Time Warner Cable

[runthemover 39]

Previously paying $80/month for digital cable / internet with DVR service. quite a good deal.For the upcoming month, my bill will be $117How much did yours go up?I'm probably gonna cancel TV and maybe buy an Antenna to get the Networks.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Time Warner Cable is a horrible company, but they have a monopoly on Ranger games in HD in the Manhattan area, so I'm stuck with them.

[Jeepster80125 0]

In related news, comcast can suck my dick.

[mrdannyg 274]

In related news, comcast can suck my dick.

Is that offer open to anyone else?

[dapokerbum 0]

Do you get AT&T Uverse in your area? I pay 83.25 / month for Cable with DVR and Internet.

[Yoda 1]

If you call and ask for customer retention and complain you will usually get a good price/deal for at least 12 months. When they tried to jack up my internet price I called and told them I am going to switch because of the price change; they lowered me back to 29.95/mo for the high tier roadrunner service (which would normally be 49.95/mo). So not only did my bill go down, the speed went up significantly. In 12 months the price will jump back up again, and I will call and complain again (this was the 3rd time i've done it). This also works with Directv.

[Nikki_N 17]

In related news, comcast can suck my dick.

I stopped giving Comcast my money about ten years ago. They sheistered me and I cancelled them. I've had an antennae ever since. Now I have an antennae and a digital converter box. I live in a big enough city that I get all the main networks plus a number of other channels including PBS. I'm not saying I never miss having cable, but I don't miss it too much. I don't miss shelling out 80 or so bucks a month for television at all.Yoda,Dave and I have used your trick on credit cards with annual fees.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

UVerse FTW

[runthemover 39]

If you call and ask for customer retention and complain you will usually get a good price/deal for at least 12 months. When they tried to jack up my internet price I called and told them I am going to switch because of the price change; they lowered me back to 29.95/mo for the high tier roadrunner service (which would normally be 49.95/mo). So not only did my bill go down, the speed went up significantly. In 12 months the price will jump back up again, and I will call and complain again (this was the 3rd time i've done it). This also works with Directv.

this is probably a good idea except they're the only option 'round these parts. No ATT. No Verizon. might as well give it a go though. though, I'd cancel the TV and keep the internet if I was going to do anything.part of my price jump is exactly what you said where I got a better rate when I signed up so we'll see.

[mrdannyg 274]

this is probably a good idea except they're the only option 'round these parts. No ATT. No Verizon. might as well give it a go though. though, I'd cancel the TV and keep the internet if I was going to do anything.part of my price jump is exactly what you said where I got a better rate when I signed up so we'll see.

The other negative of this is it just means less whiny people end up paying your bill. The prices wouldn't need to increase as much if thousands of people didn't whine about their fees just to get them lowered.

[runthemover 39]

I called and I can only get other people to pay for $21 of my bill. good idea, yodes. thanks. not sure what I'm gonna do yet though. I'm also trying to get other people to pay some of my rent but I might have to move somewhere else to do this.

[vbnautilus 48]

I'll take 10%.

[anthonybkjr 0]

Sometimes they can almost do anything they like with you because you have so limited options depending on where you live. But you can always go DirecTV on satellite dish.

[mrdannyg 274]

The trick works particularly well with cell phone carriers. In Canada Rogers and Bell have a written policy that anyone can be credited back for a charge if it is their first complaint. Basically, no questions asked. This works for anything from a $3 service charge to a $75 long distance bill, so use it wisely.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Apparently DirecTV can suck this guys dick too.DirecTV Caves to Social Media Pressure and Eventually Helps Stroke Victim...I'm sorry to hear about your father's current health condition. I understand your concern with regard to the early cancellation fee...Since he canceled his service or did not maintain the minimum programming requirements, his account was charged with an early cancellation fee of $400. We feel this fee is valid and we are unable to waive it. ...

[Nikki_N 17]

The other negative of this is it just means less whiny people end up paying your bill. The prices wouldn't need to increase as much if thousands of people didn't whine about their fees just to get them lowered.

That sounds like complete bs to me. The cable company makes a ton of money. They charge a lot because they can. What they are banking on is that you will just continue to pay your bill after the introductory offer has expired regardless of how ridiculously high it is. They raise the rates because they like money, not because they are going broke because of "whiny" folk.I don't have cable. Should I feel guilty for not contributing?

I called and I can only get other people to pay for $21 of my bill. good idea, yodes. thanks. not sure what I'm gonna do yet though. I'm also trying to get other people to pay some of my rent but I might have to move somewhere else to do this.

Section 8? This is a legitimate situation where other folks actually get screwed on their taxes to help you.

[mrdannyg 274]

That sounds like complete bs to me. The cable company makes a ton of money. They charge a lot because they can. What they are banking on is that you will just continue to pay your bill after the introductory offer has expired regardless of how ridiculously high it is. They raise the rates because they like money, not because they are going broke because of "whiny" folk.

It's not complete bs. Your argument only holds true if the industry has high barriers to entry. Cable actually does, but there is enough competition that is moot.Cable companies don't make a ton of money. In fact, they generally don't make much at all, and very few make money in the mid- or long-term. Just because a company is big or powerful doesn't mean they are making money in a meaningful way, especially in an industry where basic upkeep of infrastructure costs 10s of millions per year.I will allow that refunds contribute a tiny amount to fee increases. Even if 10% of people (a high estimate) complain about fees illegitimately, and get, say a free month...that is going to contribute pennies at most to someone else's fees. Still, it's the principle, in my opinion.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Cable companies don't make a ton of money. In fact, they generally don't make much at all, and very few make money in the mid- or long-term. Just because a company is big or powerful doesn't mean they are making money in a meaningful way, especially in an industry where basic upkeep of infrastructure costs 10s of millions per year.

Society does not have a responsibility to ensure a company's traditional business model succeeds.

[brvheart 1,757]

Society does not have a responsibility to ensure a company's traditional business model succeeds.

commie.

[mrdannyg 274]

Society does not have a responsibility to ensure a company's traditional business model succeeds.

Agreed.Though it is typical to say something relevant to the post you've quoted.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Agreed.Though it is typical to say something relevant to the post you've quoted.

Isn't it? I thought you wrote that people have a civic responsibility to pay the asking price for cable to support their infrastructure costs.

[mrdannyg 274]

Isn't it? I thought you wrote that people have a civic responsibility to pay the asking price for cable to support their infrastructure costs.

I did not. Whatever words you're substituting "civic responsibility" for instead submit "financial requirement." If everyone used this strategy, we would not all magically pay less money. We would get lower-quality service, in line with what we're actually paying, given that the companies will not operate at a loss. This is basic economics, and of course irrelevant given that not everyone is paying.The point is - if I offered you $100 to raise your hand, if you also knew it would cause 10,000 to lose a penny?I'm not trying to tell you what the answer to that question is, I'm just pointing out the situations are analgous.

[David_Nicoson 1]

I did not. Whatever words you're substituting "civic responsibility" for instead submit "financial requirement." If everyone used this strategy, we would not all magically pay less money. We would get lower-quality service, in line with what we're actually paying, given that the companies will not operate at a loss.

I don't accept this as a given. If it turns out the cable is a crappy way to deliver entertainment it should operate at a loss and then fail. If it turns out that people don't value entertainment at the current level, then the entertainment industries should adjust or fail. There's no natural law of the universe that makes Brad Pitt's or Kobe Bryant's salary appropriate. It's just what people have been willing to pay.Do you have an obligation to pay the sticker price for a new car? Don't the same arguments apply?

The point is - if I offered you $100 to raise your hand, if you also knew it would cause 10,000 to lose a penny?I'm not trying to tell you what the answer to that question is, I'm just pointing out the situations are analgous.

Generically, no. But the implication is that I'm stealing from the other customer who paid full price if I negotiate a lower price. I don't think there's a direct relationship. How would the price of cable ever go down in your model?

[Nikki_N 17]

I did not. Whatever words you're substituting "civic responsibility" for instead submit "financial requirement." If everyone used this strategy, we would not all magically pay less money. We would get lower-quality service, in line with what we're actually paying, given that the companies will not operate at a loss. This is basic economics, and of course irrelevant given that not everyone is paying.The point is - if I offered you $100 to raise your hand, if you also knew it would cause 10,000 to lose a penny?I'm not trying to tell you what the answer to that question is, I'm just pointing out the situations are analgous.

If the cable company has to reduce its quality of service or raise rates because some customers ask for a discount, they can say no when someone asks. Then the customer has the choice of paying the higher rate or discontinuing their service. They are reducing the rate voluntarily. If this makes for higher rates or lower quality service, that's due to the cable company's decision.

[mrdannyg 274]

I don't accept this as a given. If it turns out the cable is a crappy way to deliver entertainment it should operate at a loss and then fail. If it turns out that people don't value entertainment at the current level, then the entertainment industries should adjust or fail. There's no natural law of the universe that makes Brad Pitt's or Kobe Bryant's salary appropriate. It's just what people have been willing to pay.Do you have an obligation to pay the sticker price for a new car? Don't the same arguments apply?Generically, no. But the implication is that I'm stealing from the other customer who paid full price if I negotiate a lower price. I don't think there's a direct relationship. How would the price of cable ever go down in your model?

It is only partially like paying (or not) the sticker price of a car. There is a difference between negotiating a discounted price with a retailer and complaining without reason in hopes of saving some money. Mainly, the information being shared is honest and equal. Both sides treat it as a negotiation. You can argue the same goes for the cable example, except by being dishonest about the reasons you are calling, it is not a true negotiaton.Plus, when you are negotiating with a franchisee, you are arguably not affecting production. The franchisee pays the same price for the car, it just lowers than franchisee's profit. So by getting a discount, you are only raising the price for other people shopping with that franchisee. Still harmful, but then we're only forcing a change in the business model of franchisee's (which are easily changed), not manufacturers, which would be much more difficult and economically painful.