So whats going to be Verizons selling point now that TWC has pretty much the same hd lineup as Fios.

[Mces97]

TWC in NYC I read now has over 100 HD channels just like Fios. They have all the hbo, cinemax, showtime, starz, tmc hd channels that fios offers. Sure they dont have the west feed, but I doubt the west feed would be a selling point too much. In fact time warner carries channels verizon doesnt have, like cartoon network hd, G4, E!. Does Verizon have some kind of contract dispute with Viacom. When are we getting these channels. I know for one if they arent around by next year people wont see the need to switch from cable to fios as much as they did this year.

[CharlesH]

It's not a matter of dispute, it has to do with exclusive contracts with other providers...

[matcarl]

I do like Verizon's commercials though with the "cable" guy meeting at people's houses. Funny stuff!

[billymets]

TWC has MSG HD and MSG + HD, Verizon Doesn't , but they both have 100 + HD Channels for both MSO Providers. Maybe their selling point when they get those 2 would be , one provider with ONE BILL with 4 services, or even the Triple Flex Play (Wireless, TV and Internet), they would get the customers then. , stating customers programming and services choice, who knows. NYC 24 Hour News channels are coming as well as LOCAL things, so its not like you will be losing NY 1 or News 12. TW Cable doesnt have the Wireless

[DMZ]

TW has the MSG HD channels because they don't geographically compete with Cablevision who owns MSG.  BS like this and the MSNBC fiasco are reasons why cable companies shouldn't be allowed to own cable networks or at least not be be allowed to prevent these types of restrictions which we all know are formulated to stymie competition, something that's been Cablevision's specialty since they've been in business.

[philhu]

I agree.  Cable companies should not be allowed to own cable channels or restrict them from other cable companies.  They should be required to sell them, at a profit but a reasonable profit, not restrict them completely, or charge so much that it is restrictive fair trade.

Better, they should not be allowed to own channels at all.  That is the problem.

I also think that 'exclusive contracts' for channels should be time-limited, like pateneted drugs.  After a set timeframe, 5 years or so, the channel should go

'on the market' for any provider to buy.