This month my TWC bill just inexplicably went up by about 6 bucks. No notice in the bill, no explanation. Last month, it was $155, now it's $161. Because?
Fuck them sideways.
Fuck them sideways.
There is not. Certain apps have a small number of "out of home" available channels but that's about it. Otherwise, the the outside MAC on your modem is checked against account data for verification. And if you're thinking that you can spoof the MAC, it checks for TWC IP space too so that won't work either.SPDougie said:So they have TWC TV where you can watch up to 300 channels online or through mobile. I have Cox (which kicks TWC's ass) and I got the user name and password from my parents to use there TWC online thinking that I could get rid of some of my more expensive channels. Of course though once I login it tells me I am outside the "home network" and I end up only being able to view ten channels. Does anyone know if there is a work around to get TWC TV to think I'm in the home network and get all of the channels available?
Well, there might be a way to set up a proxy at the parents' house so that the TWC network believes the data is being transferred to the parents house only, but that would be inefficient and clunky. Be better off setting up a Slingbox there instead.jercra said:There is not. Certain apps have a small number of "out of home" available channels but that's about it. Otherwise, the the outside MAC on your modem is checked against account data for verification. And if you're thinking that you can spoof the MAC, it checks for TWC IP space too so that won't work either.
JerBear said:My bill went up slightly as well. Check your previous month's bill and there is a statement about small changes in costs. Modem fee went up to $6 and the other fees up $0.05.
timlinin8th said:Well, there might be a way to set up a proxy at the parents' house so that the TWC network believes the data is being transferred to the parents house only, but that would be inefficient and clunky. Be better off setting up a Slingbox there instead.
I have TWC in Portland and it's not working well this morning. Not connecting to sites and running slow in general.nocode51 said:So my time warner internet seems to be mostly broken. On the plus side one of the only sites that is working is this one so I'm catching up on a lot of stuff I've missed. Anyone else having an issue?
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Edit: They are having an area outage that appears to be contained to my building. I'm guessing a rat chewed a line and the rain and snow yesterday allowed moisture to get into the main line for the building. So it's not really TWC's fault, but fuck them anyway.
glennhoffmania said:Does anyone else have this problem? Once in a while I turn on the tv and while the picture is fine the audio is just incredibly loud static sounds, as if I have no signal. Usually if I turn off the box it's ok but sometimes I have to reboot. I'm seriously concerned that it could blow my speakers. It sounds like it's on max volume when it happens and it scares the crap out of me.
After 3 months, your complimentary gift expires and SHOWTIME®
will be automatically removed from your account. No need to cancel.
I got the same letter and threw it in the trash. No trust whatsoever for only 3 months.rembrat said:I got an email offer from TWC for 3 months of complimentary FREE Showtime and all I have to do is input a code in a website.
At the end of the e-blast there was:
I.. don't trust this. Will they try shenanigans after the 3 months is up? Has anyone done this with TWC?
rembrat said:I got an email offer from TWC for 3 months of complimentary FREE Showtime and all I have to do is input a code in a website.
At the end of the e-blast there was:
I.. don't trust this. Will they try shenanigans after the 3 months is up? Has anyone done this with TWC?
http://mashable.com/2014/02/12/comcast-acquire-time-warner-cable/?utm_cid=mash-com-Tw-bus-linkComcast has reached an agreement to acquire Time Warner Cable in a deal that will have major ramifications for the cable market, as well as the media industry as a whole
Comcast, the largest U.S. cable company, plans to acquire No. 2 Time Warner Cable for $158.82 per share in an all-stock deal worth $45.2 billion that is expected to be announced on Thursday, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
jercra said:Why would they stop it? Cable has more competition than it ever has before. Comcast and TWC don't share any markets. No one would lose any choice they currently have for video delivery.
Comcast isn't effected by the strike down of open internet rules. They are bound by them for years from the NBC acquisition, and will get additional handcuffs when this deal gets approved.derekson said:Comcast has already signed non-compete agreements with Verizon on FIOS that stop VZN from rolling out any more infrastructure to new markets. Plus it basically puts Comcast for Cable TV & Internet at nearly the level that AT&T was at for nationwide phone service before it was broken up by the government. It seems ridiculous to me that regulators might let this acquisition go through. Beyond the negative effects this has for consumers, it will put Comcast in such a dominant position that they will be able to strong arm networks and content producers.
Combine this with the strike down of net neutrality and internet access in this country could become a really shitty situation if Comcast wants to put the screws on Hulu/Netflix/etc. And say goodbye to any progress in freedom from the stupidity and backwardness of the current Cable TV paradigm; the delivery is already antiquated in our current world of streamed content but we'll be stuck with it for a long ass time if Comcast is able to control a vast majority of the market in this country.
The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa said:how can regulators let this go through?
jercra said:Why would they stop it? Cable has more competition than it ever has before. Comcast and TWC don't share any markets. No one would lose any choice they currently have for video delivery.
Stitch01 said:Comcast isn't effected by the strike down of open internet rules. They are bound by them for years from the NBC acquisition, and will get additional handcuffs when this deal gets approved.
They're the worst company I've ever dealt with though, although sounds like TWC was worse.
What will be materially different? Every single business that works in cable bends to Comcast's will already. They negotiate as the top dog in every negotiation already. A few million more subs isn't going to change their bargaining position by enough to block a deal of this magnitude. That's without considering that since they purchase of NBCU you could argue that they've actually lost bargaining position. The existence of streaming media as an alternative to cable was essentially non-existent in 2009, today it's a real alternative. There is literally nothing stopping someone like Amazon from negotiating exclusive rights with Disney as far as I can see.zenter said:However, TWComcast could be under scrutiny for another type of anti-competitive/monopolistic behavior - content deals. As a major content producer and a potentially-giant buyer of content, they could wield outsized influence in negotiations with the content creators of the world (from Disney on down to Netflix), which affects consumers' access to said content.
I think cable companies are taking the worst of it pretty easily against big video content providers. We'll see how DirectTV vs Weather Channel shakes out, but I have a hard time coming up with a battle with a content owner where the video provider scored a victory. I suspect Time Warner getting killed by CBS in their confrontation last fall played at least some role in this deal. The video system is, on-balance, not super competitive but the content guys and TV broadcasters are benefiting more from the existing regulatory system than the cable providers IMHO.zenter said:It's thus possible that this deal is allowed with some regulatory strictures on the extent to which Comcast can push content creators around. On the far outside, there's a possibility (albeit nanoscopic) that the Feds require spinning-off NBCU or (very slightly more more realistically) operating NBCU with no overlapping staff and no preferential treatment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there's any need for something to be materially different for it to draw federal intervention. IIRC, one of the huge beer companies was blocked from acquiring a much smaller one not because of direct consumer effect, but indirect effects of losing a disruptor from the marketplace. Obviously, neither TWC nor Comcast are disruptors, but magnitude (pop pop) matters to the government. That's why only MS was punished for browser bundling. Giving the biggest negotiator an even bigger piece of the audience market might tip the scale in the direction of further content/carrier restriction.jercra said:What will be materially different? Every single business that works in cable bends to Comcast's will already. They negotiate as the top dog in every negotiation already. A few million more subs isn't going to change their bargaining position by enough to block a deal of this magnitude. That's without considering that since they purchase of NBCU you could argue that they've actually lost bargaining position. The existence of streaming media as an alternative to cable was essentially non-existent in 2009, today it's a real alternative. There is literally nothing stopping someone like Amazon from negotiating exclusive rights with Disney as far as I can see.
We pretty much agree here, you're just looking from another angle. There's a reason for government to scrutinize the deal, and it's not consumer competition.Stitch01 said:I think cable companies are taking the worst of it pretty easily against big video content providers. We'll see how DirectTV vs Weather Channel shakes out, but I have a hard time coming up with a battle with a content owner where the video provider scored a victory. I suspect Time Warner getting killed by CBS in their confrontation last fall played at least some role in this deal. The video system is, on-balance, not super competitive but the content guys and TV broadcasters are benefiting more from the existing regulatory system than the cable providers IMHO.
Comcast has restrictions on how they distribute NBC content, Id expect that expanded as part of this deal.
This isn't true. Comcast is locked into Net neutrality. The court ruling doesn't apply since it was a consolation to close the NBCU deal. In fact, buying TWC actually expands the scope the network which must remain neutral provided the newly owned TWC properties are also held to the same standard. I still don't see how this significantly impacts either content production or distribution. I don't see why DOJ would stop this deal.zenter said:Your Amazon/Disney argument doesn't track here because Amazon isn't a carrier. You're merely changing the content source, not the method. Even here, TWComcast still holds the biggest audience card and could theoretically (though I'm pretty sure not legally) throttle our block Amazon. At the very least, they could preferentially force Amazon to pay more to house content within Comcast servers just because. Thus is exactly the sort of downstream effect the government will examine.
Not sure what you're arguing with here.jercra said:This isn't true. Comcast is locked into Net neutrality. The court ruling doesn't apply since it was a consolation to close the NBCU deal. In fact, buying TWC actually expands the scope the network which must remain neutral provided the newly owned TWC properties are also held to the same standard. I still don't see how this significantly impacts either content production or distribution. I don't see why DOJ would stop this deal.
This is exactly what I think happens too.
Yes. Enhance the NN and carrier/content rules? Quite possibly.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What I meant was in response to your first post saying that Comcast would have too big of a stick when dealing with content providers after the merger. Is your contention that this is because they would own too much of the delivery vehicle (IP or QAM) so it wouldn't matter that ESPN and Monday Night Football would only be available to Amazon Prime subscribers? If I'm way off base then I'll just happily stop posting until I regain reading comprehension.
Preferentially overcharging Amazon for colocating a server inside Comcast's network [/snip]
No worries. I'm not sick and my brain is broken most of the time.jercra said:Ok, I totally misread what you were saying. Sorry, I'm sick and my brain is broken.
In part. I see cable tv carriage and internet content delivery as virtually the same, and (from a technological standpoint), cable companies agree.Is your contention that this is because they would own too much of the delivery vehicle (IP or QAM) so it wouldn't matter that ESPN and Monday Night Football would only be available to Amazon Prime subscribers? If I'm way off base then I'll just happily stop posting until I regain reading comprehension.