On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 12:57:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:45:35 -0800, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
A co-worker just showed me a quote to have Time Warner Cable run service
to his house. TWC told him that the nearest point for them to tie into
an existing junction is ~7000 feet away.

They said that they would be happy to run cable to his house. All he has
to do is pay them $44,000.

He's planning to stick with satellite for now.

Can he explain his reasoning?


I already have cable hanging on the side of my house and I still went
for satellite.
I don't know about TW but Comcast sucks. When we had a small
independent cable company it was great but comcast soured me on the
whole business. Lousy service, reliability sucks and they really don't
care when you complain about it.
I had my most enjoyable day with comcast when I cut the cable and set
their equipment out by the mailbox.

I have cable at home, satellite at work.

Every time we get a severe rain or snow storm, the satellite either
freaks out or goes out - sometimes for hours. That never happens with
cable. The cable outages have been so few and far between as to be
almost non-existent.

I've always looked at it this way: On the worst nights of the year,
those nights when I'm going to want to be inside, possibly watching
TV, why would I want to to use a system that is prone to be unreliable
during those very times?

I imagine Sundays in winter when I want to watch football and my
satellite goes out because of a blizzard. No thanks, I'm good with
TWC.