I have never had any problem with them other than them taking away NFL network...please elaborate why?
2006-12-19 09:58:15 · 7 answers · asked by KBB24 2 in Consumer Electronics ➔ TiVO & DVRs
Time-Warner cable is a damn site better then Comcast cable in Chicago!
2006-12-19 10:07:46 · answer #1 · answered by TheWeeKiwi 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I live in an area of Los Angeles that switched over from Comcast to Time Warner. TWC was already in some areas of the L.A. market before they took over the Adelphia systems and made the swap for the Comcast systems. Anyways, I had Time Warner cable once before and it wasn't a bad experience, and they did eventually added channels that I wanted to see (such as TV Land and WGN). Now, as TWC is reconfiguring its channel lineups for the entire L.A area that serves, they were giving us the impression that we were getting the exact same channel lineup across the board. However, I came to discover that not everyone will have the same channels all the way around.
As far as the NFL Network situation, I understand TWC's stance on putting NFL Network on digital (where it should belong, IMO), but what not too many people are talking is that Time Warner (along with the major cable operators) really want to carry the NFL Sunday Ticket package that's only exclusive to DirecTV. You already have seasonal pay-per-view packages with the NBA, NHL, and Major League Baseball, plus college sports. I know that the NFL is arguably the country's most popular sport, but why should it be any different than the other sports leagues.
2006-12-20 12:17:02 · answer #2 · answered by MrMadmanLA 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All cable companies are hated. Most have a monopoly because the local govenrment only allows one cable operator. Even without the city making such decisions there are few places where multiple cable companies would invest in the cable system needed to serve customer swhen they migh t have to split those customers with a competitor.
Now the question is - do we hate monopoly suppliers because the monopoly makes the company not try as hard and lowers the quality of their product? Or, it is because we just think there has to be a better choice and there isn't anybody there to show us that the alternative just sucks in a different way?
2006-12-20 20:54:53 · answer #3 · answered by Mike 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've had good experiences with them. I didn't realize they ever had NFL Network, but I since Comcast bought them I've heard they will have it in January. That doesn't help much for this football season.
My only service interruptions have been when some construction moron has cut lines ... even stayed online during Hurricane Katrina.
The only issue I can think of is that it took 3 technicians to help when I was getting no audio through my hdmi connection - this turned out to be a menu setting on my hd box...
I could spend less w/ Satellite, but I require a broadband connection for vpn access to my network at work & I've heard satellite has latency issues ...
2006-12-20 15:45:00 · answer #4 · answered by jamesonlagnaf 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here in Milwaukee,WI we only have Time Warner Cable as a cable provider. I pay about $155 a month. Thats expensive or maybe cause have have 3 DVR boxes and all the premium movie channels (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, TMC, Starz, Encore.)
2006-12-20 12:24:30 · answer #5 · answered by ☺#1 Packers Fan☺ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They cost too much. Their customer service stinks. It takes them forever to send out a repair person. They call and try to get you to sign up for the movie package all the time.
2006-12-19 18:00:28 · answer #6 · answered by Geoff S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
its just ridiculously expensive, its double the price of the other cable company here in KC where i live. DOUBLE, for the same exact channels. greedy bastards.
2006-12-19 18:02:12 · answer #7 · answered by EllisFan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋