Re: As if the cats haven't been through enough . . .

[ssimpson]

BS or not it sounds like they are willing to give up their customers who take advantage of more optional services for more low end customers.  Dish, DirecTV, etc. focus more on the high end customers and that is why I like them more.  I really think the only reason so many people are using cable is Roadrunner being easier to use.  I don't have a phone at home so DSL is not cost effective and Dish or Direct TV has not figured it out yet.

________________________________

From: address@hidden on behalf of Justin Register
Sent: Thu 9/28/2006 11:04 AM
To: UC Basketball Forum
Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] As if the cats haven't been through enough . . .



Everything about TW has always been BS.  I would switch in a heartbeat if I
hadn't fought my way to a great price last year.  Switching would raise my
bill a ton, but it may be worth it.....stick it to the Man.

On 9/28/06, Mick Bergman <address@hidden> wrote:
> Yet somehow Dish, DirecTV, Comcast, and other providers find a way to do
> it without raising their costs...
>
> As I said, that is total BS.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: address@hidden on behalf of
> address@hidden
> Sent: Thu 9/28/2006 10:57 AM
> To: address@hidden; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] As if the cats haven't been through enough .
> . .
>
>
>
> I spoke to a friend at Warner.  They are reluctant to offer extra
> channels, HD, etc. because so few of their customers use the
> services.  >From what I understand the agreement with the supplier of the
> regional services makes Warner offer it everywhere or nowhere.  They have
> found that the costs from carrying the extra features in low income areas
> outweigh the income gained from carrying it in more affluent areas that are
> more likely to subscribe to ESPN U, more HD channels, etc.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: address@hidden on behalf of address@hidden
> Sent: Thu 9/28/2006 10:55 AM
> To: UC Basketball Forum
> Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] As if the cats haven't been through enough .
> . .
>
>
>
> I called Time Warner to talk to them about not having ESPNU.  The woman I
> spoke to told me that it was 'under negociation'...to which I told her they
> better get it done or they'd have a lot of pissed off fans in cincy come the
> shootout and that I would change my service if they don't.....If they get
> flooded with phone calls maybe something will happen....
> So call them and complain 513-469-1145 or 513-469-1112 and tell everyone
> you know to do so!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mick Bergman <address@hidden>
> Date: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:58 am
> Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] As if the cats haven't been through enough .
> . .
> To: UC Basketball Forum <address@hidden>
>
> > That may be true, but somehow Dish, DirecTV, and other cable providers
> > are able to come to an agreement on carriage and still charge less
> > than Time Warner is currently charging customers. I pay $20 less a
> > month than I paid to Time Warner and now I have NFL Network HD,
> > ESPN2HD, and a bunch of other HD channels. I also get a lot more
> > regular channels than I ever had with Time Warner. Honestly, after the
> > profits that Time Warner has shown over the past few years, they could
> > stand to eat the cost of ESPNU and ESPN2HD without a big problem.
> >
> > On 9/28/06, Bryan Sherman <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Not a Time Warner fan. but enough blame to go around. It seems
> > reasonable to
> > > make ESPNU part of the sports tier, but ESPN is holding out for
> > it to be
> > > part of the basic lineup. Seems kind of a ridiculous requirement
> > on ESPNs
> > > part.
> > >
> > > So i blame them both, and we get to suffer b/c of their pissing
> > contest.>
> > > On 9/28/06, Keith Wedinger <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > Blame Time Warner. They seem to be VERY slow with regards to
> > adding new
> > > > channels. I am close to switching away from them so I can get
> > ESPNU and
> > > > the
> > > > NFL Network.