forst
I keep impatiently waiting for Time Warner to ADD something worthwhile to its
line-up. I've only seen HDNet and HDMovies REMOVED, and replaced by one decent channel (Smithsonian) and one garbage channel-MAV-TV. I've since dropped the HD pkg, because of the change. Why can't they put on the Weather Cahnnel in HD?
We can still get our "Local on the 8's" on Channel 28. There are also many others that are not pay channels which would enhance the HD line-up. They had best start improving their offerings or I may be tempted to pay the buy-out penalty and go back to satellite. They could ADD "Free HD" channels ( good ones, at that) and make a lot of us happy.
Posted July 1, 2009 2:32am in
Fox Cities TV is an independent blog and member-driven community based in Green Bay, Wisconsin and serves the Northeast Wisconsin area, including Green Bay, Appleton, and Oshkosh. TV lovers can come here to learn about what's happening in local (and national) television, interact with other TV viewers and express their opinions.
I agree that Time Warner's
I agree that Time Warner's lineup has grown terribly stagnant over the past six months. I don't think it would seem so bad if they had been much more aggressive about adding HD channels up front. Even though it doesn't seem like the satellite companies haven't added new channels en masse lately either, they were much more aggressive about adding new channels in past and have an attractive lineup. I'm really, really struggling with my decision of who to go with when I move into our new house a month from now. I'm not at all happy with Time Warner's lineup and slowness to bolster the HD lineup. (Not terribly happy with their decision to drop HDNet channels either, even though I wasn't currently a subscriber to them) Yet, I don't think we'll be able to go with AT&T U-Verse or the satellite companies either because we'd want three receivers minimum in the house and those extra lease fees are killer. Stagnant though they are, there is something to be said for the fact that you can still plug in as many TVs as you want to cable and get 70 channels without needing to rent a box. Our new house does have a satellite dish mounted at the back of our yard with cabling running into the basement already, so install is almost halfway done, but renting extra receivers and the 24-month commitment rubs me the wrong way regardless of monthly savings (albeit only for the 6- or 12-month "promotional period").
I tried satellite, after
I tried satellite, after having been with cable, but I went back to cable. Their service is, in my situations, subperb. The inability to reach by phone satellite customer service and tech support was enough to make me return to cable. A few things with cable are irritating, but not compared to what I experienced with Directv satellite. No mas !
Let me preface this by
Let me preface this by saying that I hate both Time Warner and ATT. Both companies are giants that don't care about the consumer in my opinion. I have never had dish but I have heard both good and about that service. Right now uverse is the best tv service I have ever had. The channel lineup is outstanding. I love the features such as getting voice mails on email or listening to voice messages on the computer. Espn 360 is also cool to have for free.And the new iphone app is cool too. But the best thing about uverse is the dvr. It does everything I wanted the time warner dvr to do. Its very user friendly. Now Green Bay has the the total home dvr feature now and thats so cool. I can manage the hard drive from anywhere in the house. And I haven't even mentioned the NFL Network. The feeling I got when I had TWC was that I was paying for things I did not want. Thats my 2 cents Chip
I would have to agree that
I would have to agree that Uverse is the best service I have experienced. Charter has to be the worst.
I love U-Verse too, but for
I love U-Verse too, but for our purposes it's just way too expensive. Wish they would bump down their receiver lease fees a bit and make their DVR expandable.