Slashdot Mirror
AOL/TW Plans for $230 Monthly Cable Bill
Jonathan Campbell writes: "According to the article, subscribers will get over the sticker shock preferring convenience over price." Yay, it'll be so convenient having one company control my television, internet access and phone service. I can hardly wait.
I have DSL already... our cable bill for extended Basic just went up to $50/month. We have decided at the next raise cable goes. My DSL may not be as fast but in the 2+ years I have had it I have paid the same amount. I can't say that for cable.
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
AOLTW vs MS. what a choice.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Ok, I admit to being "sticker shocked", but seriously what do I get for that kind of money? I assume that it will be a PPV model in which they hope I will go nuts ordering movies? Or is that a flat rate? Anyone know?
Well, I guess it is possible. My current Cincinnati Bell phone bell runs about 200 per month, but that includes two phone lines (one with all of the calling services), two cell phones, ISP, ADSL, and long distance. Time Warner AOHell is going to to have to offer more than just cable and ISP / Cable Modem to get me to pay that much.
I hope that the $230 is if you get all the premium channels, plus road runner, plus digital TV, etc. I know someone with a $150/mo bill now, but they have all that crap.
I've got basic plus Road Runner. If my bill rises too much, I will switch to DSL and satellite.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Heh, I think that's called a leased-line or a T1 or something...
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
$230-$80(Cable Basic&2 premium)-$50(DSL)-$30(local phone)=$70
What additional services will they provide for $70?
A pay-per-view p0rn0 and a hooker?
AOL is smoking crack. Provide reliable desirable services first, then decide what you are able to charge for each one.
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
Isn't that the same bet that fired off the dot com craze?
And we all know how well that worked out.
i pay $130.
i get analog cable, digital cable, and all the movie channels. about 250 channels in all.
i get cable modem access with 1mbit down and 788 up. yes, 788 up.
i get my telephone, call waiting, caller id, and call notes.
i get my home alarm and fire alarm monitiored.
so for me, if they toss in something my TiVo could use (video on demand, video file sharing across my local LAN, etc) then sure i will pay more. i can see $200 being an easy target as they make more things i want.
- BUT -
i currently don't use Time Warner or Road Runner...so they aren't even getting my money now b/c in houston, they don't offer a package like what i listed above.
/* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
they have to provide a midget to change the channels for me, and serve me food.
Well I don't know about other /.ers, but for once I'm glad I have Comcast where I live instead of TW. Also, this should be a good time to buy stock in direct tv and other sattalite services, because anyone with a brain will be switching off their TW cable when this happens.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
All this time, I've been using three first-class stamps to mail my ISP, cable, and phone bills. $230 will be a small price to pay for the "convenience" of only having to use one!
Seriously, I would say I currently pay about $130/month total for cable modem/cable television (Adelphia, formerly @Home/Adelphia) and phone service... I can't think of *anything* that would justify my paying another $70-100 a month for the services I currently receive.
Here in Canada, Rogers charges $40 for internet access, $90 for cable (not basic) and about $40 for cell phone. That only comes up to about $170 per month, which in American Dollars is only about $112.
I would easily pay one fee to one company for all those services, but be damn sure that it is NOT going to be AOL or MS, sorry but it would have to be to a company that has at least proven it self to be semi-retuable. I use comcast now for cable. I don't use cable TV, but I am kicking around the idea. Supposedly the new comcast plan is going to include some form of IP-telephony (at the cost of my newsgroups I hear, so add another bill for 3rd party news server) $230 is PROBABLY a fair price for all the things they claim to offer, but, ever try to get tech support from AOL? Before I moved in with my fiance and enlightened her to the fact that AOL is not the only place to get internet service (people REALLY still dont know this) I tried several times to get a few things working a little better for her. All I wanted was someone who could speak even a LITTLE tech so I could figure out something that was actually quite simple, but I coudlnt solve without a little technical insight onto how the service works. Now, imagine if you had to call AOL tech support because your service is down. Wait you cant. They host your telephone too. Email them. oops. cant do that. Oh well, I guess I'll go watch some TV while they work out the bugs themselves. OH NO! I cant do that either! I think you all get my point.
Don't Tread on Me
This always was the case in the UK, cableco's have been providing telephony services before the net came along :-
DigitalTV & Phone = £25
Cable Modem = £25
Second Line = £5
My average phone bill = £20
Total = £75 (~$110 USD)
Then you have PPV on top of that if required. The competition like BT charge around £40 ($55) just for ADSL, they completely shaft people but they need the cash to fund their spurious patent claims.
Anyway, you can see why companies love subscriptions, I can't wait until I have to rent all my music!
Here in the UK we allready have that. NTL offers cable modems, cable tv, cheap phone lines all down the same wire all with one bill. $200+ sounds excessive though. They even have pay per view films.
is far, far greater than that of television. At least to me. The only thing I use the satellite for is hockey. If I could get a $15 a month hockey-only subscription....
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Wasn't that Iridium's business model? It didn't do Motorola a whole lotta good, either, even after they bought a $2B system from $25M.
woof.
If we all save the money we aren't spending on condoms, we could buy AOL/T-W next year! Or not, when you look at the bucks Rusty's raking in.
"Yay, it'll be so convenient having one company control my television, internet access and phone service. I can hardly wait."
Don't forget that they also provide a lot of the contents on both TV and the Net.
One of the first things I was taught during my classes in mass-communication was to keep content-makers, content-owners, network-owners, network programmers and network-gatekeepers as separate as possible...
I think you can figure out yourself what happens if all those functions are in the hands of one MegaCorp.
"you have bills!"
I think AOL/TW may have made a tactical mistake.
It seems that if you nickel&dime people, they will pay because the pain of each payment is little. But when you see a big nu mber like $230 dollars, that pain is much much greater than the individual smallers pains. And the individial smaller pains if you add them all up, wont feel like a $230 pain, if you get my meaning.
As many have already pointed out, this is great for competition,
and it may be a shock to the cable tv industry if large numbers of people balk at the large price increases.
Also, as many have noted before, we are at logger heads here, As computer tech gets cheaper and chearper, we get used to it, but the cable tv industry doesnt think like that, they beleive in always increases the price and this just might be the thing to shock them into dropping their prices.
anyway thanks
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Are there providers in the US that supply ADSL at an unrestricted speed ...
There are more serious technological challenges in ADSL. Residential phone lines are a very challenging medium for high-speed data transfer, since they were only designed to carry narrowband voice signals; transmission line effects cause major degradations in these channels. Transfer rates will depend on the quality and layout of the wire in your neighborhood, and distance from the central office. Huge speed increases are highly unlikely for the forseeable future, perhaps ever. By contrast, cable was designed to carry wideband television signals over long distances, and can therefore offer much higher potential rates. Consider that cable can carry around 100 TV channels at 5 MHz of bandwidth each; if you used a cable entirely for data, that's 500 MHz of bandwidth, which (depending on the signalling scheme) could be 1 GBit/s or more.
As a competitor to cable, what you should watch for are companies offering wireless systems that combine high speed internet, video, and local phone service ... I've heard of some promising systems that may come to market soon.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
The problem is not that AOL is greedy, the problem is that we have not assured compitition in the cable market. It is improperly regulated, so we can expect the greedheads to screw us.
They have another thing comming with price resistance however. Cable where I live is already too expensive at sixty five bucks for "basic" and modem service. "Basic" is essentially broadcast TV so we don't get it. The modem charge is about fifty bucks and the bastards block port 80 and 25 inbound. If the try to charge anymore they lose me. I want more from the thing, not less. They can continue to collect $50/month from me and let me figure out how to use it as a phone, or they they can jump in the river.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
My ISP is also my cable TV and phone service provider... $100 - yeah I can see that (and pay that now for my DSL, Sat TV, and phone service) But $230? No way!
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
I look, for instance, at the menu of services we consume here:
Cable Internet (AT&T) - $50
Local telephone (with all the services but voicemail - Verizon) - $60
Long distance (AT&T) - $50
Cable television (AT&T - local channels only) $14)
Alarm monitoring (ADT) $26
That's $200/month worth of services that are coming in on two wires to my house. And we don't get any of the more advanced cable services - just analog antenna service. If I want analog basic cable, it's another $20. If I want premium channels, the total bill hits that $230 mark and only goes up from there.
What I don't really do at this point, though, is take advantage of any service bundling yet - though AT&T has been pushing real hard in this area to get local and long distance bundled with my cable line. I haven't bitten yet but if I do it'll save me about $15/month. It's just not worth the trouble yet. So I use two wires instead of one.
I have no issue with the total price, so long as they save me money over the cost of buying all the services I need separately from separate vendors. I'll stick to multiple bills if there's no price reason to switch.
I guess the real interesting thing is how much communications takes out of the monthly budget. I look at that $200 figure I cited above, and that doesn't include our cell phone ($35), OmniSky ($29, but it's getting dumped this spring), and my Blackberry ($40, paid by my work). All together, that's a lot of money for communications service of one sort or another. And remember, my cable TV bill is tiny. A lot of people pay for premium services - equivalent to adding my OmniSky to the cable bill.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that the average household communications total bill comes close to that $200 mark already. If AOL starts offering things like security monitoring over their wire as well, the $230 is probably a reasonable goal.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I'm so happy! Yay! Conglomerates sure do add value to society!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Basic Cable: $60
3 Premium Channels: $25
DSL Connection: $45
Basic Phone Services: $30
Some hellspawned idea about "convenience over price": $70
A monopoly and the knowledge you can get away with the latter: Priceless
There are some things money can't buy. For others, there's AOL
They better give you a few public ips, let you run servers and at least 512kps upstream... (getting 256kps now for one tenth that)
Time Warner Digital cable is $80
Local phone from Verizon is $40
Cable Internet $50
Long Distance Anyone's guess
Does the package include international calls in the price? How about pay per view and all the extra pay channels? If you get unlimited worlwide long distance and local phone service then it's a great deal.
Right now, here's what my AT&T monthly bills (no, they haven't consolidated billing yet) are: $50 for internet access, $25 for a minimal phone line (no features, only dial tone and long distance capability), and maybe $10 for long distance.
That's only $85/month right now. Were I paying for my extended basic cable (available because I must be the only one in Salt Lake City who has the internet and phone package, but doesn't want cable -- no filters available!), I'd be paying another $25/month.
So, that's $110.
Throw in all of the telephone perks: call waiting, caller-id, anonymous call blocking, telemarketer screening, voice mail, etc. Now that's probably another $50/month
So that brings the total to $160/mo!
Now, add all of the cable perks: digital cable (I want my Tech TV!), premium movie channels, PPV pr0n, etc. That can easily be another $75.
So that brings up the total to $235/month!
So the $230/month for TW/AOL's consolidated services is no shock.
Method of processing duck feet
We all know that cable as a medium has more bandwidth capabilities than telco copper....
His point is he wants an ISP that says
"we'll let the line go as fast as it can, and we'll let you do whatever you want, and we'll bill you for your traffic"
At one end of the curve you have people who have made enough money to afford this service, but they have become lazy enough to pay the extra $70/month for the "convenience."
At the other end of the curve are the people who can't afford the service but are stupid enough to believe it's of value, so they subscribe anyway.
The distribution of people on this curve is great enough that the service sells and becomes a model for other other companies to copy.
AOL/TW already shot themselves in the foot for us. I predict that customers will take that "convenience" and stick it up their fscking ass! Lemme see: satellite instead of cable TV, DSL/satellite instead of cable internet, and phone lines (or cell phones) instead of cable phone. I've seen MS pull some brain dead shit, but damn...AOL/TW is just a lot stupider than I thought. (And it's bad enough that AOL charges $25/mo for a damn 56K service.)
Do everybody a favor and send this story to all on your AOL lamers and TW cable users. Maybe we can get them in droves.
Zodiac Survey
So you get all your information from the same AOL/TW source, delivered by the same company... can you say "Vertical Integration" children? I knew you could...
The problem with this isn't just that the company can charge whatever it wants...the problem is that it can report what it wants to report and ignore what it wants to ignore. IOW, don't be surprised if the news coming out of the member companies -- CNN for instance -- starts to become blatantly biased.
Incidentally, when the hell is the FTC going to wake up and start giving a damn about anti-trust and consumer protection once again? First, you have AOLTW. Next, you have oil companies merging left and right to eventually form the next Standard Oil. (Were the companies that are merging -- Phillips/Conoco and Texaco/Chevron -- formed as a result of the Standard Oil breakup? If so, then there is NO WAY they should be allowed to merge. That would be just like allowing the broken-up pieces of Microsoft to merge back together should that breakup happen, which I unfortunately doubt it will.)
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
If they're going to charge me $230/mo, this is the level of service I'd expect:
1.5mb down / 640k up, or thereabouts, with no usage caps
4-8 static IPs
a kick-ass news server
all ports open, no service-sniffing
the right to run servers and do whatever the hell I want with my bandwidth
priority tech support numbers to people who actually know what they're talking about
pricing refunds for downtime
ok, and throw in the basic cable and local phone. That's about what I'd expect for $230.
Even with all that, I don't think I'd ever trust a "provider" like AOL enough to put all my eggs in their basket.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
Not because people will be against having a sinlge company provide all their services (in fact I'm sure many want it), but because the price is outrageous. Let's take pricing on some local (Tucson) services:
Analogue phone line: $16/month
Basic Digital Cable: $45/month
Consumer grade DSL or CM: $50/month
All tolled that gives us about $111 per month, and yes I factored taxes in that. That makes the AOL package over twice as expensive. Now just for the sake of argument, let's assume they give you more than just basic service. In all reality we know that won't happen, but hey, we'll assume they give you something comparable to what I have:
Analogue phone line: $16/month
Extended Digital Cable: $60/month
Professional grade SDSL: $120/month
That's still only $196. To match the AOL price, I'd have to buy 3 premium networks per month (and with digital cable, that gives me about 10 channels per network). Plus, I really doubt they'll offer anything more than basic digital service and just normal CM service, making the first comparison more likely.
Personally, I think the idea of all-in-one providers is a good idea, provided there are several to choose from. However the reason it would be cool is that in theory it should save you money. Companies should be willing to charge you less overall in return for the fact that you buy more services form them. Cox already does this. You get a discount if you get both a cable modem and digital cable. It's been effective too, it encourages digital cable subscribers to get a CM instead of DSL, and encourages people with CMs and cable to upgrade to digital cable.
AOL is full of it if they think people are going to pay that much more for one provider service, espically since for most people it is probably going to be double the cost. If they want people to go for this they are going to need to make ti at the very least comparable and probably cheaper than getting all the services seperatly.
Seriously, how can be suits so brain-dead to actually believe that the people will merrily fork-over $230 per month for cable????
I guess you don't watch TV...
Cable Internet (AT&T) - $50
Local telephone (with all the services but voicemail - Verizon) - $60
Long distance (AT&T) - $50
Cable television (AT&T - local channels only) $14)
Alarm monitoring (ADT) $26
I pay $30 a month for my cable modem.
Local telephone service? I certianly don't pay $60 every month for it. Try $30, if that.
Long distance - are we talking about your calls, or the provider? I don't know of a provider on the planet that charges $50 just for their service - that's because they would be out of business so fast they would never be IN business.
Cable TV... wait... you said local? If You want local channels only (which defeats the primary purpose of cable television), I'd suggest you use an antenna. And that comes down to a cost of $0 per month.
As for the alarm monitoring, I have no idea, so I'l stick with your pricing on that. $26 per month.
If we add all that up, I only come up with a fine little sum of $86. Now, that's more like it. If you actually _NEED_ all that crap on your phone bill (460 way calling, or whatever it is now) then you can't possibly expect that everyone affected by this pricing scheme feels the same way. It's absurd to even assume a faction of that. Regardless, if people don't like the fees, they should learn to live with less - OR, get an organized complaint together and tell this monopolistic corporation to take a look at their business practices. I would NEVER commit to paying $230 per month for all that trash. I don't need half of it, and I sure would not want it from them.
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
What, besides lack of marketing killed it? Bundling all that together made customers realize they were paying two hundred bucks for telecommunications! Guess what'll happen when AOL/TW tries the same thing?
"I think people will get over the sticker shock," he added. "They will like the convenience."
Heck, we bought the Hollywood Diet and pet psychologists.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
If you're trying to replace Blockbuster, then check out Netflix -- no late fees, and the DVDs get delivered by the mailman. I doubt that any "movies on demand" system is going to be a Blockbuster killer, since with a rental system you get to have the movie over a period of days, and the opportunity to watch it multiple times or episodically. (And the episodic capability is really nice if you've got little kids. I've now only got half-hour chunks of time in which to watch movies.)
Oh, go on, check out my job.
Hmm... A little elementary math shows this to be the exact OPPOSITE of what AOL Time Warner claimed during their merger talks: That it would benefit consumers through cost savings passed on in lower prices.
$200 for AOL Time Warner vs. My current bills of about $150 per month.
Cable TV $45
Cable modem $45
Telephone $50-$60 depending on how much I talk
Tell me where the benefit to me is? I'll have the privelege of paying the conglomerate through the nose for these services on "one-bill"?
Thanks, but no thanks.
Who did what now?
How about cellular phone service, with free long distance and unlimited calling, roaming in the entire US? Now how much would you pay? But wait! There's more.... Wireless internet from your phone or wireless PDA? Keep thinking big, you'll get to $230 fast.
1) Many people won't get and don't need the monitoring on the alarm system (they don't HAVE one)
2) I pay $60 for two lines from Verizon.
3) I pay $50 for a combined loop from Verizon and ISP from Internet America.
4) I don't make many long-distance calls ($50 from AT&T presumes a call volume...)- many people regulate their usage such that they don't have a regular bill for long distance calling.
So, let's re-work those numbers...
Cable Internet (AT&T) - $50
Local telephone (with all the services butv oicemail - Verizon) - $60
Cable television (AT&T - local channels only) $14)
Total for just Cable, Phone, and ISP : $124
Even then, this is kind of extravagant as most people don't have all the features, Cable and/or Cable Internet. Having said this, the amount for that is a very far cry from the $200+ that AOL/TW are grabbing for. Now maybe the bundled deal is nice for those that can afford it, most people will not blow $200+ except the upper middle class and above where the pain of that is not as noticable. (I accept and tolerate the $130 or so I'm spending on things- the $200+ would result in me quickly looking for alternatives such as Dish network and other ISP options.)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Cable companies pay the networks for the programming they carry, and it isn't cheap. For exmaple this past year ESPN raised their fee by 200%.
Later
I don't mind what kind of lame ass package AOL/Time Warner thinks up, and I don't care how much it
costs. It could cost $1000 and I don't care.
As long as I can get the cable modem service
separate from all the other junk and still pay the
same price (~$50 here), I'll be happy.
Now if AOL/Time Warner forces everyone who wants
a cable modem to buy all the other crap, that would
be a different story. I hope they don't plan on replacing all of their cable services with this one package.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I get 2 of 3 with Pacific Bell (SBC) DSL. Minimum up/down is 128/384, but capped at 384/1500. I see usually about 320/1500. (So it is not "unrestricted")
With 24x7 for 2+ years, and never a thought given to bandwidth usage, (sometimes I use ALOT) I have no time or download limits.
I have a fixed IP, and host my own web, email, DNS, NTP, etc. on Linux but they won't allow me to set up reverse DNS as anything but what they decide it is. (it's something hideous with ip address included)
I have no fee per MB downloaded. It's a good thing, too, since weekly usage probably peaks around 2-3 Gigabytes.
Pac Bell has weak customer service, and their servers tend to be unreliable, but their basic IP routing works wonderfully. So, provide your own services, (which is why I started in the first place) call only at 2:00 AM, and they leave me alone. I've never seen any indication of port-scanning or a/t like that - they honestly don't seem to care.
I'm happy!
=)
-Ben
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
If you were to invest $230/month at a 10% annual rate, compounded annually, from the time you were 20 to the time you were 65, you'd have two million dollars in the bank.
So, which would you rather have: AOL's ultimate media package, or multiple millions in the bank when you retired?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
But it won't happen under the current administration. The current head of the FCC says that the concept of a "common carrier" is obsolete.
Long distance is not part of the bargain yet, and they had better make that servive free as it will be no better than any current voice over IP. Unless they tap into the local phone sytem they will you will not be able to place calls to anyone except those who have another stupid AOL modem. If they follow their own goofey propriatory stuff there like they do with their ISP service, then it will be worse than the usual voice over IP stuff as you will not be able to place calls to friends who you give software to. I want them to compete in the telco market, but I want others to be able to compete in the cable market and shake these turkeys down to real expectations.
As for the rest of it, fat chance. For seventy bucks, I can buy one kick ass answering machine, and people generally leave their number on an answering machine. For seventy bucks a month, I'm sure I could get a real ansering service staffed by people who will screen my calls for me, endure direct marketers and other garbage. Will AOL do that? Not if their email service is any guide, "You've got spam!". For movies, the local rental store is lucky if they can squeze $8/month from me. I doubt that AOL can match the local video store for variety and ease of use. They would have to have EVERYTHING and a good search engine. Nice as that would be, it won't be worth more than $8/month.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
If only they dropped some of the restrictions in the process. Uncap the upstream and provide static ip addresses with no silly restrictions on server usage.
If these things were to take place, it'd be a bargian compared to what I'm paying for similar unrestricted service. But although they'll definitely lose some customers, I don't see them letting up on anything. Wouldn't make much sense from their point of view.
The fact of the matter is, they're just trying to survive. They suffer from the same problem every other dot com was suffering from. Trying to offer more than they're realisticly able to, and they're losing money in the process. This is all they can do to avoid bleeding cash.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
As far as phone service goes, I can't be the only one that's given up a landline for cellular. There's no need to give ANY of your money to AOL/Time Warner. Remember, they can't sell it if you don't buy it.
...is what will happen when Comcast and AT&T and all the rest of the cable providers see AOL/TM actually get away with doing this! The airlines have enjoyed a legalized price-fixing scheme for years: When one airline jacks up its fares, the others follow suit, and the public follows along like dumb sheep. Does anyone here really think AOL/TM competitors will sit by idly while AOL/TM rakes in the dough?
I think not...the fact that AOL/TM is putting their future revenue-collection tactics on public display is evidence that they could use some "extra" support from the rest of the cable industry to help them out in fleecing their customers.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
CNN is IMO already biased. Last night they had a section on Digital Music and Copyright and only presented the view of one "Entertainment" Lawyer who said that all copying of CD's was against the law, as if it were fact,and He failed to mention Fair Use. When the bottom line of the newschannel is run by a record lable such as AOLTime Warner what can you expect?
Move to the UK. I have NTL's cable TV, cable modem service and two phone lines. Price? £72.97 per month, ie. about $102.16 (for around 30/35 channels I think).
Cheers,
Ian
$230 a month does not sound too bad. They are talking Canadian, right?
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
In short, I'm going to get my services from as many different places as I can, and as small a place as I can so they'll actually be motivated to CARE if I'm not happy with their service. If you want any decent quality of service, I strongly recommend you do the same.
Like AT&T global? They control my cable TV, phone, cell phone, and my roommates ISP. (I use someone else for my ISP).
So what's the difference here? You get one bill instead of my current 4? This would be nice if my cable and home phone and cell were on one bill, I'd be able to write one check instead of 3.
I think with the phone you have a choice, but cable you don't. My condo has rules about getting satelite. It has to be approved and proven that it will not damage the property. No real big deal, just a hastle. If I were to throw in a dish and it was determined it did damage to the building or something then I could get in trouble. That's why they have the approval. And yes they can do that it is in the regulations which were approved by the condo owners.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Let's see.
Cable - $39.99
Cable Modem - $49.99 ($39.99 if you have cable)
Phone - $14 - $39, depnding on extra services, without Long Distance.
Hmmm.. at most that's $130... So where does $230 exactly come from?
I mean, come on... I get 3mbps internet for $25, full-featured cable tv (if I actually wanted it) for about $35 complete with on-demand programming and premium channels, and my local phone service is $21 per month. AOL is looking more and more like M$ V2.0. Can someone please explain why on earth I would want to pay almost three times as much to an out of town company who is known to provide crap software and service? (If you are wondering about the software part, ever have to deal with a winbox that had had an "AOL Adapter" installed?)
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
This must be why I did so poorly in my econ class. I thought that allowing companys to merge and destroy competition lowered prices and improved service to customers. Good thing I got this cushy programmer's job:)
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
waiting for that glorious day!
this small provider in houston is really ontop of being inexpensive, but their offerings for extras is not much.
/* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
I think it is unfair to lambast AOL/TW for the AOL part and look past the benefits of the TW part.
"Benefits" including lobbying for the DMCA and the Bono Act?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Nope, I don't have any premium services or channels on my cable bill. Charter has always had decent pricing schemes with their cable modem services.
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
2 things, I think that was his point. If you've watched TV lately you know they're already biased.
Also it's worse than you think, the Audio Home Recording Act explicitly makes it legal to copy CDs for "non-commercial" purposes. that's even broader than just fair use.
Wait, so you mean the over $150 a month for TV, the whatever a month for LD, and the $20 a month for a cell phone and the $45 a month for internet service wasn't enough?
.)
Bleh.
I want more CUSTOMIZABLE rates damnit!
I do NOT NEED over _*40*_ sports stations damnit!
In the last two months they have added TWO more porn stations! Come on, how many porn stations does one city need? Pretty soon it is going to be a 'choose your fetish' type of a situation!
We already have nearly 10 (I think, may be just five) WNBA stations!!! I don't even watch basketball but I know that those are factored into my bill!
Of course without the 'total TV" package it would cost even MORE to get a bunch of different SEPERATE packages that DID have what I wanted in them.
Did you know that Nickelodeon has its own Game Show network? Yah, seriously. All of the failed game shows that they once had on them are now on it, bleh.
Or how about the ever increasing number of music video stations? I don't know HOW many have been added within the last few months, but they seem to keep on growing. Hell AT&T doesn't even bother sending out New Channels Have Been Added annoucements anymore after all why should they when new channels are being added seemingly daily!
This is getting nuts. Let me just pay say 50 cents per channel and be DONE with it. Yah sure getting all 300 or whatever channels would cost a ton but shit, as it is I don't ever watch but 70 or so. Actualy I myself just watch 3 regularly, Sci-Fi, Comedy Central, and occasionaly CN (Dexters Lab == Kick Ass. The PPG are also nice. And Samuri Jack. heh.)
The Action Channel is occasionaly watched when they have their Anime Marathons on their, but shoot, besides that. . . . Animal Planet is also kind of neat though. The movie channels are nice to have around if a movie I want to watch comes on, but thats it.
I really don't need 10 stations for every sport (I think there is even a set of NHL stations now. . .
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
"So when you end up paying $40+ a month for basic cable, what is that going towards?"
$40 a month?
oh you mean in addition to the $5 a month Remote Control Rental Fee and the Way To Fucking Much A Month Converter Box Fee (for analog cable I think it is around a mere $15 or so, for digital cable it is WAAAY up there. Way to HIGH up there).
This is what my area has been through (TCI now AT&T) TW might be different, but I seriously doubt it. Equipment rental fees are the same all around.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
As an FYI, here's how this compares to the UK, where we traditionally get assraped on prices compared to the USA:
For Telewest cable
Grand total, £93/~$140 without porn, or £119/~$178 with all the porn you can eat. Hey, pretty good compared to the AOL-Time Warner Collective. Although if I've got a cable modem, what am I doing wasting my time (and wrist action) on TV edited soft core garbage?
No, that's unpatriotic. I have to keep the economy bouyant. Of course, after paying $178 a month for every conceivable channel including "premium" content and all the free stuff I can get through the modem, I'd still want to pay another $50 for pay-per-view "premium-premium" content, right? Right?
Or... it's just possible that cableco's are all smoking crack, and we're not as dumb as toast. If so, I expect a lot of marketing droids will have their toes roasted over open fires in the next couple of years.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
". With the technology they have, we should be able to simply choose our channels. I ought to be able to subscribe to a specific channel for a month, or even a day if that station is showing something I want to see"
/5/ showtimes otherwise?
:) For ~$90 a month now my household gets 2 digital cable boxs (crips, I almost called them digicable boxs, yikes!!!) with EVERY channel AT&T has to offer, and 2 analog boxs and regular Cable on as many TVs as we can get line splitters for:)
That is the purpose of buying ALL of the channels.
They want you to PAY _ALOT_ for all of those extra channels for all of those 'just in case' situations. It is how they make alot of their profits.
You think that I would be paying for
Oh yah, and your cable co sucks.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
People will get over the sticker shock when they realize that given a monopoly, they have no choice if they want the service.
-Rob
Qwest's cheapest 256/640 DSL rate used to be $19.95 per month in Colorado, but it's gone up by about five bucks since then.
-Legion
Damn, that's pretty good. Right now I pay Comcast $118/mo for only basic cable plus 3 HBOs, and my internet service.
RCN tried to offer service in Philadelphia, but Comcast shut them out of the marktet pretty handily because they've got a lot of influence in the city government.
~Philly
You trust that FAIR gets any of its stories right? They're nothing more than a mouthpiece for lefties...apologists for Dan Rather and his ilk. They tried to skewer Rush Limbaugh a few years back, but failed miserably due to their (typically) poor grasp of the facts. If you really want to get some idea of what the media don't want you to know, I'd suggest the Media Research Center or Accuracy In Media. I suspect that the truth may be a bit too much for you, though.
As for Fox News, I guess the fact that they don't accept as gospel every word from the Democrats and their fellow travelers must make them "members of the vast right-wing conspiracy." I would wear that label myself as a badge of honor, but Fox doesn't want to be known as leaning either way. Those of us on the right might gravitate toward them because the left-wing bias isn't there, but if they were the conservative news outlet that you say they are, what are the odds that they would've hired left-wing apologists such as Geraldo Rivera (as a war correspondent, no less)?
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Why goto the video store when you can get what you want at home at a comparable price?
some how I doubt they'll have the same selections as a video store. I can got to the Video store, selt over 1000 titles. Do you really think they'll have at least 1000 different movies ready to go at any time?
Comparable price + the cost of convience = more
personally, I spend 10.00 a month for satalite.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on