ageofpiece wrote:
I’m skeptical the issue of slow internet can be expediently addressed via this forum. Perhaps the change I saw in my speeds after the call was coincidence?
Nobody said it was coincidence. Nor did anyone say that people can't get help via a phone rep. Plenty of people do. It's just that the help here tends to be better, especially when an issue is more involved. Tier 1 reps who are reading from a screen vs corporate reps who have been with the company for years and have direct access to the engineers. Your issue was likely a simple, quick fix. I'll forgive your naivety when it comes to this support community.
ageofpiece wrote:
Also the added url where we have to compile our speeds over a period of time to me is not acceptable, pardon me for saying so. This seems a way to pass off addressing the issue.
The testing protocol is a way to first, establish the issue, and second, give the reps and engineers pertinent info. It's a troubleshooting tool, not a way to "pass off addressing the issue". SMH.
"If you're working with us in the community or social media, only testmy.net results are accepted to be considered for escalation to corporate engineering." - Did you happen to miss that part?
ageofpiece wrote:
What we pay for is 25mbps. That’s what we should get.
Yes, you do, but that doesn't mean speed won't fluctuate, and 25Mbps is not guaranteed.
ageofpiece wrote:
although could do with less attitude. Didn’t encounter than over phone tech support. Secondly, Gabe; having customers “run a set of 3-5 tests per day during different parts of the day” hardly seems like addressing why speeds are like maybe 500kbps in the moment.
I apologize for the bit of attitude, but few of your comments are somewhat insulting.
Secondly, the speed tests don't address your speed issues. They demonstrate the issue and give the reps and/or engineers pertinent info in order to address the speed issue. When you take your vehicle to a shop because there is a strange noise, they aren't just going to fix it. They are first going to troubleshoot it. They're going to want to hear the noise. They're going to want to recreate the noise. If needed, they're going to want to drive under normal conditions to see if the noise occurs. This is troubleshooting. It's not fixing the issue. It's demonstrating it and gleaning information from it in order to know what steps to take to fix it. This is what the speed testing protocol does. It's not "a way to pass off the issue". It's a step to get the issue addressed. This is a support community, not a "pass off the issue" community.
Good day to you.
I hear you ageofpiece...I just had two months of testing everything with the assumption it was my side of the issue. After many many many hours it became apparent that it was their side of the issue - an overloaded beam - with no resolution. It becomes an obvious question, to me anyway, that, based on location, shouldn't they be able to tell when the service to an area is compromised due to overcrowding and just state so? Isn't the traffic on each beam monitored for performance? If it isn't....what?
Perhaps we should let them do their jobs and not guess at what they should or should not be able to do/not do.
spydermike wrote:houldn't they be able to tell when the service to an area is compromised due to overcrowding and just state so? Isn't the traffic on each beam monitored for performance? If it isn't....what?
