# Charter+Brighthouse+Time Warner=?



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, so I thought I'd get the ball rolling. Now that the Comcast+TW deal has been nixed, there is a new Charter+TW+Brighthouse deal in the works.

Will the new mega-merger be able to produce customer service even worse than Comcast? Stay tuned to find out .


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

The new Mega-Charter will likely have to declare bankruptcy a few years after the merger takes place. Is going through Chapter 11 usually good for improving customer service?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

The deal has been formally announced. The deal is being made possible due to an infusion of cash from Liberty Broadband, Charter's main stockholder. If approved, Charter will control both Time Warner Cable and Bright House Cable.

http://deadline.com/2015/05/charter-agrees-buytime-warner-cable-1201432769/

Unlike the failed Comcast deal, I don't think there would be any need for shedding of certain markets; I think the combined Charter/Time Warner Cable/Bright House would still be under the cap.

Also unlike Comcast, it would be a nearly pure-play cable TV and internet company; Liberty sold off most of their other holdings a while back. Their only other major holding at this time is Sirius XM.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

Further, the combined company will still be the #2 player. TWC-Comcast would have mad e the #1 bigger than all others combined.

TWC is already #2 so not that big of a change in the marketplace. And as already said, not so many fingers in the supply side either.

Still it will be subject to regulatory approvals.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Excellent point, jcthorne. While it's difficult to justify #1 (Comcast) and #2 (TWC) getting together just to get bigger, it's hard to argue against #2 and #4 (Charter) getting together to compete better against #1.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> Excellent point, jcthorne. While it's difficult to justify #1 (Comcast) and #2 (TWC) getting together just to get bigger, it's hard to argue against #2 and #4 (Charter) getting together to compete better against #1.


I don't see how any of this affects the competition that really counts -- the one where more than one cable TV provider and more than one broadband provider compete for the **same** customer.

How is it they are going to "compete better"? And how will that benefit the consumer?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think the Comcast/TW deal was nixed because the regulators didn't want one company to have so much control over broadband. I don't think they really care about TV, but they do care about the internet because long term that's what's going to matter to the citizens. 

Not sure if they'll reject this deal on the same grounds or not. These companies don't really compete, so using direct competition as a positive or negative is not really a valid point. It's more about control over internet access and possibly how much influence these companies have over content providers.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

dlfl said:


> How is it they are going to "compete better"? And how will that benefit the consumer?




Dan203 said:


> These companies don't really compete, so using direct competition as a positive or negative is not really a valid point.



wouldn't both companies compete for content? if so, wouldn't two companies closer in size be able to compete more fairly? still not sure if this competition would ultimately be good or bad for customers in different markets.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

NorthAlabama said:


> ​
> wouldn't both companies compete for content? if so, wouldn't two companies closer in size be able to compete more fairly? still not sure if this competition would ultimately be good or bad for customers in different markets.


Yes, that's true. Negotiations of carriage rates go much differently when you get to the size of Comcast or DirecTV. The smaller MSOs get raped with carriage rates.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

So maybe that is a reason to favor this deal. However having one giant company, rather then 3 smaller ones, having control over internet access in these areas still makes me a bit nervous. Long term everything is going to be delivered via the internet (or at least IP) and we will have competition in the video space from services akin to SlingTV and Playstation Vue. But the cable company will always control the pipe to your house, so they will have a lot of control over how well competing services like that work.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

I expect this one to get approved. As bad as these companies might treat their customers, they do not have the same history of illegal, anti-competitive behavior that Comcast has which ultimate killed their merger plan. Well, not yet anyway...


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

ncted said:


> I expect this one to get approved. As bad as these companies might treat their customers, they do not have the same history of illegal, anti-competitive behavior that Comcast has which ultimate killed their merger plan. Well, not yet anyway...


Also, they don't have the same problem of being a content owner that Comcast did with NBC Universal. They do own some content such as some regional sports networks, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to what Comcast had.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

This is better news than I first misunderstood. I thought TWC was buying Charter. As a prospective Charter customer with a TiVo who likes to download tons of stuff to my PC this could have been a disaster for me. I hope this means the reverse and that TWC customers would be freed from TWC's absurd content copy protection policies.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

So does Charter use SDV (like TWC)?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

From a business standpoint, I don't see any likelihood of anti-trust issues or other reason to block the merger.

From a technical standpoint, many millions of customers are gonna be wishing the Comcast merger went through instead.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

dswallow said:


> From a business standpoint, I don't see any likelihood of anti-trust issues or other reason to block the merger.
> 
> From a technical standpoint, many millions of customers are gonna be wishing the Comcast merger went through instead.


I can't disagree with the former.

Could you expand upon the latter?


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

ncbill said:


> So does Charter use SDV (like TWC)?


Yes.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

waynomo said:


> This is better news than I first misunderstood. I thought TWC was buying Charter. As a prospective Charter customer with a TiVo who likes to download tons of stuff to my PC this could have been a disaster for me. I hope this means the reverse and that TWC customers would be freed from TWC's absurd content copy protection policies.


Let's hope the Charter policy prevails. I have Charter and only the premiums are copy protected.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

1


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> I can't disagree with the former.
> 
> Could you expand upon the latter?


Comcast is more TiVo-friendly, including access to OnDemand content (and it appears Cox may be joining that bandwagon soon), generally avoids SDV, and has announced initiatives to ensure third-party device support as the underlying "broadcast" methodology changes including the post-CableCard authentication/encryption methods.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

dswallow said:


> Comcast is more TiVo-friendly, including access to OnDemand content (and it appears Cox may be joining that bandwagon soon), generally avoids SDV, and has announced initiatives to ensure third-party device support as the underlying "broadcast" methodology changes including the post-CableCard authentication/encryption methods.


Fair enough, although one wonders how much of that was just PR to try and slide through the Time Warner Cable purchase.

In addition, most Time Warner Cable customers won't miss what they don't have.

I think of a potential transition from TWC to Charter, the only major change I'm aware of would be that Charter doesn't use customer-owned modems. (Their policy is similar to what Time Warner Cable used to do, wherein a modem is provided standard with the service.)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

UCLABB said:


> Let's hope the Charter policy prevails. I have Charter and only the premiums are copy protected.


I just got an HDHomeRun Prime. When you scan the channels it presents a list of all your channels with a little "DRM" icon next to the channels that are protected. In my area they protect all the SD premium channels but only the primary version of the HD premiums. So all the secondary premiums, including the East coast feed, are unprotected. There are also a few random channels in the lineup that are marked as "DRM" as well, but they're SD and not channels I watch anyway.

A few good things about Charter... (at least in my area)

1) They are going all digital in most areas and adding hundreds of HD channels. We converted a year or so ago and now every channel I watch has an HD equivalent.

2) They only use SDV for a small subset of lesser watched channels. I can disconnect my TA and it only effects a handful of channels I don't watch anyway.

3) Cable modem rental is free. They decided last year they would rather offer free modems then deal with supporting 3rd party equipment.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

LoadStar said:


> I think of a potential transition from TWC to Charter, the only major change I'm aware of would be that Charter doesn't use customer-owned modems. (Their policy is similar to what Time Warner Cable used to do, wherein a modem is provided standard with the service.)





Dan203 said:


> 3) Cable modem rental is free. They decided last year they would rather offer free modems then deal with supporting 3rd party equipment.


You actually can buy and use your own cable modem on Charter if you want to. Since Charter doesn't charge a separate modem rental fee, you don't save any money by doing so. But if you really want to buy and use your own modem on Charter's network, you can do so:

https://www.myaccount.charter.com/customers/support.aspx?supportarticleid=2623


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

tarheelblue32 said:


> You actually can buy and use your own cable modem on Charter if you want to. Since Charter doesn't charge a separate modem rental fee, you don't save any money by doing so. But if you really want to buy and use your own modem on Charter's network, you can do so:
> 
> https://www.myaccount.charter.com/customers/support.aspx?supportarticleid=2623


They charge me $5 extra to use my own modem. I had them send me one of their's a while back so I could drop the fee, but I've been to lazy to hook it up so it's still sitting in a box next to my desk.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> They charge me $5 extra to use my own modem. I had them send me one of their's a while back so I could drop the fee, but I've been to lazy to hook it up so it's still sitting in a box next to my desk.


Interesting. I didn't realize they charged a fee just for using your own modem. I think it's likely that Charter will probably adopt TWC's position on modem rental fees. Modem fees are almost pure profit, and a sneaky way to hike prices below the line. TWC has around 11.5 Million internet subscribers. Let's assume that 90% of those people rent a modem at $8/month. That's around $1Billion/year in revenue that TWC is making just off the modem rental fee. I don't see Charter wanting to give that money up.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

Dan203 said:


> They charge me $5 extra to use my own modem. I had them send me one of their's a while back so I could drop the fee, but I've been to lazy to hook it up so it's still sitting in a box next to my desk.


When Charter installed my phone setup he wanted to eliminate my modem (the one I bought when Charter's crapped out and they wanted me to rent theirs), but I told them hell no, everything is working fine. So he split the feed. The next tech that came noticed that the Charter modem had one yellow warning light, probably because the split weakened the signal, and wanted to pull my modem. I again said no.


----------



## pshivers (Nov 4, 2013)

Got the first "Benefit" of the Charter buyout of TWC tonight, We can for the first time in many, many months watch all LA Dodgers games here in the Greater Los Angeles area!!! (LA wins 9-3!) Available on Channels 789 (HD) and 431 (SD) on Charter.

No guide information yet and I had to add the channels to my channel list manually... But the game against the Diamondbacks looked great!! :up:

Wonder if this will force the hand of the other cable and satellite company's to start carrying TWCLA?

Update:

Took TiVo 3 days but they finally added the guide information for TWCLA (Dodgers Channels), Channels 789 (HD), 431 (SD) and 44 (SD) on Charter in the San Gabriel Valley. Yea!

I don't know if it is the additional local Fan support but the Dodgers have won every game since Tuesday when TWCLA was added to the Charter lineup! ;-)


----------



## TheBigDogs (Oct 14, 2004)

With John Malone involved, excuse me, Dr. John Malone PhD - his preferred introduction, there are two facts that you can't avoid: Prices will increase, and; rules will become stricter.

Is anyone interested in opening a thread to discuss and coordinate a program to derail this potential disaster as was done with the Comcast/TWC merger. If so please send me a private message and, if we have enough resources, we can start to put together a plan.


----------



## igirl (Feb 5, 2011)

We're on Brighthouse and I had known about this deal for a while now - hoping it either improves services/prices - or doesn't change a thing. At least in our area we have multiple cable providers to choose from - so we can switch if they turn it into something like Microsoft.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

*bump* We're now at day 163 on the FCC "shot clock" for the Charter-Bright House-TWC merger. Anyone have any new predictions as to whether this will go through or not?

For what it's worth, this was at the same time on the clock that the Comcast-TWC merger died. Compared to that, there really hasn't been any buzz, which leads me to think that the merger will in fact go through.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think it will too. Even with the merge they will still be smaller then Comcast.


----------



## caughey (May 26, 2007)

There is some rumbling in the recent news.

*California Watchdog Asks PUC to Reject Charter-TWC Merger*
http://www.multichannel.com/news/ca...dog-asks-puc-reject-charter-twc-merger/403069


> An independent consumer watchdog within the California Public Utilities Commission has asked the agency to reject the merger between Charter Communications and Time Warner Cable, adding that if the agency does approve the deal, it should only be done with stiff conditions.
> 
> In a 59-page document the Office of Ratepayer Advocates said the Charter-TWC merger would not be in the public interest, *quoting another critic of the deal  Dish Network deputy general counsel Jeff Blum * who said If Comcasts deal for Time Warner Cable was a Category 5 hurricane, Charter-Time Warner is a Category 4.


(emphasis added)​
*Charter-TWC Merger May Hurt Online Video, FCC Warned*
http://www.law360.com/articles/768035/charter-twc-merger-may-hurt-online-video-fcc-warned


> Time Warner Inc. and HBO have pressed the Federal Communications Commission to carefully weigh the risk that the merger of Time Warner Cable Inc. and Charter Communications Inc. poses to the online video distribution marketplace, expressing continued concerns about the tie-up's potential harms.
> 
> The companies met Wednesday with FCC General Counsel Jonathan Sallet and staff from his office, according to a filing posted Friday, to update the commission on their concerns about anti-competitive behavior that could come from the $55 billion deal.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

I have Charter and I hope it goes through. The watch dog groups always object to any merger. Of course the content providers will complain because it gives the cable co better bargaining power on payment for channels. And that is exactly why I am in favor of the merger- more power to say no to increases in content costs.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

caughey said:


> There is some rumbling in the recent news.
> 
> *California Watchdog Asks PUC to Reject Charter-TWC Merger*
> http://www.multichannel.com/news/ca...dog-asks-puc-reject-charter-twc-merger/403069
> ...


Yeah, the consumer watchdog groups would be expected to complain about it, but even their complaints seem somewhat half-hearted this go-around. It's sort of like "Don't let them merge... oh, you're going to anyway... oh, ok, oh well, we tried..."

By this point with the Comcast-TWC attempt, organizations like Consumers Union and others were on a full-court press to stop it. This go around... nothing, nearly radio silence. Yeah, there was the initial "stop the merger" propaganda when the deal was originally announced, but really nothing much since then.

I'm betting we'll hear them approve the deal, and within the month.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

New York City has "approved" the merger, FWIW.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ity-approves-time-warner-cable-charter-merger


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

And let's not forget that the new Mega-Charter will have to either raise rates or declare bankruptcy to deal with the massive debt they will be taking on to buy TWC. I personally think they will do both. They will raise rates justified by the need to pay off their debt, and after that fails they will declare bankruptcy, wiping out the debt but leaving the rate increases intact for larger profits going forward. And forget about there being any money available for network upgrades for years to come.



> If its bids to acquire Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC) and Bright House Networks prove successful, Charter Communications (NASDAQ: CHTR) will emerge from these deals with about $66 billion in combined debt.
> 
> And the only way the operator will be able to pay off this debt will be to raise rates, says Dana Floberg, C. Edwin Baker policy fellow at Free Press, blogging on The Hill.
> 
> ...


----------



## fcfc2 (Feb 19, 2015)

tarheelblue32 said:


> And let's not forget that the new Mega-Charter will have to either raise rates or declare bankruptcy to deal with the massive debt they will be taking on to buy TWC. I personally think they will do both. They will raise rates justified by the need to pay off their debt, and after that fails they will declare bankruptcy, wiping out the debt but leaving the rate increases intact for larger profits going forward. And forget about there being any money available for network upgrades for years to come.


Quite likely, and one of the first steps will be for their "free" cable modems to disappear plus increases to all those little "fees".


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

tarheelblue32 said:


> And let's not forget that the new Mega-Charter will have to either raise rates or declare bankruptcy to deal with the massive debt they will be taking on to buy TWC. I personally think they will do both. They will raise rates justified by the need to pay off their debt, and after that fails they will declare bankruptcy, wiping out the debt but leaving the rate increases intact for larger profits going forward. And forget about there being any money available for network upgrades for years to come.


Well, then you should short the stock. Charter has been going up some, not down so the pros seem to disagree with you.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

fcfc2 said:


> Quite likely, and one of the first steps will be for their "free" cable modems to disappear plus increases to all those little "fees".


Well that's inevitable. TWC gets $8/month for a cable modem rental now, and they probably have somewhere around 10 million subscribers renting a cable modem. So that's around $960 Million/year in revenue they get from cable modem rental fees. There is no way that they can simply give up almost a billion dollars per year in revenue after the merger. I suspect that Charter will adopt TWC's modem rental fee in all of their markets post-merger.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

UCLABB said:


> Well, then you should short the stock. Charter has been going up some, not down so the pros seem to disagree with you.


Just personal preference, but I never short stock. Your downside is theoretically unlimited (yes, I know you can buy options). And stock jockeys aren't always right, nor do they always consider the long term. But if I owned any Charter stock, I would definitely be selling.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

UCLABB said:


> I have Charter and I hope it goes through. The watch dog groups always object to any merger. Of course the content providers will complain because it gives the cable co better bargaining power on payment for channels. And that is exactly why I am in favor of the merger- more power to say no to increases in content costs.


As all the major MVPDs have a Favored Nation clause in their content agreements, your reason for supporting the merger is meaningless.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

fcfc2 said:


> Quite likely, and one of the first steps will be for their "free" cable modems to disappear plus increases to all those little "fees".


Interesting enough, Brighthouse just dropped their modem rental fees and is offering some ridiculously low internet only rates. That would seem to be to put it inline with Charter, not the other way around.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As all the major MVPDs have a Favored Nation clause in their content agreements, your reason for supporting the merger is meaningless.


I'm not following you. All this means (if it is even true) is that a provider doesn't have to pay MORE than another provider. It doesn't mean that they have to rollover every time a content provider wants to raise fees. How do you explain the frequent stand offs between content providers and cable companies?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

UCLABB said:


> I'm not following you. All this means (if it is even true) is that a provider doesn't have to pay MORE than another provider. It doesn't mean that they have to rollover every time a content provider wants to raise fees. How do you explain the frequent stand offs between content providers and cable companies?


Providers will not cut their rates as they would be forced to reduce rates for all major MVPDs with favorite nations clauses.

That's why you get blackouts and standoffs. The providers refuse to lower.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Providers will not cut their rates as they would be forced to reduce rates for all major MVPDs with favorite nations clauses.
> 
> That's why you get blackouts and standoffs. The providers refuse to lower.


Hey, who said anything about reducing rates? I simply said a provider with a bigger footprint has the leverage to refuse rate increases or refuse the extent of the increase. Go back to my first post and just admit that your response was nonsense.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

UCLABB said:


> Hey, who said anything about reducing rates? I simply said a provider with a bigger footprint has the leverage to refuse rate increases or refuse the extent of the increase. Go back to my first post and just admit that your response was nonsense.


Clearly you have no idea on this subject what you are talking about.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Clearly you have no idea on this subject what you are talking about.


Clearly you can't read or write.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

In our market (SW Ohio), TW has raised the cable modem rental to $10 per month.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

TeamPace said:


> In our market (SW Ohio), TW has raised the cable modem rental to $10 per month.


That's right, I remember reading that TWC was raising it again to $10/month. I never see it on my bill since I don't pay the fee (own my own modem). So TWC has around 13 million internet subs and approximately 88% of them rent the modem. So that would be about *$1.37 Billion/year* in revenue that TWC gets just from the modem rental fee. No way that is going away post-merger.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

tarheelblue32 said:


> That's right, I remember reading that TWC was raising it again to $10/month. I never see it on my bill since I don't pay the fee (own my own modem). So TWC has around 13 million internet subs and approximately 88% of them rent the modem. So that would be about *$1.37 Billion/year* in revenue that TWC gets just from the modem rental fee. No way that is going away post-merger.


Charter's modem is "free", I think. I once had a free modem from them and it broke. They gave me a new one and started charging me for it. I said, uh,uh and bought my own, but iirc they started providing them free again.

In any event, free or not, you pay one way or another. They can have a "free" modem and just up the Internet fee.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

UCLABB said:


> Charter's modem is "free", I think. I once had a free modem from them and it broke. They gave me a new one and started charging me for it. I said, uh,uh and bought my own, but iirc they started providing them free again.
> 
> In any event, free or not, you pay one way or another. They can have a "free" modem and just up the Internet fee.


Sure, you can do that, but the trend among the large cable companies is to disguise price increases with below the line fees. Charter is going to be in so much debt, that they will need to both raise the prices above the line and below the line. I will be absolutely shocked if Charter eliminates the modem fee once they close the TWC deal.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

UCLABB said:


> Clearly you can't read or write.


Clearly UCLABB does not stand for UCLA Anderson School of Business, but denotes BasketBall, where players often do not graduate.

Too bad you do not understand Business terms and contracts.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Sure, you can do that, but the trend among the large cable companies is to disguise price increases with below the line fees. Charter is going to be in so much debt, that they will need to both raise the prices above the line and below the line. I will be absolutely shocked if Charter eliminates the modem fee once they close the TWC deal.


That's how all wired/wirelss Pay TV, Telephone, & ISPs operate. The chances of anyone actually getting what their service is going to really cost out of any of them is nearly impossible. They have their nice low cost number they advertise and then when you get your bill it is 30+% higher.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> They have their nice low cost number they advertise and then when you get your bill it is 30+% higher.


With my own modem, TWC's 3Mbps Every Day Low Price Internet of $14.99 actually does cost a total of $14.99. That is the full Retail listed price. No fees, no taxes, no discounts.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

jth tv said:


> With my own modem, TWC's 3Mbps Every Day Low Price Internet of $14.99 actually does cost a total of $14.99. That is the full Retail listed price. No fees, no taxes, no discounts.


You can kiss that goodbye after the merger. Well, they may grandfather you in, but you can bet Charter won't be offering $15/month internet to anyone else going forward.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jth tv said:


> With my own modem, TWC's 3Mbps Every Day Low Price Internet of $14.99 actually does cost a total of $14.99. That is the full Retail listed price. No fees, no taxes, no discounts.


I have never tried just Internet but my current Frontier unlimited nation wide telephone and 12/1 Mbps internet combo is advertised at $60.98. The $60.98 is on the the bill's first 2 lines but last months bill was actually $78.23 with 14 line items other than the 2 for Internet & Telephone and of course those 14 line items very month to month by a dollar or so. For a new customer getting Frontier to tell you your $60.98 bill is actually going to be something around $78 is impossible. My parents dishnetwork bill is easier to understand but still the same, total is significantly more than price they advertise.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

tarheelblue32 said:


> You can kiss that goodbye after the merger. Well, they may grandfather you in, but you can bet Charter won't be offering $15/month internet to anyone else going forward.


I would imagine that offer will be a requirement of the merger. At least for a certain amount of years.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

rainwater said:


> I would imagine that offer will be a requirement of the merger. At least for a certain amount of years.


Apparently you are correct, at least in New York:

"Charter is required to maintain and advance its commitment to an affordable standalone Internet offering through the continuation of the Time Warner Everyday Low Price $14.99 service throughout the Time Warner New York territory for up to two years and allow existing customers to keep the service for three years."

http://stopthecap.com/2016/01/12/stop-the-cap-protects-new-york-consumers/


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-lik...approving-charter-time-warner-deal-1458088390

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/wh...charters-twc-and-bright-house-bids/2016-03-16


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Why Charter succeeded where Comcast Failed

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/bl...ter-succeeded-fcc-where-comcast-failed/154990


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Approved with conditions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/technology/charter-time-warner-cable-bright-house-cable-deal.html


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Correction: US DOJ has approved. 

FCC is expected to approve, but has yet to vote. There is a potential that some more vocal FCC commissioners may dissent, suggesting the restrictions/conditions amount to industry regulation outside the bounds of the FCC's jurisdiction. That said, they believe enough votes exist to approve the merger.


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> You actually can buy and use your own cable modem on Charter if you want to. Since Charter doesn't charge a separate modem rental fee, you don't save any money by doing so. But if you really want to buy and use your own modem on Charter's network, you can do so:
> 
> https://www.myaccount.charter.com/customers/support.aspx?supportarticleid=2623


Why would anyone buy a cable modem when Charter Cable modem is free? Buying a cable modem makes no sense

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

These companies merge all the time. With TWC, I use a modem/gateway/router I bought for $27 and it has worked absolutely perfectly, I would not want mess with success.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

tootal2 said:


> Why would anyone buy a cable modem when Charter Cable modem is free? Buying a cable modem makes no sense


I just said you could, not that you should. But maybe you don't like the cable modem Charter gave you for whatever reason. Maybe you want a modem with MoCA built in, but Charter won't give you one of those, or maybe you just don't like the color of the Charter modem.

Regardless, I have a feeling it won't be "free" for much longer.


----------



## windracer (Jan 3, 2003)

Received in the mail today:



> FROM THE DESK OF TOM RUTLEDGE, CEO
> 
> Dear windracer,
> 
> ...


Will have to see how this goes ...


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

I'm hopeful they will continue to offer the $14.99 everyday value for internet that Time Warner currently offers. That isn't a one year price, it's the standard rate for their 2Mb/sec tier. The article mentions low internet fees for "low income" but I'm concerned about an option for those of us that aren't rich but don't qualify for those breaks. I currently have standard internet (15Mb/sec) at a negotiated lower rate for a year but I'm tempted to go ahead and switch to the everyday value tier just because I'm afraid it will no longer be offered. Yes they could still raise it later but I think they may let those that already have it to continue even if they raise it some. I just think they may do away with the option for new customers to sign up for it. (they have done this before with lower tier internet speeds) It's not the speed I'd like, but I know a number of people who use it and it's OK. They are able to stream Netflix with it, albeit not at full hi def. It's still a decent picture though. Many don't notice the difference (I would). Full price for standard internet is $59.99 (15Mb/sec) which is really too high.

Anyone know what Charter's lowest priced stand alone internet is? Not the "teaser" rate they offer for a year, but the true ongoing price?

If there was any real competition for internet it would be one thing, but in most markets cable is pretty close to a monopoly. I can't get anywhere near the speed options available from cable from anyone else where I live. And the other options have data caps.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

TeamPace said:


> I'm hopeful they will continue to offer the $14.99 everyday value for internet that Time Warner currently offers.


That's not going to happen.



TeamPace said:


> Anyone know what Charter's lowest priced stand alone internet is? Not the "teaser" rate they offer for a year, but the true ongoing price?


I think it's $60/month for 60Mbps, which is comparable to TWC's 50Mbps for $60/month + $10/month cable modem rental fee if you don't own your own modem. I expect Charter to keep TWC's modem rental fee and probably expand it to current Charter customers.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

tarheelblue32 said:


> That's not going to happen.
> 
> I think it's $60/month for 60Mbps, which is comparable to TWC's 50Mbps for $60/month + $10/month cable modem rental fee if you don't own your own modem. I expect Charter to keep TWC's modem rental fee and probably expand it to current Charter customers.


As far as I know, I only have one choice, 60mbps at $60. They advertise all the time for $30 in a bundle. Im going to threaten to cancel as soon as my contrCt is up Nd see if I can get a better deal. Not optimistic, but I've had limited luck in the past.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

$60 for 60Mbps isn't bad for that speed but I would prefer a cheaper option. Time Warner in our market it's $59.99 for standard which is 15Mbps. They also offer basic which is 6Mbps for $49.99 and "everyday value" which is 2Mbps. Those are the full price option, not a one year only price.

Is the $60 for 60Mbps their full price or just for a limited time period such as one year? It's often very hard to find their full price list as they don't seem to publish it online. Once a year I get a price list insert in the mail from TW and that is only place I can find their full prices. Even when I have gone into a TW store they won't give me the real prices. In fact I once had a rep tell me there wasn't a set price because it changed everyday and depended on your address. I said OK, here is my address, what is the price for "x" speed internet for that address for TODAY. He still wouldn't give me a straight answer.

Oh, and I own my own modem. I went out and bought one the very day I got their notice in the mail that they were going to start charging for the modem which had always been included in the price for internet. Currently they charge $10 per month for a modem and $15 if it is a combo modem/router/wifi. No thanks, I'll provide my own!


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

TeamPace said:


> Is the $60 for 60Mbps their full price or just for a limited time period such as one year?


That's the full price for Charter. In TWC Maxx markets you get 50/5Mbps for that same price (15/1Mbps in non-Maxx markets), though TWC seems to overprovision by about 20%, so in reality you get 60/6.



TeamPace said:


> It's often very hard to find their full price list as they don't seem to publish it online. Once a year I get a price list insert in the mail from TW and that is only place I can find their full prices. Even when I have gone into a TW store they won't give me the real prices. In fact I once had a rep tell me there wasn't a set price because it changed everyday and depended on your address. I said OK, here is my address, what is the price for "x" speed internet for that address for TODAY. He still wouldn't give me a straight answer.


Here's where you can find the official TWC price lists:

http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/support/account-and-billing/topics/retail-rates.html


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Wow, I get 200/20 Mbps for $35/mth. I guess I'm getting a good deal!


----------



## pshivers (Nov 4, 2013)

My Current Charter Spectrum Internet charge is as follows for my ongoing package deal...

Spectrum Internet 53.99 (66.27 Mbps Download - 4.07Mbps Upload)


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

pshivers said:


> My Current Charter Spectrum Internet charge is as follows for my ongoing package deal...
> 
> Spectrum Internet 53.99 (66.27 Mbps Download - 4.07Mbps Upload)


I mistakenly said mine was $60, but you are right, it's $53.99 here in Riverside, CA.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

UCLABB said:


> I mistakenly said mine was $60, but you are right, it's $53.99 here in Riverside, CA.


Do you guys have competing internet providers? Sounds like you get a much better deal than we do in Ohio. At least where I live there really isn't viable alternative to Time Warner and they know that.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

TeamPace said:


> Do you guys have competing internet providers? Sounds like you get a much better deal than we do in Ohio. At least where I live there really isn't viable alternative to Time Warner and they know that.


Not really, only alternative is dsl.


----------



## pshivers (Nov 4, 2013)

TeamPace said:


> Do you guys have competing internet providers? Sounds like you get a much better deal than we do in Ohio. At least where I live there really isn't viable alternative to Time Warner and they know that.


No alternates on Cable, but we do have the option of going with ATT U-Verse but speeds don't even come close to Charter...


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

Adios, MAXX rollout. Also: unconfirmed reports that they are downgrading existing MAXX areas. Wow.

Hurray for mergers!

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews...Warner-Cable-Broadband-Upgrades-Killed-137624


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

mrizzo80 said:


> Adios, MAXX rollout. Also: unconfirmed reports that they are downgrading existing MAXX areas. Wow.
> 
> Hurray for mergers!
> 
> https://www.dslreports.com/shownews...Warner-Cable-Broadband-Upgrades-Killed-137624


Smart move by Charter. Very few people need that kind of speed. Smart people calculate the return on investment and act accordingly.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HarperVision said:


> Wow, I get 200/20 Mbps for $35/mth. I guess I'm getting a good deal!


That is a crazy good deal! I thought everything was more expensive in Hawaii.

I feel like I'm doing pretty good paying $30/mo for 25/5 Mbps from Comcast. (It's always fast enough to stream 1080p video without buffering, so I'm fine with it, although when I upgrade to a 4K UHD TV, I'll want a faster connection.)


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> That is a crazy good deal! I thought everything was more expensive in Hawaii.
> 
> I feel like I'm doing pretty good paying $30/mo for 25/5 Mbps from Comcast. (It's always fast enough to stream 1080p video without buffering, so I'm fine with it, although when I upgrade to a 4K UHD TV, I'll want a faster connection.)


Everything else is more expensive, but it's not nearly as bad as everyone thinks, especially housing on the Big Island. It pays to call and threaten to cancel on a regular basis, which I was serious about, but they always are too nice and throw a "deal I can't refuse" back at me!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> That is a crazy good deal! I thought everything was more expensive in Hawaii.
> 
> I feel like I'm doing pretty good paying $30/mo for 25/5 Mbps from Comcast. (It's always fast enough to stream 1080p video without buffering, so I'm fine with it, although when I upgrade to a 4K UHD TV, I'll want a faster connection.)





HarperVision said:


> Everything else is more expensive, but it's not nearly as bad as everyone thinks, especially housing on the Big Island. It pays to call and threaten to cancel on a regular basis, which I was serious about, *but they always are too nice and throw a "deal I can't refuse" back at me!*


Oh no.....it's MY FAULT!!! 



> "In short, customers will get slower speeds than they may have if the merger had never happened at all. But Charter defended the move by *criticizing Time Warner Cable* and Bright House* for formerly offering too many promotions.*"


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

mrizzo80 said:


> Adios, MAXX rollout. Also: unconfirmed reports that they are downgrading existing MAXX areas. Wow.
> 
> Hurray for mergers!
> 
> https://www.dslreports.com/shownews...Warner-Cable-Broadband-Upgrades-Killed-137624


After reading that, I doubt they're "down-grading" MAXX areas already. I am sure it's just because he has a modem like that SB6141 that is only capable of about 100Mbps on TWC. I had the same issue and had to upgrade to an SB6183 to take advantage of the 200/20 package they gave me.


----------

