***The Official Philadelphia Phillies 2013 Thread***

Cliffy6745

pjhawks said:

RIP Jim. '93 was so much fun.

I guess i'm in the minority but I don't get all the hate for Comcast. I swear sometimes I think it's just a bandwagon people have jumped on and so everyone bitches about them. I've never had a problem with them and they are basically the most important company for the health of the city of Philadelphia. I wonder if the people in Seattle hate Microsoft and Starbucks as much.

I do agree with this. And as someone who has had both Time Warner and Comcast, Comcast blows it away. I HATED Time Warner.

Comcast clearly has a monopoly, but I don't necessarily think much changes with this deal since there aren't many (any?) competing markets. My biggest worry is for old friends who work for Time Warner.

There are a lot worse companies to associate with a city than Comcast. Goldman and the likes for one.

Jearlpam0925

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

RIP Jim. '93 was so much fun.

I guess i'm in the minority but I don't get all the hate for Comcast. I swear sometimes I think it's just a bandwagon people have jumped on and so everyone bitches about them. I've never had a problem with them and they are basically the most important company for the health of the city of Philadelphia. I wonder if the people in Seattle hate Microsoft and Starbucks as much.

I do agree with this. And as someone who has had both Time Warner and Comcast, Comcast blows it away. I HATED Time Warner.

Comcast clearly has a monopoly, but I don't necessarily think much changes with this deal since there aren't many (any?) competing markets. My biggest worry is for old friends who work for Time Warner.

There are a lot worse companies to associate with a city than Comcast. Goldman and the likes for one.

But what yous aren't considering is much worse it's gonna get. Outside of buying Windows, or Office, or something like that Microsoft doesn't price gouge you monthly. And Starbucks isn't a monopoly - there's plenty of other options.

I'm sure Comcast operates plenty fine for what you want, but wait until your paying through the nose (if you're not already) for limited services. Monopolies do not get cheaper as they get bigger, along with that a monopoly provided less for a higher price. It's going to get worse.

The Juggler

and it's not a philadelphia thing. in fact, i want to like them for the reasons mentioned, but their customer service so fucking terrible. i have had countless issues with them over the years...but the thing is, fios isn't any better. and like jp is saying, there is not a god damned thing we can do about it other than choosing the lesser of two evils.

Jearlpam0925

The Juggler said:

and it's not a philadelphia thing. in fact, i want to like them for the reasons mentioned, but their customer service so fucking terrible. i have had countless issues with them over the years...but the thing is, fios isn't any better. and like jp is saying, there is not a god damned thing we can do about it other than choosing the lesser of two evils.

Thing is they work hand-in-hand with Fios. It's not a coincidence that fiber isn't being developed/cultivated no where near its potential.

It's this simple - the internet, most importantly, should be seen as a utility - not a luxury.

pjhawks

Comcast is not a monopoly. you can have Verizon or a satellite service for tv. do they tend to fuck satellite by not offering CSN of course but that's just good business on their part.

as for charging too much I pay about $200 a month for cable (with the sports tiers, hbo starz, and 3 HD receivers), phone and internet combined and have had maybe 3 or 4 service problems in about 20 years. I really don't think that's unreasonable at all. I'm willing to bet most of those who bitch about costs are paying close to or over $100 a month for cell phone service. cell phone costs are way more outrageous than cable in my opinion.

as for the internet being seen as a utility no thanks. Peco couldn't restore service to some people for over a week after the last ice storm. that to me is completely unacceptable. that's poor service. Utility company are way worse than Comcast.

Jearlpam0925

You certainly are an idiot.

Cliffy6745

Jearlpam0925 said:

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

RIP Jim. '93 was so much fun.

I guess i'm in the minority but I don't get all the hate for Comcast. I swear sometimes I think it's just a bandwagon people have jumped on and so everyone bitches about them. I've never had a problem with them and they are basically the most important company for the health of the city of Philadelphia. I wonder if the people in Seattle hate Microsoft and Starbucks as much.

I do agree with this. And as someone who has had both Time Warner and Comcast, Comcast blows it away. I HATED Time Warner.

Comcast clearly has a monopoly, but I don't necessarily think much changes with this deal since there aren't many (any?) competing markets. My biggest worry is for old friends who work for Time Warner.

There are a lot worse companies to associate with a city than Comcast. Goldman and the likes for one.

But what yous aren't considering is much worse it's gonna get. Outside of buying Windows, or Office, or something like that Microsoft doesn't price gouge you monthly. And Starbucks isn't a monopoly - there's plenty of other options.

I'm sure Comcast operates plenty fine for what you want, but wait until your paying through the nose (if you're not already) for limited services. Monopolies do not get cheaper as they get bigger, along with that a monopoly provided less for a higher price. It's going to get worse.

I already am paying through the roof, and of course I don't like it but I don't don't necessarily see how this deal will increase prices or will impact the Philadelphia market at all since there really isn't any overlap. Cable companies suck in general, but I just find Comcast to suck less than TWC. Also, Suddenlink, which my Mom has in NC, is the fucking PITS.

Cliffy6745

pjhawks said:

Comcast is not a monopoly. you can have Verizon or a satellite service for tv. do they tend to fuck satellite by not offering CSN of course but that's just good business on their part.

as for charging too much I pay about $200 a month for cable (with the sports tiers, hbo starz, and 3 HD receivers), phone and internet combined and have had maybe 3 or 4 service problems in about 20 years. I really don't think that's unreasonable at all. I'm willing to bet most of those who bitch about costs are paying close to or over $100 a month for cell phone service. cell phone costs are way more outrageous than cable in my opinion.

as for the internet being seen as a utility no thanks. Peco couldn't restore service to some people for over a week after the last ice storm. that to me is completely unacceptable. that's poor service. Utility company are way worse than Comcast.

Again, I agree with a lot this aside from the monopoly aspect. I guess in the literal definition you have a choice, but in the grand scheme of things, Verizon/DirectTV probably have well less than 1% of the market combined. Not nearly enough to make any type of impact on the market.

Cell phone costs are obscene, I need to change my plan and get mine down. The frustrating thing about $200 month for cable is that that is significantly higher than it was just a few years ago with little added benefits.

I personally have never had any issues with Comcast. Spotty internet here and there. bullshit no HD for the MLB package, but my customer service has actually been fine, aside from having to deal with an idiot once or twice, which you just have to have some patience when calling.

Cliffy6745

The thing I will have an issue with is if Comcast further slows down streaming services just for the sake of being a pain in the ass to people without cable.

pjhawks

Jearlpam0925 said:

You certainly are an idiot.

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

Comcast is not a monopoly. you can have Verizon or a satellite service for tv. do they tend to fuck satellite by not offering CSN of course but that's just good business on their part.

as for charging too much I pay about $200 a month for cable (with the sports tiers, hbo starz, and 3 HD receivers), phone and internet combined and have had maybe 3 or 4 service problems in about 20 years. I really don't think that's unreasonable at all. I'm willing to bet most of those who bitch about costs are paying close to or over $100 a month for cell phone service. cell phone costs are way more outrageous than cable in my opinion.

as for the internet being seen as a utility no thanks. Peco couldn't restore service to some people for over a week after the last ice storm. that to me is completely unacceptable. that's poor service. Utility company are way worse than Comcast.

Again, I agree with a lot this aside from the monopoly aspect. I guess in the literal definition you have a choice, but in the grand scheme of things, Verizon/DirectTV probably have well less than 1% of the market combined. Not nearly enough to make any type of impact on the market.

Cell phone costs are obscene, I need to change my plan and get mine down. The frustrating thing about $200 month for cable is that that is significantly higher than it was just a few years ago with little added benefits.

I personally have never had any issues with Comcast. Spotty internet here and there. bullshit no HD for the MLB package, but my customer service has actually been fine, aside from having to deal with an idiot once or twice, which you just have to have some patience when calling.

I live in the suburbs. about 50% of the people I know have Verizon for their TV service. it's not a monopoly in today's world. there are plenty of options for TV outside of Comcast these days.

I've never had much problems calling their service. at least they are American. I've had much bigger problems in dealings with other companies and utilites.

I'd luv to hear jearlpam actually list issues he has with comcast other than just saying they suck and lobbing insults at me. but I guess that's kind of what I should expect since that's pretty much his m.o.

JK_Livin

When I moved into my new house 4 years, I had major problems with comcast and they couldn't figure out what was wrong. It's an older house with older lines. We had many home services, went through at least 6 dvr boxes and poor customer service. Once things got straightened out, took 2 years, things have been better. The X1 boxes are great.

Anyone know how to get your WiFi to be more balanced throughout the house? There are certain rooms, areas of the house where it doesn't work.

The Juggler

Jearlpam0925 said:

You certainly are an idiot.

....it's that kind of thinking that allows things like this to h

pjhawks said:

as for charging too much I pay about $200 a month for cable (with the sports tiers, hbo starz, and 3 HD receivers), phone and internet combined and have had maybe 3 or 4 service problems in about 20 years. I really don't think that's unreasonable at all.

this is the problem. you don't think it is unreasonable...because you don't know any better. and that is EXACTLY how comcast, verizon, and our government want you to be.

did you know that people in other countries pay about a quarter of this for the same service? it's actually better service (especially regarding internet speeds and stuff) because there is more competition there, which encourages more innovation and lower prices. we are getting screwed in this country. people need to dig a little deeper and not accept the status quo.

long read, but a worthwhile one:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/comcast-time-warner-acquisition-competition-cable-internet-monopoly.html

The Juggler

one other thing, a duopoly is just as bad as monopoly. it's true we have 2 choices for cable in this area but there are a lot of areas in the country that have no choice. even so....what do you get when you switch from comcast to verizon? a lower price? no. better customer service no? faster internet speeds? no. the consumer loses out. we are getting fucked and nobody cares enough to do anything about it. this is the country we live in, though.


Definition of 'Duopoly'

A situation in which two companies own all or nearly all of the market for a given product or service. A duopoly is the most basic form of oligopoly, a market dominated by a small number of companies. A duopoly can have the same impact on the market as a monopoly if the two players collude on prices or output. Collusion results in consumers paying higher prices than they would in a truly competitive market and is illegal under U.S. antitrust law.

eeriepadave

Rip Jim :(

Jearlpam0925

If you don't think Comcast is a monopoly then I don't know what to tell you.

I've spent about the past 4 years reading a lot/studying up on monopolies -

Read/Watch Susan Crawford -

http://business.time.com/2013/01/09/is-broadband-internet-access-a-public-utility/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R4xhwy-1oI

Jearlpam0925

Also, it's my m.o. when it comes to you, specifically...ya know, cause you're a mope....

Anyone else here I will gladly have a conversation with...

pjhawks

<

Jearlpam0925 said:

Also, it's my m.o. when it comes to you, specifically...ya know, cause you're a mope....

Anyone else here I will gladly have a conversation with...

maybe but at least I'm not at asshole.

Cliffy6745

The Juggler said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

You certainly are an idiot.

....it's that kind of thinking that allows things like this to h

pjhawks said:

as for charging too much I pay about $200 a month for cable (with the sports tiers, hbo starz, and 3 HD receivers), phone and internet combined and have had maybe 3 or 4 service problems in about 20 years. I really don't think that's unreasonable at all.

this is the problem. you don't think it is unreasonable...because you don't know any better. and that is EXACTLY how comcast, verizon, and our government want you to be.

did you know that people in other countries pay about a quarter of this for the same service? it's actually better service (especially regarding internet speeds and stuff) because there is more competition there, which encourages more innovation and lower prices. we are getting screwed in this country. people need to dig a little deeper and not accept the status quo.

long read, but a worthwhile one:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/comcast-time-warner-acquisition-competition-cable-internet-monopoly.html

A couple thoughts

Deregulation. People in America want a capitalist society and this is what we end up with. Time and time again we (Americans in general) vote for politicians who will deregulate any industry they see fit. This is what it seems like Americans want. One mention of France and shit hits the fan. MERICA!

Completely agree on the internet service point. Ours is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than most other countries.

The article fails to mention content. We have a shit load more content than any other country and that costs a lot of money. Shit, ESPN's deal with the NFL for one game a week is $15.2 billion. Between sports and the other 1,200 channels, we are paying for a lot of that, 99% of it we don't watch.

pjhawks

The Juggler said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

You certainly are an idiot.

....it's that kind of thinking that allows things like this to h

pjhawks said:

as for charging too much I pay about $200 a month for cable (with the sports tiers, hbo starz, and 3 HD receivers), phone and internet combined and have had maybe 3 or 4 service problems in about 20 years. I really don't think that's unreasonable at all.

this is the problem. you don't think it is unreasonable...because you don't know any better. and that is EXACTLY how comcast, verizon, and our government want you to be.

did you know that people in other countries pay about a quarter of this for the same service? it's actually better service (especially regarding internet speeds and stuff) because there is more competition there, which encourages more innovation and lower prices. we are getting screwed in this country. people need to dig a little deeper and not accept the status quo.

long read, but a worthwhile one:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/comcast-time-warner-acquisition-competition-cable-internet-monopoly.html

i don't find it unreasonable and i pay it BY CHOICE. where does it say that cable tv (and internet and phone) is an inherent right and something you need to survive. you don't NEED it. they are a private fucking company. don't like what they are offering don't fucking buy it. pretty fucking simple concept if you ask me.

for me $200 a month for over 100 channels (with about 100 college basketball games a week on tv), nfl red zone, nhl, nfl and mlb networks, every philly sports team games, 2 movie channels, every news channel, every over-the-air network plus internet service and a land line phone? that price is completely reasonable to me.

by agreeing to pay said price you are at least acknowledging they haven't reached the threshold of unreasonableness.

At what price would you no longer have cable tv? $200, $300, $400, $500 a month?

you guys probably bitch about gas prices every time they go up to right? then drive 25 miles to go out to a restaurant for a $100 meal and fruity beers. I pay $6 a day for cable tv, internet service, and a land line phone and a bunch of guys who will spend $6 a pop for a fruity beer are telling me that's unreasonable. good god. the everybody gets a trophy generation fucking baffles me 8-|

Jearlpam0925

Cliffy6745 said:

The Juggler said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

You certainly are an idiot.

....it's that kind of thinking that allows things like this to h

pjhawks said:

as for charging too much I pay about $200 a month for cable (with the sports tiers, hbo starz, and 3 HD receivers), phone and internet combined and have had maybe 3 or 4 service problems in about 20 years. I really don't think that's unreasonable at all.

this is the problem. you don't think it is unreasonable...because you don't know any better. and that is EXACTLY how comcast, verizon, and our government want you to be.

did you know that people in other countries pay about a quarter of this for the same service? it's actually better service (especially regarding internet speeds and stuff) because there is more competition there, which encourages more innovation and lower prices. we are getting screwed in this country. people need to dig a little deeper and not accept the status quo.

long read, but a worthwhile one:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/comcast-time-warner-acquisition-competition-cable-internet-monopoly.html

A couple thoughts

Deregulation. People in America want a capitalist society and this is what we end up with. Time and time again we (Americans in general) vote for politicians who will deregulate any industry they see fit. This is what it seems like Americans want. One mention of France and shit hits the fan. MERICA!

Completely agree on the internet service point. Ours is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than most other countries.

The article fails to mention content. We have a shit load more content than any other country and that costs a lot of money. Shit, ESPN's deal with the NFL for one game a week is $15.2 billion. Between sports and the other 1,200 channels, we are paying for a lot of that, 99% of it we don't watch.

Yes, and this is EXACTLY the problem, and is ultimately why they (cable co's) are trying to lock down the content as well as the distributors. That way they make you seem like you need it or are going to pay for it anyway because you ultimately have no choice - as the distributors, the production company, the station, the cable co's are all consolidated. Hence, the monopoly.