|
Nintendo Kid posted:Because Comcast offers close to the best actual service in the country?? This is very easy. When you're in the top 5 for speed and reliability and price:performance (as a function of having pretty much identical prices to most isps while having better service) dissatisfaction can't be with the actual service. So Time Warner has relatively excellent customer service for their TV service but terrible customer service for their internet? And the disparity is so incredibly large that the former ranks #25 and the latter #236 based purely on the customer service and absolutely, positively not on the actual product or value? Sounds credible to me  . Also the notion that people literally "can't" be dissatisfied with Comcast or Time Warner's product just because it's among the best for cable services is absolutely laughable. Might it have something to do with that fact that fiber services offer vastly better price/performance? I'm sure it's just a coincidence that FIOS dominates the other ISPs in consumer rankings, surely based on customer service only since no one could possibly be dissatisfied with their cheap and blazing fast Comcast internet.
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So Time Warner has relatively excellent customer service for their TV service but terrible customer service for their internet? Time Warner performs poorly on actual internet service, why are you trying to use it as an argument against Comcast?  http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2013/chart13-feb-2013.xls MaxxBot posted:Might it have something to do with that fact that fiber services offer vastly better price/performance? According to you so far none of the other cable services out there have this so-called problem so that shoots this argument out of the water. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Because Comcast offers close to the best actual service in the country?? This is very easy. When you're in the top 5 for speed and reliability and price:performance (as a function of having pretty much identical prices to most isps while having better service) dissatisfaction can't be with the actual service. Of course dissatisfaction can be with the service. You keep starting from the position that Comcast offers a great service for a reasonable price and dissatisfaction must be about something other than that because it's a great service for a reasonable price. People aren't paying Comcast's prices for its higher services, so they must not want the service because Comcast knows best right? People could be dissatisfied with the service for the price and simply not have anywhere else to go because, as we all know, the vast majority have nowhere else to go. People in the US get hosed by low speeds*, high prices, no choice of provider, and arbitrary data caps. Comcast could offer the best service in the country and it would make no difference to people's dissatisfaction with their choices in the market, expressed as dissatisfaction with the two companies that make up the supply side of the entire US market. It's possible that this isn't really about Comcast, or wouldn't be if Comcast wasn't a huge chunk of the market. *And don't tell me that the speeds are good in comparison to other US companies, because A: there aren't many other US companies anyway and B: you've already told us how the telecoms took their broadband subsidies and spent them on copper in a shortsighted money grab that backfired on them almost immediately. We're talking about problems with US broadband, and constant references to how 1 of the 2 big US companies are better than or at least not as bad as the others is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So Time Warner has relatively excellent customer service for their TV service but terrible customer service for their internet? And the disparity is so incredibly large that the former ranks #25 and the latter #236 based purely on the customer service and absolutely, positively not on the actual product or value? Sounds credible to me Cablevision/TW are such mega dogshit and FIOS so much better that the former pays off building owners/landlords in my neighborhood to not give Verizon permission to come onto their property to install it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Of course dissatisfaction can be with the service. You keep starting from the position that Comcast offers a great service for a reasonable price and dissatisfaction must be about something other than that because it's a great service for a reasonable price. People aren't paying Comcast's prices for its higher services, so they must not want the service because Comcast knows best right? Don't bother arguing with Fishmech. He's real gently caress stupid and pedantic about this and every other issue; the dude's pretty much king of autistic contrarians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Cablevision/TW are such mega dogshit and FIOS so much better that the former pays off building owners/landlords in my neighborhood to not give Verizon permission to come onto their property to install it. I doubt it because Verizon quit rolling out FIOS a while ago because it was majorly unprofitable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Of course dissatisfaction can be with the service. You keep starting from the position that Comcast offers a great service for a reasonable price and dissatisfaction must be about something other than that because it's a great service for a reasonable price. People aren't paying Comcast's prices for its higher services, so they must not want the service because Comcast knows best right? They are provably among the top ISPs in all measures except customer service, and ISPs that perform provably worse are rated higher, you clown. For example, Cox Cable provides worse service at the same prices but is rated higher. Yes yes Comcast burned your home and trampled your garden, we get it. But you're just wording now. You're entire argument that it's a protest against monopolies falls apart because all other monopoly ISPs aren't grouped down in the same way. Also what bizarro world are you in where Comcast and one other company would make a majority of the market? The closest you can get is 39% and you'd still have absences in many major cities. Dystram posted:Don't bother arguing with Fishmech. He's real gently caress stupid and pedantic about this and every other issue; the dude's pretty much king of autistic contrarians. You're just mad you're colossally wrong. If you can't handle having lovely arguments destroyed, try out gbs. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
My only argument was that people shouldn't waste the paltry amount of effort posting requires on arguing with you. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I doubt it because Verizon quit rolling out FIOS a while ago because it was majorly unprofitable. Time Warner actually did this (got an exclusivity agreement) on my block in Manhattan, which prevented Verizon from offering FIOS until a week or so ago when the agreement expired.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Time Warner actually did this (got an exclusivity agreement) on my block in Manhattan, which prevented Verizon from offering FIOS until a week or so ago when the agreement expired. Luckily the FCC did rule against exclusivity agreements but didn't change how in many places there's still only one choice for the apartment complex.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
The companies will never improve the networks as long as they can squeeze people for what is already available. As soon as they are legally allowed to squeeze both sides of a communication stream they will make sure that "excess" is never available again. Arguing with the same couple of industry apologists in a new thread wont do anything. Harass your Reps and city councils to make changes to break up the practical monopolies and ignore the fuckwits here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The companies will never improve the networks as long as they can squeeze people for what is already available. Except they do improve their networks, regularly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Except they do improve their networks, regularly? As competition wanes and disappears, and squeezing the content provider end of the pipe becomes more likely, the incentive to do that is what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Dystram posted:As competition wanes and disappears, and squeezing the content provider end of the pipe becomes more likely, the incentive to do that is what? Competition is already zero in most markets and they're still upgrading in spite of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Dystram posted:As competition wanes and disappears, and squeezing the content provider end of the pipe becomes more likely, the incentive to do that is what? Neither of those has changed negatively over the past decade though - now while you likely have one cable and one DSL option, practical wireless options are developing (yes they still suck but it's not like competition has gotten worse) and they could have squeezed content providers at basically any point since the Telecom Act because there's been an enforceable net neutrality obligation for about six months in the past twenty years. So basically, the same incentives they've had.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Neither of those has changed negatively over the past decade though - now while you likely have one cable and one DSL option, practical wireless options are developing (yes they still suck but it's not like competition has gotten worse) and they could have squeezed content providers at basically any point since the Telecom Act because there's been an enforceable net neutrality obligation for about six months in the past twenty years. And you are unable to foresee a future in which you go from having a lovely array of choices to no choices? A future in which Comcast buys AT&T? A future when competition gets even worse? Also, aren't we talking about improvements to the point at which we're where the rest of the world is broadband speed wise? We're getting hosed by high prices and low speeds; you'd know that if your head wasn't so far up Telecom's rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Competition is already zero in most markets and they're still upgrading in spite of that. What upgrades? Prices go up every year and speed doesn't. Keep shillin'
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Dystram posted:What upgrades? Prices go up every year and speed doesn't. Keep shillin' Counterpoint: you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Dystram posted:What upgrades? Prices go up every year and speed doesn't. Keep shillin' Not according to all actual statistics. Dystram posted:Also, aren't we talking about improvements to the point at which we're where the rest of the world is broadband speed wise? We're already there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Counterpoint: you're wrong. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2045046/broadband-speed-is-increasing-but-us-is-falling-behind.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/technology/us-struggling-to-keep-pace-in-broadband-service.html 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Dystram posted:http://www.pcworld.com/article/2045046/broadband-speed-is-increasing-but-us-is-falling-behind.html Congrats on the articles that prove the opposite of what you said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
As a Time Warner customer with no other high speed alternatives, their internet service is rear end and anybody who supports this company in an internet argument is also rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Congrats on the articles that prove the opposite of what you said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Bad GBS Post posted:As a Time Warner customer with no other high speed alternatives, their internet service is rear end and anybody who supports this company in an internet argument is also rear end. Please show where anyone supported Time Warner Cable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Dystram posted:What upgrades? Prices go up every year and speed doesn't. Keep shillin' AT&T is spending around $20 billion a year in the US on network upgrades and has been for the last 6+ years! I don't know the spend for VZ but I bet it's not far from that. How much would they have to spend in order for you to agree that they are, in fact, investing in network? Is therea number or do you just have a feeling?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Dystram posted:And you are unable to foresee a future in which you go from having a lovely array of choices to no choices? A future in which Comcast buys AT&T? A future when competition gets even worse? Also, aren't we talking about improvements to the point at which we're where the rest of the world is broadband speed wise? We're getting hosed by high prices and low speeds; you'd know that if your head wasn't so far up Telecom's rear end. Not that I should be wasting time with the likes of you, but FYI AT&T is a much bigger company than comcast. You may want to update your mental register with some facts to go along with the list of grievances.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
I'd be interested in knowing how the major providers lease their hardware, because I suspect they make a profit simply by letting other companies use their towers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
i am harry posted:I'd be interested in knowing how the major providers lease their hardware, because I suspect they make a profit simply by letting other companies use their towers. Carriers don't own all or even most of their towers. Someone's making money on the towers but it's not typically T or Vz
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
This is the owner of the most towers in the US: http://www.crowncastle.com/ The next largest are http://www.americantower.com/corporateus/index.htm http://www.sbasite.com/ and http://www.kgiwireless.com/Index.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Except they do improve their networks, regularly? All three of the cocksucking shills in this thread have never worked for a major ISP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Except they dont. My service going from 10 to 25 to 50 Mbps down over the past four years at the same price point calls you a goddamn liar. But hey, I'm sure you can back up your "their service is not improving."
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Except they dont. You just keep posting lies, why should anyone listen to you? I mean really you say "I worked for an ISP one time, therefore no ISPs have ever upgraded in the past, none upgrade now, and none will in the future". Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Hey look theres two of the same three from every thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Hey look theres two of the same three from every thread. You're literally just lying about things and shrieking about how anyone connected to reality is a shill. Seek help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You're literally just lying about things and shrieking about how anyone connected to reality is a shill. Seek help. It actually hurts you when everyone calls you out doesnt it? You project so reliably that I hope that someone in your life does someday direct you to a competent therapist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Poor fishmech. You're not calling people out when you just lie, friend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Except they dont. Right UUNET, WCOM/MCI, Verizon, AT&T. What Mickey Mouse ISP did you get laid off from? You don't really seem to know enough to have actually worked in the industry proper so I'll guess maybe some local yokel dial up operation with a frac T connection to some tier 3 provider, right? Or perhaps you're just angry at your father.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Sorry. It was a big-boy enterprise solution. Oversold, shuffled bandwidth, avoided physical upgrades, deflected complaints. All the same stuff the rest of the industry does. But man those marketing campaigns can get some super-sticky loyalty!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Right UUNET, WCOM/MCI, Verizon, AT&T. Edit; ok since you seem to fancy yourself an insider, can you tell us what the typical ixc ISP backbone looks like and how it's changed over the last 5 years? Can you explain the difference between Ethernet transport and packet over sonet? Why would an ISP chose one over the other? What is the typical highest commercially viable speed for backbone transport? What was it 5 years ago? I know you're just a lonely troll, but really you should stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:Sorry. It was a big-boy enterprise solution. So you admit you never worked for an ISP, and thus had no idea what actually went on with them. Ok, thanks for showing you were lying before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:32
|
|