If Fox goes dark on Time Warner at Midnight (house, compensation)

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by Zzyzx

For TV it makes sense to go with Direct TV or Dish, but what about internet? What is out there that can meet or beat Time Warner in terms of speed?

I agree. We actually have Time Warner for internet service, but that is only because my husband's company pays for it. If we had to pay for it, I would definitely be exploring other options. I would pay more for TW internet and satellite TV just to not have to deal with the crappy service.

BTW, our internet and email goes down A LOT. Speed doesn't do you any good if it's not working at all. And it always takes at least 30 minutes to get through to a human being at TW to tell them it's broken - again.

They actually did send a guy out here once who was honest. He said the wiring out here (older section of Steiner) was really, really old and inadequate for the area, and that TW was aware of the problem, but had no plans of fixing it. He said once U-Verse was available here, then they might. Nice.

[Zzyzx]

Originally Posted by mm57553

BTW, our internet and email goes down A LOT. Speed doesn't do you any good if it's not working at all. And it always takes at least 30 minutes to get through to a human being at TW to tell them it's broken - again.

That has not been a problem so far with me or my neighbors. The latency and up-time has been phenomenal since I moved here (Highpointe) in 2006. In fact my power has gone down more often. I do know the frustration of dealing with CS though

Originally Posted by mm57553

They actually did send a guy out here once who was honest. He said the wiring out here (older section of Steiner) was really, really old and inadequate for the area, and that TW was aware of the problem, but had no plans of fixing it. He said once U-Verse was available here, then they might. Nice.

I have had it with the cable company and their long standing monopoly. If they were not regulated it would most definitely be worse. Being a for profit company they are not obligated to upgrade or fix anything, but this will bite them in the long run. Perhaps they thought they would always be a monopoly therefore they could put customers on the back burner. As you can now see people remember the treatment and are looking for other options, I know I am.

I can tell you though, once there is viable solution, I will drop TW like a bad habit. I can remember in 1980 paying $3.50 a month for cable with all kinds of programming. Now it's just infomercials that TW makes additional revenue on and crap programming galore.

For those who don't know and use TW:
Call TW today and tell them you are ready to switch to Direct TV or whatever competitor is in your area, they WILL knock off a few dollars your bill.

[Runemaster]

Originally Posted by mark311

My experience with Comcast when I lived in the Bay area for two years was similar. The Internet access speeds were fine, but the DVR that they provided was pretty weak. This was in 2006, so maybe they have improved by now.

We temporarily tried Comcast back in August/September after having Cox Cable up till 2001, then switching to DirecTv. The Comcast "top of the line" DVR they supplied us with wasn't even on par with the very first DirecTv DVR that came out in '04 or '05... But, they do have some blazing internet.

[gdu]

Originally Posted by mm57553

Time Warner sucks. We've had Dish Network for years with no problems.

EVERY cable and satellite outlet pays the networks to broadcast their stations. But for some reason Time Warner is the only one who acts like a child and pulls the network off the air (like they did with NBC a while back). They are also the only one who will raise their rates as a result and blame the network. Funny that Comcast, Dish Network, and Direct TV have all managed to play nice and not raise their rates. Yet Time Warner wants everyone to believe it's the networks' fault, not theirs.

Why anyone still has cable is beyond me.

You should read up on it, bc you obviously have no idea what is actually going on.

[xtalman]

Just use the rabbit ears. The HD channels come in very clearly for me. I'm not sure why more people don't even try it.

I'm about to drop ATT Uverse TV, it's too expensive and I don't watch it enough to justify the cost. I will never go back to Time Warner or Comcast. Guess that leaves me with Dish or DirecTV, except I don't want to sign a contract.

[Runemaster]

Originally Posted by xtalman

Just use the rabbit ears. The HD channels come in very clearly for me. I'm not sure why more people don't even try it.

I'm about to drop ATT Uverse TV, it's too expensive and I don't watch it enough to justify the cost. I will never go back to Time Warner or Comcast. Guess that leaves me with Dish or DirecTV, except I don't want to sign a contract.

DirecTv doesn't make you sign a contract. When you call, tell them you're thinking of going with someone else, but wanted to see what kind of deal they'll offer you and watch the discounts fly.

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by gdu

You should read up on it, bc you obviously have no idea what is actually going on.

So then why is it that Time Warner seems to be the only service pulling networks off the air? I understand negotiating prices, but it's not as though Time Warner is less expensive than the other providers. How can other companies manage to keep Fox, Nbc, etc. without service interruption, and still manage to cost about the same as Time Warner? It's not like they're all going under or anything.

BTW - My Dish Network is actually cheaper than the similiar Time Warner package. And that's after 6 years, so it's not like I'm on an introductory plan anymore or anything. And Dish Network has free installation - they even dropped 2 new lines in some bedrooms for us when we moved - for free. TW charges for installation.

I'm not trying to be snarky. I really want to know why it's only TW.

[Moonlady]

Originally Posted by mm57553

So then why is it that Time Warner seems to be the only service pulling networks off the air? I understand negotiating prices, but it's not as though Time Warner is less expensive than the other providers. How can other companies manage to keep Fox, Nbc, etc. without service interruption, and still manage to cost about the same as Time Warner? It's not like they're all going under or anything.

BTW - My Dish Network is actually cheaper than the similiar Time Warner package. And that's after 6 years, so it's not like I'm on an introductory plan anymore or anything. And Dish Network has free installation - they even dropped 2 new lines in some bedrooms for us when we moved - for free. TW charges for installation.

I'm not trying to be snarky. I really want to know why it's only TW.

It's not just Time Warner - did you read the article I linked earlier? Networks are losing revenue and can't compete with cable for the high cost of producing programming. They are trying to go to the only source they have for additional revenue - the cable companies that carry their stations. If you read the article, you'll see that it's not just TW and it's likely to get worse if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Moonlady

AllAroundPhilly

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by Moonlady

It's not just Time Warner - did you read the article I linked earlier? Networks are losing revenue and can't compete with cable for the high cost of producing programming. They are trying to go to the only source they have for additional revenue - the cable companies that carry their stations. If you read the article, you'll see that it's not just TW and it's likely to get worse if you ask me.

I read the article. And I get that the networks are demanding more money from cable and satellite providers. But what I don't get is why Time Warner seems to be the only one "forced" to pull the network off the air.

All the providers are going to be paying higher prices, but not all of them pass the costs along to customers like TW does (refer to earlier post about my satellite serice being cheaper than TW). Why does Time Warner seem to be so much more affected by this than every other outlet? Or so it would seem.

[Moonlady]

Originally Posted by mm57553

Why does Time Warner seem to be so much more affected by this than every other outlet? Or so it would seem.

I can only guess. 1) I'm not sure why the Satellite guys aren't affected, 2) I do think other carriers like Comcast are affected, but TW is the major cable player in town here so that's why we hear more about it and 3) I think TW is fighting harder because they're not going to be competitive if they have to keep raising rates to cover the extra cost - more people will likely switch to satellite. I guess I don't understand the difference in the pricing agreements the networks have with either the satellite or cable providers, but if it's similar, I would expect to see the satellite companies going through this in the near future.