dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
16
share rss forum feed


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting
reply to 88615298

Re: [HSI] What does everyone think of the new $200 activation fe

Caps are illegal due to the Sherman Act I already cited in the post. There is no "bandwidth crunch" on Charters network, and there wouldn't be one without the caps. It's a big made up lie. The caps are clearly instituted as a way to keep people from replacing their CATV content with sources such as Netlflix, Hulu, Vudu and other sources.
In 1984, AT&T was involuntarily divested for doing the very same thing. Where's the DOJ now? Why isn't Charter being forced to either A) drop the illegal caps or B) divest it's CATV or ISP services?
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

said by nunya:

Caps are illegal due to the Sherman Act I already cited in the post.

Sorry saying "Sherman Act" without explaining doesn't cut it.

There is no "bandwidth crunch" on Charters network, and there wouldn't be one without the caps. It's a big made up lie. The caps are clearly instituted as a way to keep people from replacing their CATV content with sources such as Netlflix, Hulu, Vudu and other sources.

Listen we all know why they are doing this. And As I stated many time there are better ways to manage bandwidth than monthly cap. So you're preaching to the choir.

In 1984, AT&T was involuntarily divested for doing the very same thing. Where's the DOJ now? Why isn't Charter being forced to either A) drop the illegal caps or B) divest it's CATV or ISP services?

totally different. You think forcing cable companies to sell off their ISPs would be benefit to consumers but it wouldn't. First how many buyers would there be? Not many. Also many places that are less populated that currently have cable internet might be without it if you were to actually do this plan. Since cable companies no longer have the revenue from internet they will have no choice but to raise prices. Not to mention the technical hurdles of doing this.

Jammers

join:2009-01-15
Tillamook, OR
reply to nunya
Is there any kind of activation fee for the 30 Mb speed? Also if i get the 30 Mb package what speeds will i see? For instance i get around 90% of the speed i pay for with DSL.


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26

1 edit
Click for full size
 
said by Jammers:

Is there any kind of activation fee for the 30 Mb speed? Also if i get the 30 Mb package what speeds will i see? For instance i get around 90% of the speed i pay for with DSL.

My typical speeds on the 30/4 plan. I have the upload speed controlled with QoS due to having Vonage phone.

I was using Opera on that first speed test and it's NEVER as fast as my 2 other browsers there.

Edit:
Also included a test using IE at Charter's speed test site. Very typical result.
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

Jammers

join:2009-01-15
Tillamook, OR
How are you getting 50.24mbps with a 30 meg connection?


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26

1 edit
»stage.results.speedtest.comcast.···4512.png

Powerboost!!

Partially why flash speed tests are junk, also!

Generally, always get over 30M download anywhere though.

Getting off topic though. Do a search on here about people's posted speed. Usually over on the download.

markopoleo

join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
reply to nunya
Because charter is a business, and they have every right to charge/do what they please. Its not like the US government is giving you internet so nothing illegal about it.

Besides charter has no monopoly on a majority of a area so they can have caps.

Its not a big deal anyways, Charter does not enforce any caps, so its a non-issue.


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting
Actually, if you'll read the Sherman Act, they have no right to manipulate the market to prohibit access by a competitor.
All businesses want to, and try to, manipulate the market. Where Charter crosses the line is the caps. By instituting caps, they are driving people away from their newest form of competition - IP video.
Let's say Charter were to, oh I don't know, lower their prices or offer a-la-carte video services; those would be perfectly legal forms of competition. Using (limiting) their ISP services to prop up their video services is where they get in trouble. Much like AT&T using RBOC services to prop up Long Lines.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by nunya:

Actually, if you'll read the Sherman Act, they have no right to manipulate the market to prohibit access by a competitor.

How are caps and $200 activation fees preventing a competitor access?

All businesses want to, and try to, manipulate the market. Where Charter crosses the line is the caps. By instituting caps, they are driving people away from their newest form of competition - IP video.

Not even close. Online video is not even a real competitor to cable. The CONTENT owners are making sure of that. Charter's caps do not prevent you from accessing online video. I watch online video. How can that be I have a cap? Also if one really needs cap free internet you can always get a business account which doesn't have a cap.

Let's say Charter were to, oh I don't know, lower their prices

You mean like they already have? You know how the 30 meg pla nis $8 -$15 cheaper than what it was depending if you owned or rented a modem.

or offer a-la-carte video services; those would be perfectly legal forms of competition.

You really think ala carte will be much cheaper? Sure if you get 4 or 5 channels maybe. You think if they offered channels ala carte you be able to get access to those channels for 25 cents those channel currently get per sub. Here's the problem, if said channel only gets 1/10 the subs under ala carte then they will raise their fee by 10X. Thus you'd be paying $2.50 now. These networks are not going to take a 80%, 90%, 95% loss. Like ESPN? Be prepared to pay $15 for it.

Using (limiting) their ISP services to prop up their video services is where they get in trouble.

while I agree they need to get with the times you are way off base on your theory.

15444104
Premium
join:2012-06-11
Plain and simple money grab

The interesting thing will be how many folks will bend over and accept the charge. I bet LOTS of potential subscribers for this service will say thanks but no thanks.

The new BOZO of a CEO at Charter, Tom Rutledge, seems to be at the root of all the IDIOTIC ideas over the past couple of months or so.

I ASSume he is trying to put his " mark" on the company.

What a jackass!

I think Charter should FIRE Mr. Rutledge and rehire Mr. Lovett!


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
I totally agree with you 1000%, horseathalt7

BlakePaulson

join:2008-08-06
Alexandria, MN
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Charter
reply to 15444104
I'm sure the sweet spot is their 30/4 plan because it costs a good amount and those who don't need the speed will end up paying for it (Think grandma's who email and check weather paying $50 a month and using a few hundred meg per month.)

They can offer 100/5 but realistically if they deter people away from it with these stupid fees, then in the end it's more money for charter as their profit margin is probably best at the 30/4 range (also less worry about node overload and infrastructure issues.)

I have the 100/5 tier and it's $74.99 (must be some promo?)... I was paying $34.99 for 15/3...

I don't agree with anything the new CEO has done...

BF69 will tell you about modems being included... the thing you have to remember about that is that you now have a piece of charter equipment that you have to remember to return if you switch service/be responsible for. Should you forget to return it or your puppy chews the power cord, you're going to be paying a lot more for said modem than what you would have paid in store. I owned the same surfboard 5100 for over 10 years on 3 different cable systems and never had any issues. I have an SB6120 right now that's mine and love it.

Only offering two tiers? Well there you're either forcing people to pay $49.99 for internet or go without it... if you use it sparingly and don't need the speed, then you're forced to go with DSL (if it's available) which will happily provide nice slow speeds for a cheap price.

Finally... no promos... I was happy to sign a two year contract to get a decent price on internet! Charter then knew I'd be a customer for two years or would get money if I left. It was a win win for both of us... now however if there was a competitor who did come into the market with a better deal (highly unlikely for 100/5) I would switch.

AlexPAdams

join:2012-10-06
Saint Louis, MO
reply to nunya
The Sherman Antitrust Act was passed in 1890 and no court that I know of has made the ruling that it applies to caps. Just because you think something should be illegal doesn't make it so.


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
It just hasn't been tested in court (yet).


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest

1 edit
I feel the same way about ISP hopping and have stuck with Charter for over a decade. 30Mb was good enough now that the boys have left the nest but one is moving back home for a year or so and I was considering upping for that time. No way now.

But this is affecting my loyalty. I despise ATT but I'm struggling with the DVR situation. Number of recordings at a time, and the need for adding another box. I've fought off the wife and son about switching but, as I said, I think this has tipped me over the edge where I feel Charter no longer cares about me/us and the gouging is beginning again in earnest.

Therefore, I'm going to visit the ATT site for U-verse tonight and probably switch on Monday but keeping Charter internet. However, I know the fibre CO for ATT is directly across the street from me so I might look for a deal involving 24Mb service with them.

I really like the opportunity of having 100Mb available though. Charter is just shooting themselves in the foot.

Help us Google! You're our only hope!

EDIT: Just got off chat with ATT. While they claim you can record 4 programs at once, that's only SD channels and it's not possible to record 4 HD channels at the same time. Also, you cannot add more DVRs. So my opinion of ATT is still the same.

whoaru99

join:2003-12-17
reply to nunya
In todays litiguious society I have a hard time believing a cherry as ripe as you imply would go unplucked, therefore I think it's non sequitur.


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
reply to cork1958
That's what I'm getting here. 50/4 on the 30Mb plan.