Los Angeles, CA - TWC - Page 320 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 341Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #9571 of 9593 Unread 12-27-2014, 03:11 PM
Senior Member
 
DougDingle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPDICKEY View Post
"For a period of time"

Like cablecards, these 'free' converters are destined to eventually be a cash cow for cablecos. When I first subscribed, TW was charging me a total of $9 for four cablecards, and nothing for the modem. Now it's $14.50 a month, and I'm still using the same cablecards, which were paid off a long, long time ago.

While there are those cableco sycophants who like to say that's the price I pay for having TiVos, the opposite is true. If it wasn't for the availability of cablecards and the awful, awful, awful Tuning Adapters, I would have switched to DirecTV and gotten several TiVos from them long ago, and had PPV, OnDemand, and no TA nonsense. The determining factor for me is that I want TiVos, not TW's utterly crappy compressed to death cable service and their unsophisticated DVRs. If FiOS' superior quality service was available here, I would disconnect TW in a heartbeat.

That the cablecos managed to twist the FCC's arm once again in their favor is only indicative of the way corporations tell the government what to do now, and the consumer is screwed at every turn.

Neither the cable card nor tuning adapter mandates would stand a prayer if the idea were introduced today - just too much of a 'financial burden' on the multi-billion dollar cable business, I'm sure, a complaint brought home no doubt during a fact finding junket for FCC people in a Maui resort for a week.
phildaant and sted like this.
DougDingle is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #9572 of 9593 Unread 12-27-2014, 03:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
phildaant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: An Ant Farm
Posts: 2,990
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 429 Post(s)
Liked: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougDingle View Post
"For a period of time"

Like cablecards, these 'free' converters are destined to eventually be a cash cow for cablecos. When I first subscribed, TW was charging me a total of $9 for four cablecards, and nothing for the modem. Now it's $14.50 a month, and I'm still using the same cablecards, which were paid off a long, long time ago.

While there are those cableco sycophants who like to say that's the price I pay for having TiVos, the opposite is true. If it wasn't for the availability of cablecards and the awful, awful, awful Tuning Adapters, I would have switched to DirecTV and gotten several TiVos from them long ago, and had PPV, OnDemand, and no TA nonsense. The determining factor for me is that I want TiVos, not TW's utterly crappy compressed to death cable service and their unsophisticated DVRs. If FiOS' superior quality service was available here, I would disconnect TW in a heartbeat.

That the cablecos managed to twist the FCC's arm once again in their favor is only indicative of the way corporations tell the government what to do now, and the consumer is screwed at every turn.

Neither the cable card nor tuning adapter mandates would stand a prayer if the idea were introduced today - just too much of a 'financial burden' on the multi-billion dollar cable business, I'm sure, a complaint brought home no doubt during a fact finding junket for FCC people in a Maui resort for a week.
Did satellite and other non-cable TV providers do the same with FCC?
phildaant is offline  
post #9573 of 9593 Unread 12-27-2014, 04:28 PM
Senior Member
 
DougDingle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by phildaant View Post
Did satellite and other non-cable TV providers do the same with FCC?
Sat providers are treated somewhat differently because they are able to bring service to areas where cablecos found it economically nonviable to run wire. Many rural areas depend on satellite for TV. And because satellite signals don't come in on a wire, they had to supply some type of set top box for reception, even when it was standard def analog video. A decade ago, you could buy the box at Best Buy or Costco for $99, and own the box, which was turned on in exchange for a service commitment (kind of like cell phones), but now you can no longer buy satellite hardware just as you cannot buy cableco hardware except for TiVos, and then you still cannot buy cable cards. It's all about the control, not whatever fantasy story they tell the FCC.

Satellite companies, like cablecos, have fought very hard for the right to drop local channels, or charge extra for them, but so far, the FCC and Congress have stuck to their guns. With a new group coming into office in January, that may all change.

The two satellite companies have roughly 25-30 million subscribers between them, whereas the top three cablecos are currently at around 40-45 million subscribers. Both groups are fighting very hard to price themselves totally out of the market by continually raising prices while lowering image quality by adding more and more channels that fewer and fewer people watch, and losing customers in the process. The cablecos will have already figured out their future is in a la carte channels, broadband, and VOIP, they just don't know how they're going to get there yet. Satellite companies are a one trick pony - it's video or nothing. Their broadband is a joke.

My prediction: in 20 years (or less), video will be delivered either through streaming or by satellite only, broadband mostly by copper but high powered neighborhood wi-fi is also coming, which is why the cablecos fight so hard to not let cities supply it as a (free) service, and are mostly succeeding.

As far as influencing (bribing) the FCC, they seem to be at par. The one group that is routinely ignored by the FCC and every other governmental body is the consumer.
phildaant and sted like this.
DougDingle is offline  
post #9574 of 9593 Unread 12-27-2014, 04:45 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by DougDingle View Post
Sat providers are treated somewhat differently because they are able to bring service to areas where cablecos found it economically nonviable to run wire. Many rural areas depend on satellite for TV. And because satellite signals don't come in on a wire, they had to supply some type of set top box for reception, even when it was standard def analog video. A decade ago, you could buy the box at Best Buy or Costco for $99, and own the box, which was turned on in exchange for a service commitment (kind of like cell phones), but now you can no longer buy satellite hardware just as you cannot buy cableco hardware except for TiVos, and then you still cannot buy cable cards. It's all about the control, not whatever fantasy story they tell the FCC.

Satellite companies, like cablecos, have fought very hard for the right to drop local channels, or charge extra for them, but so far, the FCC and Congress have stuck to their guns. With a new group coming into office in January, that may all change.

The two satellite companies have roughly 25-30 million subscribers between them, whereas the top three cablecos are currently at around 40-45 million subscribers. Both groups are fighting very hard to price themselves totally out of the market by continually raising prices while lowering image quality by adding more and more channels that fewer and fewer people watch, and losing customers in the process. The cablecos will have already figured out their future is in a la carte channels, broadband, and VOIP, they just don't know how they're going to get there yet. Satellite companies are a one trick pony - it's video or nothing. Their broadband is a joke.

My prediction: in 20 years (or less), video will be delivered either through streaming or by satellite only, broadband mostly by copper but high powered neighborhood wi-fi is also coming, which is why the cablecos fight so hard to not let cities supply it as a (free) service, and are mostly succeeding.

As far as influencing (bribing) the FCC, they seem to be at par. The one group that is routinely ignored by the FCC and every other governmental body is the consumer.

One huge mistake that Congress made in 1992 is allowing the local tv stations to charge for carriage. They can elect "must-carry" status, which is what some little-watched stations like KDOC 56 probably do, or they can elect "retransmission consent" status, which is what KCBS, KNBC, and KABC, to cite a few, do. "Retransmission consent" means that the cable or satellite carrier must do whatever the station wants in order to carry the station. It usually involves paying a lot of money to the station, and often carrying other, less-desired stations that the main station owns. This law that Congress passed has led to greatly increased cable/satellite rates, numerous retransmission disputes, and is leading to the end of broadcast television. Broadcasters are no longer dependent as much on advertising fees, and are more dependent on retransmission fees. We have the National Association of Broadcasters to thank for lobbying Congress to pass this law.


So if you think that CBS president Leslie Moonves and CSI star Mark Harmon need to earn more money....
phildaant likes this.

Last edited by sted; 12-27-2014 at 04:49 PM.
sted is offline  
post #9575 of 9593 Unread 12-27-2014, 05:04 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by DougDingle View Post
Sat providers are treated somewhat differently because they are able to bring service to areas where cablecos found it economically nonviable to run wire. Many rural areas depend on satellite for TV. And because satellite signals don't come in on a wire, they had to supply some type of set top box for reception, even when it was standard def analog video. A decade ago, you could buy the box at Best Buy or Costco for $99, and own the box, which was turned on in exchange for a service commitment (kind of like cell phones), but now you can no longer buy satellite hardware just as you cannot buy cableco hardware except for TiVos, and then you still cannot buy cable cards. It's all about the control, not whatever fantasy story they tell the FCC.

Satellite companies, like cablecos, have fought very hard for the right to drop local channels, or charge extra for them, but so far, the FCC and Congress have stuck to their guns. With a new group coming into office in January, that may all change.

The two satellite companies have roughly 25-30 million subscribers between them, whereas the top three cablecos are currently at around 40-45 million subscribers. Both groups are fighting very hard to price themselves totally out of the market by continually raising prices while lowering image quality by adding more and more channels that fewer and fewer people watch, and losing customers in the process. The cablecos will have already figured out their future is in a la carte channels, broadband, and VOIP, they just don't know how they're going to get there yet. Satellite companies are a one trick pony - it's video or nothing. Their broadband is a joke.

My prediction: in 20 years (or less), video will be delivered either through streaming or by satellite only, broadband mostly by copper but high powered neighborhood wi-fi is also coming, which is why the cablecos fight so hard to not let cities supply it as a (free) service, and are mostly succeeding.

As far as influencing (bribing) the FCC, they seem to be at par. The one group that is routinely ignored by the FCC and every other governmental body is the consumer.

And I'll add another thing. The FCC never developed the two-way cable card standard, thanks to cable company lobbying. So I was willing to get rid of the Time-Warner dvrs and equipment to go with Tivo, but I had to give up "on demand" to do it. I was willing to do so because Time-Warner charged exorbinant, made-up fees. I had to pay dvr rental fees, dvr service fees, and a whole-house dvr fee, and the equipment had to be reset on a daily basis. To get rid of those fees, and to have equipment that is reliable and doesn't have to be reset everyday, I purchased the Tivo equipment and gave up "on demand."


Thanks to cable company lobbying of the FCC, there is no true competition in the cable box/dvr area. If a two-way standard existed, there would be more cable boxes available for purchase in stores and many more Time-Warner customers would abandon the Time-Warner equipment.
phildaant and hologon like this.

Last edited by sted; 12-27-2014 at 07:16 PM.
sted is offline  
post #9576 of 9593 Unread 12-28-2014, 07:50 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 31
I just got my cable bill. The bill stated that next month TWC is increasing the price of HBO, the Movie Pass, and is also increasing the modem lease fee and the digital adapter fee. They are also increasing the so-called broadcast television surcharge and are adding a sports programming surcharge. It is not clear what customers will be paying the sports programming surcharge.
phildaant likes this.
sted is offline  
post #9577 of 9593 Unread 12-28-2014, 08:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
phildaant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: An Ant Farm
Posts: 2,990
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 429 Post(s)
Liked: 132
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by sted View Post
I just got my cable bill. The bill stated that next month TWC is increasing the price of HBO, the Movie Pass, and is also increasing the modem lease fee and the digital adapter fee. They are also increasing the so-called broadcast television surcharge and are adding a sports programming surcharge. It is not clear what customers will be paying the sports programming surcharge.
Maybe $2.75 as shown in https://twitter.com/ToddJClausen/sta...419523/photo/1 ?
sted likes this.
phildaant is offline  
post #9578 of 9593 Unread 12-28-2014, 08:47 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by phildaant View Post
The broadcast surcharge and the sports surcharge are very deceptive. They are really rate increases, yet TWC wants to say their rates are lower than they are. The customer is then hit with "surcharges" (nothing more than rate increases) on the bill. These surcharges are not taxes--they are just more money to TWC.
phildaant likes this.
sted is offline  
post #9579 of 9593 Unread 12-29-2014, 02:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
nyctveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location:
Posts: 863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by sted View Post
The broadcast surcharge and the sports surcharge are very deceptive. They are really rate increases, yet TWC wants to say their rates are lower than they are. The customer is then hit with "surcharges" (nothing more than rate increases) on the bill. These surcharges are not taxes--they are just more money to TWC.
I don't like the charges any more than you do but actually they are the opposite of deceptive. Yes they are an increase but it's more transparent where your money is going. Back in the day you cable bill was say $40 a month with no breakdown of charges. These days items are itemized with box, remote, DVR, various tiers, etc. The broadcast surcharge and sports surcharge amounts TWC and all other providers charge barely cover the actual cost. All the companies are now selling packages without sports but it's a tough sell as most people want the sports.

This article gives some insight:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/cab...january/386488
phildaant, SPDICKEY and sted like this.
nyctveng is online now  
post #9580 of 9593 Unread 12-30-2014, 10:56 PM
Senior Member
 
DougDingle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctveng View Post
The broadcast surcharge and sports surcharge amounts TWC and all other providers charge barely cover the actual cost. All the companies are now selling packages without sports but it's a tough sell as most people want the sports.

This article gives some insight:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/cab...january/386488
Oh, please. The issue with sports is the fight about whether to make it part of the basic cable package, or (much more fairly) make it an optional tier and have only those interested pay for it. The L.A. Dodgers are a prime example. I don't give a crap about the Dodgers, or baseball for that matter. Or the Lakers, or basketball. Yet I'm paying an extra amount monthly for the ridiculous deal TW made with the teams for exclusive coverage.

How in HELL is that reasonable? Why should I have to pay so Dodger fans who want the games have to pay less? ALL sports packages should be on an individual tier, and if you want to see Dodger games PAY THE DAMN MONTHLY FEE. Do it that way, and we'll find out in very short order whether TW was insane to make the deal. This is the sort of utter stupidity that will eventually drive the cablecos out of the video delivery business.

Here's the entire justification for charging every subscriber for a sports package: ZERO.
phildaant and sted like this.
DougDingle is offline  
post #9581 of 9593 Unread 12-31-2014, 07:05 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougDingle View Post
Oh, please. The issue with sports is the fight about whether to make it part of the basic cable package, or (much more fairly) make it an optional tier and have only those interested pay for it. The L.A. Dodgers are a prime example. I don't give a crap about the Dodgers, or baseball for that matter. Or the Lakers, or basketball. Yet I'm paying an extra amount monthly for the ridiculous deal TW made with the teams for exclusive coverage.

How in HELL is that reasonable? Why should I have to pay so Dodger fans who want the games have to pay less? ALL sports packages should be on an individual tier, and if you want to see Dodger games PAY THE DAMN MONTHLY FEE. Do it that way, and we'll find out in very short order whether TW was insane to make the deal. This is the sort of utter stupidity that will eventually drive the cablecos out of the video delivery business.

Here's the entire justification for charging every subscriber for a sports package: ZERO.
And what I mean by deceptive surcharges is that TW wants to say that the rate for cable is $50 a month, and they will advertise that rate. But when you get the bill, you find out that the bill is much more because of all sorts of surcharges and rental fees. I believe that behavior is deceptive. And they imply by calling something a surcharge that it is something other than just a way to increase a customer's bill. They imply that it is a tax, and some unsophisticated customers think that is what it is. So the rate for cable is not $50 a month, it is really $70 a month.


And I am just making these numbers up by way of illustration.
phildaant likes this.
sted is offline  
post #9582 of 9593 Unread 12-31-2014, 06:05 PM
Senior Member
 
DougDingle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougDingle View Post
The issue with sports is the fight about whether to make it part of the basic cable package, or (much more fairly) make it an optional tier and have only those interested pay for it.
And by the way, for those not aware of it, every channel (with the exception of premiums) always wants to be part of the basic cable package.

That way, in the case of TW for instance, they can claim they are present in roughly 15 million homes, on likely 20-25 million sets (since many subscribers have more than one set). That helps them justify and increase what they charge for advertising.

If they are on a 'special' tier, where people actually have to pay extra for the channel(s), they are in far fewer homes, and have a much tougher time increasing ad rates.

This battle is fought constantly between channels and cablecos. I believe it was why it took TW so long to get the two NFL channels - the NFL wanted both channels on Basic, and it seems they finally compromised with the main channel being on Basic, and NFL Red Zone part of an extra charge sports tier.
phildaant and sted like this.
DougDingle is offline  
post #9583 of 9593 Unread 01-02-2015, 11:26 AM
Senior Member
 
SPDICKEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougDingle View Post
And by the way, for those not aware of it, every channel (with the exception of premiums) always wants to be part of the basic cable package.

That way, in the case of TW for instance, they can claim they are present in roughly 15 million homes, on likely 20-25 million sets (since many subscribers have more than one set). That helps them justify and increase what they charge for advertising.

If they are on a 'special' tier, where people actually have to pay extra for the channel(s), they are in far fewer homes, and have a much tougher time increasing ad rates.

This battle is fought constantly between channels and cablecos. I believe it was why it took TW so long to get the two NFL channels - the NFL wanted both channels on Basic, and it seems they finally compromised with the main channel being on Basic, and NFL Red Zone part of an extra charge sports tier.
Ad prices charged by the cable networks (and by TWC for local ads) are based on the number of people watching a channel, not by the number of households (not individual TV sets in homes) that are available to the channel. Of course, the more available households, the more people who are actually watching.

If a cable operator spins off a channel to a tier with fewer households, the ad supported network will lose viewers, and ad revenue will decrease. To make of for this, cable networks charge cable operators more per subscriber, which is passed on to those subscribing to the tier of service.

In the case of ESPN and other popular basic networks, where a huge percentage of their revenue comes from advertising, if they were move to a less subscribed tier, the per subscriber charge would skyrocket. All but the most fanatical of sports fans would drop the sports tier and the death spiral would continue.

Since now all content originators are hooked on subscriber revenue, including those like CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox who were formerly just advertiser supported, expect viewers to be forced to pay more and more for your programming.

NFL Red Zone BTW is on a sports tier most everywhere it is carried. NFL Channel really wanted to get the ad revenue being in front of the most available viewers. http://www.mostlivesports.com/nfl/
phildaant and sted like this.
SPDICKEY is offline  
post #9584 of 9593 Unread 01-05-2015, 07:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PJO1966's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 25
I am really getting tired of issues with TWC. All of a sudden, neither my Roku app or Android app will recognize I'm on my home network. I went to view live TV on the app and was told to try again when I'm on my home network. It worked just fine last week. It's really annoying.
PJO1966 is offline  
post #9585 of 9593 Unread 01-05-2015, 07:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PJO1966's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Rebooting the router and the Roku did not help.
PJO1966 is offline  
post #9586 of 9593 Unread 01-05-2015, 07:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
nyctveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location:
Posts: 863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJO1966 View Post
Rebooting the router and the Roku did not help.
Try rebooting the cable modem too
phildaant likes this.
nyctveng is online now  
post #9587 of 9593 Unread 01-05-2015, 07:53 AM
Newbie
 
Jgolden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJO1966 View Post
I am really getting tired of issues with TWC. All of a sudden, neither my Roku app or Android app will recognize I'm on my home network. I went to view live TV on the app and was told to try again when I'm on my home network. It worked just fine last week. It's really annoying.
Check that the Roku is talking to your router and not a neighbors
phildaant likes this.
Jgolden is offline  
post #9588 of 9593 Unread 01-05-2015, 09:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PJO1966's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctveng View Post
Try rebooting the cable modem too
I'll give it a try. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jgolden View Post
Check that the Roku is talking to your router and not a neighbors
Both the Roku and tablet are definitely on my network. Thanks.
PJO1966 is offline  
post #9589 of 9593 Unread 01-06-2015, 07:51 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 31
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...06-column.html


Here's a link to an article about the pure greed and deceptive behavior of Time-Warner. The more I think about these guys, the more I just want to cut their service entirely. But then I think that there are shows that my daughter wants to watch, and if I go to any other carrier such as AT&T I will get treated the same or worse. They have us over a barrel and they know it. It is like the price of gas, the cable/internet/satellite companies know that they can raise the rates as much as they want and people will pay it. It is just like admission prices to Disneyland--they raise it, and the people keep coming.


It is like the old story where someone slaps you in the face, and your response is, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"
phildaant likes this.
sted is offline  
post #9590 of 9593 Unread 01-06-2015, 04:51 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 31
And another thing that gets me is that I have purchased all my own equipment--modem, Tivo--so I don't pay for TW equipment because it was too expensive and not that good. Probably others have done that, so now they are going to "surcharges"-- actually rate increases disguised with another name.
phildaant likes this.
sted is offline  
post #9591 of 9593 Unread 01-06-2015, 05:23 PM
Senior Member
 
DougDingle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by sted View Post
And another thing that gets me is that I have purchased all my own equipment--modem, Tivo--so I don't pay for TW equipment because it was too expensive and not that good. Probably others have done that, so now they are going to "surcharges"-- actually rate increases disguised with another name.
The price of cablecards has increased several times since I first got mine. Same cablecards, just much more expensive per month five years later.

As for the modems, even at $8/mo, it works for me. To buy a modem plus a good wireless dual band router (not the $29-$49 kiddie toys that are available) would cost around $250 plus tax. That's about 3 years of rental from TW, and three years from now, who knows if my owned gear will still be viable? I am pleased with the way my system works now, and have no wish to start over with my own modem/router to save a couple of dollars a month.
sted likes this.
DougDingle is offline  
post #9592 of 9593 Unread 01-06-2015, 06:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
phildaant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: An Ant Farm
Posts: 2,990
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 429 Post(s)
Liked: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougDingle View Post
The price of cablecards has increased several times since I first got mine. Same cablecards, just much more expensive per month five years later.

As for the modems, even at $8/mo, it works for me. To buy a modem plus a good wireless dual band router (not the $29-$49 kiddie toys that are available) would cost around $250 plus tax. That's about 3 years of rental from TW, and three years from now, who knows if my owned gear will still be viable? I am pleased with the way my system works now, and have no wish to start over with my own modem/router to save a couple of dollars a month.
But TWC's hardwares aren't good though.
sted likes this.
phildaant is offline  
post #9593 of 9593 Unread 01-09-2015, 08:02 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 31
I noticed in S Pas/San Marino we are now receiving Baby First on 256, but still no WGN. I noticed the programming alerts have not been updated on the first Wednesday of the month (Jan 7) and the updates for WGN, Baby First, and a few others were couched in language of "may be made available" rather than "will be made available."
phildaant likes this.
sted is offline  
Reply Local HDTV Info and Reception



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off