New Fee
- Thread starter JSheridan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 165
- Views 12K
I also have Spectrum (used to be Charter) and I pay $64.99 for 60mbps down and 6mbps up. I wonder why some folks get better deals than others?
I was paying $124.99 per month to Spectrum for 120 Mbps down and 5 up until they recently changed prices. So I am a happy camper. Now getting more than double what I was getting and price went down. Now, I wonder if I could swing this kind of deal with DISH for my satellite service!
Call them up and check Tony S. I found out by accident. They sure as hell didn't call and tell me about the new prices. Also, I am sure Charter (Spectrum) probably have different prices for different areas. No telling.
There is no natural supply and demand, since most areas are controlled by a monopoly or oligarchy with little to no competition. That's where the 90% profit margin comes from.
Not yet, but hopefully in the future. I look forward to free and open markets for internet access especially in rural areas. Of course, I'm probably dreaming.
Yep, there are dreams, and then there's reality.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 14,638
- 18,773
To make you feel even better I pay Comcast $70 a month for 1G, had to agree to a 3 year contract to get that price but I had no problem with that.
Well corn my pone and boll my weevil. That article may be a bit off, but the general point is made.
Cable internet speeds and prices are local deternined by the local contract, local equipment and what they can get by with.
Not surprised the prices are all over the place
Not surprised the prices are all over the place
Be careful to consider the source. Huffington Post is probably the most liberal or left-leaning "newspaper" in this country. He mentions "made up fees" at least 3 times. There's no research there to back that up. The author admits it would require an audit to find out. So TWC is profit-taking. So what? Once again, it's what the market will bear. Don't like it, don't buy it
But it's easy enough to look past the slant and just crunch the numbers yourself. It's all presented in the article.
So, you're suggesting that if you don't like it, don't use internet if you have no other options?
So, you're suggesting that if you don't like it, don't use internet if you have no other options?
Yes, I am. If my DSL went sky high, I'd use the hotspot on my cell phone and cut back on streaming. I don't view internet access as a right or even a public utility like light, power and water.
My parents live in rural Ohio and live without internet access because my dad refuses to pay for Hughesnet. The world hasn't ended for them.
I haven't seen hotspots or cell data usage be any cheaper...usually more expensive based on data usage.
No, we could do without, but as TV prices skyrocket and cord-cutting is suggested, then internet access becomes more prevalent and mainstream. Plus all the required day-to-day banking and management of bills and life.
Yes, I could be like my parents who never had internet and write checks, pay bills thru the mail, and run to the library or call one of their kids any time they need us to do something "internetty"
No, we could do without, but as TV prices skyrocket and cord-cutting is suggested, then internet access becomes more prevalent and mainstream. Plus all the required day-to-day banking and management of bills and life.
Yes, I could be like my parents who never had internet and write checks, pay bills thru the mail, and run to the library or call one of their kids any time they need us to do something "internetty"
I still see internet access as a luxury, just like TV. We don't need it to survive. If I needed really fast internet and it was really important to me, I'd move. This is one reason I don't see Dish going away completely. Some people, like me, are willing to forego the luxury of super-fast internet to live in rural areas.
