then. When I opened the guitar
shop in 2009 the building was not wired for cable so I had to get DSL
again. That's when I really starting to notice the difference between
the shop's DSL Internet speed and the speed of Comcast cable we had at
the house.

I used to update the shop's website daily and the program I used
reloaded all of the website's content which would take forever on DSL.
I ended up doing it at home after the shop closed. On cable the
complete site would upload in less than 30 seconds. At the shop it
sometimes took 5-10 minutes and often it would hang up and I'd have to
start all over again.

There is a difference, especially when more and more devices are added.
Now with two or cell phones constantly connected, multiple computers,
tablets, Smart TVs, etc., I can't see how DSL can be quick enough, but I
don't have it anymore so I don't know.

They are making DSL faster than it used to be. That is probably the
difference. From what I can see it takes about 3mb to stream HD and
that used to be fast DSL. Now I get a solid 10. We can stream 2 shows
at once and I am still browsing. My problem with Comcast has always
reliability. They are still running on the same "plant" Media One put
in 20 years ago when 8mb was fast broadband.
The speed is good if your neighbors are not banging it too hard since
you are sharing the pipe but they are down a lot and not real
responsive about fixing it. My wife used to fight with them about once
a week and she had a commercial account plus 799 residential
customers.



I am not promoting Comcast by any means but the problems you cite must
be somewhat unique to your area. Up here Comcast has been very
reliable. Really can't remember the last time it was down for any length
of time since we moved here 2 years ago. It might occasionally drop for
a minute or two if Comcast is working on a distribution amplifier nearby
but even that is very rare. It even has worked fine in a major
ice/snowstorm last winter when we lost power for a few hours. Plugged

he router, main cable box and a TV into the generator and everything
was fine.

I understand Comcast works well up north but they suck here. They
bought out the local company and never bothered to upgrade any
equipment. This is from my Comcast neighbor. He worked for South
Florida Cable and then Media one before Comcast bought them.
+e only seem to upgrade when something breaks.