Is this claim true, or not?

[Gerald Combs]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Seth Dimbert wrote:

> Answer:
> No. Our competitors would like you to think so. Because of the scalable
> features of Time Warner Cable's hybrid fiber coax (HFC) design, we have
> nearly-infinite growth capacity. Today, our high-speed Internet services use
> just 6 megahertz of our 750 megahertz coax plant. In addition, we are only
> using 1600 fibers of the 4800 fiber optic lines we have run throughout
> Kansas City - the rest is "dark," awaiting future needs. Click here for more
> information.
> 
> 
> So? What's the deal? Is it true, or not? I'm currently using DSL and getting
> 162 kbp download and 105 kbp upload. TWC tells me that they will give me
> speeds higher than this. Once and for all, is it true?

I've had Road Runner for over 3 years, and have gotten a consistent 2 Mbps
down/ 128 kbps up since it was installed.  When cable modems were first
rolled out at the dawn of time, the service behaved much like a classic
hubbed Ethernet network - you could see what everyone in your neighborhood
sent and received, and efficiency sucked.  This resulted in a noticeable
drop in available bandwidth as more people were added, and is what DSL
providers still refer to when they say that cable service is crappy and
insecure.

By the time TWC rolled out Road Runner in Kansas City, cable modem
networks acted more like modern switched Ethernet networks.  Examination
of the traffic on my outside interface corroborates this.  The only
indication that other people are on my segment are ARP requests.  My guess
is that I'm connected to a uBR7100 or 7200 with some sort of proxy ARP
configuration:

  http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/cable/index.html

I've been happy with my service.  I've heard complaints from TWC customers
in other parts of town (I live in midtown).  YMMV.  You might want to
check with Everest to see if they're serving your area, BTW.