# Charter Nears Deal To Buy Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

From _Deadline Hollywood_: *Charter Nears $55B Deal To Buy Time Warner Cable: Reports*


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The story linked above quotes a similar story from Bloomberg Business which explains:



> Charter will pay about $195 a share -- 14 percent above Time Warner Cable's closing price on May 22 -- with $100 in cash and the rest in its own stock, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are confidential. The deal could be announced as soon as tomorrow, they said. Bright House Networks, a smaller cable company that Charter is trying to buy, will also be merged into the combined entity, they said.
> 
> Charter, the fourth-biggest U.S. cable company, is making its second move on No. 2 Time Warner Cable after its early 2014 bid was rejected and Comcast Corp. swooped in with a competing offer. Charter and its biggest shareholder, billionaire John Malone, got another shot when the Comcast deal fell apart in April because of regulatory scrutiny. They also faced last-minute competition from French billionaire Patrick Drahi's Altice SA, which held merger talks with Time Warner Cable over the past days.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Wow, that didn't take long.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Charter knew they had a chance to swoop in for a while so they where likely ready to go. 

I wonder if they change the name.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

This feels like a here-we-go-again thing... I'm not sure why the powers-that-be would approve this merger after recently appearing to quash the Comcast/TWC similar merger.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

*Charter announces plan to buy Time Warner Cable and Bright House*

In a deal that affects one in six American households, Charter Communications on Tuesday proposed a three-way merger with two other cable and broadband providers, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.

If approved by government regulators, the combined company will stand next to Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon as a media giant that is shaping the future of television-watching and web-surfing.

You won't see any difference in your cable bill right away -- but Charter might offer you new ways to access cable TV and the web in the future.
Time Warner Cable's stock, which closed at $171.18 last Friday, was up about 4 percent on Tuesday morning. Charter will pay $195.71 per share, valuing Time Warner Cable at $78.7 billion.

See the entire article on the *CNN Web site*.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> This feels like a here-we-go-again thing... I'm not sure why the powers-that-be would approve this merger after recently appearing to quash the Comcast/TWC similar merger.


It appears that regulators are ready to consider this one. Comcast's problem was/is it's ownership of NBCU combined with being the largest cable company, all of which will continue to be true.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Here's an interesting analysis in _Variety_ *John Malone Reclaims Cable Crown with Charter-TW Cable Deal*


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm sure Comcast brought its own headaches into the deal that didn't help... but at the end of the day, I'm not sure how this merger is expected to help consumers any more than a Comcast/TWC merger would have. I mean, theoretically, if the reasoning behind being against that merger was it being not in the best interest of consumer choice and competition... it seems like this would really be no different on those measurements.

I'm also a little curious as to why Charter is offering TWC more than Comcast was... since that merger was blocked, where is the incentive for Charter to up their bid for a merger? Why not offer the same amount that Comcast was offering?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Comcast is sneaky and I think many people knew nothing good would have came out of that merger.
Comcast would have forced other providers to pay out the ass for their networks, and I'm sure that deal was shot down before it was even started.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm sure Comcast brought its own headaches into the deal that didn't help... but at the end of the day, I'm not sure how this merger is expected to help consumers any more than a Comcast/TWC merger would have. I mean, theoretically, if the reasoning behind being against that merger was it being not in the best interest of consumer choice and competition... it seems like this would really be no different on those measurements.
> 
> I'm also a little curious as to why Charter is offering TWC more than Comcast was... since that merger was blocked, where is the incentive for Charter to up their bid for a merger? Why not offer the same amount that Comcast was offering?


Comcast was a large producer of content as well as provider. Charter and Time Warner Cable only really provide not massive producers. That's the first issue and biggest issue. It's not in their interest to block a Netflix like it would have been for Comcast.

And Time Warner Cable is in a better spot financially by quite a bit than it was when Comcast deal was started. That's why the price is higher. Time Warner Cable is actually stronger now.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Don't forget that Charter was part of the deal with Comcast/Time Warner. Comcast has backed away ... but that doesn't mean that Charter and Time Warner can't come up with a deal to make their business stronger.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> Comcast was a large producer of content as well as provider. Charter and Time Warner Cable only really provide not massive producers. That's the first issue and biggest issue. *It's not in their interest to block a Netflix like it would have been for Comcast.*
> 
> And Time Warner Cable is in a better spot financially by quite a bit than it was when Comcast deal was started. That's why the price is higher. Time Warner Cable is actually stronger now.


Maybe not for the same reasons... but ISPs sure want their piece of the pie, and considering that Netflix is completely dependent on ISPs to deliver their content to customers, it seems to me it is still in Time Warner (or whomever) interest to strongarm Netflix and other streaming companies.

They all want to institute bandwidth caps and charge customers extra... which will clog up things like Netflix and Amazon Prime unless they are willing to pay more... so I don't see any ISPs playing nice just because they don't also compete for content with channels they own like Comcast potentially would have done.

Besides... Time Warner and Charter do sell cable/payTV as well as Internet access... so even if they don't benefit like they would from owning channels... they do benefit from payTV customers so why would they want people cutting payTV to go to streaming and saving money? Time Warner wants you to pay them, not Netflix, for your TV.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The _long term_ (two decades, maybe) issue for cable companies is whether it will become more profitable to encourage streaming to gradually eliminate the bandwidth use of cable TV. They do transfer a lot of revenue to the media conglomerates and it does appear in the long run it may be better to be in the internet service business instead of the cable TV business, perhaps extending the life of the existing infrastructure by "freeing up space" in those proverbial "pipes."


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

The Comcast/Time Warner deal was not in trouble because of cable TV at all but rather because, today, Comcast is the provider for nearly 1 out of every 2 retail internet connections. The merger with TWC would have upped that by several million customers. Comcast has significantly more broadband customers than it has TV customers.

TWC and Charter between them, while they will have roughly as many TV customers as Comcast, have far fewer broadband customers and so do not pose the prospect of a majority of broadband access being controlled by a single provider. It was the potential barriers a Comcast/TWC could impose on access to internet based content that had the DOJ concerned.

Both this deal and the AT&T/DirecTV merger do not raise any such concerns.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

John Malone weighed in yesterday according to this John Malone: Charter-Time Warner Cable Deal Won't Face "Material" Regulatory Issues:



> Malone said the company has "carefully" looked at all the complaints regulators had with the Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal. He emphasized that "in each case Charter is an entirely different situation" than the Comcast-TW Cable deal. He said the deal will create a company with smaller size and market power than Comcast would have created. And he said there are not the vertical and horizontal consolidation concerns that the Comcast deal included.
> 
> "I don't believe that the regulatory authorities want to see a Snow White and Seven Dwarves situation," Malone said. "Even Charter-Time Warner will still be quite small compared to AT&T-DirecTV and Comcast."


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I've been puzzling over John Malone's plan. Apparently we're starting to get the deeper story of Malone's efforts in the streaming content arena:



> ...Charter tried to buy Time Warner Cable, only to be thwarted by a bigger bid from Comcast. But Comcast's $45 billion play was derailed in part because of Netflix's opposition. Malone, sweeping back into the cable business, sees a two-front war: It's a war to bring over-the-top distributors from outside the television ecosystem inside, subjecting streaming to many of the same pressures as broadcast and cable; and it is a war to keep Comcast from being the one to do this.
> 
> Part of the Malone offensive - led by Starz CEO Chris Albrecht - is jawboning networks to hold back hit shows from Netflix. That has helped ring the competitive alarm that has propelled HBO's and CBS' streaming services. If the Charter-TWC-Bright House merger succeeds, it will give Malone further clout with content holders in limiting the deals they can do with Netflix. And if, as many believe, Malone is executing a larger distribution-content strategy - seeking to combine Viacom or CBS or Time Warner with Discovery - then he becomes another order of roadblock for streaming services.
> 
> Then there is the new cable grail of a unified interface. In this scenario, broadband providers will offer subscribers (or, really, subscribers will default to) a personalized navigation system that will guide, save, recommend, share and create on-the-fly packages - giving it, operators hope, Google-like power over the video world. That was Malone's fear of Comcast-TWC: The Comcast X1 box would rule. In a Charter-TWC-Bright House world, Malone hopes his cloud-based platform will hold Comcast at bay and force streaming services through another hurdle and make room for a VOD service he controls. (Pay no attention to the fact that cable operators are notorious for tech screwups.)


This is, of course, a broader story than just cable TV as it basically represents the thinking of one of a few billionaires who IMHO have an adaptable strategy to make sure they get a piece of the electronic media stream that today gives the media conglomerates access to all of our electronic funds.

But if Malone can just keep the broader story buried in discussion of cable TV providers, it will work.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

That's a little of what I was talking about earlier... Charter/TWC is smaller than Comcast/TWC would have been in terms of cable television... but it would still be a big player in internet services, especially in areas where it has a relative monopoly on availability to consumers. Couple that with cable's desire (much like satellite's desire for the most part) to discourage customers from subscribing to Netflix or whatever... many of the same bits would still be in play in a negative way for this merger too.

It is ironic that Charter would likely have been against a Comcast/TWC merger for at least some of the same potential things it would like to do in its own merger.

So, I could be wrong... but I honestly don't see a huge difference in this vs the squashed merger recently. Maybe it's enough of a difference to slide through... but for some aspects it kind of seems like deja vu to me.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

NBC and universal I think is the big enough difference to make the two mergers totally different.... That's is just a mountain of content owned by them... Add in that they seem to possibly be in trouble for some of the things they never actually did that they said they would for that merger..

Personally I wonder if someday we will see everyone separate out the infrastructure and content, so you will have the "new" cable companies actually owning the cables themselves and then they will sell internet to customers, and then all the "cable porviders" like twc, comcast, as well as directv and dish, could then by space or sell directly to consumers over the internet lines since they where split from the content providers themselves... Then you'd be able to chose any cable company anywhere...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

With over the top services we are getting closer to that ... get your connectivity from an ISP and your content from someone else. When your ISP also is a content distributor (as with cable and fiber) they want both pies. Enticing offers to bundle content with delivery or charging enough for the connection that the content price is hard to beat from another provider.

Forced unbundling may help ... although I don't like anything forced. Make the cable companies sell connectivity at a reasonable price separate from content. But the reality is that it is cheaper for a cable company to deliver content simultaneously to all of their subscribers than it is to provide individual Internet connections from outside of their network to each subscriber.

One can either pay the cable company for content they receive at their headend and cheaply rebroadcast to all or one can pay the cable company for extra bandwidth and data rates that they are charged by whomever provides that cable company with Internet. Plus pay the content provider for the actual content.

On the surface it seems bad that the cable company wants to charge customers for watching content viewed from sources outside of their network but there is a cost borne by the cable company - and as the amount of Internet usage grows they have to cover their costs.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

What's interesting... is telephone communication has gone in the opposite direction.

When I was a kid it cost a fortune to make long distance calls, and the longer the distance the more you paid.... but over time more and more areas have become included in the phone plans so that a call across the country usually now costs the same as a cost to your next-door neighbor. Calls to other parts of the world still cost more, but are way cheaper than they used to be in years past.

But the Internet access... seems to be going the other way... and if you want to use your Internet to Web browse or email, that's fine... part of your access... but stream from Netflix? Your cable company wants you to somehow have to pay more for that access. There was a time when there was a thought to charge email fees, kind of like how there are texting fees...but that didn't seem to take hold. I'm not sure how fees for texting have been sold to so many customers as an acceptable thing. You pay for data plans on your phone, then pay again if you want to use that data in the form of a text message instead of as Web browsing?

It's weird to see how things evolve sometimes... and if customers agree to pay for things, then companies will see what else they can charge you to do.

Even in the phone example... which has gotten better/cheaper over time... In the old days, you make a long distance call and it costs you but not the person you call. Now, if you call someone and you are both on a "minutes plan" then you are both basically charged for the phone call. So even in that case with lower prices, they sort-of doubled up on the billing in a sly way.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

If we ever get 1 gig speeds on data for web, we will see the data caps and such go away again... And I mean the vast majority of the country...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> If we ever get 1 gig speeds on data for web, we will see the data caps and such go away again... And I mean the vast majority of the country...


I doubt that one is connected to the other. They might have to up the caps because of the higher speeds... but any company that has settled in that it wants caps and has a solid subscriber base that has adjusted to those caps... is not likely to suddenly remove the caps and give free money away.

Despite what they might say, the caps were not instituted solely to control/reduce average traffic... it was an opportunity for a money-grab for the most part.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fcc-proposes-charter-time-warner-cable-merger-conditions/155920

:biggrin:


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

I left Dish for the New Charter Spectrum HD and Broadband Internet service Charter is marketing their services in a bundle $29.99 each for TV,internet and phone.

We went with their in house Motorola Arris Dual Tuner HD DVR for their On Demand.

The HD DVR is only 500GB but the installer set up this DVR to display a 1080p/60 picture which gives an awesome picture when your on a HD channel.You can also change the colors of the guide.

Their Spectrum Broadband Internet is 60Mbps/4Mbps with no caps.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Where I am at the benefits of cable compared to satellite are:

I get both cities HD locals with cable,I am right in between two cities.

I am getting both east and west feeds from the cable channels.

I am getting more channels in HD with cable compared to satellite.

Cable's Gold package which is their Everything package is only $99.99.

Charter cable internet is 10 times faster than the DSL I can get.

Charter Voice is priced way below the other Home Phone provider I can get which is AT&T.

Charter also lists 2 digital tier packages priced at $12. each for those who might not want alot of channels.

Charter's HDDVR provides a 1080p/60 picture on all channels

Charter cable channels are Dolby Digital 5.1.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

I have been reading around the net people arent happy with things they are doing... One reply said it was like "going back 2 years in technology"

I would LOVE it if they would bring back SARA!!!! -- It was fast and basic......

I stopped watching TV mostly because I hate that navigator crap,its ugly,slow,etc......


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Dude111 said:


> I have been reading around the net people arent happy with things they are doing... One reply said it was like "going back 2 years in technology"
> 
> I would LOVE it if they would bring back SARA!!!! -- It was fast and basic......
> 
> I stopped watching TV mostly because I hate that navigator crap,its ugly,slow,etc......


Well there's that old saying you can't please everyone,since this is the first time I have had cable in many years I have to say I am very happy with the New Charter Spectrum cable HDTV service and internet.

The best thing about cable is you subscribe...if you don't like it? Cancel it,no contract,no extra fees.It's definitely not like satellite service for sure where the normal is a 24 month contract and if you cancel within the 24 months,

you still owe them money.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

Yea thats very true!!!!!!

I think the BEST part of TWC is thier internet system!!


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Dude111 said:


> Yea thats very true!!!!!!
> 
> I think the BEST part of TWC is thier internet system!!


I agree with you on that,if Charter did not want to merge with Times Warner and Bright house,we would still be stuck with AT&T High Speed DSL Elite 6Mbps/512kbps for $54. a month for 150GB cap and by the end of the month we passed that 150GB cap and our bill we were paying was $84. a month.

Charter cable internet while not the fastest the 60Mbps/4Mbps for $29.99 a month for 1 year then it goes to $60.a month,still beats $84., and Charter promised the F.C.C. no caps for 7 years so we are living the dream compared to what we had.

The way I understand it is when the merger is completed all the cable companies are supposed to use the Charter Spectrum name,plus the cable installer told me that when they are done expanding here our internet speed will be even faster.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> Where I am at the benefits of cable compared to satellite are:
> 
> I get both cities HD locals with cable,I am right in between two cities.
> 
> ...


I need to add a correction:

AT&T does have a cellular Home Phone Service that is Unlimited and Nationwide for $20. a month and if you go with their 2 year contract they will give you the base unit(it has a backup battery included)for Free.

There was a $45. one time activation fee and we were able to port our AT&T landline number across,we are using our wireless phone connected to this base unit.

So we did not go with Charter Spectrum Voice(it still is not active in our area) which was going to be $29.99 a month,so the AT&T deal is cheaper.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Well thought I would update my opinion of Charter Spectrum cable and internet so far I am very happy with it.

I am using their HDDVRs and since I downloaded the user manual for their HDDVRs I am able to adjust it to my satisfaction.

I have never had an internet before that gave me more than I paid for it,the speed was always less,well not with Charter Spectrum Internet my speeds have been always higher.

So so far I am living the dream having 1080p resolution on my cable channels and 60/4 internet speeds.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

You're not actually getting 1080p on your channels since none of the channels originate that way, your box is just upconverting them. All the Disney and Fox owned channels originate at 720p, while most of the others originate at 1080i. Depending on the options available on the box, you might get a better quality picture by setting it to native and letting your TV do the upconversion.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

KyL416 said:


> You're not actually getting 1080p on your channels since none of the channels originate that way, your box is just upconverting them. All the Disney and Fox owned channels originate at 720p, while most of the others originate at 1080i. Depending on the options available on the box, you might get a better quality picture by setting it to native and letting your TV do the upconversion.


Yes this Charter Spectrum Cable HDDVR is a beast,it only has dual tuners and a 500GB HDD,but it can do 7.1 audio if setup by the cable company to do,right now it's setup to do 5.1.

The box can output 1080p/25/30/60 or you can set the output setting to "native",right now it's setup for 1080p/60 because that's the only setting that will upconvert all the incoming signals.

The box can do a MoCA network if the cable company sets it up to do this,it's a Motorola DCX3510 and it has the iguide which is alot like the old dish guide and tivo.

Press the guide button once for the channel grid guide,or press the guide button twice for a channel list guide,setting up a favorites list is a PIA and I do not recommend it.

Since my 4K UHDTV is a Vizio M55-C2 the 1080p upconversion is probably best left to my cable box.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> I need to add a correction:
> 
> AT&T does have a cellular Home Phone Service that is Unlimited and Nationwide for $20. a month and if you go with their 2 year contract they will give you the base unit(it has a backup battery included)for Free.
> 
> ...


Maybe I am going to have to eat my words,on my Charter Spectrum Cable Arris Motorola HDDVR I noticed today that I can now view my account in my apps section,also have a channel package upgrade button and a caller ID button,so it would seem that Charter Spectrum cable is indeed going to bring out Charter Voice in my area.I may have to subscribe just for the on screen caller ID feature.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

So far I am still happy with my Charter Spectrum HDTV and Charter Spectrum Broadband Internet Service.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

It's being reported over at the other site that Charter Spectrum is starting to bring out their World Box receivers and HDDVRs,the HDDVRs have 4 tuners.
The manufacturers are Humax and Technicolor respectively.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

It has been reported at the other site that Charter Spectrum cable is starting to give their cable internet subscribers a "courtesy bump" from
60Mbps/5Mbps to 100Mbps/5Mbps respectively.


----------



## steve053 (May 11, 2007)

Jhon69 said:


> It has been reported at the other site that Charter Spectrum cable is starting to give their cable internet subscribers a "courtesy bump" from
> 60Mbps/5Mbps to 100Mbps/5Mbps respectively.


About three years ago I switched to Time Warner and got a decent deal on their 50Mbps/4Mbps internet. After the first year the introductory offer expired and they wouldn't give me any credits. With the switch to Spectrum I would occasionally check the website to see if there were better speeds/rates than what I was currently receiving. Nothing better than my current 50/4 was every available in my area.

Three weeks ago I called one last time. Planning on switching to AT&T as they finally had 50Mbps fiber in my area. The agent immediately bumped me up to 60/5 and offered to bundle tv and phone for what I was currently paying. Told him I was looking for internet only and he cut my bill by 40%, and cut another $3-4 when he found out I owned my own modem.

Wouldn't mind a bump from 60 to 100, but I'm more than a little annoyed that they didn't automatically bump me from 50Mbps to 60Mbps; let alone tell me about the cost differential.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Having cable with HBO, internet and phone -- my prior plan with Time Warner, I'm afraid to ty to get a better deal from Spectrum. Right now, I'm paying $200 a month, with 125 up and 20 down. I've seen enough horror stories of people changing anything, so I guess I'll stand pat funtil Spectrum finally relents and provides good packages at a lower pricce to existing TWC customers.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I have gotten that bump. But had to call to have them kick it in. Guy said that there will likely be another bump to 300 in a year or so as well... we shall see.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I have gotten that bump. But had to call to have them kick it in. Guy said that there will likely be another bump to 300 in a year or so as well... we shall see.


I thought I would call for the hell of it and the CSR told be he never heard of a "courtesy bump" but he could upgrade me to 100Mbps for 199.99.
I told him no thanks my 60Mbps/5Mbps cable internet service is just fine at my "special price".I figured because we don't live in a big city,we may not get it.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Well I am in my 2nd year with Charter Spectrum HDTV and Broadband cable internet, my prices became higher but they are offering me a $50. discount for my HDTV and internet package.
I was surprised because I was prepared to pay full price because I am very satisfied with my services.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Jhon69 said:


> I thought I would call for the hell of it and the CSR told be he never heard of a "courtesy bump" but he could upgrade me to 100Mbps for 199.99.
> I told him no thanks my 60Mbps/5Mbps cable internet service is just fine at my "special price".I figured because we don't live in a big city,we may not get it.


Interesting how Spectrum internet starting speeds aren't universal. In my area Spectrum starting speeds begin at 100 Mbps. For that we pay $69.10.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Spectrum isn't one thing that's the same everywhere like Dish or DirecTV, it's a bunch of regional systems with varying states of technologies based on multiple factors like what's required in their state/local franchise agreements, who they acquired the system from, how "profitable" it is to upgrade some smaller systems, among other things.

i.e. the system where my dad lives in upstate NY that's still running on a 450 MHz network Charter inhereted from Taconic in the early 00s, hasn't expanded beyond their initial 1988 franchise footprint that left most side roads unserved, and they only got HD service last year when they went all digital as a condition of New York State approving their purchase of Time Warner Cable. Prior to that they were a 62 channel analog system with a small digital cable lineup using 6 QAM muxes that were made available by making premiums and PPV digital only.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

KyL416 said:


> Spectrum isn't one thing that's the same everywhere like Dish or DirecTV, it's a bunch of regional systems with varying states of technologies based on multiple factors like what's required in their state/local franchise agreements, who they acquired the system from, how "profitable" it is to upgrade some smaller systems, among other things.
> 
> i.e. the system where my dad lives in upstate NY that's still running on a 450 MHz network Charter inhereted from Taconic in the early 00s, hasn't expanded beyond their initial 1988 franchise footprint that left most side roads unserved, and they only got HD service last year when they went all digital as a condition of New York State approving their purchase of Time Warner Cable. Prior to that they were a 62 channel analog system with a small digital cable lineup using 6 QAM muxes that were made available by making premiums and PPV digital only.


I can relate to that as our legacy charter cable in our area(rural) only offered 89 standard definition channels,no internet,no phone,all we could get was AT&T Elite DSL internet with a
150GB limit and 6MB/512Kbps.
Now after the merger I get over 200 HDTV channels,60MB/5MB cable internet(no caps) and someday we will get phone too!
Never thought I would live to see it because of where we live,it's been a blessing for sure.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> Interesting how Spectrum internet starting speeds aren't universal. In my area Spectrum starting speeds begin at 100 Mbps. For that we pay $69.10.


Probably because of what they have to do to get it up to speed,I have noticed there is a commercial now for Charter Spectrum business for 100MB/5MB running in our area.
We are being charged $69.99 for internet with WiFi,then they are giving us a $15. WiFi discount,so that makes it $54.99 for our internet service with WiFi for our bill in our 2nd year.
Giving what we had before I would not have a problem paying the $69.99,so we will see what they offer us for our 3rd year.
We are getting 66.36MB/5.83MB on our speed test,when we had AT&T Elite DSL I thought slower speeds were the norm for all internet providers,not Charter Spectrum it's always been faster.


----------

