Comments on: Charter Cable to Bankers, Business Owners, a Former State Senator & 55 Others: Pay $1,850 Each for Internet

By: Stop the Cap! » The Many Challenges of Charter Cable: Rate Increases for Seniors, Bankruptcy, Employees Attacked, Customers Hassled

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:24:53 +0000

[...] since March 28, has been among the worst hit cable operators by an American economy in trouble, accusations of poor service, excessive executive compensation, and spiraling debt. Before entering bankruptcy protection, the [...]

By: Phillip Dampier

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:21:13 +0000

Ken, please drop me e-mail at phil @ stopthecap.com so I can establish contact directly. A wireless provider contacted me yesterday regarding your situation and wants to explore providing service in your neighborhood. I will pass along his contact information to you and your group can evaluate what they have to offer.

By: Ken W

Ken W — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:14:45 +0000

I am not a fan of discussions where I am not aware of the identity of other persons, but I feel I should respond to the comment by Neutral Ned. I am a resident of Mountain Pointe and need to offer some additional comments about the situation regarding our neghborhood. First and foremost, no one has proposed and no one is proposing any taxpayer money be used to solve this issue for us. Mountain Pointe is not in the suburbs. It is in the city limits of Cleveland, Tennessee and has been since the beginning of its development. Charter has a signed franchise agreement with the City. The argeement has a clause concerning density levels of housing that must be met before new service will be provided. Mountain Pointe is on the verge of meeting this density level. A redesign or a more favorable design of the system could even put it over the required level. To my knowledge, Charter has not come to the table saying that they will comply with the agreement when the density level is met, nor have they offered to allow for a reasonable cost sharing arangement that gives credit to the already existing 56 homes in the subdivision. Cost sharing is provided for in the agreement. This comes down to an issue, in my mind, of doing what you agreed to do or not doing it.

Mountain Pointe residents are not asking for anymore than any other resident has the right to ask for that is covered under the franchise agreement. Thank you and I hope this will clear up some of the confusion surrounding our request for assistance on this matter.

By: Neutral Ned

Neutral Ned — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:54:19 +0000

I’m not sure what the problem is here.
The “affected” homeowners have the means to own $500K houses.
The cable firm has offered the service if they pay the upfront capital cost.

What, are the taxpayers supposed to subsidize them too?

By: Ian L

Ian L — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:26:34 +0000

When I’m not at school in Colorado, I’m at home in Texas. I’m two miles outside town on a three-acre lot. Time Warner Cable stops 2215 feet east of me. The cost to get cable run for that remaining couple thousand feet? $9000.

Of course, I’d be keeping my ultra-cheap landline phone (basic local calling only, Lifeline gets me a $5-ish monthly fee) and wouldn’t be signing up for TV service. Since we’re talking about DOCSIS 1.1 plant here I’d be sharing a 6 MHz downlink channel and a 6 MHz (?) uplink channel on coax plant that’s either 750MH or 860MHz, I’m not sure.

So wireless would definitely be the way to go here, and there are solutions that will get me from point A to point B at a high rate of speed for a low hardware cost. But TWC is a cable company so I’d have to set this up myself…