dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Time Warner Cable Earnings Again Beat Estimates
And again without having to switch to metered billing...
by Karl Bode 09:47AM Thursday Aug 05 2010
You might recall that last year, Time Warner Cable insisted they needed to move from a flat-rate broadband pricing model to a system of low caps and steep overages out of financial necessity, given flat-rate broadband pricing simply wasn't "sustainable." Shortly after consumers slapped the idea down, Time Warner Cable posted their most profitable quarter ever earlier this year. Time Warner Cable's second quarter earnings again beat most analysts expectations, with net income rising 8.2 percent to $342 million. The company lost 111,000 basic video subscribers, though 50,000 customers signed up for digital video service. The company also added 85,000 and 63,000 phone customers.

view:
topics flat nest 
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

1 edit

1 recommendation

Sigh

Just funneling away money from customers into the hands of affluent shareholders, with no real effort or innovation produced as a byproduct of the monetary transfer.

A government-build network run at cost would be much more efficient, employ just as many people, and save people a great deal of money that they can then spend on the local economy.

Even if the FCC's caved in to incumbent political pressure, you'd think they would at least give lip service to the encouragement of municipal or state broadband throughout the country.
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

Re: Sigh

yes, having a monopoly is almost as good as being a bank these days.

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

3 recommendations

said by sonicmerlin:

A government-build network run at cost would be much more efficient, employ just as many people, and save people a great deal of money that they can then spend on the local economy.
Absolutely! It would be a mirror example of how much more efficient the US Postal service is compared to UPS and Fedex. Oh wait....
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: Sigh

said by wifi4milez:

said by sonicmerlin:

A government-build network run at cost would be much more efficient, employ just as many people, and save people a great deal of money that they can then spend on the local economy.
Absolutely! It would be a mirror example of how much more efficient the US Postal service is compared to UPS and Fedex. Oh wait....
The US postal service *is* significantly more efficient than UPS and Fedex. Do those private corporations have to deliver letters to the middle of nowhere, Arizona for 35 cents? USPS was always supposed to run at cost, and looking at its overall existence its finances are quite strong.

DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:17

1 edit

2 recommendations

Re: Sigh

said by sonicmerlin :

The US postal service *is* significantly more efficient than UPS and Fedex. Do those private corporations have to deliver letters to the middle of nowhere, Arizona for 35 cents? USPS was always supposed to run at cost, and looking at its overall existence its finances are quite strong.
Umm.... the USPS won't deliver letters to the middle of nowhere Arizona for 35 cents either, it's at least 44 cents now.

The USPS was almost 3.8 BILLION in the red last year, it would have been more than 7 BILLION but legislation cut payments to their retiree health fund:
»www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/ar09html/ar_1_003.htm

They've been BILLIONS in the red for the last 3 years and it's getting worse.

From the 2009 yearly report issued by the USPS:
Our ability to generate sufficient cash flows is substantially dependent on our ability to execute strategies to increase efficiency, reduce costs and generate revenue.

The Postal Service incurred a net loss of $3,794 million for the year ended September 30, 2009. This followed a net loss of $2,806 million for the year ended September 30, 2008. A significant portion of the 2009 loss is attributed to the unprecedented decline in mail volume, which fell by 25.6 billion pieces, resulting in a $6,842 million or 9.1% decrease in revenue, compared to 2008. The decline in mail volume is primarily attributable to the breadth and depth of the economic recession, which has affected all sectors of the economy and all classes of mail. In fact, while electronic diversion of mail is a long-established trend that is expected to continue to depress annual mail volumes, there is some evidence that the recession has accelerated the diversion of First-Class Mail, overnight documents and direct mail advertising. Looking ahead to 2010, we expect mail volume to further decline. While forecasting in this recession has become extremely difficult, our operational plan in 2010 predicts a mail volume decline by another 10-15 billion pieces from 2009 levels, and we foresee a net loss of over $7 billion. It is possible that mail volumes could decrease at a rate greater than this projection.

We experienced negative cash flow from operations in two of the past three years. In 2009, we were able to fund obligations, through increased debt and a $4 billion reduction to our PSRHBF payment that passed Congress on September 30, 2009, and was signed into law by the President on October 1. Our annual net increase in debt is limited by statute to $3 billion, and total outstanding debt is capped at $15 billion. Our debt at September 30, 2009, was $10.2 billion. We currently project net debt outstanding at the end of 2010 to increase by $3 billion, but this may not be sufficient to fund all obligations. If significant losses continue in 2011, the overall $15 billion debt limitation will likely become insufficient.

We believe that, while there are sufficient cash flows for ongoing operations, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether we will have sufficient cash on September 30, 2010, to fund our required $5.5 billion PSRHBF payment. If we cannot fund this payment on September 30, 2010, we will experience a cash shortfall. There is also uncertainty as to what the legal and/or regulatory consequences would be to the Postal Service if we cannot fund this PSRHBF payment. We will continue to inform the Congress on our financial outlook and on legislative changes that would help ensure the availability of cash at year-end. However, there can be no assurance that adjustments to the PSRHBF payment schedule will be granted by September 30, 2010, or at all.

In light of these liquidity issues, in July 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) listed the Postal Service as one of its “high risk” government agencies. In its report, Restructuring the U.S. Postal Service to Achieve Financial Viability, GAO recognized what we have been reporting. GAO cited our mounting losses, increasing debt levels and inability to cut costs fast enough to offset the accelerated declines in mail volume and revenue. To achieve financial viability, GAO suggested that the Postal Service develop and implement a broad restructuring plan, noting that many initiatives would require Congressional support.
If TWC were run like the USPS they'd be bankrupt, bought, and sold by now...

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Sigh

said by DrDrew:

Umm.... the USPS won't deliver letters to the middle of nowhere Arizona for 35 cents either, it's at least 44 cents now.
And the only reason the USPS can deliver a letter to Nothing, AZ for 44 cents is because it delivers tons of local mail in every major US city for 44 cents.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
said by sonicmerlin:

The US postal service *is* significantly more efficient than UPS and Fedex. Do those private corporations have to deliver letters to the middle of nowhere, Arizona for 35 cents? USPS was always supposed to run at cost, and looking at its overall existence its finances are quite strong.
"I mean, if you think about -- if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems." - President Obama, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on 08/11/2009.

»www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_off···mpshire/
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
said by sonicmerlin:

USPS was always supposed to run at cost, and looking at its overall existence its finances are quite strong.
Quite strong??? Have you consumed copious amounts of hallucinogens and other mind altering substances this morning, or are you just a popinjay?
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

85,000?

I assume the 85,000 were HSI customers added?

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

1 edit

1 recommendation

Re: 85,000?

Ways to make profits:

1. Cut staff/support
2. Charge more for less (CATV channels are disappearing)
3. Rate hike season (channels, a-la carte programming, hardware fees)
4. Triple (quad) play - brings in more revenue at least.
5. Push for 'On Demand' services
6. Metered billing.
7. Holding off on upgrades (Docsis 3.0)

Docsis 1.x works ok in L.A.



--
Canada = Hollywood North

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

Re: 85,000?

said by en102:

Ways to make profits:

1. Cut staff/support
2. Charge more for less (CATV channels are disappearing)
3. Rate hike season (channels, a-la carte programming, hardware fees)
4. Triple (quad) play - brings in more revenue at least.
5. Push for 'On Demand' services
6. Metered billing.
7. Holding off on upgrades (Docsis 3.0)

Docsis 1.x works ok in L.A.



well that is because the CMTS has 4 downstream channels

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

3 recommendations

Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

There seems to be some fundamental misunderstanding of how to read a financial statement.

Q1 results showed a net income of $214m on $4599m in revenue. So their profit margin for the quarter was 4.65% (less than 5 cents profit for every dollar they took in)

Q2 results show a net income of $342m on $4734m in revenue. The 8% increase in net income is compared to Q2 of 2009, which relates to their 5.8% increase in revenue compared to Q2 of 2009. So their net income increased slightly faster than their rate of revenue growth, so indeed they are getting more profitable.

Profit margin Q2 2009: 7.06%
Profit margin Q2 2010: 7.22%

Wow. They're making just over 7 cents of profit for every dollar they take in. Yeah, that's just runaway profit right there. </sarcasm>

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

Re: Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

said by espaeth:

Wow. They're making just over 7 cents of profit for every dollar they take in. Yeah, that's just runaway profit right there. </sarcasm>
Did you forget what site you are on? The mindset here is a company is only allowed to make so much money.

Honestly, I think DSLR makes to much $$$. I propose all the advertising that is displayed for guests and some members should be limited to being shown only for 20 days out of the month and that there should be a cap on how many users can upgrade to premium...capped at 100 per month.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

texans20
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Texas!

Re: Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

said by swintec:

said by espaeth:

Wow. They're making just over 7 cents of profit for every dollar they take in. Yeah, that's just runaway profit right there. </sarcasm>
Did you forget what site you are on? The mindset here is a company is only allowed to make so much money.

Honestly, I think DSLR makes to much $$$. I propose all the advertising that is displayed for guests and some members should be limited to being shown only for 20 days out of the month and that there should be a cap on how many users can upgrade to premium...capped at 100 per month.
What's even more ironic is the fact many people will complain about a company like Time Warner making a low 7% yet they'll post from their Apple Macbook Pro which rakes in about 20% profit or nearly three times as much as Time Warner.
brad152

join:2006-07-27
Phoenix, AZ
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

Re: Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

well at least the Apple/Mac line of stuff is of Quality and not crap like Time Warner gives out, i recall paying them over $100/mo for a year for cable and internet, and my service going out several times a week (i had quad rg-6 throughout the house so it was not my wiring) and fuzzy/missing channels, roadrunner dropouts, etc...

so when you recieve the quality of service that you do from someone like Time Warner, then yeah, you will complain about the profit being made.

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

1 recommendation

Re: Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

said by brad152:

(i had quad rg-6 throughout the house so it was not my wiring)..
The type of wiring you had means nothing. All of the issues you stated have to do with poor signal levels. The source of that could be anywhere though.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts
brad152

join:2006-07-27
Phoenix, AZ
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

Re: Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

exactly, it was the late-70's coax main line they have ran through a majority of my city that they refuse to upgrade to actually provide usable service.. that was my point.

And yes, if i was using old RG59 wiring, then yes i could see my signal issues as it has issues in most things this day and age.
Happydude32
Premium
join:2005-07-16
kudos:1
Time Warner is nothing but quality. Blazing fast internet, crystal clear calling and one of the most innovative MSOs around when it comes to HD deployment. All with rock solid reliability. After over seven years with satellite (overrated crap) and a life time of dial up, got Road Runner in 2004, Digital Cable in 2006 and Digital Phone this past April. Very few times have I ever needed service, and the few times I did it wasn't their fault and they were out here to fix it promptly. Anywhere from being out here within 2 hours to next day service. Can't really complain.

Super fast internet with no slowdowns, great calling features, one of the best HD channel line ups around, I love it! TV and internet are my life, I feel like I should be paying much more than the $300/month I currently pay for cable services, for the quality I get I should be paying $400 maybe even $500 a month. I'm glad to see they're making a profit. Not sure why people on this site can't grasp the concept that businesses are not charity cases, they should be setting record profits every quarter.

Apple on the otherhand. Yeah they're 'quality' alright. Let's make a cell phone that can't make calls when you hold it. Evo > iPhone. Android > iOS. 'Nuff said. 1 iPhone and 2 iPods are plenty for one lifetime, I'll never own another Crapple product again as long as I live.
--
Time Warner Cable Subscriber, Fanboy, Shill & Lover - Providing an advanced fiber network since before fiber became popular
Sprint Subscriber, Fanboy, Shill & Lover - America’s most dependable 3G network, first 4G network, best push to talk network
brad152

join:2006-07-27
Phoenix, AZ
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

Re: Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

obviously it's not "nuff said" as that saying is always used when there's always more to say on the issue.

the main issue with the "phone" is at&ts garbage network, low and behold when i pop a T-Mobile SIM into an iPhone, all of the signal problems magically disappear and my phone works flawlessly... coincidence i think not.

And im glad you are one of the few people that think TWC is reliable, i've had them in LA, OH (Columbus), NYC, and a few other places, and their service is way over rated IMO (still not as bad as Cox, but that's a different story). Everyone i know has had some sort of billing horror story with TWC that i know, including myself. Now my Dish Network bill has never been over $60 for cable in three rooms with HD and DVR, and my TWC bill was ~80 for the same thing, and when i was missing channels and such (in all but one market i used TWC i had these issues, at least Cox i got all of my channels clear as could be) and my RR service was going out every few weeks or so for a few hours, DSL has proven to be a much more reliable system for me, and with a 40Mbps down/5Mbps up, TWC could not even touch that with a 10 foot pole if they wanted too.

FLATLINE

join:2007-02-27
Buffalo, NY
What? So now its our fault they are trying support one more system than they need? Lets face it. The Systems they use to deliver Television is Obsolete and should have already been in the process of transitioning to internet delivery. For all I care they could still charge for both but using a percentage of profits from both to upgrade and maintain one network.

HappyAnarchy

@iauq.com
Yeah, because 7 cents a dollar on a billion dollar industry isn't much profit.

aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

Re: Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

said by HappyAnarchy :

Yeah, because 7 cents a dollar on a billion dollar industry isn't much profit.
it's 7%. Which is a low proft margin.
talz13

join:2006-03-15
Avon, OH
said by espaeth:

Wow. They're making just over 7 cents of profit for every dollar they take in. Yeah, that's just runaway profit right there. </sarcasm>
I'd be glad to take 1% profit on $5 billion

texans20
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Texas!

Re: Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

said by talz13:

said by espaeth:

Wow. They're making just over 7 cents of profit for every dollar they take in. Yeah, that's just runaway profit right there. </sarcasm>
I'd be glad to take 1% profit on $5 billion
So would I. However I'm not running a company, and if I were I'd be upset with a mere 1%. As a shareholder I'd expect more.

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

Re: Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

Exactly.
If I put money into a CD and was told it would yield 1%, I'd look elsewhere. TWC and others work on the same principle. If ROI isn't high enough, they'll lose investors, and the stock will drop.

autoshopguy

@myvzw.com
Profit margins vary widely among different industries.

The grocery business sees just 2 or 3 cents profit on most items you buy, while many retailers have near 100% or more mark up.

With marketing tricks and varied products and services it is difficult to speculate a companies success on profit margin alone.

My 2 cents worth.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42
You're missing the point. I think intentionally. Nobody's dictating how much profit Time Warner Cable should make. That's a straw man.

Time Warner Cable previously indicated that flat rate broadband pricing wasn't sustainable financially. Here we have repeated evidence that this isn't the case, all while Time Warner Cable stock has risen 40% this year largely on the faith of investors who like the financials. So....

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

Re: Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

said by Karl Bode:

Time Warner Cable previously indicated that flat rate broadband pricing wasn't sustainable financially. Here we have repeated evidence that this isn't the case, all while Time Warner Cable stock has risen 40% this year largely on the faith of investors who like the financials. So...
But that's a weak argument as well because it's short term growth.

To draw an analogy, the quantity of oil on Earth is fixed, and the argument has been raised that we could face shortages within our lifetime. Knowing this, it makes sense to start to look at alternate options now so that we're not forced to make bad decisions in a panic when our back is really against the wall.

You're essentially arguing that because the price of regular unleaded at my local gas station went down this month that any concerns about oil shortages are completely false because the drop in price clearly shows that supply is outpacing demand.

Just because TWC was profitable last quarter doesn't mean that will continue to be the case if demand keeps growing at its current pace and revenue doesn't track accordingly to create capacity. There isn't going to be a capacity crunch this year, probably not next year either, but at some point companies need to start devising strategies to attack this problem.

a333
A hot cup of integrals please

join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY

Re: Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

Bad analogy... oil is a limited quantity that WILL run out at some point... backbone / last-mile capacity is not. Unlike oil, capacity on a broadband network (backbone or last mile) can be upgraded by denser DWDM (if it's a backbone issue) along with upgraded core routers and line cards. On the last mile, capacity can be (with somewhat higher expense / difficulty) be upgraded through removal of analog channels, node splits, edge bandwidth upgrades, DOCSIS 3.0, channel bonding, and further compression of HD channels using more efficient codecs. Ultimately, TW also has the option of slowly switching to an active FTTH network. They actually have quite an advantage over telcos, since a lion's share of their network is ALREADY fiber, all the way up to the CMTS. Case in point: Unlike oil, which we KNOW is a FINITE resource, broadband capacity, at least for the next few decades, is DEFINITELY not. While TW is whining about these upgrades and attempting to justify completely absurd usage-based plans (with over 10x bandwidth cost markup), they don't seem to realize that these upgrades are a fact of life in the telecom industry. You simply cannot survive by turning over all of your profits to investors and executives, leaving little for capex.
Now, it's not as if I don't support metered billing. However, TW's twisted version of it it a con act, pure and simple. IMO, the future either lies in uncapped (bandwidth-wise) and metered-by-usage, or the current unlimited and rate-limited system. Also, for metered billing to succeed, TW needs to realize that customers simply won't accept wildly marked-up overages per-GB. Many would say that these markups cover the supposed cost of the last-mile. However, it is my impression that that's the point of the initial per-month fixed cost. Just like electrical companies charge a fixed rate just for the line and overall maintenance, TWC ought to charge around $30 - $ 40 for the line itself, along with say, 50 - 75 GB of included data usage, with an overage of around $0.10 per GB. They could also make a killing selling extra usage in bulk. Obviously, TW executives are absolutely terrified of taking this fair route, since it would actually result in a DROP in profits. Solution? Make insanely low caps and outrageous overages, and subsequently go around "educating the consumer". Brilliant...
--
Physics: Will you break the laws of physics, or will the laws of physics break you?
If physicists stand on each other's shoulders, computer scientists stand on each other's toes, and computer programmers dig each other's graves.

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

Re: Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

I was using the oil analogy to describe forward looking strategy, not directly relating it to bandwidth being a limited quantity.

Yes, capacity can always be added for additional cost. The problem will result when the cost of augmenting capacity exceeds the revenue generated under the current pricing model.

I don't want to get specifically into TWC's test implementation of metered billing because enough data simply isn't available to make an educated evaluation of how "fair" that was structured. People like to relate the costs of operating a DOCSIS network to that of providing bandwidth in a carrier neutral data center facility. The equipment, design, and support models are completely different. That's like trying to compare the manufacturing production costs of producing shoes in a sweat shop in China to manufacturing shoes in a shop in Seattle that pays its workers a living wage. The shoes from the Seattle shop would indeed cost more, but that doesn't necessarily mean the profit margins are higher.

pizz
1gbps is all the rage.
Premium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

Re: Most profitable quarter ever... what?!

7% isn't bad in this industry. Plus breaking away from Time Warner, this isn't too bad at all. When they were trying to get it's customer base to accept low caps and high overages, they claimed they had no choice but they wouldnt be 'able to turn a profit' etc..
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree. Dont you want to grow up and be just like me.

a333
A hot cup of integrals please

join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
I actually addressed that very point in my post. Once again, the ideal billing model would take ALL last-mile costs into account in the fixed monthly fee all subscribers pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the last-mile network. Overages would then cover SOLELY any additional bandwidth required at a cost similar the actual costs at the edge of the backbone.
And BTW, justifications of 40-GB caps on a supposedly "high-end" cable network are quite hard to swallow, especially when small indie ISP's like TekSavvy in Canada can manage to provide caps in the 200+ GB range, and with reasonable (~ $0.10 / GB) overages without having to "educate" the consumer. Even Comcast here in the states has a 250 GB cap that will hopefully grow due to competition from companies like Verizon.

Again, I am not an all-you-can-eat plan zealot. However, I, along with others simply consider Time Warner's actions dubious, especially considering that the caps and overages they have set and justified with made-up statistics will actually RAISE many people's broadband bills, while the increased revenues do not go into capex but rather the pockets of CEO's and investors.

-a333
--
Physics: Will you break the laws of physics, or will the laws of physics break you?
If physicists stand on each other's shoulders, computer scientists stand on each other's toes, and computer programmers dig each other's graves.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42

2 edits
You're essentially arguing that because the price of regular unleaded at my local gas station went down this month that any concerns about oil shortages are completely false because the drop in price clearly shows that supply is outpacing demand.
Thank you for telling me I'm arguing something I'm not arguing. First I'm told I'm telling Time Warner Cable how much money they should make (not true), now I'm arguing about oil shortages (both strange and not true)?

Is flat rate broadband pricing sustainable or not? Because again, Time Warner Cable just two quarters ago insisted to everyone it wasn't. Looking at both long and short term ISP numbers it certainly strikes me as a perfectly profitable business both today and tomorrow. References to some unmanageable, looming fantasy capacity implosion have also been repeatedly debunked as untrue constructs of PR and policy folk.

••••

kingdome74
Let's Go Orange
Premium
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Nice

Record profits while having the useful idiots smear anyone who mentions caps. As I said two years ago when I was called every name in the book I guaranteed caps. Keep towing the company line because Time Warner loves it.
--
Traudi - 80 Prot Pally, Dyrmaker, baby mage... Gronger, baby hunter for PvP... Alliance Silvermoon.

Anon51

@cwwimax.net

Time Warner Cable

Is this before or after the million dollar bonuses that were given out.?
raydsltech

join:2004-07-04
Concord, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

lost a customer today

I have been a a TW Roadrunner customer for about ten years and have been very happy until today. I have been following closely here on DSL Reports about TW DOCSIS 3 upgrade and I was trilled when Charlotte was upgraded. The last week in July I called TW and asked about the 50 by 5 wide band they said that my neighborhood will be turned up August 4th. On August 3rd I received an email and phone call stating that the Roadrunner will be down for upgrading. The next day I placed my order for the upgrade. The CSR told me how much it was and asked if Friday August 6th between 8 and 9 would be ok. I said that would be great. Well now this is the part of the story that ended my ten year customer relationship. I got a call at around 7 pm the night before my install from Brian. Brian said to me sorry but if you want wide band you must get the complete TW package, phone TV DVRs everything. I told Brian that I only have internet and that you are you are trying to up sell me and that I thought that was terrible. I demanded to speak to a supervisor and he stated that there was not one available. I told Brian that I have been in Telecom for years and one thing is for sure there is always a supervisor. After three or four please holds he said to me that if I want wide band I must get everything bundled or he could not help me. I asked to be transferred to the disconnect department and a nice gentleman by the name of Dan cancelled my service. Please note to all of you out there if you are thinking about TW wide band you might get the same crap that I got.
Racy

join:2001-03-27
Frisco, TX

Re: lost a customer today

wow, that is unbelievable! thanks for the heads up. Maybe I should start the conversation with I want to cancel so that they "upsell" me to a wideband connection lol
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

Every quarter the most profitable quarter

And TWC is raising internet rates in my area by 10% for the second time this year.