| |tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
said by iansltx:i have received nothing but great service from cox. there have been small bumps along the way for me in the phoenix area (chandler, mesa, and tempe specifically), but i've always been able to reach the techs through this website and have my issues addressed.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't everyone here prefer Cox to TWC? I mean, at least Cox upgrades their networks once in awhile. TWC...not quite as much. Many areas stop at 15/2 or lower speeds...and rate hikes are everywhere.
i would be very upset if twc takes over the phoenix market -- especially if qwest can't provide vdsl at my address.
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."
Santa Monica, CA
·Time Warner Cable
said by aztecnology:I've dealt with Cox, TWC, Charter and Comcast.
Devastating news. When Comcast and TW swapped areas a couple years ago in SoCal everything went to shit.
I hated TW. Lucky for me I moved around the corner to where FiOS was served about a year after...
TWC has, in the past two years, proven to be the best of breed, with Cox a mild second-place, and Comcast trailing as expected.
TW continues to excel for us in a dozen households in LA County - and no, I'm not a fan, I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to sign with them (well, Verizon and AT&T's complete, total, neglectful and arrogant failure to perform helped in several instances.)
Re: Highly unlikely
said by BillRoland:I completely agree unless Cox wants to acquire TWC. Why would the Cox family sell off the crown jewels so to speak and keep the rest. One non-merger possibility is an alliance in dealing (20 Million subscribers is a lot of clout) with the content providers and ever increasing programming costs.
Not to mention the cable services group for Cox Enterprises is about the only future bright spot, with news media in decline.
They may swap some systems, they may (this is the likely scenario on my mind) swap and share information and technology, but I think a full scale merger is very unrealistic.
| |fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
Re: Cox Cleveland
said by AZ_OGM:hrrmmm
Cox does have a huge presence in the Arizona desert. The I-10 corridor from Buckeye to Green Valley is all Cox. We have road runners in the desert, I don't want them running my internet.
said by fiberguy:I love when people come in to point out the typical exception to the rule.
This is somewhat consistent
all over the country. Cox doesn't really
"dominate" any one area... they usually have
one of the big boys as a neighbor. In So Cal, where Time Warner Cable owns pretty much the southern half of the state, Cox has the San Diego area.. so the same could be said there.
Well, Cox does pretty much dominate Rhode Island, but is there really much to be said about the city of Rhode Island?
My post/reply was to another arm-chair analyst stating that cox in Ohio would be among the first because they're really out there and all by themselves with no one else around them.... which, as I was saying, is usually the case where ever they serve.
| |kd6caeP2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
TWC Socal needs to improve big time! I recently moved from Lancaster, a TWC Socal service area, to Bakersfield, which is served by Brighthouse but still uses the Roadrunner network. TWC is still unwilling to offer anything faster than 15/2 in any Socal service area, while here in Bakersfield, Brighthouse has at least upped the downstream to 20 megabits on it's top tier. How come TWC, which is using the exact same network isn't willing to at least do that much? Just like portions of Bakersfield, Uverse exists with it's 24/3 top package in some areas, and even FIOs has a presence in portions of Socal, yet TWC doesn't want to budge from the top 15/2 offering? Seems odd to me. If Cox were to take over those areas, I'd think Cox may consider upgrading speeds at least, I mean isn't their top tier 20/3 or something like that?