anyone gone to all cable?

[nostatic]

Its been years since I've done cable (and actually back during the lost years I was an installer for Southwestern Cable TV in San Diego but I digress), but I'm about to move to an HD monitor as I'm starting to shoot video in HD, and TimeWarner has a deal where you can do HD cable/broadband/phone for $90/mo. I can ditch verizon for dsl and phone and my sat tv, saving about $60/mo.

Anyone putting all their eggs in the cable basket? I've still got cell separate and pondered not doing the home phone but I get kinda crappy cell coverage in my apt.

[stomachmonkey]

Verizon does not have FIOS in your area?

Is the TimeWarner deal "for a limited time"?

[nostatic]

tw is 12 months at that price. No contract though. Goes up 25/mo for all three after that but only 10/mo with two. My wireless isn't with verizon and won't be.

Seems like a way to cut costs and move to hd all at once but I haven't done net or phone over cable. Used to be speed issues way back when.

[ls23h]

I have had the Time Warner all in one package for 6 months and it is great
I'm so done with Verizon

[mikester]

Having been a cable installer you should realize that the cable system is a "best effort" infrastructure while the phone system is a redundant 99.999% regulated uptime system.

You can say you will use your cell for 911 but that, at least for the moment, goes to the highway patrol - which then has to route your call to the correct location.

I will never get rid of my basic telco service having worked for TWC in the past and having a knowledge of their infrastructure and the workings of VoIP. I would not suggest anyone to depend on it in an emergency.

[Moses]

Heard that cable is moving to block peer-to-peer file sharing.

[mattdavis11]

What happened to the good times? I remember when basic phone service with high speed internet was $26 a month, and direct tv couldn't keep the signal out of anyones back yard.

[Noah930]

Interesting question, nostatic. My wife and I were looking at that exact same ad/offer yesterday. Time Warner already does our internet, at $40/month. Our landline through AT&T is another $40/month. We have no cable right now. But for an additional $10 (total of $90), we can bundle all three together.

I know Wayne has a big pet peeve about people claiming not being able to make ends meet, yet still having luxuries like cable TV. I understand where he's coming from (and I'd throw in stuff like Starbucks, cigarettes, cellphone, iPod, designer handbags, etc. that society treats like necessities). I'm not claiming poverty by any stretch of imagination. But $10/month certainly doesn't seem like a lot for TV.

Only other thing is that the alarm company will only work through a traditional landline phone connection. Can't do it through cable telephone service.

[Zef]

The phone...the net...the HD...all by cable...95 $ month fee...very happy with.

[ls23h]

Originally Posted by Noah930

Only other thing is that the alarm company will only work through a traditional landline phone connection. Can't do it through cable telephone service.

Time Warner also offers home alarm packages

[Jims5543]

Funny, here we have Comcast and I was paying $160 a month for a cable / DSL package. I just canceled it, went to $10 a month DSL with Bellsouth (AT&T) and now pay 90 a month for Direct TV saving $60 a month.

Good to see Cable is a little more affordable on the west coast.

[Steve Carlton]

Are the first 80 or so channels still analog on the cable? Last time I had that on an HDTV, those channels looked like poop.

Cable sux . Go ahead and program their customer service # in your cell phone. You'll need it.

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by mikester

Having been a cable installer you should realize that the cable system is a "best effort" infrastructure while the phone system is a redundant 99.999% regulated uptime system.

You can say you will use your cell for 911 but that, at least for the moment, goes to the highway patrol - which then has to route your call to the correct location.

I will never get rid of my basic telco service having worked for TWC in the past and having a knowledge of their infrastructure and the workings of VoIP. I would not suggest anyone to depend on it in an emergency.

I agree.

Comcast offers the same $99 deal here but I am reluctant to get all three with them. I am a Comncast Broadband/Cable tv subscriber. I have noticed that on occasion, one or both of my servicves will stop working for a while. My Qwest phone always has had a dial tone (even whnen the power went out.

I doubt Comcast will do anything to guarantee me 99.999% uptime. Plus, about 10 years ago, when my cable was out for a week, they would not even give me a credit for the interupted service.

[red-beard]

My Parents did the All cable thing in San Diego with Cox. They are doing the same with Comcast (previously TWC) in Houston.

My wife and I have 2 internet connections in the house, Cable primary (14 mb/s down and 3 mb/s up) with a cheap $14.95 DSL line as a backup. I'll keep SBC running in our home phone, until she moves the business out of the house, probably sometime next year. Then we'll go VOIP for the home phone with cell as a backup.

VOIP phone are the schit! They are setup so that if they do go out, they forward to your cell. I actually use VOIP for our guys in Romania, with a Texas phone number.

[mikester]

My employer also does VoIP over their world wide network - but it is still treated and funded primarily as a DATA network.

I've never seen it any other way, networks without regulation are funded to with the least amount of money and least amount of redundancy tolerable. Data networks should never, ever be trusted in an emergency.

[JavaBrewer]

My friends who live on the North side of 78 have cox. Living on the south side I have TW. They have the full digital package and love it. I have HD cable only. Tried TW cable modem but found it slower and more expensive than DSL through ATT. My cell is paid through work. I had Dish Network Satellite and their HD and DVR was incredible - but no Padres or San Diego news. So I'm on cable. The HD is ok, the DVR sucks as does the UI. Back to your regular programming...

[campbellcj]

I was just thinking about options for our place, which are limited. We have TW cable for data, which has been blazing fast, reliable and fairly inexpensive. DirectTV for video, love it and own significant hardware so no interest in going back to cable for TV. BUT our effin LOCAL phone bill runs about $100/month with PacBell/AT&T/SBC or whatever the heck they are called now. I have a 2nd line that is paid by my company and I suspect it is overpriced too.

Changing phone numbers would be a significant hassle - anybody know if you can keep your same number with other options like cable?

[jyl]

I went to all cable (phone, TV, internet through Comcast) a bit over a year ago. Have been pleased.

TV, phone, internet all from the cable company?

But you're talking Time Warner, so YMMV.

Time Warner Cable Internet So Cal = just Terrible

The cable modem has an internal battery backup, though we haven't had a power outage to test it with. Internet service has been out twice for an hour or so, IIRC, but phone worked during those periods. I don't think the phone has ever been out. Honestly I'm not that fussed about whether the phone is 99.9% or 99.9999% reliable.

My one complaint is the programming on Comcast. For some reason they seem to think that Portland OR viewers don't need any international channels. Satellite has a far better choice.

[SlowToady]

All 3 services over cable? lololololol

Yea, that's JUST what the cable companies need to be doing..pushing move **** over their already oversold, over-extended, under-developed networks.

I'd vote no, but I'm pretty well against cable.

Check if you can get Verizon FIOS. Way faster. And the infrastructure probably doesn't suck as badly.

European countries have 10-100Mbit fiber to the home, and we think we're doing so well with 6Mb cable that works 60% of the time.