does anyone have timewarner?

[ducks]

Timewarner bought out adelphia
I liked my internet connection with adelphia
does anyone have timewarner
I want to know if their service sucks :fro

[midgetonadonkey]

I've never had a problem. The only time I had trouble with my internet was when I forgot to pay the bill and they shut it off.

[2Blonde]

We have Time Warner. It works great for us.

[Spurfect]

it is probably the most expensive.. but as far as the service goes, NEVER have had a problem. :tu

[CubanMustGo]

TW bought out ComCrap in Dallas, too. Won't miss those annoying "let's yell at people" ComCrap commercials.

[Taco]

it is probably the most expensive.. but as far as the service goes, NEVER have had a problem. :tu

I agree No Problems but it is expensive

[angel_luv]

:lol

Now you are a Time Warner Customer too! You, me and Gino. :)

[dougp]

TW bought out ComCrap in Dallas, too. Won't miss those annoying "let's yell at people" ComCrap commercials.
Comcast is replacing TW in Houston ... I'm going to attempt to move before that happens because I wanted to ditch my SBC in favor of TW.

DSL blows :depressed

[TDMVPDPOY]

wat sort of connection you guys get?? and cap plan?

[ducks]

I have it at work not at the house

at work right now I get between 3.63 Mbps and up to 7
usually closer to 3.6
I can not complain at all. has been reliable.
at the house it would be $6-
the business pays $130 and but that comes with the best level of tech support and they are suppose to come to the business the same day if it goes down
(the sun melted the cable before) and a static ip address
I hope it does not go up

[Please_dont_ban_me]

Look into "Roadrunner Lite".

I'm not sure it's available to anybody who wants it, but we were offered it. It's a good $15 a month less than regular Roadrunner and the speed isn't anywhere near dial-up. It's just a slightly slower version cable...well worth the $15 less per month.

[phyzik]

Look into "Roadrunner Lite".

I'm not sure it's available to anybody who wants it, but we were offered it. It's a good $15 a month less than regular Roadrunner and the speed isn't anywhere near dial-up. It's just a slightly slower version cable...well worth the $15 less per month.


RR lite is available to anyone, they just dont advertise it. Its mainly used as a retention offer but anyone can get it if they ask.

[ChumpDumper]

DSL > RR Lite if you get the right deal. Just downloading a torrent with PeerGuardian enabled will kill RR Lite's speed - you won't be able to do anything else.

Standard RR is fine, though we had to have most of our outside cables eventually replaced and repositioned/buried somewhere else.

[Gatita]

Timewarner bought out adelphia
I liked my internet connection with adelphia
does anyone have timewarner
I want to know if their service sucks :fro

I have had it for years. No problems here in SA. It can get costly having both cable and roadrunner. You will notice that when there isn't a darn thing on cable to watch and you start to wonder why you are paying up the wazoo for nothing.

[JoeChalupa]

Look into "Roadrunner Lite".

I'm not sure it's available to anybody who wants it, but we were offered it. It's a good $15 a month less than regular Roadrunner and the speed isn't anywhere near dial-up. It's just a slightly slower version cable...well worth the $15 less per month.

That is more my style. I've got to cut costs somewhere so I think I'm going to drop the digital thing since I don't watch half if not more of the channels we get.

[DirkAB]

Time Warner is so expensive, here in Nebraska they offer both Road Runner and Earthlink. So I switch back and forth between the 2 ISPs to hit the sales. Earthlink once a year or so has a special for 6 months at $30 a month, and RR has a promotion once or twice a year for 3 months for $30 a service. Usually between the 2 you can have highspeed for $30 a month for the majority of the year, otherwise it is $45 w/cable service and $50 w/o.

Their digital cable service is alright, but it is really expensive. Plus they are limited on HD channels, they have about 15. Their InDemand and OnDemand service is kind of crappy because it breaks up alot, my HBO InDemand fucks up all the time. There are also a number of channels that break up and and have that Matrix-like effect, it gets really old. The only service I can compare it to is Cox Cable, Omaha has Cox and Lincoln has TW. I'd have to say TW is better because it comes out with all the new technology faster, but it is a bit more expensive.

I've been looking into getting a dish service instead, but I'd pretty much have to keep my internet through TW. There is DSL here and it is less expensive, but I've heard that the speed of that is dependent on where you live, so it can be a good or bad deal.

[ducks]

they say prices and the bill will not change
I believe that when I see it though

[ducks]

they can get away with charging what they do because it does not use a phone line$60 is not that bad I do not think
$10 for dial up plus $25 for for phone line is cheap
aol charges you $30 plus pus $25 for additional phone line is $55
55 is cheaper then $60 but high speed is up to 50 times faster
no brainer to go to highspeed if you get HIGH SPEED!

[Goliadnative]

Just tell TW to put it on your bill.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I am losing TW for Comcast in Houston.. Any thoughts on Comcast? Do they offer the NBA League Pass??? :oops

[Please_dont_ban_me]

RR lite is available to anyone, they just dont advertise it. Its mainly used as a retention offer but anyone can get it if they ask.

It is advertised to newer houses/neighborhoods in the Stone Oak area though.

When we moved in there was a little flyer on the door with an agents name offering it, along with regular Roadrunner.

[CubanMustGo]

SWB, oops AT&T is offering DSL Pro (3 Mbps down/512 kB up) for $17.99/mo (12 month contract). I've been using it to home office for years w/o significant problems. I can count the number of times we've had drops on one hand with fingers left over. It's always been plenty fast for us. No second phone line, no ludicrous cable charges either.

[Please_dont_ban_me]

That is more my style. I've got to cut costs somewhere so I think I'm going to drop the digital thing since I don't watch half if not more of the channels we get.

It works for me.

I don't need the super lightning fast cable, I don't play any online games or download a lot of torrents where the slightly lower speed might be noticeable. For simple day-to-day stuff like surfing/email/messengers/payingbills and what not Lite is lovely. It's still MUCH better then dialup, and almost half of what we used to pay for regular Roadrunner.

[dougp]

DSL > RR Lite if you get the right deal. Just downloading a torrent with PeerGuardian enabled will kill RR Lite's speed - you won't be able to do anything else.

Standard RR is fine, though we had to have most of our outside cables eventually replaced and repositioned/buried somewhere else.
My DSL dies when I'm using BT ... 3mbps/50kbps. The upload is horrible, and being capped at 300kb/s REALLY sucks when RR caps at 500-600kb/s EASY, if not 800kb/s.

The DSL Pro package is like $40 a month which is the same cost as the RR package with digital cable (which will be required soon) ... Personally I use a cell, not my local phone so it's wasted and I'd rather have the higher cap along with my cable TV than a DSL line and phone I never really use.

[fraga]

Time Warner is expensive but the alternatives are kinda crappy so here in S.A...you're limited...I've got basic cable and Road Runner...roughly about $90 a month for both...I usually get 4.0 - 4.1 megabits/sec...

[Please_dont_ban_me]

Roadrunner doesn't really fuck up much.

Once in a while your signal will die, and after about the 3rd time of calling in you realize the answer to all your internet questions is "unplug the modem for 30 seconds and plug it back in". Apparently that fixes shit.

[Please_dont_ban_me]

Time Warner is expensive but the alternatives are kinda crappy so here in S.A...you're limited...I've got basic cable and Road Runner...roughly about $90 a month for both...I usually get 4.0 - 4.1 megabits/sec...

Basic is like 15 a month, and roadrunner is like 39.99...how are you paying 90 per month?

[sa_butta]

Basic is like 15 a month, and roadrunner is like 39.99...how are you paying 90 per month?I think he means basic as in channels 2-99.
That is what I have.

If you watch your Spurs games you need that package.

[Clandestino]

i just got at&t uverse.. fucking awesome.. a million channels, high speed wireless internet, and a dvr player for $89 per month! with time warner i only have a basic cable, internet(which i had to buy my own wireless router) and no dvr. i paid like 94-98 a month...

at&t uverse is cable too! no dsl or dish network type stuff.

[fraga]

Yeah I didn't mean basic as in 2-23 but the basic as in Non-Digital 2-99...

[scott]

i just got at&t uverse.. fucking awesome.. a million channels, high speed wireless internet, and a dvr player for $89 per month! with time warner i only have a basic cable, internet(which i had to buy my own wireless router) and no dvr. i paid like 94-98 a month...

at&t uverse is cable too! no dsl or dish network type stuff.

I was just about to look into U-verse. Glad to hear a good review.

If you are new to Time Warner and previously had the NFL Network, say goodbye to it.

[leemajors]

I was just about to look into U-verse. Glad to hear a good review.

If you are new to Time Warner and previously had the NFL Network, say goodbye to it.

i don't understand the whole time warner/nfl network thing. i signed a petition to get it cause i never had it, but apparently the nfl thinks they should charge time warner more per customer than say, nbatv even though they only show 8 game a year. am i misunderstanding what's going on here or is this another collosal mistake by the NFL as far as tv goes? i still don't understand why they don't let cable have the nfl package, directv is only in about 20-30% of american homes. seems like they are missing out on millions, and i doubt rupert is paying them more than they would make selling through cable. i may be wrong though.

[sa_butta]

i don't understand the whole time warner/nfl network thing. i signed a petition to get it cause i never had it, but apparently the nfl thinks they should charge time warner more per customer than say, nbatv even though they only show 8 game a year. am i misunderstanding what's going on here or is this another collosal mistake by the NFL as far as tv goes? i still don't understand why they don't let cable have the nfl package, directv is only in about 20-30% of american homes. seems like they are missing out on millions, and i doubt rupert is paying them more than they would make selling through cable. i may be wrong though.Ok now maybe Im confused, I thought the NFL wanted Time Warner to carry the NFL network and not have it as an additional charge to cable customers. But more part of a basic channel. Time Warner wants to charge more for the extra channel and I thought that was were the dissagreement was. Somebody correct me if Im wrong.

[leemajors]

Ok now maybe Im confused, I thought the NFL wanted Time Warner to carry the NFL network and not have it as an additional charge to cable customers. But more part of a basic channel. Time Warner wants to charge more for the extra channel and I thought that was were the dissagreement was. Somebody correct me if Im wrong.

well here's what time warner says, take your salt with it:

"Time Warner Cable wants to make the NFL Network available to all of its customers, sports fans and non-sports fans alike. We believe the best way to do this is to offer the NFL Network as part of a sports package, similar to the way the Network has been offered to many Adelphia and Comcast [Digital Plus Tier] customers.

This is the fairest approach, guaranteeing sports fans access to this high-priced, targeted programming while not requiring all of our customers to pay for it. We would like to reach an agreement with the NFL Network that is in line with the price-value relationship of its package of eight out-of-market games.

...

# We have offered to carry the NFL Network on our sports tier, similarly to the way the network has been offered to many Comcast and Adelphia customers [Digital Plus Tier].
# This is the fairest approach, guaranteeing sports fans access to this high-priced, targeted programming while not requiring all of our customers to pay for it.

...

# Estimates for the NFL Network’s eight out-of-market game package are $400 million alone (Forbes, 1/30/06). The league is demanding $100 million from Time Warner Cable and yet we only operate 18% of the U.S. cable market.
# Some understand the issue. NBA-TV is carried on the Time Warner Cable sports package. The NBA runs a tight ship and has done well for the owners and by the fans; and sees the value in making NBA-TV available on Time Warner Cable’s sports tier. NBA-TV looks a lot like the NFL Network, but last year carried 96 live regular season games; that is 88 more than the eight out-of-market games on the NFL Network. "

rest is here:

http://nflgetreal.com/nflsub.php

[scott]

NFL Network wants their package on basic cable, thus gaining more market penetration and allowing the NFL to charge more for their advertising space. The NFL also wants to charge 3x times as much to carry the channel than some other cable channels.

Time Warner wants to put the NFL Network in a sports add-on package, because they don't want to bear the cost of carrying it. This is actually the same reason that Time Warner still doesn't carry Fox in HD or ESPN2HD - they don't want the additional cost.