Astros, Rockets set to finalize deal for TV network

[Arky Vaughan]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/7270086.html

The pissing match between Comcast and the other providers should be interesting.

[Ron Brand]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/7270086.html

The pissing match between Comcast and the other providers should be interesting.

Yeah. Looks like we've got a couple of years of status quo and then it's a brave new world.

[jbm]

I don't understand why Fox can't show The Rockets in Austin, as I can see the games through the NBA package.

Is Comcast available in Austin?  Would be worth a switch to me as I assume all the Astros and Rocket games would be shown.

[Bench]

The pissing match between Comcast and the other providers should be interesting.

Fucking Comcast.

I don't mind not being able to watch the UH-Memphis slobberknocker tomorrow because it's only being shown on some random Comcast college football channel, but Comcast better not fuck with my ability to avoid their shitty service and watch the Astros. 

It is stunning to me that swaths of NYC can't watch the World Series because of Comcast. 

[Lurch]

Uh oh.  This doesnt look good for us DTV subscribers

[austro]

Uh oh.  This doesnt look good for us DTV subscribers

Doesn't look good for Austin in general.

[Ron Brand]

Doesn't look good for Austin in general.

Exactly. I don't know what's going to happen to us. I don't live inside of Austin and have a different carrier, but there's no way to know how this will shake out.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Just read the article.  One word:  SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS

[JaneDoe]

Exactly. I don't know what's going to happen to us. I don't live inside of Austin and have a different carrier, but there's no way to know how this will shake out.

Me too. Live in Houston area and have Direct TV.

[roadrunner]

The article acts like it will be available on other carriers as long as they are able to negotiate a deal to carry the network.  So there's hope.

[BizidyDizidy]

Directv has the other regional comcast stations; I don't see any reason why they couldn't carry this also.

[Bench]

Of course it's available to other carriers, it's the "negotiating with Comcast" that is the problem.

[Ron Brand]

Directv has the other regional comcast stations; I don't see any reason why they couldn't carry this also.

Yeah, but us cable guys are just gonna have to wait for the contract bids and hope the Rangers don't have a better offer for our carriers.

[BizidyDizidy]

As a former subscriber, I heartily recommend ditching time warner as soon as humanly possible.

[austro]

As a former subscriber, I heartily recommend ditching time warner as soon as humanly possible.

That's easy to say, but it's not really practical in Austin.

[BizidyDizidy]

That's easy to say, but it's not really practical in Austin.

You can't get directv there?

[Alkie]

You can't get directv there?

No Southern view.

[Waldo]

As a former subscriber, I heartily recommend ditching time warner as soon as humanly possible.

We've had a great experience with Time Warner for over four years.  Certainly way better than our brief stint with Uverse.

[Bench]

Yeah, but us cable guys are just gonna have to wait for the contract bids and hope the Rangers don't have a better offer for our carriers.

Opposite. 

[Bench]

We've had a great experience with Time Warner for over four years.  Certainly way better than our brief stint with Uverse.

This is the opposite I meant.

[Waldo]

Oh well.  I guess HudsonHawk:AT&T::Waldo:Time Warner

[BizidyDizidy]

I think time Warner may be the worst of any major service provider I have had (not just tv programming, everything).  Maybe just ahead of the dog crap collector who was terrified of dogs.

Also, their phone customer service are so damned nice, which only adds insult to injury when you really want to go off on somebody (not effective whatsoever, but very nice)

[Ron Brand]

I think time Warner may be the worst of any major service provider I have had (not just tv programming, everything). 

I've heard that, but I haven't had TW's service. I thought Comcast was universally regarded as The Devil, though. Not that most people love their cable provider, of course.

[BizidyDizidy]

I didn't have any problems with comcast (and at least they had the nfl network), but obviously could've been lucky. I used cable cards with hd tivos and so was kind of a needy cable customer. Many more problems with TW.

[Bench]

I've heard that, but I haven't had TW's service. I thought Comcast was universally regarded as The Devil, though. Not that most people love their cable provider, of course.

Wait, Time Warner and Comcast aren't the same company?

[HudsonHawk]

I had Time Warner for about 12 years.  Nary a single problem.  I thought they were terrific.  I got DTV so that I could get NFL Sunday Ticket, and have had that for the last 10.  I honestly don't know why all the wailing and knashing of teeth over TW.  I had Grande out in Midland.  They were OK too, but not as good as TW.

[BizidyDizidy]

Not having NFLN is pretty annoying given the Thursday night game even beforebyou get to anything else.

[Ron Brand]

I couldn't give a rat's ass about the NFL but I do care about compression algorithms. I'd heard that U-verse is artifacty as hell and I saw it a couple of weeks ago at someone's house and it did look like shit, real blocky.

[Waldo]

I couldn't give a rat's ass about the NFL but I do care about compression algorithms. I'd heard that U-verse is artifacty as hell and I saw it a couple of weeks ago at someone's house and it did look like shit, real blocky.

It has to do with the medium it's been transmitted on.  Time Warner and other cable companies use coax cable on the "last mile", while Uverse's last mile is ancient POTS lines wherever fiber-to-the-premises is not offered.  That's also why Uverse only offers two simultaneous HD channels for your entire home, whereas cable suffers no such limitation.  IIRC, Uverse's maximum bandwidth for TV+Internet+phone is something like 30Mbps, and only a max of about 7Mbps is allocated for TV usage (divided into 4 streams, HD channels use two streams) regardless of whether you're using the rest for Internet.

We tried Uverse for two months last summer.  The TV picture quality was noticeably worse, the Internet was slow and unreliable, there was a constant echo (symptom of latency) on our phone line, and if you had to reboot the Uverse modem it took 15 minutes and shut down ALL your services during that time.  All that, and we were paying about $50-60/month more than with Time Warner.  Uverse does have an awesome DVR, but it certainly wasn't worth the extra expense nor all the other trouble we had.

On another topic, I wish Verizon or someone else would start offering home fiber service in Austin.

[Ron Brand]

It has to do with the medium it's been transmitted on.  Time Warner and other cable companies use coax cable on the "last mile", while Uverse's last mile is ancient POTS lines wherever fiber-to-the-premises is not offered.  That's also why Uverse only offers two simultaneous HD channels for your entire home, whereas cable suffers no such limitation.  IIRC, Uverse's maximum bandwidth for TV+Internet+phone is something like 30Mbps, and only a max of about 7Mbps is allocated for TV usage (divided into 4 streams, HD channels use two streams) regardless of whether you're using the rest for Internet.

We tried Uverse for two months last summer.  The TV picture quality was noticeably worse, the Internet was slow and unreliable, there was a constant echo (symptom of latency) on our phone line, and if you had to reboot the Uverse modem it took 15 minutes and shut down ALL your services during that time.  All that, and we were paying about $50-60/month more than with Time Warner.  Uverse does have an awesome DVR, but it certainly wasn't worth the extra expense nor all the other trouble we had.

On another topic, I wish Verizon or someone else would start offering home fiber service in Austin.

That's useful info, thanks. Fortunately, I've got TiVo boxes and love them, and they're incompatible with U-verse so I wasn't tempted during their carpetbombing of my neighborhood with offers.

[MusicMan]

We tried Uverse for two months last summer.  The TV picture quality was noticeably worse, the Internet was slow and unreliable, there was a constant echo (symptom of latency) on our phone line, and if you had to reboot the Uverse modem it took 15 minutes and shut down ALL your services during that time.  All that, and we were paying about $50-60/month more than with Time Warner.  Uverse does have an awesome DVR, but it certainly wasn't worth the extra expense nor all the other trouble we had.

This is completely different than my experience.  I have no problem with picture quality and our internet outages have combined to less than two minutes in the first year and a half.

[WakePhil]

I didn't have any problems with comcast (and at least they had the nfl network), but obviously could've been lucky. I used cable cards with hd tivos and so was kind of a needy cable customer. Many more problems with TW.

I had more problems than I could count with Comcast. Any issue required two or three calls to the service desk as they would never suggest the same solution. Even minutes apart, with a history of my calls, they would suggest some entirely different solution. I was once without cable for five days where they explained that I should call back each day to make sure I wasn't being billed. On the fifth day I got a competent person who was astounded I had exchanged my box and went five days without signal. He fixed it in 30 seconds over the phone.

What kills me most is that they are practically boastful in their indifference to quality or customer service. Their boxes and operating system are terrible and they just don't seem to care. There are enough people without a choice in provider that they have no incentive to improve.

I finally switched to DTV and would never go back. I'll find another way to watch Astros games before I switch back.

[BizidyDizidy]

That's useful info, thanks. Fortunately, I've got TiVo boxes and love them, and they're incompatible with U-verse so I wasn't tempted during their carpetbombing of my neighborhood with offers.

Love of Tivo was the thing that kept me on cable the longest. I will say that I think the DirecTV DVR is as good as Tivo in terms of functionality (the only thing I miss is netflix streaming).

[Limey]

This is completely different than my experience.  I have no problem with picture quality and our internet outages have combined to less than two minutes in the first year and a half.

I think there's going to be a lot of variation in Uverse quality vs. cable as the signal is going to degrade faster over telephone lines than coax.  An extra 100 feet of telephone line, could make a big difference.

The only thing that would've tempted me to Uverse was Setanta for cricket, rugby and an extra Premiership game a week and a Championship game a week (which would mean I'd see my belved Crystal Palace every once in a while).  Comcast don't carry it because they're cocksuckers.  But Setanta went bust, and that channel is now Fox Soccer Plus, which Comcast still don't carry but it's not the whole range of things that Setanta broadcast so it's not worth worrying about.

For me, the only change I will consider now is if there's fibre optic all the way to my modem.

[MusicMan]

I think there's going to be a lot of variation in Uverse quality vs. cable as the signal is going to degrade faster over telephone lines than coax.  An extra 100 feet of telephone line, could make a big difference.

This could well be.  I know we're located right by a hub that AT&T had installed as we moved in.

[Andyzipp]

I have been with DirecTV since 1998 with only a 1 month break two summers ago.  We made the decision to move to Comcast to save a few bucks by dropping DTV and AT&T for phone/internet.

Install was going fine up until I started asking about the VOIP modem they weren't installing.  I was told that wasn't part of my order, which was interesting since I signed up for one of those bundle thingees.

Of course, the installer didn't have any extra equipment, so to Customer Service I go.  I was on hold for 1 hour and 45 minutes before someone finally got on with me, and told me that I couldn't have my current landline number moved to Comcast so they canceled the order.  I should have canceled right then.

Eventually, I get that straightened out, and they schedule an install date for the new modem (I literally begged them just to drop ship the modem, or let me come pick it up...no dice).  Window comes and goes, no installer.  I call, hold for only 90 minutes this time and get a new install guaranteed for the next day, and a free month of service.

Next day, guy shows up installs a new modem that is exactly the same as the old modem.  Has no record of order for VOIP service. I have to go on a business trip for a week, so the issue is dropped for that time frame.

I return, hold for 90 minutes again, explain the situation, find out my landline number can be released to Comcast, and schedule another install.  Another free month of service.  Meanwhile, I turn on the television to watch Cecil Cooper sleep through an Astros game, which oddly is being broadcast in Spanish.  I call, only hold for 30 minutes this time, and am told after an hour of running through their decision tree that what I'm hearing isn't happening.

I hung up with them, called DirecTV (no hold), had an install scheduled for that Saturday.  Once they showed up, I grabbed all my Comcast stuff and hauled it to the Pinemont office to drop everything off.

Flash forward to 2 months later, at 8pm one evening, a Comcast service guy rings my doorbell.  He has a VOIP modem and is ready to connect the service.

I think I would literally just go complete OTA rather than ever sign up with Comcast again.

[BizidyDizidy]

Were the people on the phone maddeningly nice? If so, you have basically described my experience with Time Warner (except replace VOIP modem with cable cards)

[Limey]

I think I would literally just go complete OTA rather than ever sign up with Comcast again.

I used to have TW years ago, and hated them.  Then I moved apartments into a complex served by Optel, and regretted ever leaving the (relatively) functional service of TW.  Optel was crap, and it would take days sometimes to get through to customr service.  The 90 minute hold was a regular occurrence.  What was also a regular occurrence, after spending an hour and a half being told how import this call was to them, was being dumped off the queue because they had too many calls holding.

More recently I was under the umbrella of MaxTV (IIRC), whose customer service was fine, but whose product was shit.

I am now a Comcast customer.  I have some real issues with the channel lineup and the DVR*, but I use them only for TV and internet so I do not challenge them too much.  Customer service has been great for me, including installing all my shit on July 4 last year - which saved me from being in blackout over a long weekend.

* No Fox Soccer Plus, no HD Comedy Central, no HD Fox Soccer Channel; and the DVR has a horrible interface and regularly cuts off the end of shows.

[Andyzipp]

Were the people on the phone maddeningly nice? If so, you have basically described my experience with Time Warner (except replace VOIP modem with cable cards)

Except for the guy trying to convince me that the game wasn't being broadcast in Spanish, yes.

[subnuclear]

On another topic, I wish Verizon or someone else would start offering home fiber service in Austin.

I didn't have a problem with Comcast, but Verizon FIOS is dreamy.

[Ty in Tampa]

I didn't have a problem with Comcast, but Verizon FIOS is dreamy.

+1

[Jacksonian]

+1

+2

[Bench]

There's a U-Verse iPhone app that you can use to program your DVR from your phone. 

[Waldo]

There's a U-Verse iPhone app that you can use to program your DVR from your phone. 

This is "coming soon" to Time Warner.

[Noe]

I don't understand why Fox can't show The Rockets in Austin, as I can see the games through the NBA package.

Because the San Antonio Spurs own the region.  It would be the same for a Dallas Maverick fan (which I am not, I am a Rocket fan who has learned to live with it).

Is Comcast available in Austin?  Would be worth a switch to me as I assume all the Astros and Rocket games would be shown.

TimeWarner has a solid lock of the area, so I doubt you'll be able to switch to Comcast.  However, if Comcast negotiates a deal with TW and Grande, then you'll get the package (for a subscription fee of course).

[Noe]

This is "coming soon" to Time Warner.

I have had wonderful service from Time Warner, mainly because when it comes to servicing the wireless, the modem and the overall digital equipment, I don't rely on service calls to my house.  I basically call the customer service, tell the problem I am experiencing, follow some key steps to repair it and it's done.  On one occasion, my digital cable subscription was screwy.  That is because I went and switched out my digital box from the clunky Scientific model to the new Samsung model.  The operator on-site keyed in everything incorrectly to my account since I asked for the digital video recorder to be removed (didn't need it since they offered Primetime On-Demand pretty much for all the shows I would record any way).  Any way, it took a few days for me to notice that the service I was receiving on my digital account was a bit off (missing channels, add-on movie channels I didn't want, etc.).  I called the customer service, got a guy on the phone right away (on a Saturday morning).  He looked at my account and realized the settings were keyed in incorrectly by the operator on-site.  He also said they needed to load some key software for me, so he told me it would take a few seconds to load, then I should power down the box, and then let it re-set on it's own.

I did, took all of five minutes and it was fixed.

This is generally my dealings with TW, it's never been a hassle for me (knock on wood).  I am definitely going to want to watch this deal work it's way through in the next few years because I would hate to lose TW, but I will if I have to.

[MusicMan]

There's a U-Verse iPhone app that you can use to program your DVR from your phone. 

And download certain shows.

[Lurch]

Except for the guy trying to convince me that the game wasn't being broadcast in Spanish, yes.

To make this story more awesome, I really hope this was the night that the Astros did intentionally broadcast an inning or two in Spanish to showcase those announcers.

[jbm]

Because the San Antonio Spurs own the region.  It would be the same for a Dallas Maverick fan (which I am not, I am a Rocket fan who has learned to live with it).

No, I understand that I can't go to the Fox Sports SW channel and see the Rockets or Mavs because they are blacked out.  However, if you buy the NBA package, you get all but the Spurs matchups (which are on the Fox Sports SW channel anyway).  In sum, a meaningless, pay-to-avoid blackout.

Assuming Concast will not be available in Austin, I hope it is as simple as purchasing a Concast package through Time Warner.

[Limey]

I have had wonderful service from Time Warner, mainly because when it comes to servicing the wireless, the modem and the overall digital equipment, I don't rely on service calls to my house.

+1

If they can't fix a problem by pinging the unit, the technician who calls simply swaps it out and calls for another ping.  If I have any trouble beyond that which can be fixed via the phone helpline, I simply disconnect the offending unit and get it replaced at the nearest Comcast center.

[Noe]

+1

If they can't fix a problem by pinging the unit, the technician who calls simply swaps it out and calls for another ping.  If I have any trouble beyond that which can be fixed via the phone helpline, I simply disconnect the offending unit and get it replaced at the nearest Comcast center.

Yup, 'tis the easiest and most effective way to manage your own entertainment partnership with them.  If you let them do everything, then you'll be disappointed.  The TW offices are less than a 1/8th of a mile from my office too, so it's about going there before or after work and even on a Saturday if I have to to do some swaping (*if I have to*).  I will say though, when I've been at the TW office to swap out a box, I am amazed at the amount of folks who show up with no idea of what type of service they actually have nor why things aren't really working right, et. al.  I understand little grandma types who were sold a bill of goods by a TW door to door rep/salesman who can't understand why these darn fangled contraption are in their house.  That much is highly understandable.  I feel for those folks actually because it would be light years easier to deal with TW (or Comcast) if you take a partnership relationship with them instead of a consumer relationship.  Not that it is right, they *SHOULD* be in the business of consumer/vendor-services with folks.  But it really helps you if you mitigate that quite often with your own understanding of how things work.

[Noe]

No, I understand that I can't go to the Fox Sports SW channel and see the Rockets or Mavs because they are blacked out.  However, if you buy the NBA package, you get all but the Spurs matchups (which are on the Fox Sports SW channel anyway).  In sum, a meaningless, pay-to-avoid blackout.

Assuming Concast will not be available in Austin, I hope it is as simple as purchasing a Concast package through Time Warner.

I think the assumption that Comcast will *NOT* be available is a good one.  If it were, you would not get the SportsNet Houston channel any way because the NBA would not allow Comcast to violate the regional assignments, much the same way you cannot violate the regional assignment of the Astros here in Austin to view more Rangers games.  So it is better to have it as a subscription product in a way.  What becomes a hassle though is how easily subscriptions can go away because of fights between provider and distributor.  That can happen with the normal providers as well, such as ABC, NBC, etc... but it's more tenuous with subscription providers.  You will have to pay.

[LonerATO]

I couldn't give a rat's ass about the NFL but I do care about compression algorithms. I'd heard that U-verse is artifacty as hell and I saw it a couple of weeks ago at someone's house and it did look like shit, real blocky.

I have never had that issue when I had U-verse at all, but then again my apartments in SA were wired for U-verse. Now that I am back in Houston I am stuck with Comcast and the service is horrible. Sound always goes out, doesnt record shows, picture quality is crap. My folks house out in Spring has U-verse and it looks just as good as the stuff I had back in SA and their house is 20 years old. Good read about DSL here and sorry if I am off topic about the main thread post.

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/10/new-tech-may-bring-near-gigabit-speeds-via-dsl-someday.ars

[Waldo]

Good read about DSL here and sorry if I am off topic about the main thread post.

That's cool and all, but I'd rather see providers focus their efforts on fiber.  Single-mode fiber can push 10Gbps over 50 miles without breaking a sweat.  The speed claims in the article (100Mbps at 1km, 800Mbps at 400m, etc.) look pathetic by comparison.

Fiber-to-the-premises is the wave of the future, and we'll be a lot better off when providers really start pushing that instead of continuing to rely on aging infrastructure.  But why should they make a huge investment like that when they can keep bending us over for Internet speeds that are, on average, a fraction of those in Japan and South Korea and about 1/4 of those in some European countries?

[S.P. Rodriguez]

That's cool and all, but I'd rather see providers focus their efforts on fiber.  Single-mode fiber can push 10Gbps over 50 miles without breaking a sweat.  The speed claims in the article (100Mbps at 1km, 800Mbps at 400m, etc.) look pathetic by comparison.

Fiber-to-the-premises is the wave of the future, and we'll be a lot better off when providers really start pushing that instead of continuing to rely on aging infrastructure.  But why should they make a huge investment like that when they can keep bending us over for Internet speeds that are, on average, a fraction of those in Japan and South Korea and about 1/4 of those in some European countries?

Interesting point, about the infrastructure topic.  But from an academic standpoint, it's not a fair comparison.  The reasons fibre infrastructure has advanced in those areas is the same reason mass transit works there, while it fails in the US.  Distances in the US are far too great and housing is not as heavily centralized compared to Europe and Japan.  I have no idea about South Korea, but I would assume it's the same situation.

In other words, in Europe, I can drive three hours and cross at least one national border, and, in some cases, two.  In the US. I can drive three hours and not even travel from Austin to the east side of Houston. 

There are other factors at play, obviously, but this is the most obvious to me. 

[Limey]

That's cool and all, but I'd rather see providers focus their efforts on fiber.  Single-mode fiber can push 10Gbps over 50 miles without breaking a sweat.  The speed claims in the article (100Mbps at 1km, 800Mbps at 400m, etc.) look pathetic by comparison.

Fiber-to-the-premises is the wave of the future, and we'll be a lot better off when providers really start pushing that instead of continuing to rely on aging infrastructure.  But why should they make a huge investment like that when they can keep bending us over for Internet speeds that are, on average, a fraction of those in Japan and South Korea and about 1/4 of those in some European countries?

I have my house wired for gigabit ethernet.  Now all I need is someone to roll some fibre up to my front door.  My street has about 20 houses on it, so I won't hold my breath*, but at least my house is somewhat future-proofed.


* I can't almost piss on AT&T's huge sub-station at Weslayan and Alabama, yet cannot get U-Verse even if I wanted to.

[Waldo]

Interesting point, about the infrastructure topic.  But from an academic standpoint, it's not a fair comparison.  The reasons fibre infrastructure has advanced in those areas is the same reason mass transit works there, while it fails in the US.  Distances in the US are far too great and housing is not as heavily centralized compared to Europe and Japan.  I have no idea about South Korea, but I would assume it's the same situation.

In other words, in Europe, I can drive three hours and cross at least one national border, and, in some cases, two.  In the US. I can drive three hours and not even travel from Austin to the east side of Houston. 

There are other factors at play, obviously, but this is the most obvious to me. 

There's that too, as well as a larger population to provide service to and territorial ISPs that do not share their physical infrastructure.  I will agree that fiber is not yet cost-effective in rural areas and may not be for a long time.  However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be making a push for fiber in all of the major cities.  That also doesn't mean that fiber is incapable of spanning those long distances; with amplification equipment, single-mode fiber can do 40Gbps for a few hundred miles and 10Gbps from coast to coast.

[Andyzipp]

There's that too, as well as a larger population to provide service to and territorial ISPs that do not share their physical infrastructure.  I will agree that fiber is not yet cost-effective in rural areas and may not be for a long time.  However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be making a push for fiber in all of the major cities.  That also doesn't mean that fiber is incapable of spanning those long distances; with amplification equipment, single-mode fiber can do 40Gbps for a few hundred miles and 10Gbps from coast to coast.

What do you consider a major city?

[Bench]

What do you consider a major city?

Alkie?  You're up.

[MusicMan]

What do you consider a major city?

These.

[Waldo]

What do you consider a major city?

Anywhere large enough to provide a decent return on investment.  The top 20 cities in the US would probably be a good place to start.  La Grange, not so much.

[Outlawscotty]

What do you consider a major city?

The other Spring Branch???  I have fiber to my house and can access a 40Mbps circuit if I choose, on top of cable and telephone.  Good ole Guadalupe Valley Telephone COOP.

[Waldo]

The other Spring Branch???  I have fiber to my house and can access a 40Mbps circuit if I choose, on top of cable and telephone.  Good ole Guadalupe Valley Telephone COOP.

I think I'll ban you out of jealousy.

[Bench]

The other Spring Branch???  I have fiber to my house and can access a 40Mbps circuit if I choose, on top of cable and telephone.  Good ole Guadalupe Valley Telephone COOP.

THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!

Oh.  Wrong COOP.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

I think I'll ban you out of jealousy.

Not to pile on, but I'm out in the Greater Austin Reject Area, a.k.a. Pflugerville, and I have fibre (just for you limey) to the house.  I also have Uverse and love it. I had Dish before Uverse, and had no issues there either.  I switched based on price.  So far, I have no objections.

[Limey]

I think the upshot of this whole conversation is that, it doesn't matter who your service provider is, (1) you don't like them; and (2) the quality of service depends entirely on the quality of the pipe delivering the feed.

[Limey]

Meanwhile, Comcast's dick measuring contest with News Corp may have put their merger with NBC in jeopardy.

Ha!

[BudGirl]

I think the upshot of this whole conversation is that, it doesn't matter who your service provider is, (1) you don't like them; and (2) the quality of service depends entirely on the quality of the pipe delivering the feed.

So, size does matter?

[Waldo]

Not to pile on, but I'm out in the Greater Austin Reject Area, a.k.a. Pflugerville, and I have fibre (just for you limey) to the house.  I also have Uverse and love it. I had Dish before Uverse, and had no issues there either.  I switched based on price.  So far, I have no objections.

I imagine Uverse on pure fiber is pretty damn awesome.

So, size does matter?

Width, not length.

[BudGirl]

Width, not length.

Still has to reach the box, right?

[Curly]

Still has to reach the box, right?

[golf clap]

[MusicMan]

So much for my praise for AT&T.  They've apparently dropped The Food Network.

[Ron Brand]

Pretty bold grab by AT&T to try to repurpose broadcast video, which is what it sounds like they were trying to do. Not sure if any other carrier does that - so far it seems to be the purview of the originating broadcaster.

[MusicMan]

So what's the scoop on DirecTV's full-home DVR?  Equivalent to AT&T?

[astrosfan76]

Interesting point, about the infrastructure topic.  But from an academic standpoint, it's not a fair comparison.  The reasons fibre infrastructure has advanced in those areas is the same reason mass transit works there, while it fails in the US.  Distances in the US are far too great and housing is not as heavily centralized compared to Europe and Japan.  I have no idea about South Korea, but I would assume it's the same situation.

In other words, in Europe, I can drive three hours and cross at least one national border, and, in some cases, two.  In the US. I can drive three hours and not even travel from Austin to the east side of Houston. 

There are other factors at play, obviously, but this is the most obvious to me. 

ISP's like to drag their feet, also.  In the late 90's, the government provided billions to be invested in broadband infrastructure.  Yet, it took almost a decade for the majority of Americans to subscribe to broadband (at a higher than necessary rate for lower than necessary speeds). 

This reluctance to upgrade is also evident in IP addressing.  IPv4 addresses will run out within months, but instead of switching to IPv6, with it's virtually limitless number of available addresses, providers are looking at NAT at higher levels.  Address translating at higher levels means more overhead which means slower speeds at the user level.  Switching to IPv6 is going to be a pain and will cost some money, but is inevitable.  ISPs just don't want to be proactive about it.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

ISP's like to drag their feet, also.  In the late 90's, the government provided billions to be invested in broadband infrastructure.  Yet, it took almost a decade for the majority of Americans to subscribe to broadband (at a higher than necessary rate for lower than necessary speeds). 

This reluctance to upgrade is also evident in IP addressing.  IPv4 addresses will run out within months, but instead of switching to IPv6, with it's virtually limitless number of available addresses, providers are looking at NAT at higher levels.  Address translating at higher levels means more overhead which means slower speeds at the user level.  Switching to IPv6 is going to be a pain and will cost some money, but is inevitable.  ISPs just don't want to be proactive about it.

I'm not disagreeing with your point, but it's more than "some" money and is more than just a pain.  In some cases, it's a complete replacement of equipment.  Granted, that's happening on it's own, i.e. equipment that handles both IPv4 and v6.  But there are still some parts of the country that are barely on the grid, as is.  And some are definitely running retrograde technology.  I'd put it in the area of millions (hundreds, not tens) of dollars in equipment and man-hours.  Unless you want to off-shore that effort, I'm not sure how you can get it done for fewer dollars. 

[astrosfan76]

I'm not disagreeing with your point, but it's more than "some" money and is more than just a pain.  In some cases, it's a complete replacement of equipment.  Granted, that's happening on it's own, i.e. equipment that handles both IPv4 and v6.  But there are still some parts of the country that are barely on the grid, as is.  And some are definitely running retrograde technology.  I'd put it in the area of millions (hundreds, not tens) of dollars in equipment and man-hours.  Unless you want to off-shore that effort, I'm not sure how you can get it done for fewer dollars. 

Oh, I know it will cost a lot of money.  But, the impending end of v4 addresses isn't a new concept, they've known about it for years.  Suddenlink is my carrier, which, while not a giant, isn't exactly a one-CMST provider, either.  My parents switched to them a few weeks ago and were handed a DOCSIS 2.0 modem.  So, they're not even making an effort to give customers equipment that will be v6 compatible.  I wouldn't expect rural carriers to be up-to-date, but major companies should be making strides toward compliance (even if meant putting off advances in speed, which will be at least partially off-set by NAT, anyway).  But, (theoretical) speeds are what makes them money.

[Limey]

Wait!  When did this thread stop being a rolling dick joke?  This latest shit is confusing.

[Waldo]

Bumping this thread because I just found out about a new service level Time Warner is offering.  For $180/month you get:

- 2 HD cable boxes
- Whole home DVR with 150 hours of HD storage
- Record up to four HD shows at once
- Internet speeds of 50mbps download, 5mbps upload

The only catch is that you can't opt out of the home phone service.  I wish I could do it just for the Internet upgrade.  Still, in the absence of FIOS offerings in Austin, this kicks Uverse's ass sideways.

[HudsonHawk]

Bumping this thread because I just found out about a new service level Time Warner is offering.  For $180/month you get:

- 2 HD cable boxes
- Whole home DVR with 150 hours of HD storage
- Record up to four HD shows at once
- Internet speeds of 50mbps download, 5mbps upload

The only catch is that you can't opt out of the home phone service.  I wish I could do it just for the Internet upgrade.  Still, in the absence of FIOS offerings in Austin, this kicks Uverse's ass sideways.

$180/month?  Ouch.  I get four HD boxes with whole home DVR from DirecTV for like $80/month.  Add in my DSL for $19/month, and I don't really find TW much of a bargain.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

- Internet speeds of 50mbps download, 5mbps upload

If you're a person just surfing the internet and maybe downstreaming a tv show or downloading a mp3, can one really tell the difference between 25mbps and 50mbps? I can't see that much difference between 3mbps and 6mbps but I'm not really demanding much bandwidth with my normal usage... people seem to really want more speed, and not just gamers or families with 6 computers sharing the same pipe. I wonder what I'm missing. I understand that things like social networking, voip, and video conferencing tax the upstream and 384kbps or 768kbps (the max offered by at&t dsl) is ridiculously slow for today's demands, but, is there some cool new technology on the horizon that will only work with a 15mbps plus downstream or is this need for speed a bigger dick kind of thing?

[Noe]

If you're a person just surfing the internet and maybe downstreaming a tv show or downloading a mp3, can one really tell the difference between 25mbps and 50mbps? I can't see that much difference between 3mbps and 6mbps but I'm not really demanding much bandwidth with my normal usage... people seem to really want more speed, and not just gamers or families with 6 computers sharing the same pipe. I wonder what I'm missing. I understand that things like social networking, voip, and video conferencing tax the upstream and 384kbps or 768kbps (the max offered by at&t dsl) is ridiculously slow for today's demands, but, is there some cool new technology on the horizon that will only work with a 15mbps plus downstream or is this need for speed a bigger dick kind of thing?

I think you mistake what your connection speed tops out at (usually 50mbps) and what the upload/download speeds are.  Typically, even with turbospeed, you get download speed at around 12mbps if you're one of the lucky ones.  You get upload speed at around 2-3 mbps.  Those are considered great numbers by the way.  If you told me I'd get 50mbps download time and 5 mbps upload, I'd be jumping for joy!

My internet speed is as follows (with TW Turbo): 12.89 download/1.68 upload

You can test your home connection here: http://www.speedtest.net/

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I think you mistake what your connection speed tops out at (usually 50mbps) and what the upload/download speeds are.  Typically, even with turbospeed, you get download speed at around 12mbps if you're one of the lucky ones.  You get upload speed at around 2-3 mbps.  Those are considered great numbers by the way.  If you told me I'd get 50mbps download time and 5 mbps upload, I'd be jumping for joy!

No mistake. I'm aware of the relationship between bandwidth and transmission speeds also connection speeds. I just can't see why someone would need that much bandwidth if they're just the average internet user. Also I'm under the impression that download speeds are also effected by the downloading from server traffic, but just was always just an assumption. According to Waldo's post TW is offering 50/5, which I took as, if you can get someone to send you something at 48mbps, you could receive at 48mbps.

[Outlawscotty]

VPN and Split tunnel connections

[Waldo]

$180/month?  Ouch.  I get four HD boxes with whole home DVR from DirecTV for like $80/month.  Add in my DSL for $19/month, and I don't really find TW much of a bargain.

True, but I was comparing to Uverse.  Getting the same package from AT&T would likely cost more and the Internet speed would be a fraction of TW's.

As for your $19 DSL, its speed also doesn't compare.

[Waldo]

No mistake. I'm aware of the relationship between bandwidth and transmission speeds also connection speeds. I just can't see why someone would need that much bandwidth if they're just the average internet user.

The average user doesn't need that much bandwidth.  The average user is also probably not looking to spend $180/month on this package.

For someone like me, though, who needs to be able to connect to work from home (and vice-versa) and use remote desktop, the more speed the better.

Also I'm under the impression that download speeds are also effected by the downloading from server traffic, but just was always just an assumption. According to Waldo's post TW is offering 50/5, which I took as, if you can get someone to send you something at 48mbps, you could receive at 48mbps.

This is correct, but a lot of web sites are hosted in datacenters with some pretty beefy Internet connections (100mbps upload or higher).

[HudsonHawk]

True, but I was comparing to Uverse.  Getting the same package from AT&T would likely cost more and the Internet speed would be a fraction of TW's.

As for your $19 DSL, its speed also doesn't compare.

My internet is virtually instantaneous. If there's anything out there faster, I'd never be able to tell the difference. Hardly worth an extra 50 skins a month for me. I also connect to work remotely using VPN. It's also virtually instantaneous.

[Noe]

For someone like me, though, who needs to be able to connect to work from home (and vice-versa) and use remote desktop, the more speed the better.

*DING, DING, DING*

The most frustrating thing about ISP is when you get connected with a group that does *not* understand this very vital point.

[Noe]

My internet is virtually instantaneous. If there's anything out there faster, I'd never be able to tell the difference. Hardly worth an extra 50 skins a month for me. I also connect to work remotely using VPN. It's also virtually instantaneous.

Connect is vastly different than transmit.

[HudsonHawk]

Connect is vastly different than transmit.

Well, what is "transmit" if not connecting to another network to move documents and such?

[Noe]

Well, what is "transmit" if not connecting to another network to move documents and such?

VPN is connection.  That is all it does.  Once connected, your transmission speed depends on your download/upload speeds.

[HudsonHawk]

VPN is connection.  That is all it does.  Once connected, your transmission speed depends on your download/upload speeds.

Mine is instantaneous.  I can download or upload from my home network to the work network instantly.  What does that mean about my speed?

[Bench]

Mine is instantaneous.  I can download or upload from my home network to the work network instantly.  What does that mean about my speed?

It means you can bench 200 and have a 12 inch cock.

[Noe]

Mine is instantaneous.  I can download or upload from my home network to the work network instantly.  What does that mean about my speed?

Did you test your speed using the URL I provided.  Pretty much, what you're calling "instantly" is perhaps more in line with "what I'm comfortable with" because it fits you and your needs.  Working internationally, with various connections and transmission needs, and having to upload and download to ftp sites for large amounts of data files, this becomes huge for a home network.

Are the need for transmission of large data files becoming the norm?  Yes, if you work virtually far often than not and you work with dense media files.  If your team is made up of four people in Pittsburgh, five in North Carolina, two in California, ten in Egypt, three in the Phillipines, and five in Australia... transmission becomes vital.  BTW - because of infrastructure configurations being what they are in office buildings, what you can set up at home if you know what you need is vastly superior to going into an office and deciding to upload files from there.

[Noe]

It means you can bench 200 and have a 12 inch cock.

Yup, pretty much.

[HudsonHawk]

Did you test your speed using the URL I provided.  Pretty much, what you're calling "instantly" is perhaps more in line with "what I'm comfortable with" because it fits you and your needs.

It means faster than I can blink.  If it's not instantly, it's less than a fraction of a second.  Which works for me. 

Seriously though, when I connect to my work network via VPN, it's like I'm in the office on my computer.  There is no difference in speed, moving files from the network to my computer.  Is that not the norm?  Before VPN, it took forever.  Does the VPN not make a difference?  Is it possible that my work network makes a difference?

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Seriously though, when I connect to my work network via VPN, it's like I'm in the office on my computer.  There is no difference in speed, moving files from the network to my computer.  Is that not the norm?  Before VPN, it took forever.  Does the VPN not make a difference?  Is it possible that my work network makes a difference?

I may be wrong but a I think a Virtual Private Network (VPN) is a closed security connection requiring some type of authentication but a more direct access to the company's hard drive or main frame, whatever the case may be. It shouldn't make a difference with speed unless you were previously accessing some web based system which could be a lot slower process due to a different type of security protocols... or something.

[Waldo]

I may be wrong but a I think a Virtual Private Network (VPN) is a closed security connection requiring some type of authentication but a more direct access to the company's hard drive or main frame, whatever the case may be. It shouldn't make a difference with speed unless you were previously accessing some web based system which could be a lot slower process due to a different type of security protocols... or something.

He could be referring to the difference between VPN over broadband and, say, the days before VPN when he may have dialed in directly to his company's network, which would obviously be much slower.

It means faster than I can blink.  If it's not instantly, it's less than a fraction of a second.  Which works for me. 

Seriously though, when I connect to my work network via VPN, it's like I'm in the office on my computer.  There is no difference in speed, moving files from the network to my computer.  Is that not the norm?  Before VPN, it took forever.  Does the VPN not make a difference?  Is it possible that my work network makes a difference?

If your DSL truly is $19/month then it's probably in the neighborhood of 3Mbps download, 384-512kbps upload.  By contrast, your work network is running at at least 100Mbps, maybe 1Gbps.  It may be that the files you are accessing are small enough for you to not notice a difference in speed, but there has to be a difference.  The other possibility is that your work network is an ancient 10Base-T network that is already so slow that your DSL's speed is that close to it, but that's pretty unlikely.

Either way, I'm with Noe on this - it may be that you don't notice a difference, but there is a difference.

[Arky Vaughan]

$180/month?  Ouch.  I get four HD boxes with whole home DVR from DirecTV for like $80/month.  Add in my DSL for $19/month, and I don't really find TW much of a bargain.

I must be doing something wrong in that case. I only have one HD-DVR and one SD-DVR and pay more than $80 per month to DirecTV, and I don't even have movie channels. How did you get your deal?

[Andyzipp]

I must be doing something wrong in that case. I only have one HD-DVR and one SD-DVR and pay more than $80 per month to DirecTV, and I don't even have movie channels. How did you get your deal?

Whole-home DVR is a relatively new technology for DTV.  It involves them networking your DVRs, but it's available for no additional cost (outside of whatever they're charging for install.)

[Limey]

I must be doing something wrong in that case. I only have one HD-DVR and one SD-DVR and pay more than $80 per month to DirecTV, and I don't even have movie channels. How did you get your deal?

He explained repeatedly that they had their pricing structure totally wrong...and they eventually caved.

[HudsonHawk]

I must be doing something wrong in that case. I only have one HD-DVR and one SD-DVR and pay more than $80 per month to DirecTV, and I don't even have movie channels. How did you get your deal?

Well, I've been a customer for 15 years, and they've never raised my rate.  Also, whenever I want new equipment, my wife and I play "good customer/bad customer" and usually get the equipment for no charge plus a few free months of service.  DTV will do most anything to keep you from going to Dish Network.

[HudsonHawk]

He explained repeatedly that they had their pricing structure totally wrong...and they eventually caved.

Nope.  Been getting the same pricing since Day 1.

[Arky Vaughan]

Well, I've been a customer for 15 years, and they've never raised my rate.  Also, whenever I want new equipment, my wife and I play "good customer/bad customer" and usually get the equipment for no charge plus a few free months of service.  DTV will do most anything to keep you from going to Dish Network.

I can bitch at customer service along with the best of them (some may have noted that I tend to argue a point to a fault), but I've had DirecTV since 1998 and don't get the deal you do. Time to call 'em up tomorrow and tell them I want what Hudson's getting.

[Arky Vaughan]

Whole-home DVR is a relatively new technology for DTV.  It involves them networking your DVRs, but it's available for no additional cost (outside of whatever they're charging for install.)

Both of my receivers are distributed throughout the house anyhow, so every TV can view either of them.

[Noe]

I can bitch at customer service along with the best of them (some may have noted that I tend to argue a point to a fault), but I've had DirecTV since 1998 and don't get the deal you do. Time to call 'em up tomorrow and tell them I want what Hudson's getting.

Be sure to use your best blue/yellow combination!

[Astroholic]

I just had the DirecTV whole hose DVR installed.  They charge 200 to install the whole house package, but we got a deal for all new equipment (I already had the HD DVR but we needed 4 new HD Recievers), free movie channel package for year and free HD for year.  My wife was on the phone for 2 hours and the total cost was 300.

It works really well, though sometines you have to restart the reciever.

[Guinness]

I can bitch at customer service along with the best of them (some may have noted that I tend to argue a point to a fault), but I've had DirecTV since 1998 and don't get the deal you do. Time to call 'em up tomorrow and tell them I want what Hudson's getting.

I tried that;  my sister in law signed up and got a great deal.  I called them up about it and asked if I could have that deal or similar and basically they told me when I signed on I got a deal too, even if it wasn't as good as hers.  We'd been with them 2 years, never late, 4 receivers, extra packages, and they told me tough shit.  So, since our contract was almost over, we went to the lowest package and just paid them off for the remaining month or two and now we have Comcast.

[JackAstro]

I must be doing something wrong in that case. I only have one HD-DVR and one SD-DVR and pay more than $80 per month to DirecTV, and I don't even have movie channels. How did you get your deal?

I have the Total Choice Plus HD channel package and 3 HD-DVRs for $88.49 a month, which is the regular pricing. HOWEVAH, I'm only paying $68.49 per month because every two years without fail, I call and ask to cancel my service. The helpful person in cancellation can give you free equipment, monthly programming discounts, free premium channels, etc. And they're usually happy to skip the back-and-forth if you tell them that you have a great offer from U-verse/Dish/whoever, but you'd prefer to stay if they would just give you the best deal they're allowed to.

The key is to ask to cancel your service first, because the regular customer service won't give you the same deals. Oh, and only do it when your contract is expired – hence the every 2 years part.

[Ebby Calvin]

I have the Total Choice Plus HD channel package and 3 HD-DVRs for $88.49 a month, which is the regular pricing. HOWEVAH, I'm only paying $68.49 per month because every two years without fail, I call and ask to cancel my service. The helpful person in cancellation can give you free equipment, monthly programming discounts, free premium channels, etc. And they're usually happy to skip the back-and-forth if you tell them that you have a great offer from U-verse/Dish/whoever, but you'd prefer to stay if they would just give you the best deal they're allowed to.

The key is to ask to cancel your service first, because the regular customer service won't give you the same deals. Oh, and only do it when your contract is expired – hence the every 2 years part.

So...we don't have to threaten to photoshop them in compromising positions or anything?  Where's the fun in that?

[Waldo]

I'm only paying $68.49 per month because every two years without fail, I call and ask to cancel my service. The helpful person in cancellation can give you free equipment, monthly programming discounts, free premium channels, etc. And they're usually happy to skip the back-and-forth if you tell them that you have a great offer from U-verse/Dish/whoever, but you'd prefer to stay if they would just give you the best deal they're allowed to.

The key is to ask to cancel your service first, because the regular customer service won't give you the same deals. Oh, and only do it when your contract is expired – hence the every 2 years part.

I tried this with Time Warner when we first got our HDTV.  They called my bluff and scheduled a service disconnect for the next morning.  Felt like an idiot backpedaling AND upgrading my service at the same time.

[JackAstro]

I tried this with Time Warner when we first got our HDTV.  They called my bluff and scheduled a service disconnect for the next morning.  Felt like an idiot backpedaling AND upgrading my service at the same time.

Oh, that sucks. I've done it with DirecTV at least 4 or 5 times, and it's worked without fail, but the first time I was definitely worried about looking like an idiot. More recently, I really was perfectly willing to try a U-verse deal, so it made it easier to approach the situation with the requisite swagger.

[BizidyDizidy]

I tried this with Time Warner when we first got our HDTV.  They called my bluff and scheduled a service disconnect for the next morning. 

Sounds like a best case scenario

[HudsonHawk]

I tried this with Time Warner when we first got our HDTV.  They called my bluff and scheduled a service disconnect for the next morning.  Felt like an idiot backpedaling AND upgrading my service at the same time.

You completely screwed that one up.  This is where you and the wife need to play "good cop/bad cop".  Have her call and rant and rave and cancel the service.  You calmly call back and say..."look, my wife just called and canceled because she's very upset.  I apologize for her coarse language.  We really want to stay with you guys, can't we work something out?"  You will be connected to someone with some stroke, who'll do whatever it takes to make you and your irrate wife happy.  Works.  Every. Time.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

You completely screwed that one up.  This is where you and the wife need to play "good cop/bad cop".  Have her call and rant and rave and cancel the service.  You calmly call back and say..."look, my wife just called and canceled because she's very upset.  I apologize for her coarse language.  We really want to stay with you guys, can't we work something out?"  You will be connected to someone with some stroke, who'll do whatever it takes to make you and your irrate wife happy.  Works.  Every. Time.

Amateur.  Try being good cop AND bad cop.  Now that takes talent....

[moriartp]

Works.  Every. Time.

My father accidentally got himself a year of free premium channels after finding out that he was being overcharged and legitimately threatening to cancel. It's a thing of beauty.

[EasTexAstro]

Amateur.  Try being good cop AND bad cop.  Now that takes talent....

My wife, the accountant, was late on a credit card payment by a few hours one time (I'm so glad to not have credit cards any more). She had gotten up to make the payment one morning to find out they had bumped up the due date by 2 days. We were getting a great rate at the time, so we didn't worry about paying off this debt first. They put on a penalty, increased the rate dramatically, and told her she wasn't the primary so she couldn't argue.

I called. Please add my wife. Thank you. Cancel the account now. She will be calling for a payoff in a few minutes.

Damn, did I get a good rate and penalties dropped quickly. I still closed the account a few days later with a full payoff. Never had a credit card since.

[Waldo]

You completely screwed that one up.

Chalk it up to a lack of experience and me being a big pussy.

I will say, however, that we've canceled our TW cable TV twice since then (once to switch to Uverse, and later to just switch to OTA), and both times I've called to cancel and never gotten the song and dance about staying.  It was the complete opposite of my experience with calling to cancel Tivo, where their retention specialist got into an argument with me about whether I should cancel or not.

[BUWebguy]

About 6 months ago I called TWC, simply told them I'd seen some better rates from their competitors, and asked what they could do to keep me. I got transferred once, repeated the schpiel, and was immediately offered a 25% reduction. I took it and said thanks.

[HudsonHawk]

Chalk it up to a lack of experience and me being a big pussy.

I will say, however, that we've canceled our TW cable TV twice since then (once to switch to Uverse, and later to just switch to OTA), and both times I've called to cancel and never gotten the song and dance about staying.  It was the complete opposite of my experience with calling to cancel Tivo, where their retention specialist got into an argument with me about whether I should cancel or not.

Let me qualify my statements....this tactic only works with companies who actually give a shit about their customers.  In other words, it's possible it will not work with Comcast or Time Warner.  

[BudGirl]

Let me qualify my statements....this tactic only works with companies who actually give a shit about their customers.  In other words, it's possible it will not work with Comcast or Time Warner. 

Probably depends on the person you speak with also.  I'm going to help my mom lower her rate this holiday season.  I'm ready for it.  I have no problem making her change providers and they will know it.

[subnuclear]

Let me qualify my statements....this tactic only works with companies who actually give a shit about their customers.  In other words, it's possible it will not work with Comcast or Time Warner.  

I prefer companies who charge everyone the same for the same service.

[HudsonHawk]

I prefer companies who charge everyone the same for the same service.

If everyone felt that way, we'd still be paying $12,000 for a flat screen tv and $1/minute for long distance phone calls.

[subnuclear]

If everyone felt that way, we'd still be paying $12,000 for a flat screen tv and $1/minute for long distance phone calls.

No, TVs dropped in price because they could sell a lot more TVs if they were more affordable.  Long distance phone calls came down once competition was introduced.

I don't have a problem switching to a cheaper competitor.  I don't like it when my rates go up to compensate for squeeky wheels.

[Gizzmonic]

No, TVs dropped in price because they could sell a lot more TVs if they were more affordable.  Long distance phone calls came down once competition was introduced.

I don't have a problem switching to a cheaper competitor.  I don't like it when my rates go up to compensate for squeeky wheels.

Tragedy of the Commons.  Someone's gonna do it, so it may as well be you!

[Limey]

In other words, it's possible it will not work with Comcast or Time Warner.  

See also Pages, Yellow.

[HudsonHawk]

No, TVs dropped in price because they could sell a lot more TVs if they were more affordable.  Long distance phone calls came down once competition was introduced.

I don't have a problem switching to a cheaper competitor.  I don't like it when my rates go up to compensate for squeeky wheels.

If no one ever offers financial incentive to purchase a product, prices never come down.  And your rates don't go up.  The reason you're not paying $1/minute for phone calls is precicely *because* of the squeaky wheels, not because the phone companies suddenly felt generous.  Furthermore, offering sale/introductory prices is a time-tested method for growing one's market share, and wholly within the bounds of reasonable competition.  Sounds like it's the competition you don't like.

[subnuclear]

If no one ever offers financial incentive to purchase a product, prices never come down.  And your rates don't go up.  The reason you're not paying $1/minute for phone calls is precicely *because* of the squeaky wheels, not because the phone companies suddenly felt generous.  Furthermore, offering sale/introductory prices is a time-tested method for growing one's market share, and wholly within the bounds of reasonable competition.  Sounds like it's the competition you don't like.

If a product drops in price, it will appeal to a larger group of people, whether people complain about it or not.  Its not competition that I'm complaining about, but companies lack of transparency in pricing.

[subnuclear]

Tragedy of the Commons.  Someone's gonna do it, so it may as well be you!

I think internet use is a tragedy of the commons situation, where people's bandwidth use is widely different for the same price.  I don't think hidden ways of getting good deals is the same thing.

[HudsonHawk]

If a product drops in price, it will appeal to a larger group of people, whether people complain about it or not.  Its not competition that I'm complaining about, but companies lack of transparency in pricing.

But if people don't purchase the product at the current price, it's likely the supplier will lower the price.  This is what you don't like.  Because you're willing to pay $X for something, you want other people to have to pay that price too, or not receive the product.  The free market just doesn't work like that.

[BizidyDizidy]

But if people don't purchase the product at the current price, it's likely the supplier will lower the price.  This is what you don't like.  Because you're willing to pay $X for something, you want other people to have to pay that price too, or not receive the product.  The free market just doesn't work like that.

I'm starting to think you might be dull. Lowering the price is very different from having the ability to price discriminate between discerning and non-discerning customers, which is relatively rare. TV manufacturers, for example, don't have this, despite your irrelevant example.

[subnuclear]

But if people don't purchase the product at the current price, it's likely the supplier will lower the price.  This is what you don't like.  Because you're willing to pay $X for something, you want other people to have to pay that price too, or not receive the product.  The free market just doesn't work like that.

Companies can do whatever they want, but I avoid companies where I have to yell at people or be overcharged. 

[HudsonHawk]

I'm starting to think you might be dull. Lowering the price is very different from having the ability to price discriminate between discerning and non-discerning customers, which is relatively rare. TV manufacturers, for example, don't have this, despite your irrelevant example.

Well, I already know you're as sharp as a balloon.  Prices are lowered as an incentive to purchase a product.  This is what drives competition between suppliers.  If every supplier said "I can't charge Customer X $100 for this product because Customer Y already purchase it for $200", then prices never come down.  And retailers price discriminate all the time with sales, price-match guarantees, etc.  It's a staple of their business.  I can't understand it for you.

[HudsonHawk]

Companies can do whatever they want, but I avoid companies where I have to yell at people or be overcharged. 

You don't have to yell.  You just have to be willing to not purchase the product for them to lower the price.

[Ron Brand]

I'm starting to think you might be dull. Lowering the price is very different from having the ability to price discriminate between discerning and non-discerning customers, which is relatively rare. TV manufacturers, for example, don't have this, despite your irrelevant example.

Amazon has unpublicized metrics that result in different prices for the same item at the same time. What this means and what their plans for that I have no idea...but they do it.

[subnuclear]

You don't have to yell.  You just have to be willing to not purchase the product for them to lower the price.

Then why do you go through the good cop/bad cop routine?

[HudsonHawk]

Then why do you go through the good cop/bad cop routine?

To get to the person who can make a decision about pricing.  They don't let the minimum wage operators make company policy.

[BizidyDizidy]

Amazon has unpublicized metrics that result in different prices for the same item at the same time. What this means and what their plans for that I have no idea...but they do it.

Are you sure about that? I know they have dynamic pricing that is odd (for example: This ridiculously awesome, ridiculously expensive book hasn't come out yet, but I've seen its price vary from $400 to $550), but I've never heard that they are specifically showing different prices to different people at different times (I saw one blog entry about it, but it looks like it was just a result of affiliate sellers pricing).

Either way, I was meaning more that the majority of economic transactions are at a wholesale level, where pricing is usually cost curve based. You really only see price discrimination like that at the retail level where there is unequal information or in proprietary patent type situations where value-in-use pricing can be extracted.

[subnuclear]

To get to the person who can make a decision about pricing.  They don't let the minimum wage operators make company policy.

So it does require someone to "rant and rave"?

[HudsonHawk]

So it does require someone to "rant and rave"?

I doubt it.  I think Mrs. Hawk enjoys being the "bad cop".

[BizidyDizidy]

I doubt it.  I think Mrs. Hawk enjoys being the "bad cop".

Video coming soon to a youtube near you.

[HudsonHawk]

Video coming soon to a youtube near you.

Why is that guys who like their wifes' titties are just normal guys, but guys who like their wifes' feet are some sort of "fetish freaks" who deserve public scorn and possibly retribution from their employer?

[BizidyDizidy]

Why is that guys who like their wifes' titties are just normal guys, but guys who like their wifes' feet are some sort of "fetish freaks" who deserve public scorn and possibly retribution from their employer?

I think if a prominent public figure posted a 2 minute video of himself pretending to be a police officer oogling his wife's tiddies, that would be pretty odd too.

[Bench]

Why is that guys who like their wifes' titties are just normal guys, but guys who like their wifes' feet are some sort of "fetish freaks" who deserve public scorn and possibly retribution from their employer?

No shit.  Plus, you can't put boots on tits.  Umm... maybe "shouldn't" would be a better word.

[HudsonHawk]

I think if a prominent public figure posted a 2 minute video of himself pretending to be a police officer oogling his wife's tiddies, that would be pretty odd too.

Prude.

[BizidyDizidy]

Prude.

Probably - for example, that behavior would probably seem pretty tame if you were an italian

[HudsonHawk]

Probably - for example, that behavior would probably seem pretty tame if you were an italian

It's tame no matter who you are.  But this "bunga bunga"...I'd like to know more...

[BizidyDizidy]

It's tame no matter who you are.  But this "bunga bunga"...I'd like to know more...

I sentence you to death.... by Bunga Bunga!

[Gizzmonic]

I sentence you to death.... by Bunga Bunga!

This is a different Bunga Bunga than what we've been hearing about in the dirty jokes of years past.  This is a game-changer.  This is Bunga Bunga 2.0.

[Waldo]

This is a game-changer.  This is Bunga Bunga 2.0.

In other news, SnS will be down this weekend for a... um, software update.

[Jose Cruz III]

Probably - for example, that behavior would probably seem pretty tame if you were an italian

So he paid them. The dude is 74. How else is he gonna naked 20 somethings to his orgy?

[Bench]

So he paid them. The dude is 74. How else is he gonna naked 20 somethings to his orgy?

And I'm pretty sure that there's nothing illegal about that in Italy (like most of Europe).

[subnuclear]

And I'm pretty sure that there's nothing illegal about that in Italy (like most of Europe).

If the prostitutes were paid directly it would be legal.  If the money went to any sort of organization (like a brothel) it would be illegal.

[geezerdonk]

If the prostitutes were paid directly it would be legal.  If the money went to any sort of organization (like a brothel) it would be illegal.

Board Certified - Hooker Law