dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
3231

neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL

neofate

Premium Member

[HSI] Thoughts on the $200 "Install" Charge for "Ultra" Tier

This is something I've never had to pay because I've always been on the "Ultra" / top tier from Charter as a customer of 15+ years now in Birmingham.

However,.. I'm curious about it.

First exactly how is it enforced?

Is it just for 'new' customers who don't have service?
Is it also for customer already on the base 60/4 plan and wish to go up to 100/5 (Ultra) ?

The fee seems and HAS to be counter intuitive to acquisition and .. frankly.. money.

I'd be really interested to know the actual factual percentage of Charter's "top tier/Ultra" subscribers out of all their BB subscribers. I'd venture a guess of 1-2% (something low) but still 'significant' monetarily as even 1% of millions (of subs) is a lot of money and worth continuing to invest in.

Putting a $200 "install" fee is an obvious turn off,.. and I'm sure it has a rate of 'preventing' those who otherwise were/would go to this speed that is not acceptable. An unacceptable rate would be more than 1 person if I were in 'charge' of such things.

Let's think about it.

Base package (just assume full price for ease) -- $60 [rounded]. Base = 60 Down / 4 Up

Ultra package -- $120. Ultra = 100 Down / 5 Up. (Yes, I know some areas are ever so slightly elevated on the Rx)

But anyone on the Ultra package = 2 base customers. So let's take 1% (probably a fairly safe guess) Ultra sub rate. Let's say they have 5 Million Data Subs (it's a lot more at this point.. but it's just a number). Just 1% of the 5 Million is 50,000 Subs (And I'd venture it's probably 2-4 percent). Nonetheless let's work with just a 1% "ultra" customer rate. Ok now you can double the income rate from these people,.. due to the double price structure. So we're talking 100,000 Subs worth of revenue at a 1% rate.

So at 1% it's 6,000,000 (6 Million Dollars) per month at a 90% + margin. Annually it would be 72,000,000 72 Million Dollars of revenue .. probably netting in excess of 50 Million.

Moreover,.. the 'install' for someone who is an existing customer consists of provisioning. Provisioning consists of pressing a button (basically) to allow X Mac Address of modem to now be 'allowed' to go to the Ultra speeds. Even for a new customer,.. it's still just provisioning -- base provisioning vs. Ultra provisioning is the exact same process -- And can be/is done by some online due to the simplicity of provisioning a modem.

Lastly,.. it's a SERVICE.. for which they are obtaining a never ending monthly fee - The money is always in the residual income from the monthly fee,.. never should emphasis be placed on allowing a customer to be ABLE to pay this monthly fee with an 'installation'.

I don't get it. -- I get money grabs,.. but this one seems very counter productive and should be removed entirely. (Perhaps it is?)
kherr
Premium Member
join:2000-09-04
Collinsville, IL

kherr

Premium Member

i think they really don't care since they don't even list it on the web site ......

mixdup
join:2003-06-28
Alpharetta, GA

mixdup to neofate

Member

to neofate
Of course it's just a money grab, that's the whole point of running a business. The "activation fee" is just a way for them to get extra cash. They don't actually do anything special when you get ultra service, but it's a way they can "offset" the cost of a new modem, node split if necessary, etc. In the end, just making you pay for the capital expenses they might or might not incur.

And, like kherr said, I don't think they care if it keeps people from buying it. They don't advertise it *at all* on their website or bundle builder. You have to know it's available and ask for it. Given how little they market it, they likely explicitly want to keep the numbers low.

neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL

neofate to kherr

Premium Member

to kherr
said by kherr:

i think they really don't care since they don't even list it on the web site ......

Well,.. they've been otherwise 'pre-occupied' -- But they'll follow the lead of Comcast after waiting in the wings for a bit.. they are still #2 and 'size' and WAY down on the "happiness" of customers.

At any rate their website says all over it "Speeds *start* at 60Mbps" -- Fairly clear indication there is more and 60 is the least,.. They've already re-tooled their website due to merger,.. and now they have so many 'pockets' of speeds that are way in excess of their Ultra tier we're used to they have to 'mix' it all in while not giving any impression to people like "us" they have anything faster,.. cause they don't.

Few bits off website:




Though it's clear for any speed beyond the bottom/base tier you have to call them. Which rolls back to this very topic.
neofate

neofate to mixdup

Premium Member

to mixdup
said by mixdup:

Of course it's just a money grab, that's the whole point of running a business.

My point was that this particular minor 'aspect' of Charter's business model is highly flawed. A fee here, fee there.. rental this rental that,.. etc -- Yes, "unnecessary" money grabs -- The prices paid for the service far outweigh a need to push down your 'reputation' in order for X points on the margin.

Charter is immensely profitable .. just combing through their earnings it's quite evident their margins from our monthly fees are absolutely insane.

Yes, from a pure capitalistic business view -- The best margins = the best business sense. However, when you are doing a really poor job of grabbing people in for double the monthly residual income it's not smart. $199 install fee doesn't come close to covering the losses incurred by the blockade effect that has. (Nor does it cover any substantial infrastructure upgrades/maintenance or equipment purchases -- given the model failure.)

My point is there is a much , obvious, better way to market an "ultra" tier which is NOT double speeds, does not cause mass saturation of the network,.. etc -- to grab customers in at double the fee every 30 days.

The website not showing it , imo, is not due to them not wanting people to sign up for it - but because they don't have it available to everyone in their markets/footprint. Charter still has areas that are being upgraded to where markets like ours have been for years and years.

The Birmingham Market is as good as it gets for Charter legacy -- (Aside from the 'rare' test market(s) .. they, well, test their upgrades in before rolling them out to markets ready like ours. ) -- In these test markets some people have had quite a bit faster speeds for several years now due to the whole merger 'stall' occurring.

IE: Had Charter never attempted to acquire TWC and BHN -- They would have been focused on other things all this time -- and we'd probably be with faster speeds right now, guide would be rolled out to every customer, and they'd probably be doing their own spin on what Comcast is doing now.

The Merger could be , in the long run,.. a good thing, or a bad thing for Charter customers. It could make rollouts even slower -- or amp up the revenue / capital of the company and positioning of the company to such a degree (their expectations I'm sure) -- That they have the money to do basically whatever they want (without blowing a lot of money.. if that makes sense). Which would be good,.. as they'd then see Comcast as their indirect competitor (I'm sure Charter's execs would like to be #1 at some point) -- So while Comcast isn't taking Charter subs and vice versa -- There is still a 'sense' of 1 upp'ing the guy just above you in what your company/service(s) can do.

The investors are happy,.. they've been happy -- There's a reason Charter had the capital to spend 80 Billion dollars to grow their company more than 4 times it's size -- Off 'our' monthly fees all these years (and doing a good job running a business, not so good running a service).

Anyhow -- It's interesting there position right now on this Ultra -- the whole Base tier thing is not THAT old.. it's been around for some years now,.. but they've slowly morphed into this model of 1 tier/speed for all -- like internet is standardized and one size fits all. It's a little tough analyzing how successful the model is because of the virtual nil sum factor that exists to create zero private market regulation in the space of Charter's legacy territories (and pretty much the same in it's new TWC/BHN/CHTR setup).

As if they had , had actual private market regulation (aka: Actual competition) their business acumen/models/marketing etc would really be tested.

Which is another topic -- but since we are only just getting into telco being able to compete and won't have any 'significant' footprint (16% in 3 years) -- time will tell.

Though the combined efforts of Google and AT&T alone will make an interesting dynamic for Charter who has not had to compete hardly at all for a long time -- I'd say the combined covered Charter (and other Cable operators) territory by 2020 will be around a 20% range with Fiber optic offerings. The next several years should prove interesting.

samthegam
join:2011-12-10
Monterey Park, CA
eero Wi-Fi System
Hitron EN2251

samthegam

Member

I got Charter and Ultra back in 2011 when the speeds were 60/5. Then they raised the speed to 100/5 then 130/5 for me. I did not have to pay a $200 fee. I pay $102.99 a month with customer owned modem. It has been at least a year since I was told a 300/25 or 50 tier was coming by technicians. Time Warner Cable is in the neighboring city.
SwitchFX
join:2007-09-15
La Canada Flintridge, CA

SwitchFX to neofate

Member

to neofate

Re: [HSI] Thoughts on the $200 "Install" Charge for "Ultra" Tier

Corporate waived my install fees and gave me multi month credit for my troubles over the years. I've heard of some techs waiving the fee if they take a liking to the customer.

I installed my own modem when I first got Charter broadband a long time ago. The tech didn't even have the tools to do the job, and I had to get stuff out of the garage to do his work. SMFH

All I want is triple my current upload speed. That would be amazing.

Pisgah Rider
join:2004-04-08
Inman, SC

1 recommendation

Pisgah Rider to neofate

Member

to neofate
It's there premium service, so they get away with the install charge because the geeks who want the speed will pay it & feel good about it as it's likely the best speed they can get from anyone else.

Another thing is when they first started with the 100meg offering, wasn't the base speed 15 or 30meg? I bet they didn't want a large % of there HSI customers with 100m untill they had there network up to snuff. Just a way to limit things & test the water (there network).

Yeah, its a money grab. But done in a calculated way.

cork1958
Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26

cork1958 to neofate

Premium Member

to neofate
My thoughts on the $200 "Install" Charge for "Ultra" Tier service are it's more of a total rip off than a money grab even!

They got me for a $100 install fee way back in 1997 when they first started their internet service here for the whopping 250kb/125kb speeds, and 3 days later quit charging it. They will NEVER get me like that again.

And as Pisgah Rider says:
It's there premium service, so they get away with the install charge because the geeks who want the speed will pay it & feel good about it as it's likely the best speed they can get from anyone else.
dot854jc
join:2004-06-28
Cleveland, TN

2 recommendations

dot854jc to neofate

Member

to neofate
I have a modem that would easily support this service so all they would have to do is modify the provisioning. Why would I pay them 200 to do that? I refuse to purchase this because of the upgrade fee.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski to neofate

Premium Member

to neofate

Re: [HSI] Thoughts on the $200 "Install" Charge for "Ultra" Tier

When I had new service installed last year their $200 install fee turned me off. I see no reason for the extra money especially since we paid close to $5k to get the line run to the house. The extra speed would be nice, but not $200 fee nice.

mixdup
join:2003-06-28
Alpharetta, GA

mixdup to neofate

Member

to neofate
said by neofate:

My point was that this particular minor 'aspect' of Charter's business model is highly flawed. A fee here, fee there.. rental this rental that,.. etc -- Yes, "unnecessary" money grabs -- The prices paid for the service far outweigh a need to push down your 'reputation' in order for X points on the margin.

I think you missed my point, though, in that given how little they market the Ultra tier, they seem very likely to want to keep the numbers depressed, at least for now.
Chuck_IV
join:2003-11-18
Connecticut

Chuck_IV to dot854jc

Member

to dot854jc

Re: [HSI] Thoughts on the $200 "Install" Charge for "Ultra" Tier

said by dot854jc:

I have a modem that would easily support this service so all they would have to do is modify the provisioning. Why would I pay them 200 to do that? I refuse to purchase this because of the upgrade fee.

Exactly. When I had the 100mbps speed for a year and my deal was coming to an end, they used this fee as a threat that I'd have to pay it if I dropped down and wanted to go back to it later(I dropped down anyway).

There is zero reason to ask for this fee other than a cash grab. It would take the cs rep 2 minutes to change existing people over to the 100mbps speed.

I don't understand this fee at all for existing subs. Because of the ridiculous fee, most won't bother and that is lost revenue of about $30/mo.

Anon00aa4
@charter.com

Anon00aa4 to samthegam

Anon

to samthegam
said by samthegam:

I got Charter and Ultra back in 2011 when the speeds were 60/5. Then they raised the speed to 100/5 then 130/5 for me. I did not have to pay a $200 fee. I pay $102.99 a month with customer owned modem. It has been at least a year since I was told a 300/25 or 50 tier was coming by technicians. Time Warner Cable is in the neighboring city.

And back then their current 60 Mbps tier was 30 Mbps and cost $58 bundled( now $54 ) and if you needed a modem you pay $7 a month for that.
BlakePaulson
join:2008-08-06
Alexandria, MN

BlakePaulson

Member

said by Anon00aa4 :

And back then their current 60 Mbps tier was 30 Mbps and cost $58 bundled( now $54 ) and if you needed a modem you pay $7 a month for that.

Thanks for your history lesson Howsthis9999

Anywho, back when the internet was 15/2, then 18/2 then 30/2 you could do 2 year contracts. I think since 2007 my internet bill never went higher than $39.99 because I would always sign up for 2 year contracts. Then charter did away with contracts and different speed tiers and all that jazz. I switched to 100mbps internet using a 4x4 modem and it was as simple as a phone call (before the $200 fee.)

The $200 fee is and always has been a simple money grab because they can. Most people think 60mbps is fast enough (it is for me and at $39.99 on promo it's affordable too.) Again the problem is upload. Why can't they at least give 20mbps upload for business tiers? I get residential but c'mon, test out that upload speed on the network with the business tiers. I'm sure there'd be so many people who want upload speed switching to business and paying a lot of money for the upload.

At this point if you're not going to get FTTH in your area competing with Charter you're stuck with charter. 60mbps is not as good as 1000mbps but hey, it's better than the alternatives. The real difference is getting upload speed figured out.

Case in point... even though I think their $200 fee is utter BS I'd consider paying it and a significantly higher rate if it meant I'd get 130mbps down and 30mbps up.

They have the ability to make loads of money, they'd just have to put in more capex and I don't think they're willing to do that.

Why spend more money on oranges to get fresh orange juice if you haven't run the rest of the squeezed oranges you already have through a juicer?

KoRnGtL15
Premium Member
join:2007-01-04
Grants Pass, OR

KoRnGtL15 to neofate

Premium Member

to neofate
If they would double the upload. Its just like having 2 lines using 1. I enjoy it and take full advantage of it as it stands now at 130mb/5mb. As for the fee and not advertising. They know the majority will not pay it. And as others said. I think Charter likes keeping it on the down low and concentrate on the 60mb/4mb users. Still find it weird they never mentioned or announced raising Ultra from 100mb to 130mb on the download side. When Ultra finally goes to 300mb/25-50mb. That will be welcome. I really would like to see 300mb/50mb though. Have a feeling Charter will be going with 25mb on the upload side.

neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL

neofate

Premium Member

said by KoRnGtL15:

If they would double the upload. Its just like having 2 lines using 1. I enjoy it and take full advantage of it as it stands now at 130mb/5mb. As for the fee and not advertising. They know the majority will not pay it. And as others said. I think Charter likes keeping it on the down low and concentrate on the 60mb/4mb users. Still find it weird they never mentioned or announced raising Ultra from 100mb to 130mb on the download side. When Ultra finally goes to 300mb/25-50mb. That will be welcome. I really would like to see 300mb/50mb though. Have a feeling Charter will be going with 25mb on the upload side.

First great conversation -- Everything everyone has said is spot on, imo.

Cork: It is a rip off more than a money grab .. well said.

Mixdup: I didn't miss your point,.. and I don't think you missed mine -- I just think we're hitting it from two different perspectives. I get they could be, perhaps likely, are suppressing "ultra" customers due to network concerns.

When I first got Charter 15 ish years ago,.. There was this $99 install fee -- To be honest the contractor who came in and did the work actually did more than $99 of work.. he was quite good, nice, methodical, etc --

Since that time I've learned a lot -- I've even worked in the industry -- The latest home I've been in,.. Charter was setup (ped between every two houses, with a 4 port tap on them.. nicely overbuilt) -- and they never would arrive to 'install' the service (running a drop 20 feet) -- After a couple of days,.. I had done the process myself countless times,.. so I got my Cable "tools" (compression fittings, IT1000, splitters, ground wire, and on and on) -- ped was open,.. and I tested it,.. all was good. So I literally trenched the 20 feet to the area of the new houses with the Coax wires 'hanging' out the brick. Then ran a nice clean drop to it.. put on a Demarc box,.. properly grounded, and so on -- Even put up some grey PVC clamped to house to cover the wire (as it's next to the AT&T equip).

Took a little while because of the trenching (drop and bury same time) -- But I was online that day. Eventually a tech came out a week or so later (even though I had cancelled on the phone) and he 'inspected' things and said .. well there's nothing for me to do here -- He asked if he could come inside to look at the speeds. I was like sure,.. (he was getting paid afterall by Charter) -- and that was that.

[I do not recommend/condone anyone ever attaching a line to a Tap, or opening a Ped -- It's not the customers 'right' to do -- I was just fed up and used to do it professionally (still technically wrong to do so) ]

But again,.. to the $200 install -- It's not like the first time I got broadband and the guy ran a new RG-6 line from demarc to where I wanted the 'new' (sharkfin) modem.. and he spent 1-2 hours doing it right. It's not like they have to come out at all,.. it's a click of a button essentially.

Though,.. to play devil's advocate -- I suppose I'd also be a bit more annoyed (to say the least) if they marketed like crazy ,.. over saturated the network -- and everyone across the footprint had primetime slowdowns due to the higher speeds. (although 60/4 to 100/5 is really not that much different these days).
djoyce101
join:2001-12-14
Rancho Cucamonga, CA

djoyce101 to neofate

Member

to neofate


My solution - Use the $200 towards a MikroTik RB3011 router & SB6183 Modem. Call customer service and have them add it to the account. It's $51 for the second service with no install fee. Bringing my bill to $110 for 130M/8M (well... 130M by 2~8M... my upload had never managed to hold steady at 4M they advertise) So I save $10/month, got a nice router with load balancing (assuming multiple streams) and I get 8M up instead of 5M up.
Flak
join:2002-07-31
Milwaukee, WI

Flak to neofate

Member

to neofate
They always tell me the $200 charge is to cover possible congestion upgrades should it be necessary after I'm put back on the 100mb plan. I haven't been able to get the wife to sign off on that. But I notice that Business now only charges $99 for the same service and pricing structure for my area so I may go that route.

neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL

neofate to djoyce101

Premium Member

to djoyce101
That's a good idea for those who need the overall bandwidth over multiple devices (Having issues with their own bandwidth saturation over multiple simultaneous clients). While I have many different devices utilizes the bandwidth - my need for speed.. (which is primarily upload that hurts timewise) -- I need a singular path. For which dual wan load balancing won't help. :/ -- Be nice if load balancing could actually take the aggregate and create a singular pipe of Speed X 2 per single connection/transfer -- but that's just not possible with the inherent nature of how things work.

On occasion if there is something that has to be transferred/uploaded within a quicker time frame (say it's a 4-5 GB file) -- I've switched over to my cell phone tether to get 15-20Mbps on the upload to reduce that time -- but it obviously has to be used quite sparingly given the 20GB cap on the plan (which is already one of the 'higher' options).

Flak See Profile The whole congestion charge theory is dubious to me. As the shift from 60 to 100, and even less pronounced.. a shift from 4 to 5 on the upload shouldn't make any massive loads on the network.

It's not like the Base users are at 30/2 and Ultra 100/10 or some more 'reasonable' split for the price justification. I'm actually a little surprised they didn't/haven't at least doubled the ultra tier given pricing structure -- to 120/8 (which is well within the capabilities of the plant) -- Even on a single upstream channel -- as they push a 7Mbps upload provision in many markets for business tier at the same price as residential ultra.
hedbert
join:2008-12-04
Saint Paul, MN

1 recommendation

hedbert to neofate

Member

to neofate
Greetings-
I went through the same song and dance with Charter Customer Service. And I said no to the $200 fee.

So then I called Charter Business. Here is what I found.
-Justified it as an IT Professional who is now working from home more
-I needed ports like 80 open

-Same monthly fee as the residential
-Business Customers get priority on the network
-Business Customers get priority truck rolls
-Charter supplies the modem at no additional fee
-Option for static IP
-Many online features such as Linux Web Hosting and backup

I am becoming a Charter Business 100 Mb Ultra Customer.
SwitchFX
join:2007-09-15
La Canada Flintridge, CA

SwitchFX to neofate

Member

to neofate
Aren't most of the Time Warner networks newer/more reliable than Charter or just select parts of the country?

neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL

neofate

Premium Member

said by SwitchFX:

Aren't most of the Time Warner networks newer/more reliable than Charter or just select parts of the country?

I can't answer that with any specificity -- however,.. more reliable,.. no. Newer? ermm.. some -- I wouldn't say most -- All the major cable companies are upgrading/have released some of the upgrades and continuing to increase while Charter has been sitting it's hands during the years leading up to this merger and the rest of this year.. and we won't know if they intend on starting any upgrade process until probably Q1-Q2 of 2017.

But TWC does have faster speeds than Charter -- In a majority of it's footprint,.. I wouldn't 'guess'/'think' so -- but I have no clue. A technician may know - Perhaps in the TWC forum you could find that answer. (Of course they are now Charter/Spectrum but it will be X months before all the dust has settled and branding etc is done).

[Begin irrelevant digression]

Both the CFO and CEO of Charter have been specifically asked during Earnings Call this year about rolling out DOCSIS 3.1 due to what Comcast, (other Cable MSO's), AT&T, etc are doing (and really in general as they are interested in the company making MORE money -- some 'get' that upgrades are one way to ensure that over the intermediate/long term).

The answers have been vague, short,.. and basically they say "We have no plans for upgrades in 2016, . . . We will start to deploy 3.1 modems instead of 3.0 eventually, but we have no plan to do that yet. However over the next 18 months, this platform will become available , at commercially deployable pricing, and we will will then consider transitioning [planning / upgrading] at that point."

Few things there though -- Other Cable MSO's are deploying docsis 3.1 equipment -- and they aren't buying it at "non commercially deployable prices". So it doesn't make a ton of sense.

Charter will be fine either way,.. but I think the acquisitions have blinded them or moreover distracted them from 'keeping up' with the jones' in regards to upgrading the most profitable portion of their company,.. Internet/broadband. So they are right now about 1.5-2 years behind other companies in the same industry - and based on their own words are willing to go 3-4 years behind in their broadband sector.

Thing is the product lines are and have been quickly blurring between simple internet/broadband connectivity and content delivery. High speed internet services are becoming the platform for video (ties directly in with cord cutting continuing to accelerate). - Now is a 'smart' time to upgrade your capacity/speeds due to this and everyone has heard of some of what other players are doing -- Whether it's Google Fibers Gigabit Fiber,.. AT&T's Gigabit fiber,.. Comcast's 300/30 and moving up as they have been actively deploying 3.1, etc..

Charter is , I suppose, just banking on it's history which is a lack of competition,.. and so on.

And honestly,.. while Charter's upload needs to be bumped (they need more than 1 Tx channel/bonding which is 3.0 tech) -- I'm merely a business class customer who is frustrated with the upload speed limiting my productivity -- I don't represent the majority of the customer base which isn't 'happy' (as their rating suggests) as a majority,. but aren't griping about speeds being slow.

That said, I still think it 'wiser' to be upgrading now instead of waiting due to the significant 'movement' going on in the telecom/broadband industry in regards to considerable speed increases/infrastructure changes compared to the last 10-15 years, going forward.

[Digression Over]

JimE
Premium Member
join:2003-06-11
Belleville, IL

JimE to neofate

Premium Member

to neofate
In regards to your digression, Charter has never been the first to implement new technology or higher speeds. They seem content to just keep pace with everyone else.
SwitchFX
join:2007-09-15
La Canada Flintridge, CA

SwitchFX to neofate

Member

to neofate
I should have phrased that differently. I was inquiring on the basis that if TW was capable of sustaining such speed and such service, then Charter wouldn't have to upgrade those networks that could support such speeds and QoS by TW prior to the acquisition/merger. So wouldn't the Church of Charter have to work on their networks and Brighthouse only? Or is it more complicated than that?

neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL

neofate

Premium Member

said by SwitchFX:

I should have phrased that differently. I was inquiring on the basis that if TW was capable of sustaining such speed and such service, then Charter wouldn't have to upgrade those networks that could support such speeds and QoS by TW prior to the acquisition/merger. So wouldn't the Church of Charter have to work on their networks and Brighthouse only? Or is it more complicated than that?

More complicated.

I wish I had schematics in front of me of the infrastructure in each of these 3 footprints.. so have to go on speculation like I said above.

The truth, I honestly don't know -- because I don't know enough of the majority infrastructure of TWC and BHN to answer that question.

That said, I've read several things which line up with Charter working on non legacy areas like TWC and BHN to bring any up to par that need it. Ones that are already at par or above they have cut upgrades that were going on (people not happy about that) and are , in at least a few areas, doing some basic infrastructure beefing to have parity between all three.

I think it's probably not out of the realm of possibility that TWC/BHN are for the most part on par with Charter 60/4 Tier across the board.

Charter is working on the literal logistics of branding employee's, rules/guidelines/policies and standardization of employees top to bottom -- relocation , closing down, and all the things that go with acquiring other MSO's to turn them into your own plants. A lot of little things,.. they played 'hardball' or whatever you want to call it with the employees of the other two companies -- pretty much telling them you do it our way or hit the highway. Though this was reported for a lot of the employees who seemed to not be based in an office/central location and they perhaps thought they were being less than productive with their time (I don't know).

I'd say by beginning of 2017 they should have a good grip on these two companies -- It takes time, but not years to flesh everything out. May-Jan is over 2 Quarters. I haven't heard of any snags thus far,.. so that would lend itself to the plants being in pretty decent shape -- with obviously some being in 'better' shape due to capability they were pushing.

Although just because a plant is pushing faster speed doesn't necessarily mean it is equipped any better.

90%+ Of Charter's regions could push 120-150Mbs/8Mbps without a problem (other than if there is already existing saturation).. but saturation issues need to be cleared with backbone/haul upgrade and sometimes uBR upgrade(s) -- (They can split nodes, but usually it's just a bandwidth issue).

I also have no reason to believe BHN are in poor shape. Here in my city BHN has areas which offering considerably faster speeds than Charter in pockets -- and some parts of BHN were piggy backing on some Charter infrastructure here not that long ago.. I imagine that still existed even if on a small scale.

Again,.. I think looking into the TWC and BHN forums over last year or so and scanning posts might give a glimpse into the problem areas -- as usually the squeaky wheel is the loudest (doesn't necessarily get the grease lol.. but people who are having issues tend to be more vocal than those who want to just brag on how their service is doing what it said it would/advertised it would. )