Good News for Time Warner Customers?

[EllyPoinster]

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/busi...ck-deal-n29011

[Winni-Retired]

I have had both services and always felt I got more for my buck with TW.

I have TW in North Carolina at my oceanfront condo and I am pleased with the service and cost.

I have Metrocast in NH and would be happy if I heard that Comcast was buying them out.

[patman]

In general...when two monopolies merge to form one giant one, it's rarely good for the end customer. I'm not optimistic.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by patman

In general...when two monopolies merge to form one giant one, it's rarely good for the end customer. I'm not optimistic.

This. It has to be paid for somehow even if its all stock.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

This. It has to be paid for somehow even if its all stock.

The accretion in deals like these come from huge expense cuts. 1 + 1 = 3

[jeffk]

I think the outcome of deals like these depend on the intent of the purchasing company. Are they just looking to make money or are they trying to build a business. People looking to make money just chop everything to the bone and sell off what they don't want. Customers do NOT benefit. People looking to build a business try to provide maximum value to be competitive leaders. This DOES benefit customers in getting the most bang for their buck.

Obviously there ARE economies of scale but that doesn't necessarily mean it will benefit the customer. If the company is customer focused, it will show.

Time will tell.

[LongBay]

Originally Posted by Winni-Retired

I have had both services and always felt I got more for my buck with TW.

I have TW in North Carolina at my oceanfront condo and I am pleased with the service and cost.

I have Metrocast in NH and would be happy if I heard that Comcast was buying them out.

I have Comcast in Boston and can't wait for Google or Fios to come to my neighborhood so I can toss all the converter boxes Comcast makes you rent into the harbor.

[Andrea.wiltfong]

Originally Posted by LongBay

I have Comcast in Boston and can't wait for Google or Fios to come to my neighborhood so I can toss all the converter boxes Comcast makes you rent into the harbor.

we had Verizono Fios in NJ and we had to rent the boxes...unless it has changed in the past year or so with new contracts

[Greene's Basin Girl]

I have been happy with Time Warner here in Moultonborough. My son has Comcast in Florida and he has told me horror stories about the company. I hope the merge does not get approved.

[mikea]

Just follow the following: -

http://qz.com/176837/one-sentence-an...-warner-cable/

[phoenix]

Would be surprised is it doesn't get approved . They don't overlap a lot. I think they are planning to shed some of overlapping businesses as part of the deal. But these deal usually result in cost cuts or service reductions.

[Lakesrider]

Agreed. They really should concentrate on customer service instead of buying anything else. But that will never, ever happen. sigh.

[trfour]

Monopolized Price gouging, if you ask me...

Not my idea...
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/...tcmp=obnetwork



Terry
_____________________________

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by patman

In general...when two monopolies merge to form one giant one, it's rarely good for the end customer. I'm not optimistic.

Yes.

Time for the FCC to cancel this transaction.

[IslandRadio]

I'm not for monopolies, but it would be great if Comcast or TW bought Metrocast. They are REALLY REALLY bad from many standpoints.

Too bad the deal wasn't with them instead of TW. I would truly like to Metrocast GONE!

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by trfour

Monopolized Price gouging, if you ask me...

Not my idea...
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/...tcmp=obnetwork

My sister lived in Mooresville NC. Back in 2008, she had me investigate cable prices. I was shocked to see there were 2 DSL, 3 cable and 2 satellite providers in the area. Why do Metrocast have a monopoly? I can't use satellite because I don't have an unrestrictive view. I have to put up a 90 ft tower to enjoy digital antenna. Zoning will not allow that even tho FCC recommend it because I lost my signal during the transfer in 2008.

I'm thinking all the money we are paying is used for lobbying a monopoly when the elected officers are supposed to represent us?

I'm thinking we could all stop paying our bills so the lobbyists won't get paid and PAC money dries up. The govt takes over the infrastructure and lease it out to the service providers who can operate in all the markets. That should bring prices down and service up.

Of course, it is not going to happen.

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

My sister lived in Mooresville NC. Back in 2008, she had me investigate cable prices. I was shocked to see there were 2 DSL, 3 cable and 2 satellite providers in the area. Why do Metrocast have a monopoly? I can't use satellite because I don't have an unrestrictive view. I have to put up a 90 ft tower to enjoy digital antenna. Zoning will not allow that even tho FCC recommend it because I lost my signal during the transfer in 2008.

I'm thinking all the money we are paying is used for lobbying a monopoly when the elected officers are supposed to represent us?

I'm thinking we could all stop paying our bills so the lobbyists won't get paid and PAC money dries up. The govt takes over the infrastructure and lease it out to the service providers who can operate in all the markets. That should bring prices down and service up.

Of course, it is not going to happen.

If it were the State of NH that was approving who got what contract, I could see your logic about money going to PAC's and lobbyists. However, seeing as how each community sets up their contracts with the cable company, that pretty much goes out the window.

Living in Alton, I have the choice of Metrocast, which really doesn't bother me, but then again, maybe I am the strange one; TDS for DSL service, but according to their website I can't get service (I know the lines go right past my house); or satellite, where I do have somewhat unobstructive view except for the huge oak tree in the middle of the front yard. I think I can still work around it.

We have the VIP service with Metrocast, and have extended basic for the cable portion. That level of service works for us. Internet is fine. Phone is fine. When the Verizon service gets up and going on the new Alton Tower, we will re-evaluate. Until then, we will stay with Metrocast.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

The govt takes over the infrastructure and lease it out to the service providers who can operate in all the markets. That should bring prices down and service up.

Name one thing "the government" has taken over recently (last 20 years) that's turned out well. I don't mean to turn this into a political discussion, but think about your statement for a minute...

The biggest part of your cable bill is essentially paying for the *content*. Metrocast (et al) have to pay for the channels brought into your house. The cable plant itself is costly to build, but maintenance is relatively cheap compared to other costs.

Changing ownership of the infrastructure isn't going to change your bill very much. If you want to rally for something, rally for a la carte programming, where you can pick and pay for only the channels YOU want to watch.

[bclaker]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...rth-space.html

[Crusty]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...rth-space.html

Sorry, but this isn't what it sounds like. The Internet that we're all used to runs using the TCP part of the IP protocol. This provides point-to-point connections and the transfer of data in a "reliable" manner (each data packet is guaranteed to be delivered in the order sent). The new, satellite-base service will use the UDP part of the IP protocol. While this can also provide a point-to-point connection, there is no handshaking nor guarantees of delivery. UDP is frequently used for real-time data, when continuing the stream is more important than getting every packet.

Your device will "connect" with the satellite by receiving WiFi radio signals and pick-up any UDP multicast packets being broadcast. This is a one-way service that will require a special App or other software to sort-out and extract useable data.

Essentially, this service will work similarly to broadcast radio or television, and you can only receive what the satellite owners choose to send.

There appears to be some planning for the system to accept feedback via text messages (but not via the satellites). Presumably, this could affect the broadcast content to some extent.

There are three very basic reasons why you won't see "free satellite WiFi" anytime soon. The first is the bandwidth needed for 10's of thousands of users per mini satellite. The second is the power required to get a usable signal from your device to the satellite. The third is cost. Internet is already available via satellite and you can also replace your Verizon phone with a SatPhone (coverage available on every square foot of the planet), but the data cost is enormous.

Well, I've rambled on a bit. The weather must be to blame.

[HellRaZoR004]

Originally Posted by Crusty

Sorry, but this isn't what it sounds like. The Internet that we're all used to runs using the TCP part of the IP protocol. This provides point-to-point connections and the transfer of data in a "reliable" manner (each data packet is guaranteed to be delivered in the order sent). The new, satellite-base service will use the UDP part of the IP protocol. While this can also provide a point-to-point connection, there is no handshaking nor guarantees of delivery. UDP is frequently used for real-time data, when continuing the stream is more important than getting every packet.

Your device will "connect" with the satellite by receiving WiFi radio signals and pick-up any UDP multicast packets being broadcast. This is a one-way service that will require a special App or other software to sort-out and extract useable data.

Essentially, this service will work similarly to broadcast radio or television, and you can only receive what the satellite owners choose to send.

There appears to be some planning for the system to accept feedback via text messages (but not via the satellites). Presumably, this could affect the broadcast content to some extent.

There are three very basic reasons why you won't see "free satellite WiFi" anytime soon. The first is the bandwidth needed for 10's of thousands of users per mini satellite. The second is the power required to get a usable signal from your device to the satellite. The third is cost. Internet is already available via satellite and you can also replace your Verizon phone with a SatPhone (coverage available on every square foot of the planet), but the data cost is enormous.

Well, I've rambled on a bit. The weather must be to blame.

I agree with everything above. Read the article and said good luck, not going to happen.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by bclaker

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...rth-space.html

The UK Daily News does provide "news".
As with many UK newspapers there is a tad of sensationalism.

Here's another take.

"First, Outernet has to navigate a number of obstacles to get up and running, not the least of which is raising "tens of millions" of dollars in funding. The project also faces extreme resistance from telecoms, the traditional gatekeepers of the Internet. However, the team feels confident that it can and will raise the requisite funds and defeat opposition from global telcos."

LINK

And who is going to provide the tens of millions of dollars and then expect zero return on investment?

[Crusty]

Originally Posted by TheProfessor

And who is going to provide the tens of millions of dollars and then expect zero return on investment?

I would estimate hundreds of millions, but your point is well made.

Reading the available articles allows one to determine that the proposed "service" will be the one-way "broadcast" of lots of data that can be selectively displayed. Just what is included in this data stream will be determined by "Outernet". Presumably, the content will include paid advertising. The non-advertising content can range from innocuous drivel (like my post ) to Fox News or MSNBC, or other propaganda. Regardless, you can be sure that the content will be slanted to someone's viewpoint.

The real question is whether the FCC and their foreign equivalents will dedicate the required radio frequencies to the Outernet folks. And at what point will some unamused country decide to take down the offending satellites --or put up their own and beam their "service" into the US?