Slashdot Log In
Time Warner Recommends Internet For Some Shows
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Dec 31, 2008 02:09 PM
from the how-to-keep-hulu-in-page-views dept.
from the how-to-keep-hulu-in-page-views dept.
EdIII writes "The dispute between Time Warner and Viacom over fees seems to be without any resolution this year. Time Warner faces the possibility of being without content for almost 20 channels. Alexander Dudley, a spokesperson for Time Warner, is fighting back: 'We will be telling our customers exactly where they can go to see these programs online,' Mr. Dudley said. 'We'll also be telling them how they can hook up their PCs to a television set.' Why pay for digital cable when many content providers are now providing it on demand via the Internet? Not to mention the widespread availability of TV shows in both standard and high definition on public and private torrent tracker sites. It is entirely possible to watch television with no commercials or advertising with only an Internet connection. So getting your content via the Internet is not exactly free, but it certainly isn't contributing to Time Warner or any other cable providers' revenue stream. The real question is why Time Warner would fight back by so clearly showing how increasingly obsolete they are becoming and that cable providers are losing their monopolistic grip on media delivery." If no agreement is reached, those channels are supposed to be dropped just after midnight tonight.
Related Stories
[+]
Time Warner/Viacom Rift Healed, Pending Details 75 comments
jwilcox154 writes "Yesterday a dispute over fee hikes had threatened a damaging blackout at a minute past midnight Thursday that would have prevented TWC subscribers from watching their favorite shows such as 'SpongeBob SquarePants' and 'The Colbert Report.' The two sides reached an agreement on Thursday, the first of January 2009. The companies stated the terms of the deal were not disclosed. Details must still be finalized over the next few days."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
FiOS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:FiOS (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And that would be roughly $.50, correct? Damn, can't decide where to spend that big check.
Re:FiOS (Score:4, Interesting)
I suggest you consider the amount carefully. You already force us to take channels we don't want just so we can get the few we do want. Now you're going to drop a bunch of channels and the result will be we see practically no billing difference this month, and if it continues you'll just come up with an excuse to raise rates to compensate for the lost next month.
I have no problem with dropping the channels, with the exception of a couple of the nick channels they all otherwise suck, and since I don't have kids at this point, I can deal without the Nick channels. Perhaps you should use that additional bandwidth you'll have around to provide the those of us who you rip off for data services with what you actually claim to sell us rather than saturated upstreams.
And please, don't tell me about how thats not true, I know far too many TWC employees that work in your data centers to buy that bullshit. I know your profit margins are so ridiculous that it would make Cheney feel bad about it.
As I said, consider the amount carefully, as I suspect you'll have lawsuits that follow shortly after the service interruption. We've paid our bill, you don't give us the option to not pay for the channels we don't want, likewise, you don't have the option of not giving us channels you promised to give us.
I also wish you great luck in your digital phone efforts, I pray you get big enough that you actually have to provide a proper SLA to your customers like real phone companies do. Its nice getting to take the money without having to follow the rules isn't it?
Parent
Re:FiOS (Score:5, Informative)
You already force us to take channels we don't want just so we can get the few we do want.
Actually in many cases it's part of the agreement between the content provider and the cable company, the content provider is effectively the one "forcing" you to take channels you don't want.
Parent
Re:FiOS (Score:5, Insightful)
What this means in English is that if the cable provider sells ESPN to someone, they must buy ESPN to resell it (obviously) but must also buy ESPN2 (and others). However, there is nothing that requires them to actually provide those chanels to anyone. So, they can easily sell and provide ESPN and only ESPN to anyone they want. They just have to charge the cost of ESPN plus extras or they will lose money on it.
So you're saying the cable companies should *pay* for channels no one wants, *charge me* for the channels no one wants, but not actually *give me* the channels no one wants?
In your mind, that scenario makes *more* sense than just sending the channels they have down the wire and letting me decide not to watch it?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As I said, consider the amount carefully, as I suspect you'll have lawsuits that follow shortly after the service interruption.
As a customer of Dish Network who lived through the same thing with Viacom a few years ago, I have to say that I consider this very unlikely. They, too, provided a temporary credit for the channels lost. They, too, make me take a lot of channels I don't like for the few I do.
You already force us to take channels we don't want just so we can get the few we do want.
They force us to do so, however, only because they are themselves forced to do so by the content providers. If Time Warner tried to provide you with just Comedy Central and Nickelodeon from Viacom at the basic tier, with all the othe
Re:FiOS (Score:5, Insightful)
So if Viacom got $2.25 per subscriber for these channels in 2008, and is asking $2.50 in 2009, how much are you going to refund to users? If it's more than $2.50, you're better off paying Viacom, if it's less, people will laugh at you ("take away the best 10% of my channels and knock 2% off my bill?")
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Careful though... Time Warner's agreement with Viacom just happens to be expiring right now so make no mistake about it that Viacom will come to Direct TV with the exact same inflated demands which they are now asking of TWC when that contract expires as well.
So anyone who's solution is to go with FIOS or Direct TV just be forewarned that Viacom will be at those doors rattling their chains before too long. Plus, chances are that with their TWC revenue gone (which Viacom is already adding into their 2009 pro
Re:FiOS (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's still people with 3 digit UIDs around?
I thought they were just the stuff of legends these days.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So that's what UID numbers are up to as of today...
Unbelievable. The director of communications comes on to explain exactly what most people are wondering about, and YOU critqique him for not having a Slashdot account before today.
I think you mean:
"A random anonymous new user to /. who claims to be, and may or may not be, the director of communications..."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For the record, I tend to believe his claim, since 1. The Director of Digital Communications at TWC right now is Jeff Simmermon, and 2. The same username on other services (e.g. Twitter, YouTube) seems to be the same guy.
However, his first post was 4:00 on 12/31/2008, so you can clearly see why the veteran /.'s around here would be a tad suspicious. Just saying.
Re:FiOS (Score:5, Funny)
I got FiOS. I downloaded the season finale of Heroes in 10 minutes flat.
Parent
FiOS won't save you (Score:3, Interesting)
If TWC's claim that MTV, etc are trying to take them for 3x the carriage fee they previously paid and they win this game of chicken this sets a very concerning stage for an even more runaway cable bill regardless of the provider. The big evil cable co's are in a better position to negotiate then the upstarts, even the likes of Verizon, if they loose, we all loose.
I am glad they are taking a stand, my cable bill has gone up enough in the last few years all I need is every cable network demanding 3x the fees
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is pissing me off TO NO END.
1) I have not one, but TWO small children (6 and 8 respectively) with mild-moderate Autism spectrum disorder that are OBSESSED with Noggin. My 6 year old son in particular has a hard time going through the day without watching his favorite shows. Did I mention they have Autism Spectrum Disorder? You DO NOT KNOW what a tantrum is until you have dealt with an Autism tantrum. So my New Years Day is going to be a NIGHTMARE. The only reason I have Digital Cable is so I can
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And as for the screaming kids...shouldn't they be in the kitchen with the dish washer?
I mean, you did buy that room for her....why can't she keep the kids in there with her while you relax from working and watch sports on tv?
BAEG
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The real question is why Time Warner would fight back by so clearly showing how increasingly obsolete they are becoming and that cable providers are losing their monopolistic grip on media delivery."
Because they are also TWC via Road Runner.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
They will use this to justify metered broadband, with caps and overage fees. They're already trialing it in Beaumont TX now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060202618.html [washingtonpost.com]
Doug
Parent
That's not really the case, though, is it? (Score:4, Interesting)
It doesn't? They don't pay Time Warner for access to the internet, their own subscribers? In fact, this provides a way for them to cut costs - they're already paying for the bandwidth, and some people are going to download the shows anyway. Win / win from their standpoint.
Yeah, why not steal it? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's out there, it's possible to do. Why should I get cable when I can steal programs instead? For that matter, why don't I just steal cable?
I wish I had known about the value proposition of stealing a month ago, I would have saved a lot on my Xmas shopping.
Re: (Score:2)
What a dilemma :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should I have to do either?
This whole article is about the cable company not airing the channels anymore because they don't want to pay what Warner asks.
By the same lesson we learned on here, they should just continue to air the channels and not pay. Paying is clearly optional.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stealing? Who's talking about stealing?
Viacom puts [nickjr.com] many [thedailyshow.com] of [southparkstudios.com] their [mtv.com] shows [tvland.com] online.
But what about bandwidth caps? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast has it right for offering a 250GB cap. Very realistic and for the customer.
Re:But what about bandwidth caps? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just how many shows are these people actually watching? An hour slot usually encodes to less than 700MB. At 250GB per month, assuming half of that was TV, they have:
250GB x 1024 = 256000MB
256000 / 700 = 365.7 Hours
That would be over 13 hours of TV a day, every day for a month. Right...
Parent
Re:But what about bandwidth caps? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Videos will be disabled (Score:5, Interesting)
If you go to www.mtv.com or www.comedycentral.com (or any other Viacom property) and you're coming from a Time Warner-served IP, you'll get a nice pop up message that indicates your channels will be dropped on your (assumed) cable service.
It is also my understanding that after new years, should there be no deal, that Viacom will be pulling video access for a variety of their sites, if you're coming from the aforementioned ISP. Obviously its not that hard to do, if they already have that pop up working. I assume that this will not affect videos on hulu.
What's interesting here is that nobody is noticing that there is a disconnect between cable and ISP service. While the vast majority of people will have combined TV + ISP service through one provider, there obviously are some people getting caught in the crossfire.
Furthermore, if the video blocking does take place, this becomes some sort of inverse network neutrality. Instead of the carrier being the jerk that slows/eliminates the ability to reach a content provider, the content provider is using your carrier as a reason to not serve you.
Re:Videos will be disabled (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Great Profit Opportunity (Score:5, Funny)
Lose 20 channels, tell people who bitch to use torrents, impose strict bandwidth caps, then charge out the ass for going over the limit.
It's a perfect circle.
Incoming DDoS attack (Score:4, Insightful)
I forsee a DDoS attack on Viacom servers by the masses of users redirected there by Time Warner. Funny actually, because it will drive up Viacom's costs if they have to bring additional servers or bandwidth on-line to handle the load (unless they do something draconian like block all Time Warner address blocks :)).
Why pay? (Score:2, Informative)
Because you're sick of buffering everything for 20 minutes before watching and not having an easy way to discover new content that is outside the topic ranges of things you have been watching.
Think about how many shows you really watch (Score:4, Insightful)
I dropped cable because I did the math, and for the few shows I was interested in watching it was cheaper to buy the shows on iTunes than to pay for cable.
If you think about it any given show is only $8/month (4 episodes at $1.99 each), and generally do not last a whole year. You can have quite a few shows in the line for less than the price of a normal cable subscription.
And of course, there are the multiple free avenues that range in legality from Hulu to torrents (someone needs to make a torrent client called Zulu to turn that into a great line).
As another poster here noted, Time Warner would probably be fine just becoming your value-added internet service provider even if they don't add much programming on top of that.
Now of course, none of that advice probably applies if you watch a lot of sports. In those cases, I don't know there are really good alternatives other than frequent trips to a bar...
Another thing TWC can tell their customers (Score:2)
Due to the fact that we're not providing a whole set of channels we claimed we would, you'll be receiving a nice credit to your account.
There should be no reason that TWC should be able to collect from their customers and then say "thanks, now go to the internet."
It's bad enough I have to pay for stupid channels I will *NEVER* watch. I'm no longer with TWC, but was never a fan of their crappy service when I was.
Re:Another thing TWC can tell their customers (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Right TWC! Who Needs Cable Anyway ... Right? (Score:2)
From TFA:
For a minute I was worried, but considering how often I watch any of those channels, I doubt I would notice.
On a related note: TWCNYC has now managed to mess up an appointment yet again, making sure my on-going intermittent cable problems last into the new year.
Thanks TWC fo
Viacom bought a full-page ad (Score:3, Interesting)
It had a picture of Dora the Explorer with a tear in her eye. The text said that Time Warner was canceling 19 channels in the Milwaukee area.
Viacom's name was in very small text at the bottom of the page.
TW pulls this all the time (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? It's time to rumble, that's why. (Score:3, Insightful)
Things are getting lean, and the wolves come out when the food runs low. You're seeing the same dynamic between AMD/Intel/NVidia right now with AMD's open sourcing of it's graphics card firmware. You force the competition to expend resources at a time that it can't afford to do so, even if it costs you more resources. The gamble is that they'll break before you do.
They're playing chicken.
Recently Downgraded to Limited Basic Cable (Score:3, Interesting)
I recently downgraded from Comcast's Digital Premier to Limited Basic. My monthly cable bill for both TV and internet has gone from a whopping $227 to a more reasonable $60.
I'm amazed how little I miss - most of the channels I watched before, such as the networks, I still get. And the internet and other non-TV entertainment more than makes up for the rest.
Cable TV's pricing structure is increasingly becoming unsustainable with ever increasing carriage fees for channels that many people don't want or can live without.
It's only a matter of time, especially as TV and internet converge, some cable companies will choose to drop carriage of many channels and instead simply redirect to the channel's internet website.
Ron
And folks, here you have it (Score:4, Interesting)
Folks, as I called it when bandwidth caps were first mentioned, they are being implemented because the cable companies are terrified of using their current monopolies on subscription digital television delivery. I don't know what Time-Warner's cap is but Comcast's is 250GB. There is NO concern of P2P users hogging bandwidth - were that the case then Comcast would simply use QoS to keep those users in check. No, not at all. It's all about content delivery.
See, they were fine with advertising flat-fee UNLIMITED HIGH SPEED INTERNET for over a decade. However, now that the technology exists which allows content providers to deliver content directly to users via commodity entry-level PCs, suddenly there is a need for monthly bandwidth caps. Not bandwidth throttling where if you hit the limit (on the service where you agreed to unlimited internet, no less!) it's two strikes and you're out.
I'll bet that if they do not come to agreement today, Time Warner's response will not be customer-friendly. They will either block traffic or severely throttle traffic coming from the sites where the content is being streamed. In fact I hope that this is exactly how they will respond. Why? Because then Joe Sixpack will understand how net neutrality would help them. Comcast, TW, et. al are trying to convince Joe Sixpack that net neutrality is an evil thing, but this situation would be perfect for underscoring just how evil the monopolies are.
Want to end this fucking nonsense? Talk to your town council. Attend town meetings, and tell them you want competition. You want to pit Verizon against Quest against Comcast against Cox against Time Warner. Let everyone enter the town and COMPETE. Then, you will suddenly see bandwidth caps disappear, and actual customer service -- AND lower prices.
Only Points out the Broken Model (Score:3, Interesting)
So the model goes like this:
Studio creates TV show
Sells it to Network
Network bundles; sells to cable provider
Cable provider sells to consumers
Geeze, this is more convoluted than the Music market.
I have to think all this wrangling is for nothing. BitTorrent, AppleTV, NetFlix On Demand. They're going to crush that model.
Viacom will block free Web video (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those affected will lose Comedy Central. Daily Show, Colbert Report, South Park, Futurama, Reno 911, etc. While you can watch them online, not everyone wants to do this.
As Cartman would say: "Suck my balls, Time Warner and Viacom!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I heard this story on the radio this morning, I instantly thought of that "andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag.
Re:Simple Answer On Torrents (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
it's not just more seeders that increases download speeds. as long as there is 1 seed then each added peer, whether a seeder or leecher, is going to contribute to your download speed. that's the way BitTorrent works. the more you upload, the faster you can download, so everyone is going to be uploading even as they are "leeching."
in any case, internet TV is long overdue. but the U.S. still needs to catch up in broadband infrastructure. with 100 Mbps connections, watching TV over the internet would be even m
Re: (Score:2)