Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Charter Said to Be Near Deal to Buy Time Warner Cable

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: Charter Said to Be Near Deal to Buy Time Warner Cable

#21

Post by Empact »

For all the people despairing, I see plenty of reason to hope, and it comes in the form of wireless broadband. The hardware is getting quite powerful and inexpensive - for a few hundred bucks you can get a pair of dishes that will push a half gigabit, e.g. https://www.ubnt.com/products/

Basically anyone who can get locate a solid urban fiber backbone can build a network off it, in the same way that https://www.monkeybrains.net/ is doing in San Francisco.

There's no reason a city can't support multiple competing wireless line-of-sight networks, given that they don't face the same high infrastructure cost of wireline service.

Re: Charter Said to Be Near Deal to Buy Time Warner Cable

#22

Post by [deleted] »

martinald wrote: post #17

The real problem is that the telecoms companies (AT&T and Verizon in most areas) aren't putting up any competition at all. AT&Ts UVerse VDSL rollout is flawed (the cabinets are generally too far from customers premises), so speeds are too slow. Verizon has given up with further significant FiOS rollout. I don't really think this matters too much. TWC and Charter serve different areas, so there is no real change in co…

[deleted]

Re: Charter Said to Be Near Deal to Buy Time Warner Cable

#24

Post by dimino »

jusben1369 wrote: post #11
arielm wrote: post #3

Consolidation in this space, in my opinion, is putting the future of the Internet in great jeopardy. I'm not sure exactly where we're heading, but i have a feeling the days of a "free" internet are numbered.

I do wonder if the cable guys are going to go the way of the telephone landline via mobile. I can already get better speeds on my phone than most cable packages. They just need to increase the amount of traffic I can get and I'd drop the hardline service.

They're not even remotely comparable from a reliability or bandwidth standpoint, which is important for high quality streaming content (4k video from Netflix, for example).

These things will matter more as high quality content increases in availability. I also suspect you haven't recently tried to upload any amount of volume (photo albums, videos) on your mobile connection. I'd even consider it dangerous to compare the two, because the only folks I've ever seen consider them analogous are the ISPs themselves and only during takeover conversations, and only in reference to monopolies for service in particular areas (Comcast isn't your only option, you could also use your phone!).

Not to mention how completely untenable it is to play video games on a mobile connection.

Re: Charter Said to Be Near Deal to Buy Time Warner Cable

#26

Post by click170 »

mmanfrin wrote: post #19
martinald wrote: post #17

The real problem is that the telecoms companies (AT&T and Verizon in most areas) aren't putting up any competition at all. AT&Ts UVerse VDSL rollout is flawed (the cabinets are generally too far from customers premises), so speeds are too slow. Verizon has given up with further significant FiOS rollout. I don't really think this matters too much. TWC and Charter serve different areas, so there is no real change in co…

Seriously -- you'd think with that $60billion in acquisition costs, they could just instead plow that in to increasing coverage and service; but to do that would upset the tranquil waters of telecom oligopoly.

What I don't get is that the genie is out of the bottle now. Google fiber exists and the more areas they roll out to where the encumbamts only bump service after the fact only further demonstrates the point that they don't give a shit about servicing their customers, they care about charging them for speeds that don't improve until competition forces their hand.

Is their plan to literally sacrifice their reputation for a few short term profits?

Re: Charter Said to Be Near Deal to Buy Time Warner Cable

#27

Post by tacticus »

Empact wrote: post #21

For all the people despairing, I see plenty of reason to hope, and it comes in the form of wireless broadband. The hardware is getting quite powerful and inexpensive - for a few hundred bucks you can get a pair of dishes that will push a half gigabit, e.g. https://www.ubnt.com/products/ Basically anyone who can get locate a solid urban fiber backbone can build a network off it, in the same way that https://www.monkey…

Except there is still a very limited amount of bandwidth in the air. Yes you can get 2 dishes that support half a gbit of traffic but you only get 4 or 5 of those up and running without interference. you still have significant scaling issues.

Re: Charter Said to Be Near Deal to Buy Time Warner Cable

#28

Post by brianreavis »

jessaustin wrote: post #18
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a bit conflicted. First, Charter is nowhere near as large as Comcast, so no, it wouldn't create a situation where > 50% of American consumer broadband came through one company. The other thing is, TWC is terribly managed, completely inept. Yes I know everyone hates their local monopoly, but I’ve lived all over the US in the past five years and can say with some authority that TWC is worse. Rumor has it that the r…

Perhaps Charter could pull it off? They are the one broadband ISP I have no experience with. Charter cable and internet seem pretty solid. Their business phone service has had terrible growing pains over the last year [maybe two years? my memory fails me], with multiple, multiple-hour outages during the middle of business days. Our sales guy told me they've recently decided to implement rolling switch restarts after…

I can't say I've had the same experience. They've made me miss Comcast - never thought I would say that.

Re: Charter Said to Be Near Deal to Buy Time Warner Cable

#29

Post by markdown »

click170 wrote: post #26
mmanfrin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously -- you'd think with that $60billion in acquisition costs, they could just instead plow that in to increasing coverage and service; but to do that would upset the tranquil waters of telecom oligopoly.

What I don't get is that the genie is out of the bottle now. Google fiber exists and the more areas they roll out to where the encumbamts only bump service after the fact only further demonstrates the point that they don't give a shit about servicing their customers, they care about charging them for speeds that don't improve until competition forces their hand. Is their plan to literally sacrifice their reputation f…

Sadly, you over-estimate the length of the memory of the masses. They forget very quickly, and will not consider "this company fucked me over for years" if the company currently offers them the best deal.

Sad fact.

Post reply on HN