Can anyone much smarter than me tell me what this means? (Not you Kevin ) and if I should be dancing in the street, even if its just to enjoy Comcast being sad http://motherboard.vice.com/read/as...n-internet-hero-23432353?utm_source=mbtwitter
FCC putting insurmountable obstacles in the way of this merger. I don't see the point. The claim is it helps competition, but that would only be in a few areas where both offer service. The merger should, in theory, lower the cost of things because the combined expenses of the bigger company would be lower. The benefit of the merger would depend mostly on whose culture survives the deal. If they adopt Time Warner Cable methodology, every one of Comcast's customers would benefit. Instead of building out two massive nationwide networks, the combined company could focus on one. Instead of running two fibers in all the manholes, the combined company could do one. I'm a Time Warner customer and I'm thrilled with my service. I was a Cox customer before this and they were most excellent, but that was before they implemented bandwidth caps. I can't vouch for the quality of Comcast internet. I assume it's plenty good.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/06/us/congress-rebuffs-bush-in-override-of-cable-tv-veto.html CONGRESS REBUFFS BUSH IN OVERRIDE OF CABLE TV VETO Published: October 6, 1992 WASHINGTON, Oct. 5— Congress voted tonight to override President Bush's veto of legislation to regulate cable television companies, breaking his streak of 35 successful vetoes. The bill itself, which would authorize regulation of minimum cable service and seek to encourage competition, was almost lost in the politics of the moment. Democrats, who have waited four years to defeat Mr. Bush on such a test of strength, exulted, and Republicans were split over what the vote meant. President Bush argued in his veto message that the bill would stifle the growing cable and telecommunications industries, and that increased regulation would lead to higher, not lower, cable rates. (My note, Bush turns out to have been right. Cable TV regulation only caused rates to soar) http://www.walterhav.com/pubs/20020708161648_457_Article_-_Telecom_-_Cable_TV_Rates_-_Apr_2002.pdf That's from 2002. Today? http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=88614 If your cable television bills seem to be getting more expensive it's because they are. The Federal Communications Commission reported this week that average cable television bills nationwide jumped by 5.8 percent in the one-year period through July, considerably higher than the 3.7 percent increase in the price of all goods and services.
if I could get fast enough internet where I lived to where the Mrs and I could both stream something at the same time, I'd be 100% fine with Hulu/netflix.
thats a lot of $$$ to reward century link for giving us garbage service. At that rate I'll just keep the extra DVR functionality and live sports of Dish
The two don't compete with each other anywhere that I know. Cable is a public utility just like electric, water, phone etc. If this were to go through. Time Warner was going to follow Comcast's ways of doing business.
I don't know all parts of the country. But I know several metro areas use both and neither occupy the same areas. Kansas City for example. TW occupies the west side of the city and Comcast occupies the eastside. If TW is available in one community. Comcast is not. In Tucson, AZ Comcast serves one part of the town, Cox serves the other. It's like electric here. Who is our option? PGE. Who is our option for water? Wolf Creek? Who is our option for phone? Frontier Who is our option for Cable? It's Comcast. There are not other cable companies in this area. Maybe they are fearing Comcast was becoming too big and it was used as an excuse.
I would love 10 Mbit and would be plenty. Not sure if its just cause hardly any options for a small town. But I'm paying almost $60 for what tops out at 6 MB. Def frustrating when I was paying $30 for 50 MB with Charter.
