Stock Jocks Love Time Warner Cable > Of course

reply to axiomatic

Re: Of course

As stated in the above article, usually they are the only game in town and do as they please. Not everyone has a wide variety of broadband ISPs to choose from therefore stuck with what they got and has it ever occured with you that some of the people that are upset about their service is because TWC refuses to upgrade their network. It appears to me that is a company is in business to please its investors and customers that it make an effort to do so? Doesn't seem to be the case with TWC. IMHO. And there have been plenty of articles posted on this site to back this data up, if you want it you can search for it.

reply to fAcEtIOUs
Yes, please explain why a company should be allowed to rape the customer, to MAKE MONEY, when it's so obviously NOT in the interest of the customer or the country? It's attitudes like TWC's that lead the way for people to argue for the Nationalization of said broadband services, because first and foremost, the company's bottom line SHOULD be focused on IMPROVING the community, not taking money from it.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so.

reply to fAcEtIOUs

reply to karlmarx
Review this article about the infamous Ford vs. Dodge turn of the 20th century case.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._F···_Company

reply to fAcEtIOUs

reply to fAcEtIOUs
It's also smart to keep the customers happy so there are future profits to be paid out. Cannibalizing and gouging your long-term customer base for slightly higher short-term profits seems like a very bad idea to any business that wants to stick around. People will flee to a competitor (if they can). Most businesses act this way since nobody has an outlook longer than a quarter.

These are the same brainchildren that offshore all the jobs and then wonder why US consumers don't have money to buy $100/mo cable subscriptions.

reply to fAcEtIOUs
TWC already makes a healthy profit and, according to the article, it stands to get even healthier. Their current behavior disturbs me for a couple of reasons:

1. They have virtually no competition. If my grocery store charges to much I can go to one of 3 different competitors. Same with the auto mechanic, the bank, my doctor and so on. But if Time Warner decides to gouge me on the price just to make more of a profit, my only option, God forbid, is AT&T, and they don't compete on price (the only factor most people give a damn about).

2. TWC not only enjoys a lack of competition, but they (along with other ISP's) have demonstrated a willingness to fight any potential competition from gaining a foothold through less than honorable means. They have shown this much in their opposition to various muni fiber projects. In those situations people voted, both with their wallets and at the polls, to move away from TWC with mixed success.

3. Saying they please "most of the customers" is BS, pure and simple. Again, this is where the lack of competition comes in. If I was born on a desert island where all the women looked like Susan Boyle I'd be happy with what I had. I'd have to be. But if a boat pulls up one day and a group of Sports Illustrated swimsuit models comes to cavort on the sandy beaches, you can bet my opinion would change. Lesson: There is a huge difference between being satisfied and not having an alternative. As soon as another choice presents itself TWC is out of luck.

reply to fAcEtIOUs

reply to fAcEtIOUs
The point being, normally the way to please investors is to please CUSTOMERS and then gain business and more profits and sell new options, thereby pleasing investors. However this assumes they have competition to worry about.

When in a position where their "Footprint" has limited competition, they can skip pleasing customers and go straight to pleasing investors by making more profits--- by simple sticking it to customers who have the only choice of pay up or do without, period.

Investors love monopolies. They're sure fire money makers.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply to fAcEtIOUs