Time Warner Recommends Internet For Some Shows 379
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.
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.
But what about bandwidth caps? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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
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)
Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable? (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually, we for a time had internet without cable service, and they had installed what they call a "video filter", which I understand to eventually filter the frequencies that are not used for internet...but this is a somewhat recent occurrence...I know that back in '01-'02, we had only internet through Comcast, and through a few splitters, was able to get basic cable. At the time, I was told that was why they charged extra if you had internet without TV...as far as why the charge difference now, who knows?
Re:FiOS (Score:1, Interesting)
If you really have FiOS available, why on earth would you keep the Brighthouse service? Poor HDTV plagued with compression artifacts, which got worse the more channels they added, regular outages. We jumped to FiOS about 18 months ago, never had the service disappear, HDTV is passed-through untouched and doesn't suffer from the extra compress TW has to do to get it onto their aging gear. How's your broadband? That died more than the TV service with Brighthouse. What are they up to now 15/5mbps? FiOS: 20/20mbps is $65/month, the 50/30mbps is too dear for us, and they're apparently about to roll out 100/100mbps in some areas. *shudders* at the price it'll be.
The real problem here is cable companies forcing us into channel packages as required by the content providers. Both are about to get a reality check like the music and movie industries have had in recent years. We don't want to pay for 90% of the channels. Do I want 10 black channels, 5 religious ones, 10 shopping channel and so on? We'll get the desired programming elsewhere. It won't be long before you start seeing people canceling cable TV completely and using online services for the content they want.
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?
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.
Doesn't Matter To Me (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Recently Downgraded to Limited Basic Cable (Score:2, Interesting)
With Windows Media Center, Hulu, TV.com, Netflix online and various online sites, my PC hooked up to my 42" TV is our entertainment now. The freedom of on-demand entertainment is great and I have been able to find anything I wanted to watch out and about on the internet.
And somehow, Ive managed not to miss 4 minutes of commercials every 10 minutes..
Re:FiOS (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 get Noggin for my kids. That's the ONLY REASON, THAT SINGLE CHANNEL.
2) As an IT guy and general all-around computer geek I absolutely must have a high-speed connection. Both for work, AND for play. This means no Direct TV as I would end up having to deal with the SHITTY DSL service available in my area, or continue to pay Time Warner for HSI Cable (plus extra costs since I'm not getting T.V. from them).
3) FIOS is not available in my area. I don't expect it in my neighborhood for at least 10 years.
So there you have it. I'm screwed.
THANK YOU GREEDY SONOFABITCH VIACOM AND TIME WARNER EXECUTIVES FOR RUINING MY VACATION AND MAKING MY DISABLED CHILDREN MISERABLE, YOU ASSHOLES!
I'll be expecting a refund of my ENTIRE MONTH'S BILL and EVERY MONTH until the Viacom situation is resolved.
Thank you.
(can you tell I'm a tad upset?)
Who the hell ever said TV was obsolete? (Score:2, Interesting)
Bitch all you want about cable providers trying to be efficient ISPs. Cable providers aren't %100 to blame for television rates and hikes in pricing. Here's a perfect example. A huge media conglomerate (Viacom) trying to force Time Warner to hike up their rates even higher despite sagging ratings from all of their networks. Granted, TW isn't standing up to Viacom completely because of their customers. Higher rates are just bad for business, especially in this economy. Viacom is trying to double dip. They're getting millions in online advertising. Meanwhile, TW has seen a dip in its subscribers because more people are watching online without ads and Viacom wants to charge carriers MORE?
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 after MTV got it. This may be a rare occasion were the cable co's are doing something good for the customer.
Also I was quite annoyed by the non stop crawl message on Spike last night telling me to call some TWC 800 number to bitch at them. You think they could have done this without blocking part of the picture.
Re:FiOS (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FiOS (Score:2, Interesting)
This is unsolicited advise - but I would take your kids off of gluten if you haven't already. They will likely see a dramatic improvement.
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.
Unacceptable (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Another thing TWC can tell their customers (Score:1, Interesting)
Hi Jeff,
The fact that this type of corporate dispute is spilling over into the consumer view is a clear sign of corporate failure. Both on TWC and Viacom's part. I have been a TWC subscriber for several years and I am becoming more disappointed with your service each year. Your current generation of cable box is disheartening. It shouldn't take so long to tune each channel. The menu should not be so slow on a set top box. My cell phone can generate menu screens smoothly with animation even. Your channel selections continue to confound... so many useless channels added each year... now you cannot even manage the relationship with your content providers to provide a reasonable channel set.
The cable box is my biggest problem with the cable companies now. What ever happened to the cable ready appliance? When I could plug a TV in and it just worked. Why do I have to wait 20 minutes for the box to reboot randomly? Why have 3 of these boxes died in the past 5 months for me? Why must I pay a rental fee to you per TV used? Why does your expensive DVR service never record the shows I want? Why doesn't it have a reasonably function user interface?
The internet service by TWC and most other providers in the usa is a big disappointment as well. 10 years ago I got my first internet service from twc... since then my up and down speeds have actually decreased while my bill has increased! 1.5m down and 384k up? Are you kidding? Thats pathetic for $59 a month. Do you know how long it takes to upload photos to a print service on this connection? 100 shots from an 8mpix slr takes over 2 hours! It causes the Adorama uploader to time out. Absolutely pathetic. After living in sweden with a 10mbit symmetric for about $25 a month I am very sad to come back to the usa. We even had an option for 50mb symmetric at $75 per month. Thats value.
Please focus on your quality of service for a while.
Give me a reliable connection I can depend on... to be the same speed at all hours of the day... and can watch the TV when I turn it on... not 20 minutes later while the box reboots.
Go figure out your supplier contracts and stop trying to play public sympathy for your government sponsored monopoly.
Its time for data utility providers... provide only the pipe and we can choose the content to shuttle over it!
Re:Quick lesson (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 more convenient than terrestrial broadcast or cable. and if we start deploying 1 Gbps symmetric bandwidth FttH connections like they are doing in Japan, even HD content could be streamed over the internet. content producers would no longer be at the mercy of traditional television networks. that in itself would be a huge cultural boon, as this has long been a major impediment to innovative and original programming. instead of worrying about getting canceled by the network (or not even being picked up by the networks), content producers could just distribute and promote their shows on their own on the internet/web.
Suspicious of what though (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Why? It's not like he really had cause to post here before. People wanted information, and he thought gave what I would consider to be a pretty frank answer for a company as large as TWC (and a reasonable one, that they will try to reimburse customers when I thought there was no way they would do that). I cannot honestly say I could ever see anyone at his level posting to Slashdot at any company I've worked for (ranging from small to large internationals) and I for one think we should see more of it.