fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Mediacom's $6.6 mil loss
If Mediacom would actually invest some money in repairing their plant, offering a service that didn't look like it was still 1980, then people would more than likely start coming back.
I have two places in Mediacom territory (both Iowa) and they quality of the basic cable service is pure crap. The last time I saw that PQ was back in 1980. (This is straight from the tap)
This company is a train wreck of systems waiting to derail and when you talk to their corporate HQ, they have the gall to actually tell you 'it costs money'...
MC is a company that needs to be bought out and get out of the business. This is a company which is an example of stretching copper too far. They even, and yes - mark this down, even make at&t look good. Even though at&t is pushing out and stretching outdated technology "for the future" at least they are actually investing into themselves.
I believe that even if Mediacom got a cash infusion they would not know how to handle it or what to do with it.
At minimum, the PQ, their mainstay, needs to be better. They could sweep their system (which I bet is done on an as needed basis) and tighten fittings, look for tree-rat chew, replace corrosion, etc. That kind of maintenance isn't that expensive, yet necessary.
If they can't run analog, then they really can't run anything digital with any measure of quality.
The fact they are taking a back seat to DS3.0 is no surprise. Since most of their competition is not doing much to up the ante, why should they? When ever I said that satellite still has a purpose, this is it.
I would love to, if I had time, look at the FCC fly-over data from Mediacom territory.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
) but I don't think Mediacom would be able to do it even if they had some major competition.