QUOTE(tritonite @ Apr 7 2016, 12:05 PM)
For the same price you are paying to get your 'full' 20Mbps Unifi, you are getting 70-80% of a 300Mbps line, which simple maths well tell you is WAAAYY more than 20Mbps. Even if it was operating at 50% capacity, you're still ahead.
People need to put things into perspective and look at the overall, bigger value-for-money picture.
No, I'm not presently a TIME subscriber, but it is definitely leaning that way once I am convinced that when their subscriber numbers reaches saturation with their new packages, their performance level is still good enough for my home office requirements.
I don't think you are wrong to think that way. Yes, value for money wise, it is way better than TM. But that is using TM to justify the means, which I don't agree.
The fact is, I paid for 300Mbps and I think I should be getting the full speed. Of course, there are stuff like degradation along the cables and etc. But then... if they can offer 500Mbps on the same cable, then I don't see why my speed cannot get full.
If that is the way fibre works where the actual speed is always 80% of the "port" speed, then they should make sure their port is set to 375Mbps. Customer got no control over the quality of fibre cables (which are owned by Time).
I'm not an expert in fibre, but i definitely know that I paid for 300Mbps but I'm only getting 260Mbps.