dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12479
share rss forum feed

why60loss

join:2012-09-20
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Wireless..
·CenturyLink
·AT&T Wireless Br..
reply to motorola870

Re: Comcast to acquire TW...

said by motorola870:

said by why60loss:

said by Satch:

I am not so sure this is going to be approved. Hopefully it is not. Too much bad customer rapport with this. Let each company do its own thing, keeping up the good service in good divisions, and working to improve service and infrastructure in average to poor divisions.

Satch

This deal is really likely for the best, because this is the only chance the FCC has to enforce a no cap rule. Time warner cable would likely jack prices even higher and cap after the 100mbs roll out was done. The Maxx upgrades are likely going to be viper ware out side the 3 places getting it.

Time warner cable left there network to rot for far to long and now has to die just like RIM for not planning ahead. No FTTH, sub par upload speeds and higher cost per mbs than other big cable business's like Comcast. 2nd worst customer service that is only out done by AT&T it's self.

No TWC never left the network to die more like they didn't want to overload the system with 100Mbps like other providers were doing. Charter tried 100Mbps over 4 QAMs on the downstream didn't work and caused major slow downs.

No the deal isn't for better lol! Try no channel additions after the deal is completed if approved with never ending price increases by Comcast. And not to mention TWC has put in the fine print touting no caps. No TWC was not planning on capping the internet after 100Mbps was rolled out. Comcast says they will treat all traffic equal but they don't mention the fact that it will be capped.

Oh yea they did where I lived before. I had to move out of town and move right next to the node to get okay service. (Like right in yard close. sub 100FT)

Yet even then it still get's overloaded, it buffer city on the weekend. Netfilx, youtube, amazon, hulu and so on. Time warner cable cost go up here with out end, no 100mbs, throttle any upload age. Really Time warner cable is the worst big cable co there is. Who else would have thought 40GB was worth cutting some one off from.

They can take there 57.99 for 15/1 and stick it up in a cloud for all I care. I haven't even used more than 200GB in a month. Why, because the service is to slow to use a lot. If you do, they throttle you till the cows come home.

I am just glad I don't have to pay for there "service" anymore.

/end of blowing steam post over getting endless buffering due to throttling by TWC due to 40GB softcap.

Sent from a 4G LTE unlimited connection because at lest it cost less.


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3

1 edit

said by why60loss:

Oh yea they did where I lived before. I had to move out of town and move right next to the node to get okay service. (Like right in yard close. sub 100FT)

Yet even then it still get's overloaded, it buffer city on the weekend. Netfilx, youtube, amazon, hulu and so on. Time warner cable cost go up here with out end, no 100mbs, throttle any upload age. Really Time warner cable is the worst big cable co there is. Who else would have thought 40GB was worth cutting some one off from.

They can take there 57.99 for 15/1 and stick it up in a cloud for all I care. I haven't even used more than 200GB in a month. Why, because the service is to slow to use a lot. If you do, they throttle you till the cows come home.

I am just glad I don't have to pay for there "service" anymore.

/end of blowing steam post over getting endless buffering due to throttling by TWC due to 40GB softcap.

Sent from a 4G LTE unlimited connection because at lest it cost less.

hmm I have problems with streaming Youtube a lot but guess what my speed doesn't drop so while you blame TWC for the bad speeds it could be the content distribution networks for the video providers. No there is no such thing as a 40GB soft cap where have you gotten that theory? TWC doesn't throttle. I use close to 40GB a month and don't have problems except for using Youtube during peak hours when Youtube's servers get bogged down. Although TWC has gotten away with Charging more in the Carolina's and it gave Charter something to run on for their merger claims.

Satch

join:2009-11-25

Comcast won't allow mobile access of HBO on certain devices. Things like this do not bode well for a buy out of TWC:

»www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/547485···o-on-ps3

Satch


why60loss

join:2012-09-20
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Wireless..
·CenturyLink
·AT&T Wireless Br..
reply to motorola870

said by motorola870:

said by why60loss:

Oh yea they did where I lived before. I had to move out of town and move right next to the node to get okay service. (Like right in yard close. sub 100FT)

Yet even then it still get's overloaded, it buffer city on the weekend. Netfilx, youtube, amazon, hulu and so on. Time warner cable cost go up here with out end, no 100mbs, throttle any upload age. Really Time warner cable is the worst big cable co there is. Who else would have thought 40GB was worth cutting some one off from.

They can take there 57.99 for 15/1 and stick it up in a cloud for all I care. I haven't even used more than 200GB in a month. Why, because the service is to slow to use a lot. If you do, they throttle you till the cows come home.

I am just glad I don't have to pay for there "service" anymore.

/end of blowing steam post over getting endless buffering due to throttling by TWC due to 40GB softcap.

Sent from a 4G LTE unlimited connection because at lest it cost less.

hmm I have problems with streaming Youtube a lot but guess what my speed doesn't drop so while you blame TWC for the bad speeds it could be the content distribution networks for the video providers. No there is no such thing as a 40GB soft cap where have you gotten that theory? TWC doesn't throttle. I use close to 40GB a month and don't have problems except for using Youtube during peak hours when Youtube's servers get bogged down. Although TWC has gotten away with Charging more in the Carolina's and it gave Charter something to run on for their merger claims.

Link:
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009···-remain/

Once when I called in with Issues they told me that 80GB was a lot and that's why my speeds where slow. That I didn't have any other choice and that I was lucky to still have service.

All I did was youtube, netfilx and updates. Yet that was counted as "a lot". Even the tech who came over to "fix" it, said well there's nothing more I can do and it's not like you have anywhere else to go. I had to deal with 60% packet loss for years and no matter what I sent them via E-mail, phone or online chat they wouldn't touch it knowing they owned the market and as long as my service "worked", they didn't have to do jack.

They told me it was just how cable tech was and it wasn't perfect. As long as the time warner web site worked with in 5-10min, nothing else mattered.

Sent from a unlimited 4G LTE connection because at lest it cost less.


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3

said by why60loss:

said by motorola870:

said by why60loss:

Oh yea they did where I lived before. I had to move out of town and move right next to the node to get okay service. (Like right in yard close. sub 100FT)

Yet even then it still get's overloaded, it buffer city on the weekend. Netfilx, youtube, amazon, hulu and so on. Time warner cable cost go up here with out end, no 100mbs, throttle any upload age. Really Time warner cable is the worst big cable co there is. Who else would have thought 40GB was worth cutting some one off from.

They can take there 57.99 for 15/1 and stick it up in a cloud for all I care. I haven't even used more than 200GB in a month. Why, because the service is to slow to use a lot. If you do, they throttle you till the cows come home.

I am just glad I don't have to pay for there "service" anymore.

/end of blowing steam post over getting endless buffering due to throttling by TWC due to 40GB softcap.

Sent from a 4G LTE unlimited connection because at lest it cost less.

hmm I have problems with streaming Youtube a lot but guess what my speed doesn't drop so while you blame TWC for the bad speeds it could be the content distribution networks for the video providers. No there is no such thing as a 40GB soft cap where have you gotten that theory? TWC doesn't throttle. I use close to 40GB a month and don't have problems except for using Youtube during peak hours when Youtube's servers get bogged down. Although TWC has gotten away with Charging more in the Carolina's and it gave Charter something to run on for their merger claims.

Link:
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009···-remain/

Once when I called in with Issues they told me that 80GB was a lot and that's why my speeds where slow. That I didn't have any other choice and that I was lucky to still have service.

All I did was youtube, netfilx and updates. Yet that was counted as "a lot". Even the tech who came over to "fix" it, said well there's nothing more I can do and it's not like you have anywhere else to go. I had to deal with 60% packet loss for years and no matter what I sent them via E-mail, phone or online chat they wouldn't touch it knowing they owned the market and as long as my service "worked", they didn't have to do jack.

They told me it was just how cable tech was and it wasn't perfect. As long as the time warner web site worked with in 5-10min, nothing else mattered.

Sent from a unlimited 4G LTE connection because at lest it cost less.

hmm that link is 5 years old it is a little outdated. I would love to hear where TWC says 5-10 min a website should have worked? and no 60% packet loss isn't how cable works seems your area has lazy techs and they charge more in the Carolinas. ever since TWC got the backlash I believe they stopped making those lectures.

why60loss

join:2012-09-20
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Wireless..
·CenturyLink
·AT&T Wireless Br..

said by motorola870:

hmm that link is 5 years old it is a little outdated. I would love to hear where TWC says 5-10 min a website should have worked? and no 60% packet loss isn't how cable works seems your area has lazy techs and they charge more in the Carolinas. ever since TWC got the backlash I believe they stopped making those lectures.

Link: »help.twcable.com/twc_misp_aup.html

"•The ISP Service may not be used to engage in any conduct that interferes with TWC's ability to provide service to others, including the use of excessive bandwidth."

What the above means is that if they think you are using to much they can throttle or cut off your service. They don't state how much they count as "excessive bandwidth", so that could be 300GB, 100GB, 80GB, 40GB or what ever they decide it is.

With all the hate they got, I don't think they are going to cut anyone off all together at 40GB but would they throttle youtube, amazon, hulu or netfilx yep they could and there is no way to proof it other than doing a side by side with a different ISP, but then a much of smoke gets thrown in about networking and how it's still the video sites fault that it works just fine though AT&T wireless, but not Time warner cable.

"I would love to hear where TWC says 5-10 min a website should have worked"

What I ment by the above is that if I could connect to the Time warner cable speed test web site before they put me on hold then they didn't care if CNN, Engadget, youtube, fox, or anyother web site came up at all. So even though web pages took a really long time to come up if ever due to high packet loss, tech support didn't care calling my i7 desktop slow even though when ever I tethered my AT&T wireless 3G phone it only took under 1sec to load web pages. (I later lost my AT&T unlimited data plan for doing this over and over for months due to stupid tech support.)

When using this time warner cable connection even google.com thought I was trying to DOS it and cut me off due to the packet loss that at times tested as high as 90%. The lowest it would ever test was 58%.

Yep there lazy because they know we don't have a choice for cable ISP.


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3

said by why60loss:

said by motorola870:

hmm that link is 5 years old it is a little outdated. I would love to hear where TWC says 5-10 min a website should have worked? and no 60% packet loss isn't how cable works seems your area has lazy techs and they charge more in the Carolinas. ever since TWC got the backlash I believe they stopped making those lectures.

Link: »help.twcable.com/twc_misp_aup.html

"•The ISP Service may not be used to engage in any conduct that interferes with TWC's ability to provide service to others, including the use of excessive bandwidth."

What the above means is that if they think you are using to much they can throttle or cut off your service. They don't state how much they count as "excessive bandwidth", so that could be 300GB, 100GB, 80GB, 40GB or what ever they decide it is.

With all the hate they got, I don't think they are going to cut anyone off all together at 40GB but would they throttle youtube, amazon, hulu or netfilx yep they could and there is no way to proof it other than doing a side by side with a different ISP, but then a much of smoke gets thrown in about networking and how it's still the video sites fault that it works just fine though AT&T wireless, but not Time warner cable.

"I would love to hear where TWC says 5-10 min a website should have worked"

What I ment by the above is that if I could connect to the Time warner cable speed test web site before they put me on hold then they didn't care if CNN, Engadget, youtube, fox, or anyother web site came up at all. So even though web pages took a really long time to come up if ever due to high packet loss, tech support didn't care calling my i7 desktop slow even though when ever I tethered my AT&T wireless 3G phone it only took under 1sec to load web pages. (I later lost my AT&T unlimited data plan for doing this over and over for months due to stupid tech support.)

When using this time warner cable connection even google.com thought I was trying to DOS it and cut me off due to the packet loss that at times tested as high as 90%. The lowest it would ever test was 58%.

Yep there lazy because they know we don't have a choice for cable ISP.

since those supposed 40GB soft caps are from when TWC only had a single downstream channel for internet in each area yeah they could of had issues but now with 8 and 16 in some areas it isn't as much a problem as it used to be.

why60loss

join:2012-09-20
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Wireless..
·CenturyLink
·AT&T Wireless Br..

said by motorola870:

said by why60loss:

said by motorola870:

hmm that link is 5 years old it is a little outdated. I would love to hear where TWC says 5-10 min a website should have worked? and no 60% packet loss isn't how cable works seems your area has lazy techs and they charge more in the Carolinas. ever since TWC got the backlash I believe they stopped making those lectures.

Link: »help.twcable.com/twc_misp_aup.html

"•The ISP Service may not be used to engage in any conduct that interferes with TWC's ability to provide service to others, including the use of excessive bandwidth."

What the above means is that if they think you are using to much they can throttle or cut off your service. They don't state how much they count as "excessive bandwidth", so that could be 300GB, 100GB, 80GB, 40GB or what ever they decide it is.

With all the hate they got, I don't think they are going to cut anyone off all together at 40GB but would they throttle youtube, amazon, hulu or netfilx yep they could and there is no way to proof it other than doing a side by side with a different ISP, but then a much of smoke gets thrown in about networking and how it's still the video sites fault that it works just fine though AT&T wireless, but not Time warner cable.

"I would love to hear where TWC says 5-10 min a website should have worked"

What I ment by the above is that if I could connect to the Time warner cable speed test web site before they put me on hold then they didn't care if CNN, Engadget, youtube, fox, or anyother web site came up at all. So even though web pages took a really long time to come up if ever due to high packet loss, tech support didn't care calling my i7 desktop slow even though when ever I tethered my AT&T wireless 3G phone it only took under 1sec to load web pages. (I later lost my AT&T unlimited data plan for doing this over and over for months due to stupid tech support.)

When using this time warner cable connection even google.com thought I was trying to DOS it and cut me off due to the packet loss that at times tested as high as 90%. The lowest it would ever test was 58%.

Yep there lazy because they know we don't have a choice for cable ISP.

since those supposed 40GB soft caps are from when TWC only had a single downstream channel for internet in each area yeah they could of had issues but now with 8 and 16 in some areas it isn't as much a problem as it used to be.

Okay so maybe 40GB per channel so that would be 320GB to 640GB, More or less Comcast's cap range they have been playing around with.

So what is the lesser evil, having "unlimited" with a unclear wall or a limit that is made clear. I would like to see:

a) The "excessive bandwidth" part of the fair use agreement be removed.

B) Or they should define what they think is "Excessive bandwidth".

C) Or if they really can't deal with unlimited use, then soft cap it at a standard limit that is clearly stated.

A lot of ISP can be foggy, but Time warner cable seems to be the most doggy I have seen.

Also some areas only have 4 download and 1 upload channel so the cap on that would be 160GB or almost less than half of what Comcast is testing for there lowest cap of 300GB.


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3

1 edit

honestly TWC hasn't enforced any caps since around 2009 when they were fought back against for trying to do what Comcast got away with. I think we would have gotten a lot complaints here in this forum if TWC was using such a low cap we would have gotten a lot of complaints be we don't I think TWC probably doesn't start looking at any particular user in general until they start downloading or uploading multiple TB a month. 40GB per channel cap isn't even possible as the modem doesn't evenly distribute the bandwidth between the channels it has a primary channel and it will give the primary most of the data and whatever is left the secondaries handle. This is probably why DOCSIS 3.0 modems see dynamic channel changes because if the primary fills up the modem switches to a less full channel for the primary.

Acceptable use probably means no illegal downloading and they can enforce a cap but they usually would put a number behind it if they were doing so. Not to mention throttling has been an issue and I don't think the ISPs have been doing up until now after Comcast got in trouble with the FCC over sandvine.

the only thing I have ever heard of someone with TWC getting a nasty message about their usage was before the six strikes and they got a letter about copyright letter from one of the major players in the media business and this was told to me in around 2010 or 2011 by fellow college classmate.

hmm I have hit 40GB several times in the last 6 months and I haven't heard anything about my usage. Although I have heard my node isn't that congested during peak hours either. I get a full 15/1 24/7 I guess I must be lucky or something. I used to have 30/5 extreme and I would get 35/5.9 constantly 24/7 as well.


Satch

join:2009-11-25

Read somewhere that Comcast would like to buy Direct TV. (If TWC deal is approved.) There has been talk of Dish Network and Direct TV wanting to merge. If that every happens, I see no good can come out of this.

Satch



Racerbob
Premium
join:2001-06-24
Webster, NY
kudos:1

I do not see where the government would allow this to happen.



Newshund

@verizon.net
reply to Satch

Post a link satch. Fact is Comcast wants last mile wired network into home for Internet. They're not interested long term of satellite or any wireless company.


why60loss

join:2012-09-20
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Wireless..
·CenturyLink
·AT&T Wireless Br..
reply to motorola870

said by motorola870:

honestly TWC hasn't enforced any caps since around 2009 when they were fought back against for trying to do what Comcast got away with. I think we would have gotten a lot complaints here in this forum if TWC was using such a low cap we would have gotten a lot of complaints be we don't I think TWC probably doesn't start looking at any particular user in general until they start downloading or uploading multiple TB a month. 40GB per channel cap isn't even possible as the modem doesn't evenly distribute the bandwidth between the channels it has a primary channel and it will give the primary most of the data and whatever is left the secondaries handle. This is probably why DOCSIS 3.0 modems see dynamic channel changes because if the primary fills up the modem switches to a less full channel for the primary.

Acceptable use probably means no illegal downloading and they can enforce a cap but they usually would put a number behind it if they were doing so. Not to mention throttling has been an issue and I don't think the ISPs have been doing up until now after Comcast got in trouble with the FCC over sandvine.

the only thing I have ever heard of someone with TWC getting a nasty message about their usage was before the six strikes and they got a letter about copyright letter from one of the major players in the media business and this was told to me in around 2010 or 2011 by fellow college classmate.

hmm I have hit 40GB several times in the last 6 months and I haven't heard anything about my usage. Although I have heard my node isn't that congested during peak hours either. I get a full 15/1 24/7 I guess I must be lucky or something. I used to have 30/5 extreme and I would get 35/5.9 constantly 24/7 as well.

No the acceptable use list illegal downloads apart from using what they deem "the use of excessive bandwidth". They claim on there web site there is no such thing as over use, yet why put this in the TOS. Guess that's what all the wireless guys did to. At lest internet from them in my case cost less and has better speeds.

Here is the part 1 about illegal/copyright:

%u2022The ISP Service may not be used to upload, post, transmit or otherwise make available any materials or content that violate or infringe on the rights or dignity of others. These include, but are not limited to, materials infringing or compromising intellectual property rights or the ability to maintain trade secrets and other personal information as private; the ability to avoid hate speech; threats of physical violence; harassing conduct; sexually oriented material that is offensive or inappropriate; and unsolicited bulk e-mail. To review Time Warner Cable's copyright repeat infringer and DMCA notice and takedown policies, please see Abuse Reporting: Copyright Infringement Complaints.

Here is the rest of it link: »help.twcable.com/twc_security_abuse.html

A 40GB and 250GB cap are worlds apart so I can see how one would kind of work and the other would be covered up in the dark to ensure the fog blinds the paying customer from the truth.

If this deal fails Time warner cable will do a soft cap in non maxx markets and those who do get maxx service will end up paying more for it. If the FCC doesn't play ball, they will find a way to make up for there "loss".

I am sure that if you were to fully use the upload for more than a week non stop, Time warner cable would do something to your connection for breaking the fair use part of the TOS.

There is only but so much bandwith on a node and if you live in a market that is TWC well they are going to "network manage" that one guy who uses a lot than like well upgrade the old rotting stuff that can't handle high use.

Really I think looking at how each business has dealt with there internet plans, Comcast is a speed leader and for business class a cost per mbs leader. Time warner cables customer service was only rated higher than AT&T, they couldn't beat anyone else even the "evil" Comcast. When I look at the way the business has been run it's just shameful on every front.

They should have been able to become the #1 cable business and be a speed leader. But they have doomed them self's to the fate of AOL a business they were stupid to buy I may add.

In the end vote with your money. I cut all the cords and am a wireless only person. (Open wifi or my "unlimited" 4GLTE only.)

If every one picked up and moved into a house hooked up with google fiber and shared the bill. Then we may see some real change. Though it would be hard for every one to fit into such a limited number of homes.


Satch

join:2009-11-25
reply to Newshund

said by Newshund :

Post a link satch. Fact is Comcast wants last mile wired network into home for Internet. They're not interested long term of satellite or any wireless company.

I only saw one link regarding Comcast might be interested in Direct TV, but it has not been reproduced elsewhere. Author may have misinformation.

Satch


decided

@verizon.net

1 recommendation

Comcast is going thru enough scrutiny tryin to acquire anon competitor. Attempting to buy DirecTV a direct competitor would never pass FCC DOJ


Satch

join:2009-11-25

1 recommendation

Why60loss said:
They should have been able to become the #1 cable business and be a speed leader. But they have doomed them self's to the fate of AOL a business they were stupid to buy I may add.

***************************

Has TWC forgotten the disaster that was the AOL Merger? This forced a break-off in later years, because AOL was so bad.

Satch



DannyZ
Gentoo Fanboy
Premium
join:2003-01-29
Erie, PA

said by Satch:

But they have doomed them self's to the fate of AOL a business they were stupid to buy I may add.

Uhhh, AOL bought Time Warner, not the other way around. Further, Time Warner Cable was a subsidiary of Time Warner. TWC had no control over that deal at all.
--
Out the 10BaseT, through the modem, down the co-ax, over the fiber, across the backhaul, past the edge router, off the network...nothing but net


Rojo_P

join:2001-10-03
Lancaster, OH
reply to Satch

said by Satch:

I am not so sure this is going to be approved. Hopefully it is not.

Approval has already been purchased

"Comcast money has flowed to all but three members of the Senate Judiciary Committee"
"Comcast has canvassed the two congressional panels that chiefly regulate cable, broadband and other telecom issues, donating to practically every lawmaker there "
--
There's nothing big I want to prove,
No mountains that I need to move,
Or even claim what's right or true for you.


tonyram57

join:2001-11-08
Brooklyn, NY
reply to swintec

One good thing if Comcast buys TWC is there will no longer be confusion of the name TWC being The Weather Channel or other many aliases.



motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3
reply to Rojo_P

said by Rojo_P:

said by Satch:

I am not so sure this is going to be approved. Hopefully it is not.

Approval has already been purchased

"Comcast money has flowed to all but three members of the Senate Judiciary Committee"
"Comcast has canvassed the two congressional panels that chiefly regulate cable, broadband and other telecom issues, donating to practically every lawmaker there "

hmm the thing that might block the deal is individual states saying no to the deal and it looks like the state of NY may be the one that shuts the deal down:

»www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2···le-deal/


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS

said by motorola870:

hmm the thing that might block the deal is individual states saying no to the deal and it looks like the state of NY may be the one that shuts the deal down:

»www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2···le-deal/

What if they keep NY out of the equation then and deal those systems separately later on.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts


Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

the NY legislation has to do with writing new verbiage that encompass oil and gas development - remember NY is a strong anti-fracking state next to a pro fracking pennsylvania, so many other states are looking to incorporate similar verbiage into their own pending legislation - that fact that it may impact the comcast deal just means these two merger partners will have to make a far stronger and more definitive case for the net BENEFIT of said merger then they have till now.



swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS

said by Packeteers:

will have to make a far stronger and more definitive case for the net BENEFIT of said merger then they have till now.

Soooo you mean just give a bit more money to the NY politicians?
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts


Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1

these days ny is a pretty liberal state with too many watchdog groups for much corruption to seep in. if you want corruption, you best go to new jersey or pennsylvania where the graft is legendary.



jacko15

@rr.com

Go to Washington D.C., that's where everything is bought and payed for.



rchandra
Stargate Universe fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
reply to swintec

Amusingly enough, I saw this in my G+ stream today

»plus.google.com/1136790911045698···RKbvbCLK

Another horrible exploit affecting more than half the world's web browsers, Comcast buys Time Warner Cable, Microsoft gives details about its Xbox-exclusive TV shows and movies, and more.
It made me think the deal had completed. I would think if that were so, it'd be plastered alll over the BBR front page. More likely than not, I'm going to guess some twit at TWiT thought that'd be a good way to announce the Charter-Comcast deal.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.

Jeopardy! replies and randomcaps REALLY suck!

System
reply to swintec

This topic has been un-stickied by dbmaven See Profile