said by myokitis:
I'm sick of all of this carping about corporate "greed" on this site and elsewhere. IMO, TWC is trying to manage a complex, capital-intensive business in a highly competitive environment.
What exactly is competitive about monopolies and duopolies? Verizon's FiOS is only in, what, about 10% of markets? The "big dogs" like TWC, Comcast, and Cox usually only have mediocre DSL to contend with in most areas, and sometimes no competition at all in other areas.
- TWC is carrying a massive amount of debt dumped on it upon divestiture from the larger Time Warner corporation. I wonder if they have the financial ability, in tight credit markets and under intense competition from VZ & DirecTV/Dish, to make massive capital investments to beef up their network.
As Comcast's CEO and others in that corporation have said, the cost of D3 upgrades equates to "couch change."
I am sure the relative cost for TWC would be about the same.
- Changing customer habits to increased video streaming/downloading puts their entire video business model at risk.
Precisely. So their strategy is to drive up the price, cap usage, and charge 2000% mark-ups for overages so they can "discourage" too much Internet video viewing. No, a real business plan would include innovation and investment in the right areas in order to find a way to change with the times (hello RIAA).
TWC's attitude should be, "OK, there is a shift towards using TCP/IP for video, thus we need to make this experience the best possible for our users and focus more on it than the TV side of the business."
Of course, this will never happen without real competition. Period. If TWC can't do it, someone else will be happy to (that's REAL capitalism). The problem is the silly zoning agreements keep the competition out.