Slashdot Mirror


US Justice Dept Approves Charter's Time Warner Cable Purchase With Conditions (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. Justice Department has approved Charter Communications Inc's proposed purchase of Time Warner Cable Inc and Bright House networks, which would create the second-largest broadband provider and third largest video-provider. The Justice Department valued the purchase of Time Warner Cable at $78 billion and Bright House at $10.4 billion. Under terms, New Charter has agreed to refrain from telling its content providers that they cannot also sell shows online. The deal must also be approved by the Federal Communications Commission. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said Monday he circulated an order seeking approval of the merger with conditions that "will directly benefit consumers by bringing and protecting competition to the video marketplace and increasing broadband deployment."

67 comments

  1. No caps = higher base price / forced hardware rent by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    No caps = higher base price / forced hardware rent

  2. ".. refrain from telling its content providers .." by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    don't ask don't tell

  3. I've heard that Charter is the least-awful major by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cable company. If that's true, I guess this could be a good thing, maybe?

  4. How about forcing them to provide service to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    their entire monopoly areas? Comcast has a government-granted monopoly over most of Seattle, but they don't offer service to a lot of Capitol Hill or many poor or mostly minority areas. If you think cable companies are bad, imagine not even having the option of getting cable TV or Internet from them. I probably wouldn't buy from them, but it would be nice to have an option.

    1. Re:How about forcing them to provide service to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their entire monopoly areas? Comcast has a government-granted monopoly over most of Seattle, ...

      This has been talked about many times in the past. The problem is that just not enough customers in the poor areas like Capitol Hill (which is changing), ID, and SODO to justify the huge cost of providing service. I'd love to be able to upgrade from ISDN to cable, but I'm probably the only person in my building that would buy Internet access.

    2. Re:How about forcing them to provide service to... by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      their entire monopoly areas? Comcast has a government-granted monopoly over most of Seattle, but they don't offer service to a lot of Capitol Hill or many poor or mostly minority areas. If you think cable companies are bad, imagine not even having the option of getting cable TV or Internet from them. I probably wouldn't buy from them, but it would be nice to have an option.

      My new house is in the same boat. Charter's contractors want $6,500 to run a cable down my driveway (about 900 ft). I have bump poles for power all the way to the house but of course they don't want to use those. Charter will pay up to $3,000 for it so I would have to pay the other $3,500. Or I'm stuck with AT&T 18/1 service.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    3. Re:How about forcing them to provide service to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you have the option to pay for it, my dad tried to pay Charter any amount to have them run a line to his house since they serviced the other side of the street. They said no to any amount of money because his was the only house on that side.

    4. Re:How about forcing them to provide service to... by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Informative

      Comcast has a government-granted monopoly over most of Seattle,

      No, they don't. They have a non-exclusive franchise agreement. From the actual franchise itself, paragraph 1.4(A) on page 5:

      The City reserves the right to grant additional franchises or similar authorizations to provide Video Programming services via Cable Systems or similar wireline systems located in the Right of Way.

      And in paragraph 20.6:

      20.6 Other Cable Franchises. The City shall not be limited or prevented by any provision in this Franchise from issuing any franchise, permit, license, or other agreement of any kind for all of Grantee's Franchise Area or any portion thereof, to other Cable Operators. This provision shall not alter any rights of Grantee under subsection 1.4 of this Franchise.

      Pretty explicit. Not a government-granted monopoly. If someone else wants to come along and meet all the requirements for the franchise, they can get one, too.

      but they don't offer service to a lot of Capitol Hill or many poor or mostly minority areas.

      Then your city council was remiss in not including a mandatory coverage clause in the franchise.

    5. Re:How about forcing them to provide service to... by adolf · · Score: 2

      If you were a real geek, you'd put a small shed by the road.

      In that shed, you'd put a laptop. It doesn't need power: A small, hidden UPS will do fine.

      You would call this your "home," and have them install cable to it, which they will do for a nominal low cost.

      Afterward, you'd string your own coax (whether RG-6 or RG-11 or 1/2" hardline or whatever) to your house, down your driveway along your "bump poles" (whatever those are).

      Terminate both ends of the wire, optionally keep the shed for future reference, and call it a day.

      What is wrong with you?

    6. Re:How about forcing them to provide service to... by sabbede · · Score: 1

      I'd rather they be forced to compete instead of being permitted to have regional monopolies.

    7. Re:How about forcing them to provide service to... by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      If you were a real geek, you'd put a small shed by the road.

      In that shed, you'd put a laptop. It doesn't need power: A small, hidden UPS will do fine.

      You would call this your "home," and have them install cable to it, which they will do for a nominal low cost.

      Afterward, you'd string your own coax (whether RG-6 or RG-11 or 1/2" hardline or whatever) to your house, down your driveway along your "bump poles" (whatever those are).

      Terminate both ends of the wire, optionally keep the shed for future reference, and call it a day.

      What is wrong with you?

      I think my neighbor who owns the property at the end of my driveway might object to me building on it maybe? Seriously I almost bought a small trailer that was for sale across the street from the end of my driveway just to get cable internet there and do wireless back to my house.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    8. Re:How about forcing them to provide service to... by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Oh, and "Bump Poles" are just power poles on private land for delivering power to a structure. Sometimes they are utility owned (as in my case), sometimes privately owned. The utility owning them is what caused the contractor to not use them (they basically said the utility will give them excuse after excuse to prevent them from using their poles whenever possible. They are also called bounce, service, or spot poles.

      Don't feel bad, I had never heard of them either before the cable guys called them that.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    9. Re:How about forcing them to provide service to... by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      I was honestly surprised they did. I expected them to just say "Nope, sorry" but they did offer. I may revisit the issue this summer see if I can get them to come down in price. 18/1 vs 100/5 for basically the same price. It's figuratively killing me paying AT&T for such shitty speeds.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    10. Re:How about forcing them to provide service to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shed is temporary, then, for sure.

      https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9029573&cid=51988721#Otherwise, this is the sort of neighborly property issue that can be solved, beforehand, with a case of beer.

    11. Re:How about forcing them to provide service to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Whiplash, your anon comment submission form puked. No idea where that URL came from.

  5. Not clear what the terms are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not a fan of Time Warner Cable already. I'm concerned about Charter taking over.

    Charter has a history of imposing data caps. This needs to be prohibited for longer than three years. A lot longer. Time Warner abuses the CCI flag and sets virtually every channel as "copy once" unless it's a local channel, even though these channels don't ask for that. That renders cablecards mostly useless, especially if you don't have Windows Media Center. The new company shouldn't be allowed to abuse the CCI flag. Time Warner also has quickly raised prices and then added surcharges for local programming and sports. It doesn't make sense, if I already pay for local programming and sports in my digital cable service and sports pass, why I should also have extra fees. Furthermore, the number of local channels available has actually decreased. I live in the Lincoln, Nebraska market, which used to get KPTM, KMTV, WOWT, and KETV from Omaha. We're 50 miles away, so it's possible to receive some of these over the air with a good antenna. It's not practical where I live, though. Now, KPTM is only available in standard definition while KMTV and WOWT are gone altogether. I'm paying more for local channels while there are far fewer local channels available. The fees are out of hand and the merger shouldn't allow for rate increases. Time Warner has a monopoly on local cable here, which is why the rate increases are so bad.

    The linked article doesn't state many of the conditions that Charter has to agree to. However, from what I've seen elsewhere, the terms of approving this merger don't go nearly far enough to protect consumers.

    1. Re:Not clear what the terms are by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The terms are the person who approved the merger then "retires" and takes a new high paid executive job at TW/Charters.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    2. Re:Not clear what the terms are by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I'm not a fan of Time Warner Cable already. I'm concerned about Charter taking over.

      Same here. The article has this ; "We are confident New Charter will be a leading competitor in the broadband and video markets," the company said in a statement.

      Being leader in both seems like a conflict of interest.

  6. Re:I've heard that Charter is the least-awful majo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Marrying the least ugly sister is still marrying an ugly girl!

  7. Re:I've heard that Charter is the least-awful majo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't let anyone kid you. Charter sucks every bit as bad as comcrap and all the rest. They just want your money, and the "Customer Service" they refer to is the same kind of "Service" that a bull gives to a cow.

  8. to protect and extinguish by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Townsfolk: There's a dragon attacking the city!

    Dragon Patrol: That is troubling, if true.

    Townfolk: You can see it flying from here! And burning! He's going to destroy everything!

    Dragon Patrol: I know it seems that way on the face of it, but as yet we have no hard evidence that that's the case.

    Townsfolk: Please do something, it's your job!

    Dragon Patrol: Very well, we'll schedule an investigation for next week.

    Townsfolk: AAAAAGH!! OH GOD WE'RE BURNING AAAAGH!

    [Six months later...]

    City Watch: After a thorough investigation, we have concluded that this dragon attack is really an actionable issue. Everything and everyone that could be burned already has been. And it's a good thing, in a lot of ways. For example, the dragon has given us, the Dragon Patrol, a portion of the proceeds from burning down the city down and looting its riches. We consider this case closed.

    1. Re:to protect and extinguish by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

      Dang it, I meant to say "this dragon attack is NOT really an actionable issue".

    2. Re:to protect and extinguish by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Seems to be a good analogy for what's actually going on.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  9. Re: How about forcing them to provide service to.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After fighting to get cable on my block for nearly seven years, I finally gave up. I understand why Comcast doesn't offer service where I live. They'd have to raise the price on everyone to subsidize my service. It sucks, but I understand why the city of Seattle doesn't force them to offer service.

  10. Prediction! by packrat0x · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Prices will go up. Quality will go down. How else can they pay the banks and investors who are underwriting this merger? Subscriptions per capita appear to be declining for both cable TV and cable internet. Together this indicates a possible death spiral. A good reason for the banks and the investors to try to get their pay out UP FRONT.

    --
    227-3517
    1. Re:Prediction! by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      It'll go down even more? TW Roadrunner is the reason I switched to public DNS. I mean, good grief man, if you can't even do the most basic shit for $100/mo and all... Upside is that when they *do* find something, the speeds are pretty good, hovering between 1000 - 2000 k down. Dunno what the up is. Practical upshot: I can pull an entire distro install DVD off kernel.org in like 20 minutes. Good enough for me.

      --
      C|N>K
  11. Hey, wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Hey, wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time Warner Cable is actually bigger than Charter. That said, companies generally don't finance much of deals like this with their own money. A lot of it comes from outside financiers and debt that results. Sometimes financing these mergers requires raising prices to pay off the debt, which is a real concern for customers of both companies.

  12. Re: How about forcing them to provide service to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the poor shouldn't have Internet access?

  13. Still a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Still a bad idea, because there are two sides to this market:
    1) Consumers getting data
    2) Cable companies negotiating with everyone else (content providers, other internet peers, etc.)

    Consumers can still get shafted because of #2.

  14. Competition used to be treated as a positive force by Trachman · · Score: 1

    FCC just won in the Olympics of logical reasoning.

    Less competition means protection of competition.

    Less competition does not mean there will be more broadband deployment. In the past there was a theoretical chance for competition. With two companies merging to two: not a chance

    New Charter has agreed to refrain from telling its content providers. Well... by this time we already know that it is not always necessary to speak to get your message across.

    Body language, mimic, sometimes a tone contradicting the main message can be very very informational.

    Long story short: I will never get optic fiber internet below $50 in my town.

  15. I wonder ... by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, how long till the current head of the DoJ announces he is resigning his current position to join the Board of Directors of Time Warner?

    1. Re:I wonder ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      That's one of the "conditions". There will be an opening.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:I wonder ... by Livius · · Score: 2

      They'll wait until the media gets distracted by something. So, any day now.

  16. Re: How about forcing them to provide service to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They **DO** have internet access. Just not blazing fast xfinity internet access.

  17. Re: How about forcing them to provide service to. by pagedout · · Score: 1

    Well, obviously if its not at least 1gbps and free then we are just out to sc^ew those poor people!

  18. Re:No caps = higher base price / forced hardware r by EvilSS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No caps = higher base price / forced hardware rent

    My price went down with the plan change that got rid of caps at Charter, and my speed went up from 30 to 100mb/s. They require you use their modem but they don't charge a fee for it. Charter hasn't been all that bad, at least by comparison to other cable companies. Hope TWC doesn't rub off on them.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  19. Re: No caps = higher base price / forced hardware by LordofWinterfell · · Score: 1

    Only because they want to get that sweet profit margin no matter what.

    --
    Winter is Coming.
  20. Should do a deal on last mile competition by jonwil · · Score: 1

    The US government should tell all the cable companies that they can only merge with each other and get bigger if they agree to end ALL efforts to stop last mile competition in any form.

    So that means no more monopoly deals with local government that prevents competing providers. No more pushing for legislation at any level of government that outlaws competition. No more doing deals with competitors not to roll out competing last mile offerings (i.e. the deal done with Verizon not to roll out more FiOS). No more fighting against efforts by Google and others (including local municipalities) to roll out fast broadband.

    1. Re:Should do a deal on last mile competition by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      So that means no more monopoly deals with local government that prevents competing providers.

      Very few had them to start with, but they're already prohibited. 47 USC 541(a)(1) reads:

      (1) A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise.

      No more fighting against efforts by Google and others (including local municipalities) to roll out fast broadband.

      Local municipalities are inherently unfair competition and the costs are unfairly spread onto the taxpayers -- even those who have no interest in internet service. (You start with cable companies and then switch to rules for internet providers, I noticed.) The incumbent cable company cannot stop Google if Google wishes to agree to the provisions of the existing franchise ordinances. They typically want to cherry pick when the franchisee has coverage requirements, or avoid certain services the incumbent is required to provide.

    2. Re:Should do a deal on last mile competition by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Taxpayers already fund all sorts of things that they may not necessarily agree with. Just look at the billions of dollars that have been paid by state and local government to fund sports arenas of all sorts as one example.

      Also in quite a few cases the municipalities that want to roll out broadband have had local referendums asking the citizens of those municipalities whether they support tax-payers money being used to roll out broadband and gotten a clear yes vote. (you cant argue that its unfair for taxpayers to spend money on infrastructure like this if those same taxpayers have collectively said "yes" to spending money on that infrastructure).

    3. Re:Should do a deal on last mile competition by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      you cant argue that its unfair for taxpayers to spend money on infrastructure like this

      I certainly can argue that it is unfair competition for municipalities, since they can charge less for the service (because they first don't have to make a profit and second can cover any losses by dipping into the general fund), and don't have to play by the same rules that they made the incumbent play by. It's not just an issue of taxpayers having to foot the bill for other people's conveniences.

      Just look at the billions of dollars that have been paid by state and local government to fund sports arenas of all sorts as one example.

      You mean the loans that add a considerable amount to the ticket prices, so eventually it is the ticket buyer who has spent the money and the public gets the benefit of the commercial traffic the venue generates?

  21. Re:I've heard that Charter is the least-awful majo by Hylandr · · Score: 2

    Still getting laid is still getting laid. :)

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  22. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't wait til they die

  23. Hurry Up Google Fiber! by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    As a TWC customer, I don't like this idea. But seeing as Google is installing fiber here in San Antonio, hopefully I can get switched over before the tumor begins.

    1. Re:Hurry Up Google Fiber! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I can tell, as a TWC customer, you'll be better off with Charter. At the very least, you'll be just fine.

      I have Charter, and they've been great. 100Mbit down, 7Mbit up, $60. No gimmicks, bullshit, or fees. My bill is a flat $59.99 every month. (I round to $60 in most conversations because I'm not sporting a woody for the number 9 like marketers are.) They don't bother me about TV or phone service other than the twice-weekly junk mail that gets thrown away along with the grocery store ads. Oh, and the incessant TV commercials. But you'd get those whether you have their service or not.

      I used to have AT&T U-Verse, and they could never keep the bill consistent, they constantly nagged me to upgrade to higher tiers, they had tiers (which is pants-on-head retarded, IMO), and they couldn't keep shit working. They'd disconnect my lines every time someone signed up for service in my neighborhood. I could accurately predict when I was going to have an outage by when they had a truck parked at the local node cabinet. Occasionally, they'd even swap my lines. I'd test it, find their mistake, and they'd say "that problem is in your house, so it's not our fault" and do nothing to fix it. Nevermind the fact that 1) I don't go tearing out the walls and rewiring the phone system just because I don't like the pattern of the color-coded wires, 2) they made the change at the node, not at my house, and 3) they did this repeatedly over the course of about 15 years because they apparently don't document jack shit. Seriously. Fuck AT&T. In the ass. With a rusty BBQ-grill brush.

      After that experience, I have a hard time finding much fault with Charter. It could be so much worse.

    2. Re:Hurry Up Google Fiber! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had Charter for nearly 10 years and never once had two months with the same bill. They could never even tell me how much my bill was going to be. All I had was the Internet, no additional services or pay-per-view. There was always some 5 other fees that I could ever figure out what they were. Very nebulously named. And every month one of them would go up a little bit.

  24. DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will the new Charter handle DRM and cablecards?

    TWC Currently has the WORST DRM setup. They DRM nearly everything but the locals.

    Charter currently only DRMs Premium and certain upper level channels.

  25. Re:No caps = higher base price / forced hardware r by Bengie · · Score: 2

    I've had a decent time with them, and so have my family, but they still have issues every night where YouTube, Netflix, or Hulu will randomly buffer. Mostly good, but periodic drops in performance. Starting a video stream also takes a bit to get going. I no longer have them, and I have fiber Internet and have no buffering anymore.

    One annoying issue with Charter was the random monthly internet drop out. Worse is you try contacting customer support and they say your connection looks fine from their end. After 10-15 minutes of them trying to have you reboot your modem, computer, and light bulbs, they go "ohh, yeah, we can't contact your modem". WTF did you mean by "your connection looks fine" if you can't fk'n communicate with it?!

  26. Re:I've heard that Charter is the least-awful majo by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    have you not heard? there are at least 2 benefits to marrying an ugly girl:

    1) no one would steal her

    and

    2) if they do, WHO CARES!

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  27. Attorney General Loretta Lynch by westlake · · Score: 2

    So, how long till the current head of the DoJ announces he is resigning his current position to join the Board of Directors of Time Warner?

    The geek has tunnel vision.

    There is more to the DOJ than Anti-trust.

    [Lynch] joined the Eastern District as a drug and violent-crime prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's office in 1990. From 1994 to 1998, she served as the chief of the Long Island office and worked on several political corruption cases...

    In 1999, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

    2001, Lynch left the U.S. Attorney's office to become a partner at Hogan & Hartson (later Hogan Lovells). She remained there until January 20, 2010, when President Barack Obama nominated Lynch to again serve as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. From 2003 to 2005, she was a member of the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

    Hogan & Hartson has been around since 1904 and even before the merger was about as big and prestigious a law firm as you'll find anywhere in the world.
    Lynch has far better options than TWC.

    Lynch's office prosecuted Republican congressman Michael Grimm; prosecuted Democratic politicians Pedro Espada Jr. and William Boyland, Jr.; investigated Citigroup over mortgage securities sold by the bank, resulting in a US$7 billion settlement; and was involved in the US$1.2 billion settlement with HSBC over violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.

    While Lynch was US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, she supervised the investigation into senior FIFA officials from its earliest stages. The investigation culminated in the indictment of 14 senior FIFA officials and sports marketing executives shortly after Lynch was confirmed as Attorney General. For her work in the 2015 FIFA corruption case, Lynch was presented with the 3rd annual Golden Blazer by Roger Bennett and Michael Davies.

    Lynch is the second woman to become Attorney General and the first African-American woman to become Attorney General. Growing up, her mother was a school librarian and her father was a Baptist minister. Lynch earned a Bachelor of Arts in English and American literature from Harvard College in 1981 and a Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School in 1984, where she was a member of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau.

    Loretta Lynch

    1. Re:Attorney General Loretta Lynch by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the correction. It's not so much "tunnel vision" as outright ignorance since I haven't paid attention to who was actually running the US DoJ since Reno because I honestly don't care anymore. They are appointed by whoever is the President of USA at the time, will follow the doctrine of whoever appointed them and occasionally get replaced for one reason of another so I stopped keeping track. Did this current DoJ prosecute anyone form the last administration for violations of the Constitution or other law. domestic or International? Since you are so well informed perhaps you could enlighten me as to what the DoJ has done about the illegal activities of the various other agencies/departments of the US government.

      I also have never heard of Hoogan & whoever. What else have they done since 1904 other than make shit loads of money for themselves?

    2. Re: Attorney General Loretta Lynch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw, someone's gf dumped them for a black guy.

  28. Not anytime soon. by westlake · · Score: 1
    A primer on post employment restrictions for the geek who has no idea about how the federal government really works.

    There are statutory prohibitions on a former government employee that generally prevent her from ''switching sides'' after leaving the government. The following are the main restrictions:

    Lifetime Ban - An employee is prohibited from representing anyone else before the government on a particular matter involving specific parties in which she participated personally and substantially.

    Two-Year Ban - An employee is prohibited for two years from representing another person on a particular matter involving specific parties which was pending under her responsibility during her last year of government service.

    One-Year Ban - A senior employee includes Executive Level officials and all other employees whose rate of basic pay is equal to or greater than 86.5% of the rate for Level II of the Executive Schedule, which is $158,554.00 as of January 2015

    Leaving Government -- Post-Employment Restrictions

    1. Re:Not anytime soon. by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Does not apply to members of congress, obviously. Just the worker schmucks.

  29. Re: No caps = higher base price / forced hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only because they want to get that sweet profit margin no matter what.

    I actually tried to get them (charter cable internet) to give me a lower priced plan (slower), but they absolutely refuse. You used to be able to deal with them, but not now. Not even threatening to cancel will do it. I considered going to only wifi, since I already have 3 cricket wireless devices, but looking at router logs I seem to be actually using up to 40GB a month, which is higher than I'd have expected, but that is what it says. The only other option is at&t, which isn't going to be much cheaper and will be much worse.

    Seriously, I really wish they would bring back a lower tier of service, but as the parent poster suggested, they probably assume that doing so would cost them money, since many/most of us really don't need 60/100Mbps.

  30. Re: No caps = higher base price / forced hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've noted that when posting lately I see "Working" at the bottom of the screen and it never goes away. Does anyone know what is up with that? This is a stock google chrome browser. I've also seen it on firefox with various plugins installed. The post does seem to still go through. It just never tells you that it did, unless you go hunt for it.

  31. Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... refrain from telling its content providers ...

    Yeah, umm. They'll do it for 5 years then claim it's restrictive and corporation-bashing. If they have a competing tel-co, with matching services, in most regions, I might agree with them.

  32. This helps vs. bandwidth caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22apk+hosts+file+engine%22&go=Submit&qs=bs&form=QBRE

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS, routers & antivirus + less security issues/complexity. Compliments firewalls (w/ layered drivers blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lighten dns load). Gets data via 10 security sites.

    Works vs. caps & HTTP PUSH ads in Chrome

    * Ads rob bandwidth/speed paid for, security (openbid adnetworks abuse), privacy in tracking + anonymity.

    Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogtrackers) natively. Hosts != blockable by ClarityRay (souled-out addons)

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ (Verified "I've seen the code & yes it is safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4290 )

  33. AVERAGE webpage = BIG as DOOM for DOS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... @ 2.3mb (that's just avg. mind you too).

    * Anyone seeing how/why my program helps by BLOCKING ADS (especially video ads or script sources) that steal your bandwidth/speed (as well as security due to infected ads)?

    APK

    P.S.=> It's why I posted about it here in this article-> https://news.slashdot.org/comm... saving bandwidth (besides giving you more speed, security, reliability + anonymity online)... apk

  34. Re: No caps = higher base price / forced hardware by Agripa · · Score: 1

    I see the same thing using Firefox and have no explanation for it.

  35. Re:I've heard that Charter is the least-awful majo by sabbede · · Score: 1
    I've never had Time Warner myself, but I have Charter now, had Comcast before that, and (I think, not 100% sure) Bright House before that. Charter beats Comcast hands-down for customer service and not being greedy a-holes. So did Bright House. And neither of them had data caps. Comcast implemented one (announcing "good news, we're raising the cap to 300GB/month!") after I signed up with assurances that there was no cap.

    Charter has never lied to me, Comcast did all the time. The X1 platform is far superior to anything else I've seen though. It was really nice to not see the same awful interface every cable box has been using for 20+ years.

    My biggest gripe is with Charter's OnDemand offerings. Shockingly slim pickings, inexplicably absent HD streams, no rewind... I'm hoping that's down to the "telling its content providers that they cannot also sell shows online" bit and that it will now change.

  36. Re:No caps = higher base price / forced hardware r by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Charter hasn't been all that bad, at least by comparison to other cable companies. Hope TWC doesn't rub off on them.

    I believe Charter is the ONLY cable company that doesn't have a subsidized service for low-income families. They dropped their lower-cost packages years ago, and now their service STARTS at $40/mo.

    Meanwhile, Time Warner still has a $15/mo plan, which is only 3/1Mbps, but you don't even need evidence of income. Time Warner is also one of the only cable companies that allows other service providers... If TW isn't doing a good job, you can switch to Earthlink service over the same coax.

    I expect the merger with Charter is only going to ruin these TW benefits which aren't as profitable for the company as not offering them would be. The terms allowing the merger should really have forced these programs across Charter's network. Instead, soon it's going to be cheaper for light internet users to switch to cellular entirely.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  37. Re:No caps = higher base price / forced hardware r by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

    One annoying issue with Charter was the random monthly internet drop out. Worse is you try contacting customer support and they say your connection looks fine from their end. After 10-15 minutes of them trying to have you reboot your modem, computer, and light bulbs, they go "ohh, yeah, we can't contact your modem". WTF did you mean by "your connection looks fine" if you can't fk'n communicate with it?!

    I read this and laughed, because that's my experience with them (random failures, etc). They suck on the internet side (lowest upstream of any provider other than DSL... even their 100mbit business plans only have 4mbit up) and they're even worse on the TV side.

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  38. Re:No caps = higher base price / forced hardware r by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, Time Warner screws their customers in completely different ways that I'm hoping that Charter will remedy. Like their absolute abuse of the CCI flag on cable television that requires you to use either one of their absolutely terrible set top boxes, TiVo, or Windows Media Center (a dead product).

    No other cable company does this, which leaves every other subscriber not paying Time Warner open to using the myriad of other roll-your-own DVR solutions out there with a CableCard and tuner.

    If Charter wants to make me a happy customer, they can just stop flagging everything CopyOnce. In fact, if Time Warner wanted to make me a happy customer, they could do the same. And I've told them this on many occasions.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  39. More competition? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    How can there be more competition when there are less providers? If anything, Charter and TWC should be split up and allowed to compete in the same markets using a common network maintained by an independent third party. As it stands, consumers will have the choice between the one cable provider and that exact same provider. There is no competition because the US communications system is inherently broken.