Time Warner Recommends Internet For Some Shows

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.

Comments

Simple Answer On Torrents

[gbulmash]

8,000 leechers, 4 seeders, your download will complete in 1 day, 17 hours, 49 minutes.

Re:Simple Answer On Torrents

[ccguy]

That looks like 8000 people have a poorly configured RSS client and are downloading 'Bob and his 3 friends drunk and naked (note: No sex)'.

Re:Simple Answer On Torrents

[xXShadowstormXx]

8,000 leechers, 4 seeders, your download will complete in 1 day, 17 hours, 49 minutes.

You're not looking in the right places.

Re:Simple Answer On Torrents

[moose_hp]

Well, unless the 8000 leechers have just the same chucks of incomplete data it won't be a problem.

Even 8000 leechers and 0 seeders woundn't be a problem if you can complete the whole file with the chunks.

If enought people is downloading or seeding stuff, the bottleneck becomes your own bandwidth.

Re:Simple Answer On Torrents

[afidel]

I've found that most clients out there suck at upload when not in seeding mode. I'm not sure if that's due to the crappy state of asymetrical networks in the US or if it's the overhead of talking to peers while downloading. Either way the only way I see download speeds over about 10KBps from a peer is if they are a seed.

FiOS

[oahazmatt]

I just warned Bright House (essentially Time Warner, both affected by this) that if they actually subtract stations from me they had best be prepared to adjust my bill accordingly or I would switch to FiOS, which just made itself available in our area. I already got a canned response telling me to use websites. I might switch anyway.

Re:FiOS

[jeffTWC]

Hi -- I'm the director of digital communications at Time Warner Cable. And we actually will be refunding our customers for the lost channels while we wait for Viacom to come to an agreement. The amount is being worked out now, but it will automatically be credited to your bill.

Re:FiOS

[No2Gates]

And that would be roughly $.50, correct? Damn, can't decide where to spend that big check.

Re:FiOS

[speroni]

I got FiOS. I downloaded the season finale of Heroes in 10 minutes flat.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[elrous0]

I bet DirecTV still has these channels. And I'll sure as hell be finding out if Time-Warner tries to pull them from my cable lineup.

Re:FiOS

[BitZtream]

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?

Re:FiOS

[Arthur Grumbine]

So that's what UID numbers are up to as of today...

Re:FiOS

[elrous0]

Hi, I'm a subscriber. I can tell you what the refund will be in my case already. It will be $80 a month in my case, and I'll start getting it as soon as I hand in my cable box on Friday and tell you I'm getting DirectTV.

Re:FiOS

[me at werk]

I have FiOS, it rocks. There is no reason not to switch.

Re:FiOS

[Kt.foss.zealot]

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.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

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 profit projections), Viacom will be asking for even bigger pay days from these companies to make up the difference.

Re:FiOS

[elrous0]

TWC has a long history of these annoying standoffs (this is hardly the first time they've been to the brink, and I'm sick of it). DirectTV, by contrast, seems to get along with the cable channel providers pretty well (and carry a lot more HD channels to boot).

Re:FiOS

[oahazmatt]

I have Brighthouse because my apartment complex has an agreement with them to provide extended-basic free of charge, so I pay a very small bill for the digital package when it's said and done. We're free to have other providers, we just don't see anything subtracted from our rent.

Re:FiOS

[d3ac0n]

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?)

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, I'm a subscriber. I can tell you what the refund will be in my case already. It will be $80 a month in my case, and I'll start getting it as soon as I hand in my cable box on Friday and tell you I'm getting DirectTV.

While I'm not defending Time Warner, why are you so quick to take Viacom's side? Viacom did this to my provider (Dish Network) a few years ago but they eventually caved and we got their channels back. Still because of this I no longer watch Viacom channels (except to watch South Park and Colbert, but I do that online now).

Fuck Viacom.

Re:FiOS

[dragonsomnolent]

I second your opinion. Thankfully I have comcast (did I just say thankfully I have comcast), but as a father of 6 (5 of whom are 4 and below), with a three year old that has mild to moderate Autism, Noggin is a godsend. When our Noggin was out for 3 days (because comcast had to change our digital reciever), I went to nickjr.com and piped the output through s-video to my TV. Some problems with that approach however, if you go that route, yes, you will have access to some of the programming you get on noggin, however, I couldn't get fullscreen to work, so the player only used up about half of my screen real-estate. Another issue is that you pick one show and it will run through all of the episodes they decide to have up that day (it changes), then it will stop. Sometimes it would last 45 minutes, sometimes only 15. The biggest issue, however, was that my children absolutely adore that moose, and he's not up there. I truly feel for your situation, and wish I could give you a viable alternative. If it weren't for Noggin, we would have stripped cable programming down to the 20 channel linup long ago and gotten all our programming from the internet.

Re:FiOS

[SydShamino]

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 others pushed to a higher tier where you could chose to not buy them, Time Warner would be sued for contract violation.

The same is true for basically all the other content providers - they don't just provide the channels and say that they must be at the same or relative tiers to each other, they specify exactly which tiers have which channels. Remember all the hubub about BTN (the Big 10 Network) demanding to be put on the basic tier for the entire Midwest?

The way Dish Network ended the impasse was to start lobbying for an end to monopolistic trade practices by the content providers. The argument goes something like this:

1. Each channel provided is, in a way, a monopoly. No one else can provide that channel because copyright law granted the content provider an exclusive right to that content. (This considers a "channel" to be a unique, copyright-protected thing. Ignore if the individual shows are copyright protected or even unique to that channel.)

2. By force a service provider to take and resell a second channel, as a condition for being provided the first channel, content providers are exploiting their monopoly of that first channel. Nickelodeon is a very popular channel. By forcing Time Warner (and Dish Network) to also carry several other lesser-quality channels at the same tier, Viacom could be in violation of the law. (I don't think it's ever been tested in court.)

After Dish Network went down this path, they settled with Viacom rather quickly. Viacom didn't get the rate hikes they wanted (immediately; they were delayed a bit), and Dish Network dropped their suit.

Sadly, when congress actually took this up and considered legislating mandatory a-la-cart pricing, the bill was poisoned with FCC regulation of cable content. As much as I think the Democrat-controlled congress and executive will help the country next year, I very much doubt they'll revisit this without making it just as bad or worse.

Re:FiOS

[twmcneil]

I switched to FiOS a few weeks ago. I figured I'd be lucky to 80% of the advertised 10 down, 2 up speeds they were selling. Guess what? I'm getting 2 up, 10 down just like they promised. Go figure.

And the kids will still have Sponge Bob tomorrow morning.

Re:FiOS

[Wylfing]

While I empathize with your plight, you may want to consider not getting frothing mad about things that haven't yet come to pass.

Re:FiOS

[d3ac0n]

Yeah, I'm thinking I'm gonna have to hit the bittorrent sites tonight when I get home and look for torrents of Noggin shows (I don't expect to have much luck) Thankfully, my daughter knows how to use a computer (in a limited fashion) so I can set her up on that for a while and she will rewind and pause and pick different shows. but she gets easily frustrated and can really only be on the PC for an hour or so before she starts getting upset.

I suspect it's going to be Veggietales and the few other random Kid's shows on DVD for the forseeable future.

In the meantime the pressure from my wife to swap to the Dish is going to be enormous. She's been wanting a Dish (Direct TV or Dish Network) for a good long while, and the only thing stopping a switch has been the cheaper HSI/TV combo we get with Time Warner. But if TWC can't get it's act together, I'll settle for paying a bit more for some peace in my home. (If mama ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy. Know what I mean?)

Re:FiOS

[LWATCDR]

That is very reasonable actually. Are you sure you work for a cable company. Well reasonable if it isn't $3 that is.

Re:FiOS

[d3ac0n]

Sorry about the allcaps there, but does anyone here really expect the channel drop to NOT happen?

Re:FiOS

[jeffTWC]

Hah! I've got no influence over the refund amount -- but yeah, I work for Time Warner Cable.

Re:FiOS

[metamatic]

If you're really someone at Time Warner, I have a suggestion:

Work out how to unbundle the news and sports channels.

Right now I'm paying for dozens of news and sports channels I literally never watch. And I know those fuckers are expensive, especially ESPN etc.

I know you are getting the shaft from ABC, who say they won't let you carry ABC unless you force me to buy ESPN--but if you don't work something out with them, in a few months I'm going to switch to AppleTV or some similar solution, and cut the TV subscription, and save money doing so even buying episodes at $2 each.

Re:FiOS

[dragonsomnolent]

Completely know what you mean. My best friend is a Dish installer, and we would have switched but thier Noggin programming runs 0600 to 1800, then cuts over to TheN (it's like nick at night for teenagers, mostly Fresh Prince of Bel-Aire and what not), so that was a deal breaker for us. Alas, maybe in a few more years, there will be a decent HSI and an IPTV service in my area. (Along the Mississippi river, as far west in IL as you can go without going into Missouri)

Re:FiOS

[Joe U]

How about a minimum of $10/mo & you add some new channels that we might actually want?

Re:FiOS

[elrous0]

I'm not defending Viacom. I'm saying that I'm not going to spend $80 a month on a cable system that doesn't carry the channels I want (esp. Comedy Central and TVLand). It's bad enough they don't carry Scifi's HD channel and a buttload of others already.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me?

"...lawsuits that follow shortly after the service interruption."

What a joke. This is at-will, dumb ass. You don't sue people because they don't like the service they provide, you cancel your service.

Re:FiOS

[CleverFox]

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.

Re:FiOS

[d3ac0n]

Damn.

I thought that Noggin was 24/7 everywhere now? Adelphia and TWC used to have that 12 hour Noggin thing and then "TheN" with all it's sucky programming. We hated it. My daughter (son was just a baby) would throw a tantrum every night at 6PM like clockwork when "TheN" came on. So if we go to Dish, we are basically turning back the clock 3-4 years on the Noggin programming schedule. Great.

I'm screwed no matter what. :(

Re:FiOS

[rachit]

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. ... You DO NOT KNOW what a tantrum is until you have dealt with an Autism tantrum.

...

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?)

I wonder where your children got the Autism spectrum disorder from.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there is the hope that one day your children's tantrums will evolve into such civilized responses as yours. What a gross display of self-entitlement.

In any case, maybe you should try to take them outdoors instead and show them some firm genuine discipline.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy the DVDs you cheapskate. Kids shows are dirt cheap. If you're poor, use ebay.

Re:FiOS

[dragonsomnolent]

Check out DirectTV though, they might run it 24. If not, get a tivo I've discovered Noggin tends to repeat. You're not completely screwed (unless your kids watch Gubba Gubba Island at 3:00 am).

Re:FiOS

[BlueBoxSW.com]

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?")

Re:FiOS

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

So that's what UID numbers are up to as of today...

Did you expect a 3 digit UID from somebody like him?

Re:FiOS

[sdguero]

Here's a little flame about my experience with TW cable:

I have been a Time warner customer for the past 2 years in San Diego, before that I tried AT&T briefly and Cox communications for about 5 years. We live in a house with 5 guys so we got the full package, movie channels, HD package, 6 boxes etc, cable modem with upgraded speed. I think our bill is around $130 a month.

The service has been absolutely terrible. Some of our HD channels drop out with a message saying it isn't available for days on end. No explanation is ever given. Our only HD DVR box (on the 64" HDTV) does 5 minute restarts daily, and our cable modem had problems for a long time until it was finally replaced. We have had technicians out to the house twice, and they still wont replace the HD box (took twice to get a new cable modem, that finally works reliably). There have been mistakes on our bill multiple times as well. Every time we have tried to call TW (probably 6-7 times), it takes at least 20 minutes to get a real live person on the phone, sometimes more than 45 minutes.

From what I've seen, TW gives customers used/rejected/inferior equipment, has extremely long wait times in every part of their call center, except bill pay of course. The technicians are VERY reluctant to replaces any equipment which makes me think their performance is based on how much hardware they replace, the less the better. This is a company that runs on economizing, not customer support. They will do whatever they can to save a buck at the expense of their customer base. Running banners to call a busy signal at Viacom is one more way the Time Warner is showing their true colors. Discounting a couple dollars does not make up for no longer receiving comedy central in our house (5 guys in our twenties).

I have never complained this much about a product or service, rather than just canceling and moving on (see AT&T Uverse and Cox). But after seeing the "director of digital communications" was on /. I thought I would share our terrible experience. This is the last straw for our household. We are going to a satellite service and I'm vowing to never do business with Time Warner again. I refuse to do business with any company the doesn't follow the golden rule when dealing with customers (see our house) and partners (see viacom). I doubt TWC treats their employees with much respect either. Maybe it's time to move on Mr. Director...

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever heard of "backups"? They're not just for data anymore: redundancy is always good.

Also, while the whole situation sucks, don't make the mistake of blaming Time Warner for your tantrum-throwing spawn. It may be difficult for you to grasp, but they didn't do this to spite you, y'know?

If you want a quiet New Year's, offer your sprogs up for adoption and focus on your own life instead. And if you don't want to do that, well, realise that it's YOUR choice.

Re:FiOS

[voidptr]

There's still people with 3 digit UIDs around?

I thought they were just the stuff of legends these days.

Re:FiOS

[antdude]

How come you didn't go to FIOS already? FIOS is supposedly better than cable!

Re:FiOS

[mandos]

So the parent here brings up a specific case of the general problem: losing these channels will indeed impact some people quite dramatically and all customers to a certain degree. Given the backgrounds of many of the people on this site, let's see what we can due to hasten the solution, i.e. removal of the cable companies. Let's make a list here on this post to what current channels are available on the net (with link to a feed), what shows are available on demand, what new, non-tv content is available and should be considered as a replacement. I'm not talking about downloading individual shows via your favorite P2P application, that can be done but provides it's own set of headaches. Let's get a list going here of links to content as easy to use as Youtube. It should ideally be as simple as opening a link and clicking Play.

Re:FiOS

[Moleculo]

Wow! That's less time than it would take to figure out why you would actually want to watch that.

Re:FiOS

[cayenne8]

"The same is true for basically all the other content providers - they don't just provide the channels and say that they must be at the same or relative tiers to each other, they specify exactly which tiers have which channels. Remember all the hubub about BTN (the Big 10 Network) demanding to be put on the basic tier for the entire Midwest?"

How about 'screw' the whole tier system...and let me just pick out what channels I want ala-carte?

I'd be happy with local channels...Discovery, History, Food Channels...and I guess CNN and Fox for news (mix and match between the two to try to tone down each's bias)....let's see, I'd keep the weather channel too....and hell, that's about all I watch. Oh...and VH1 Classic

I don't watch much in the way of sports....when I was to watch some good CFB...I prefer to got to a sports bar like Cooter Brown's here in NOLA...good food, good beers, etc, and can yell and scream with the other people there.

But really....I'd be happy to just have internet...and cherry pick the channels listed above since that's about all I watch...and I have MythTV grabbing the content off them...

Re:FiOS

[cayenne8]

"I have never complained this much about a product or service, rather than just canceling and moving on (see AT&T Uverse and Cox)."

Can you relate your experience with U-Verse? I just saw it at a girlfriend's house over the holidays out of state...and from my limited viewing...seemed to be very nice and a good price for if you bundled internet, tv and phone....

I was thinking about getting this package when offered for my mom in her neighborhood. It seemed better that the offering by Comcast, but, I've heard negative about UVerse on slashdot before....

Can you relate your experiences with it..what you liked and disliked? Was it the tv part? How was the internet part? How was the ISP speed?

Re:FiOS

[cayenne8]

Ok..gotta ask, what the fuck is Noggin?

:)

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

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

24/7 preschool programming, commercial free. The one thing Nick ever did right.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You should find something for your kids to do besides watch TV.

Cheapest babysitter, amirite?

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you done have FiOS. the 720p releases take about 3 minutes to leech.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Autism or not, best to ween your kids off of television anyway-- what do you, poster, expect to do when they're teenagers and adults?

Re:FiOS

[heliotrope7]

hopefully, this file sharing link (TPB) might help:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/89lul7

Re:FiOS

[d3ac0n]

I did. Direct TV carries the 24/7 version.

the Direct TV "Choice" Package (includes Noggin) is $29.95 a month for the first year, and $54.95 a month after that.

Roadrunner Turbo as a standalone from Time Warner costs $53.95 a month

My current Time Warner bill including the the Surf+View package and Turbo costs...

$134.95 a month.

Soo, just over $100.00 a month vs $130+ a month. And Direct TV has more channels and more channels in HD.

Anyone care to guess what will be happening at MY house as soon as I can swing the service call from Direct TV?

Frankly, I don't care WHO is at fault for the Viacom debacle (although it's probably the greedy TV execs mostly) I am not going down the "missing channels" road again. Bye Bye TWC TV, Hello Direct TV!

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo fucking hoo, aspietard and your fucking retarded kids who can't watch FUCKING TELEVISION.

Maybe if you actually acted like a parent, made them go outside and play rather than acting like a helicopter they'd overcome these alleged 'handicaps' which they'll be calling strengths once they're able to post on the internet lording it over all non-autists who are happy and socialized.

You want to know about handicapped children you weaselly fuck? Let them get amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cancer or suffer the trauma of AIDS because a doctor fucked up or they engaged in risky sexual activity. When you're holding that frail body in your arms listening to their final, rattling breath and spattering your chinos with one last watery bowel movement you'll be wearing nostalgia goggles for them screaming about not being able to watch a dorky fucking TV channel with pretensions of education but really does nothing but entertain and show bright colors and animals.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

If you buy internet and basic cable tv from the same provider you could try canceling your basic cable service. Since the normal way of "canceling" basic analog channels is to disconnect your physical wire at the pole but they can't do that if your paying for internet, then you still get the analog channels for free(or at least less then the basic cable/internet total package cost). Posted AC for obvious reasons.

Re:FiOS

[Malevolyn]

I actually don't care if TWC credits my bill or not. I feel the service is better without the Viacom channels. Just so long as you guys don't drop Cartoon Network, I'll be happy. That is, unless you create an Adult Swim channel. Then you can drop Cartoon Network.

Re:FiOS

[AK Marc]

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.

That's never the way it works. I've never seen the content provider require that the cable company provide any chanels as a package. There are some "you can't do XXX unless you do YYY" agreements, but never ever ever a "if you do YYY you must do XXX." 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. There is nothing stoping a la carte pricing now, other than the unwillingness to provide fewer channels for a similar cost. They compete on quantity with satellite TV, so all a la carte programs would be failures (in the minds of the senior managers).

Re:FiOS

[Shakrai]

How about 'screw' the whole tier system...and let me just pick out what channels I want ala-carte?

That isn't really technically feasible with analog cable systems. With analog cable all they can do is install traps that filter out specific frequency ranges (i.e: groups of channels). Most traps don't allow enough control to filter out just one or two channels and even if they did it would require a truck roll to your residence every time you wanted to change your subscription.

With digital cable this is obviously a lot easier -- but Time Warner isn't fully digital in most areas. Every single channel that you mentioned besides the food channel resides on the analog tier in my neck of the woods. Digital cable also comes with it's own problems, IMHO -- like having to use a set-top box instead of the tuner built into your TV/TiVo/VCR/etc.

Re:FiOS

[Shakrai]

Screw your UID. Your username is way cooler than any three digit UID. My hats off to you :)

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like you should have bought a DVD recorder or a VCR to record that channel that you use as a babysitter for your kid.

Re:FiOS

[NuttyBee]

The answer is: if only it were that simple. Time Warner and Brighthouse are trying to get Viacom to maintain or increase only slightly because as soon as they pay more for Viacom - Disney, Fox, Turner, and Discovery will raise their rates. $0.25 turns into $4 really quickly.

Everyones stuggling and Viacom's solution is to charge more. I don't really blame them, but given the choice -- I'd like my cable a-la-carte -- minus Viacom channels. I don't watch them. Unfortunately, it would likely make the 10 channels I do watch on an a la carte basis basis nearly as expensive as the package.

I'd like a value combo meal, an ESPN, a Discovery, and hold the MTV.
Programmer: Would you like to add VH1 Classics for a dollar more?
Nevermind, I'll take the c-span special and live with it.

Re:FiOS

[sdguero]

The U-verse package blew TWC out of the water on pricing and channels, however it never worked in our neighborhood. We were part of a trial run almost 2 years ago. It's too bad the service was never reliable (usually cable and internet went out for a couple hours in the late afternoon) because i liked all the HD channels they had. Our street went through dozens of techs over about 6 weeks and they never got it fixed so we ended up back with TWC.

Re:FiOS

[Nethead]

No, us four digit folks are taking over. Thanks for alerting us to your presence, we will be contacting you.

Re:FiOS

[firmamentalfalcon]

He probably has another one but. Separation of Job and Home.

He knows that Anonymous Cowards aren't taken seriously so he at least knows a bit of culture.

Re:FiOS

[afidel]

Dude, if the cost isn't going to change you DO know that just about every TV out there will allow you to delete/remove channels you don't want.

Re:FiOS

[Chaostrophy]

Creak, still around, barely. Why I remember when /. ran on an alpha station.

Re:FiOS

[mattack2]

Digital cable also comes with it's own problems, IMHO -- like having to use a set-top box instead of the tuner built into your TV/TiVo/VCR/etc.

With Series 3 (original Series 3, TivoHD, TivoHD XL), you can use CableCards (two cablecards regardless of type for original series 3; one M card or two S cards for either TivoHD). So you are using the tuners in that case without a set top box, since the Tivo itself is acting as the STB.

(I say this as someone using my S3 & TivoHD for analog cable and some experimentation with OTA digital.. mostly because I don't want to pay the few bucks plus 'digital outlet' fee.. but for those who DO want digital cable, the cablecard counts instead of your first box -- so it's "free" with digital cable. Some have been able to get cable cards for use with QAM channels too -- i.e. digital or HD OTA channels on cable, which are required to be unencrypted. Unfortunately you need cablecard(s) for normal Tivo use [you can do 'manual recordings' but that's _worse_ than VCR-like programming.)

Re:FiOS

[mattack2]

You can get ABC without ESPN if you go for lifeline cable (pretty much only the OTA stations -- useful when you would either not get the channels with an antenna or would have to aim it in different directions), or possibly even basic (not expanded basic).

Re:FiOS

[Fjandr]

Wow. You should spend some time learning about autism.

Lowest common denominator, amirite?

Re:FiOS

[Fjandr]

I bet he would be ecstatic if his autistic childrens' tantrums evolved into such a civilized response as his. What a gross display of ignorance.

In any case, maybe you should try to spend some time learning about an issue instead and show some intellectual discipline.

Re:FiOS

[The Salamander]

TVs? Yes.

Cable Boxes? No.

And that's why I only use OTA ATSC.

Re:FiOS

[lewiscr]

I use TiVo to cover this. I'll just disable the season pass, and the kids can watch the same 5 episodes over and over until the channels return.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the director of digital communications at Time Warner Cable

My head assplode

Re:FiOS

[internic]

My parents' Dish Network receiver allows them to setup a "favorites" list so that some channels are never shown in the channel guide. That's effectively as good.

Re:FiOS

[KutuluWare]

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?

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This.

I'm in the UK but my TV & cable hasn't been switched on in over a month. Anything I want to watch is either on BBC iPlayer or BitTorrent. I may cancel the cable.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It won't be long? I got a big iMac and did that last year.

Re:FiOS

[afidel]

Could you use the Clipper chip to mark the channels you don't want as objectionable and hence have them not show up?

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

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?")

Me: Hi. I bought this hammer yesterday for $12 but don't need it and would like to return it.
Store: Ok. And here is your $7.
Me: But I paid $12.
Store: But we only paid $7 for it.
Me: I'd like the hammer back. I just found a use for it ...

Refund the the cost AND profit from the lost channels (or just pay Viacom the $.25 per sub you cheap pr**ks).

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

I dare anyone to call MTV and VH1 the "best 10% of [their] channels".

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this... keep your existing service, along with the cable modem. Download the shows just like time warner recommended. Apparently they're even telling you how and where to do it. Take the break on your bill.

1) Kids are happy
2) No commercials
3) PROFIT (literally)

The little side-benefit is knowing that Viacom is going to suffer like all hell from this... which makes me grin a little.

Re:FiOS

[mysidia]

There are some "you can't do XXX unless you do YYY" agreements, but never ever ever a
"if you do YYY you must do XXX."

Those two conditions are equivalent. You have just swapped XXX and YYY around (which are just generic names in the first place).

Truth table for "you can't do XXX unless you do YYY":

do XXX, do YYY, In Violation
(False False Not in violation)
(False True Not in violation)
(True False In violation
(True True Not in violation)

Truth table for "if you do XXX you must do YYY."

do XXX, do YYY, In Violation
(False False Not in violation)
(False True Not in violation)
(True False In violation)
(True True Not in violation)

The result of "you can't do XXX unless you do YYY"

Is that to do XXX, you have to do YYY.

If you provide XXX and not YYY and your agreement says "you can't provide XXX unless you provide YYY", then you have violated the agreement.

Re:FiOS

[Pollardito]

it's more than just those though:

The channels that would be affected are: Comedy Central, CMT: Pure Country, Logo, Palladia, MTV, MTV 2, MTV Hits, MTV Jams, MTV Tr3s, Nickelodeon, Noggin, Nick 2, Nicktoons, Spike, The N, TV Land, VH1, VH1 Classic, and VH1 Soul.

Spike and Comedy Central get a good amount of traffic, and for those that have kids there are a number of heavy hitters in that list

Re:FiOS

[Pollardito]

start recording Noggin from now until midnight and then play that stuff on a loop until they resolve their differences?

Re:FiOS

[easyTree]

My hats off to you :)

I'm more impressed by your ability to wear multiple hats.. Zaphod, is that you?

Re:FiOS

[mabhatter654]

that's exactly what the contract dispute is about. TW has to pay flat rates per subscriber on each tier. Content providers want their content on the highest tiers, or on premium channels. In order to fulfill their pricing agreements cable companies have to bundle to account for the pricing they pay. Cable companies prices are regulated... the contracts that set the prices for the content aren't... see the problem. Content providers are consolidated and getting greedy, figuring they can keep their viewership over the internet with ads per website and DVD sales, unless the cable companies give into demands to make practically every good channel cost $5 per month like HBO... then the content providers water down the non-premium channels with reruns and commercials to the point they're unwatchable. CBS/Viacom is the worst... think how many Showtimes, MTVs, and Nicks there are versus how much good content is out there for only 3 or 4.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's sure a good thing you spelled out that they were DISABLED CHILDREN to garner that extra bit of sympathy. Because otherwise no one would give a shit.

Re:FiOS

[mabhatter654]

but you still pay for them. Worse, it seems that interesting networks like SciFi are always on one higher tier than the rest of the networks. One of the reasons I refuse to get Comcast Cable is that they only put the 3 channels I wanted on the 50+ channel schedule when they were on the middle tier on Dish or DirectTV. Their selection was so limited it was going to be ridiculous amounts of money to only watch a few channels... paying $20 extra to get 3 channels I want is extortion.

Like other posters have said, now that OTA TV is digital, even SD channels look as good better than analog. HD is awesome and a higher resolution OTA than ANY other provider cable or dish provides with built in channel guides and info too. I get the few shows I really want on iTunes anyway.. I can't get all of them on cable or dish for less than $75 per month anyway.

Re:FiOS

[easyTree]

-1 neanderthal

Re:FiOS

[mabhatter654]

Cartoon Network is a TW owned network... they should be safe.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I think everyone will really miss Paris Hilton, and the other worthless D-list celebrity crap they show on MTV, and the channels they are dropping... $39 million more for that crap? I think they are just trying to hide behind their kids programming (go Dora and Diego)!

I can't blame Time Warner or Brighthouse for not agreeing. I think they are finally putting their foot down on the providers making ridiculous demands of the cable companies since the current FCC is very anti-cable.

Take NFL Network.. they want to charge higher rates than any other network (yes, more than even ESPN who has worthwhile sports coverage all year long) and have more stipulations than any other channel for what amounts to four games you used to get for free... So horribly produced games with worthless commentary are worth .75 cents per cable subscriber regardless of whether or not they want the channel? And they want it on the analog tier so it takes up more bandwidth for the cable companies as well... ridiculous! More power to TWC (and Brighthouse if they don't have an agreement yet either).

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is some of their online chat canned responses...

Time Warner Cable has successfully negotiated agreements in the past

We've successfully negotiated hundreds of programming agreements with other cable networks, many within the last few months. Our hope is that we will quickly come to an agreement with MTV Networks that is fair to our customers and to us.

Will there be a way for me to view my favorite shows in the event I lose programming?

Customers will be able to view many of their favorite programs like (insert programs) online by going to www. hulu.com or by going to the channel's website. They can also easily view online content by linking their computer to their TV; for detailed instructions on how this is done, go to (insert local website).

If I lose programming, what type of refund can I expect?

That's a fair question. Refunds depend on many factors â" including how long this particular dispute lasts. Time Warner Cable will make a final determination on refunds at a future date.

What's the possibility of this impacting my rates?

Time Warner Cable's largest expense is programming; as programming prices go up, customers' bills go up too. The price we charge our customers is directly affected by the price we must pay for programming. That is why we are doing everything in our power to control programming costs, which are increasing dramatically every year.

Will Time Warner Cable be the only company impacted?

Not necessarily. All companies work with programmers to establish their own agreements. Deals between programming networks, like MTV, and cable providers expire at different times. It just so happens that Time Warner Cable's agreement with MTV Networks expires on December 31st.

Re:FiOS

[aussie_a]

If you've paid for a service that is not provided you should be able to sue them, regardless of how much fine print there is.

That's why in Australia changes to our services are always advertised in advance (through mail or e-mail) with the customer given the option to pull out before the change.

Re:FiOS

[Lord Flipper]

Hi -- I'm the director of digital communications at Time Warner Cable.

Hey Jeff, thanks for your post. Ignore the flak, there's a lot of Slashdot readers who do appreciate it when a relevant individual participates in a controversial topic. I worked for WEA, out of Burbank, in the Eighties, and met a lot of very dedicated music-loving people near the top of the chain at WEA. To be honest, I knew the same sort of dedicated people over at Columbia, Polygram, et al, so, it wasn't a Warners-only situation. Off topic: I was, however, pretty mortified when we got rolled up into the Time merger and ended up with the AOL albatross, but, nobody's perfect. :)

Re:FiOS

[travbrad]

I'm glad someone else noticed this. I read it 3 times thinking I had misread..

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't normally feed the troll, but this one is so cute and cuddly how can I resist?

This was modded up not once but twice? You might just be looking for attention, but the moderators who scored your post don't even have that to potentially excuse their idiocy.

I'd definitely prefer suffering from cancer to autism. This coming from someone currently suffering from cancer requiring multiple surgeries and with a likelihood of surviving 5 years barely reaching 2 digits.

Re:FiOS

[benbean]

4 digits FTW baby!

Ugh, sorry, had a temporary Digg moment. As you were.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

With closed captioning/subtitles, it only takes 10 (and a half) minutes to watch each episode anyway. 15 minutes with audio+subs, 20 minutes with audio but no subs.

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. If you don't like the service, then quit, TV is not a requirement of life. Viacom is the biggest bully I have ever seen. I operate a few small cable systems, none of which carries any Viacom channels. They demand insane amounts of money for their programming. Now that they have a couple of channels that most people see as a staple, they feel that they can just ask for any amount of money, and get it. Time Warner is doing you a huge favor in standing up against these modern day mob characters! And all of those useless channels that most people complain about are forced on you by the channel providers, not the cable company. In my case, Viacom wants to charge more for just one channel, than if I agree to take all of them.

Re:FiOS

[volpe]

There are some "you can't do XXX unless you do YYY" agreements, but never ever ever a "if you do YYY you must do XXX."

Dude, the first is logically equivalent to "XXX implies YYY", and the second is logically equivalent to "YYY implies XXX". In other words, those two things are equivalent to each other under a change of variables.

So which is it? Do we see such agreements, or don't we?

Re:FiOS

[volpe]

Ugh. I just posted the same thing, after looking at only a partial list of the replies to see if anyone else already did so. I was even going to end it with "Do you want me to draw out the truth table for you?", but I figured that would just be mean :-).

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Slap their wrists against their chests like theyve been doing all along? :P

Re:FiOS

[AK Marc]

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?

I said nothing about "should." I'm saying "can." A la carte pricing is not excluded by any agreement I've ever seen. Period. I gave an example of how it could be implemented and problems with that. You have asserted all sorts of "should" suppositions onto my purely factual outline of what it would take to do a la carte pricing today legally and without modification of any agreement.

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?

I never said it made sense. However, for justification of doing it, there are bundled channels that are not related, and perhaps a person had an issue with one and not another and wished to not even have one of them delived to their house. Not that I'm saying it's rational, but that it is possible (and having dealt with some of the subscribers, I wouldn't be surprised if at least a few dropped service because of it). Also, it would make sense from the cable company's perspective if they wanted a la carte pricing from their suppliers. If they did true a la carte sales, then they would have numbers to use to justify costs and such to their suppliers. For a long-term solution it wouldn't make sense, but a lot of business decisions are made for the long term (like R&D and such). So just because you can't think of some reason to do it doesn't mean there aren't any. You lack of perspective, intelligence, or imagination doesn't prove it would be a bad thing in all cases.

Re:FiOS

[AK Marc]

Your logic is impeccable. But my illogic trumps you. You must *buy* them as a package, but never that you must *sell* them as a package. Is that better? I didn't use the XXX and YYY the same because they weren't actually the same. I should have chosen completely different letters because the conditions were applied to different unrelated parts of the transaction.

Re:FiOS

[AK Marc]

There is no opt-out favorites list implemented on any device I've ever seen. That is, I want channels I don't get to be excluded from the guide. That won't happen because they want you to click on something you want but don't have and move to the new package. I want to exclude QVC from my lineup. I can't. The only way to do it is to set up a favorites list and explicitly list every chanel other than the ones I want. And that still isn't used when I hit the "guide" button. Without making hundreds of entries into a list, I can't exclude QVC. And I like to save "favorites" for actual favorites. Get the 20 or so favroites on there and see what is probably good in 10-20 seconds. If nothing good is on the select few, then see the "full" list (minus QVC) from the guide to scan channels like O and Lifetime that I rarely find anything good on, but might just happen to have a good movie or such on at that time.

The closest to that I can come to now is multiple favorites lists and ply the "guide" button of my remote. And even then, the guide is still available through the menu. And, even if you eliminate PPV on my cable, you still get to see "Hot MILF sex sluts" on the channel adjacent to the guide, even if it's blocked and unorderable. Not the most child friendly arangement.

Re:FiOS

[metamatic]

Well, the thing is, I don't actually want any Disney/ABC channels. But somehow it seems impossible to get the channels I do want, without them.

Re:FiOS

[mysidia]

Which isnt' the same as your original proposition.

Let's say that to buy rights to rebroadcast channel A to X viewers, you are also forced to buy rights to rebroadcast channel B to X viewers, and you have to buy them together (i.e. You aren't allowed to have the two viewers be different -- buy a pair and sell channel A to one viewer and channel B to one viewer from the one pair). Channel A costs $5.50 per viewer, channel B costs $3 per viewer.

The markup allowed is 200%. So if someone wants to subscribe to channel A and B, you charge them $25.50. If they only want A, you charge them $16.50, if they only want B, you charge them $9.

Now if you have 80000 subscribers. 60000 want channel B only, 3000 want channel A only, 1000 want both channels, and the rest don't want either.

Your monthly proceeds from selling the channels are: $540000 + $49500 + $25500 = $615,000

But your monthly licensing cost is: $8.50*60000 + $8.50*3000 + $8.50*1000 = $544,000

Your revenue is about 11% ahead of the licensing fees, but after considering expenses to operate channel A and B, this is not profitable.

Now consider, you only sell channel A and B together. 300000 subscribers opt to buy both at $25.00..

Your monthly proceeds = 30000 * $25.00 = $750,000

License cost: 30000 * $8.50 = $255,000

You keep your 200%.

Re:FiOS

[WebmasterNeal]

I've always wanted cable companies to allow users to pick and choose what channels they want. Like most people I could do without 70 of the 90 channels I get.

Re:FiOS

[MasterOfMagic]

There is on the TiVo. You can set what channels you receive, and if you don't want to see a channel in the lineup, you can either set the channels you want to see as favorites and show only favorites (if you want the TiVo to try to record suggestions from the channel) or delete the channels from your lineup that you don't want to see (if you don't).

I always switch off the religious channels, the shopping channels, all of the music channels, and set the channels I do watch to favorite status and filter on favorite status in the guide. Therefore, I only see channels that I want to see.

Re:FiOS

[AK Marc]

Which isnt' the same as your original proposition.

It's exactly the same.

Let's say that to buy rights to rebroadcast channel A to X viewers, you are also forced to buy rights to rebroadcast channel B to X viewers, and you have to buy them together (i.e. You aren't allowed to have the two viewers be different -- buy a pair and sell channel A to one viewer and channel B to one viewer from the one pair). Channel A costs $5.50 per viewer, channel B costs $3 per viewer.

Add in that you can't get B at all without buying A, and you have the situation where A costs $8.50 per viewer and B costs $8.50 per viewer for all non-overlapping viewers.

The markup allowed is 200%.

And why is that? Is that a number you fabricated? How does someone determine the markup of a single chanel in a shared lineup?

Now if you have 80000 subscribers. 60000 want channel B only, 3000 want channel A only, 1000 want both channels, and the rest don't want either.

That's simply absurd. For that to be the case, people will demand ESPN2 over ESPN. That doesn't happen. You purposefully slanted the numbers to lean to more people wanting the least desired and lowest cost/profit channel, when that is, by definition, not the case. Reverse the numbers and see what happens. You'll still be eating into profit. By definition, arbitrarily limiting yourself to charging lower for one way than another will always result in lower profits.

That brings us to the question, if the cable providers and satellite providers started selling them a la carte, would there be pressure on the content providers to abandon packages as well? Since the real goal is eyeballs on advertisements, a la carte will squeeze the content providers to changing their pricing to make match the cable company's packages. The problem is that the cable company would have to choose reduced profits until the content providers changed. The fear of lost profits will prevent it from ever happening, even though I think it would work.

Re:FiOS

[geminidomino]

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.

It would be funny if the other guys (what are the cable companies called, compared to "content providers?" "Transit providers?" "Content Delivery?") call Viacom on it too.

A Distributor who loses a content provider is hurt. A Content provider who runs out of distributors is just plain screwed...

Of course, it will never happen. Short term profits trump long term bargaining advantage...

Re:FiOS

[Anonymous Coward]

no, he's not saying they *should* do that, he's pointing out the corner that the content producers have backed the cable prviders into.

how in hell did you come up with "should" from what he wrote, you need a slap upside the head for that one.

Re:FiOS

[Wdomburg]

Oh, sure, the "cheap pr**cks* can pay an extra quarter here, an extra dime there, another nickel somewhere else and suddenly my bill is ten or twenty bucks more a month.

Re:FiOS

[Wdomburg]

While I've been a cable and internet customer since they moved into our area three or four years ago. No extended outages*, no equipment problems, no service problems, no billing issues. The only time a specific channel was unavailable was while they had the scuffle with LIN broadcasting over licensing fees.

The service hasn't been perfect of course but the biggest complaint I can come up with is that the free video on demand channels used to be a bit spotty, but I can't remember the last time I had that problem. And I was a bit more forgiving while they were working on upgrading (or outright replacing) Adelphia's antiquated equipment.

(* The one exception was in the wake of a major ice storm in 2006, but my neighbourhood was also without power or phone service for the better part of a week.)

Re:FiOS

[me at werk]

you should probably have replied to jeffTWC so it shows up in his inbox.

Why?

[lbmouse]

"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?

[dougsyo]

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

Doug

Re:Why?

[orev]

No, it's a negotiating tactic. First of all, they want to provide you an Internet connection so you have to pay for it, but they don't want you to use it because that costs them money.

The real reason is because it will be the Viacom channels losing revenue because the commercials they carry will no longer be reaching as many viewers. You can bet that Time Warner will be using that fact at the negotiating table.

Re:Why?

[dongola7]

Also think about net neutrality. By telling their customers to watch Viacom channels over the internet, they _still_ get their customers to buy high-speed internet, but can then turn around and bill Viacom for access to their high-speed subscribers (by providing Viacom with "preferred" bandwidth).

Time Warner is essentially trying to turn the current business model on it's head by not only charging content subscribers, but _also_ charging content providers.

Re:Why?

[Jimbookis]

They will use this to justify metered broadband, with caps and overage fees. They're already trialling it in Beaumont TX now.

What age is overage? 18? 21? What a strange word. Get used to it. TANSTAAFL. It's not so bad having quotas and paying $5 per gigabyte afterwards. Just how much crud do you want to download with bitorrent anyway? What if your provider offers unmetered media feeds? The ISPs here in Australia, in spite of usage caps and quotas are now starting to offer unmetered content for both computer files, game servers, music and video which helps mitigate the quota problem. The usage caps generally tend to creep up over time too.

Re:Why?

[ConfusedVorlon]

Can anyone tell me why metered broadband isn't a good idea?

At the moment we have the crazy system where ISPs say that they are providing unlimited broadband, but then limit it. There is limited incentive for them to improve their networks as they'll just end up charging the same price and will still be unable to differentiate their service from the next 'unlimited' broadband provider.

With metered broadband, they would have a clear economic incentive to make sure you got exactly as much bandwidth as you want.

Throttling your service or messing with your bittorrent traffic would start costing them money instead of simply reducing your service at no cost to them.

That's not really the case, though, is it?

[Scott Lockwood]

. 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.

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.

nooo!!!!!!!!!

[toefraz]

what! no more "the hills"?!?!? OH MY GAH!!!!!!

Connection

[Xaemyl]

I remember being a Time Warner cable subscriber here in L.A. a couple years back. Once they started offering faster internet connections as part of their overall cable packages, I ditched the digital cable, as I could get those shows streamed. I imagine a lot of people were doing the same thing.

Tag suggestion.

[mattgoldey]

This story needs the "andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag. Srsly.

Re:Tag suggestion.

[UnknowingFool]

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:Tag suggestion.

[Bobb Sledd]

When I heard this story on the radio this morning, I instantly thought of that "andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag.

Re:Tag suggestion.

[mattgoldey]

I stand by my original statement. :)

Re:Tag suggestion.

[Ron_Fitzgerald]

I don't blame Time Warner for this. From various articles I have read, they do not want to up their subscriber fees which is why we have this result.

Re:Tag suggestion.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So, in order: Valuable; valuable; passed its prime about five years ago, if not more, if it even HAD a "prime" to pass; everyone who wants it has it on DVD already; oh boy more jokes about cops breaking in on bizarre fetishists and homosexual encounters how original.

Well, that's two for five. Better than you can expect from most TV channels. :-)

Re:Tag suggestion.

[BitZtream]

If you knew anything about thier profit margins, you'd know they could pay about 600% more than they do now before they'd have any reason to raise their subscriber rates. Well, at least when you compare those profits to any normal business.

Re:Tag suggestion.

[Anonymous Coward]

TWC runs around a 7% profit margin, yeah that's great but you clearly know very little about the inner workings of the company. Most of those profits are reinvested into the company to cover expansion, maintenance of the vehicle fleet, maintenance of the RF and fiber infrastructure, and so many other projects.

How about Viacom? Well look at this... they run at about a 12% profit margin! Where's your scorn for their greed? Why aren't you pointing out that they could easily take LESS than their current contracted carrier fee and still be profitable?

Hypocrite.

Re:Tag suggestion.

[Xerxes of Zealot]

it sure hasnt stopped them from raising rates recently. Ive seen my cable bill jump about ten to fifteen dollars a month in the past few years with time warner. they really shouldnt complain about having to do things that they already do.

Re:Tag suggestion.

[stile99]

I call bullshit. They desperately DO want to raise subscriber rates. They just don't want to share with anyone else.

Re:Tag suggestion.

[grahamd0]

I've emailed Time Warner (I'm a customer) and asked them not to agree to the fee increases if it means an increase in my bill.

If you're a TWC customer and you agree that nothing of value was lost, you may want to do the same.

Re:Tag suggestion.

[Anonymous Coward]

TWC runs around a 7% profit margin, yeah that's great but you clearly know very little about the inner workings of the company. Most of those profits are reinvested into the company to cover expansion, maintenance of the vehicle fleet, maintenance of the RF and fiber infrastructure, and so many other projects.

They don't budget for those things? Those should have been covered before profits are figured.

Re:Tag suggestion.

[Danse]

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.

So, in order: Valuable; valuable; passed its prime about five years ago, if not more, if it even HAD a "prime" to pass; everyone who wants it has it on DVD already; oh boy more jokes about cops breaking in on bizarre fetishists and homosexual encounters how original.

Well, that's two for five. Better than you can expect from most TV channels. :-)

Anonymous Coward: Final arbiter of all entertainment value.

Yeah, why not steal it?

[YesIAmAScript]

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:Yeah, why not steal it?

[ccguy]

Why should I get cable when I can steal programs instead?

What a dilemma :-)

Re:Yeah, why not steal it?

[YesIAmAScript]

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:Yeah, why not steal it?

[MightyYar]

Stealing? Who's talking about stealing?

Viacom puts many of their shows online.

Re:Yeah, why not steal it?

[MBGMorden]

Can we get link-speak added to that Lake Superior State University list of things that must die? The links you assigned to all the words there had no special meaning to any particular word. Particularly with Slashdot's little citing engine throwing block quotes behind every one, it just makes it terribly annoying to read. Why not keep things legible and list links in an orderly fashion:

Nickalodeon
The Daily Show
South Park
MTV
TV Land

See, it's not hard.

Re:Yeah, why not steal it?

[MightyYar]

But not NEARLY as snarky.

Re:Yeah, why not steal it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we get link-speak added to that Lake Superior State University list of things that must die?

What a prick.

Re:Yeah, why not steal it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Network shows are dropping like flies because of falling revenue, that's why you see so much reality TV folks. Stop watching and revenues drop even more so they cancel what shows are left. Now what are you going to steal? The good fairy don't make TV shows advertising dollars make TV shows.

Re:Yeah, why not steal it?

[Joe U]

Some of those are now offline with a note about time warner.

But what about bandwidth caps?

[Vandil X]

If Time Warner instructs people to watch the TV content over the Internet, and if that activity makes them go over their unpublicized bandwidth caps, aren't they just directing customers from one problem to another?

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[Ron_Fitzgerald]

This is something I suspected all along that TWC knows they are losing their hold on the cable subscribers to streamed/downloaded shows. This is why they will most likely offer such a low bandwidth cap (40GB per month $54.99-ish) for the current pricing plan. They know how soon going over the limit would start to make their overage fees.

Comcast has it right for offering a 250GB cap. Very realistic and for the customer.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[Aranykai]

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...

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Time Warner instructs people to watch the TV content over the Internet, and if that activity makes them go over their unpublicized bandwidth caps, aren't they just directing customers from one problem to another?

Ah, I dare them to charge me for going over my "limits" when they're the ones directing me to streaming content. I'll (bitch)slap them with a lawsuit so fucking fast, it'll make FiOS bandwith seem slow...

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[RobBebop]

If internet delivery of content is really an issue because of low bandwidth limits, then shouldn't I be able to get TV signals for dirt cheap? One service *must* have lower margins than the other and based on economics, I'd suspect it would be in the cable industries best interest to lower cable and to the point where they barely have any margin so they can retain customers who might become interested in internet delivery otherwise.

Oh course, Showtime and HBO can still be big for the cable companies because they each provide extra value to the customer and with a DVR a subscription to these becomes close to the equivalent of an On Demand Netflix/Blockbuster service. Surely the cable companies can leverage this.

Kudos to Viacom though. Content is king. If the network operators can't operate the networks efficiently, make an example of them and force them to trim their network supporting fat.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[Red Flayer]

That would be over 13 hours of TV a day, every day for a month. Right...

For a single user? It's a lot. For a family of 4 or 5?

I'll put it gently, since I don't know when my wife will do her annual "I wonder what hubby's writing on slashdot" foray... some people have the TV on damn near 'round the clock.

Morning newsertainment -- 3-4 hours. Afternoon soaps -- 2+ hours. Evening news -- 1 hr. Evening crap shows -- 3 hours. Night news -- 1 hr. Late-night shows -- 2 hrs.

That alone is 12 hours. For one damn person. Add in what *I* watch; add in what *the kids* watch, and you're talking 13-14 hours per day. And most families have kids who watch much more TV than that.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[kimvette]

Comcast has it right for offering a 250GB cap. Very realistic and for the customer.

I'll correct your typo:

Comcast is scummy for publishing their previously-undisclosed bandwidth caps, when all the while they were advertising unlimited internet. However, given that, 250GB is less unreasonable than a 40GB cap. The fact that they have a cap at all is idiotic, when they could instead implement a monitoring/adjustment algorithm which changes QoS for heavy users until they let up, that way the heavy network users don't negatively impact other users, but at the same time everyone is happy because they are getting the service they paid for, with zero downtime.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[kimvette]

An hour slot compresses to 700MB using which codec, and at what bitrate and what resolution? You won't get 1080i or even 720p into 700MB unless you're cutting the framerate or compressing into into a smeared, splotchy mess.

I use my DVR a lot. I keep it on 24/7. I record a LOT of shows, so both tuners are drawing 720p broadcasts from comcast a good amount of the time (I end up deleting a lot of stuff without even watching it but that's neither here nor there), and sometimes while stuff is recording I'll even watch on demand. Now, since the DVR is transferring everything over IP, aren't I then pulling a lot more bandwidth at any given time than any file sharer on their network?

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell your wife to get a damn job. If she claims she is raising the kids instead, ask her to turn off the TV and pay attention to the damn kids.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[edmicman]

Not to mention that 250GB/month is the limit for ALL activity, not just downloading 700mb/hour TV shows. It doesn't all have to be television downloads or streams. Add in music downloads, netflix downloads, [legal] software downloads (iso anyone?), patches, updates, xbox live, wiiware, whathaveyou ad infinitum....having any sort of bandwidth cap that cuts you off is completely idiotic in this day and age. Sigh....

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[Kt.foss.zealot]

Comcast has it right for offering a 250GB cap. Very realistic and for the customer.

Umm, I would see the 250GB cap as acceptable if: 1. They did not advertise unlimited, but the 250cap. 2. They provided a method for monitoring your usage of the service,... as it stands I must guess or log my own usage, and that's just not right for a limitation they have imposed upon me, I am generally keeping my transfer under 8 gigs a day and hoping I don't go over. 3. Their CSR and their CSR's manager had not lied to me when I was signing up for comcast and told me that the service is unlimited and there is absolutely no cap. 4. They offered a Higher Residential Tier service that was REALLY unlimited I would gladly pay 200% more for such a service. I wish I did not have to have Comcast, AT&T is just about as evil and uses an inferior technology (DSL), Independant DSL providers like speakeasy are cool but just too far out of my price range for the transfer I want. No Fios in my area (Had at my old home and it was good, but still evil, Verizon reportedly ripped out a lot of copper that our tax monies paid for.).

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[Ron_Fitzgerald]

No typo, just perspective...

I agree with this:

The fact that they have a cap at all is idiotic, when they could instead implement a monitoring/adjustment algorithm which changes QoS for heavy users until they let up, that way the heavy network users don't negatively impact other users, but at the same time everyone is happy because they are getting the service they paid for, with zero downtime.

However, since they most likely will be using bandwidth caps, Comcast is better for it for offering a more realistic cap.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[spazdor]

Maybe you should cut back a little.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[Big Boss]

+1

Note that an hour @720p is about 2GB with h264. Assuming a decent bitrate (about 3.5Mbps). Of course, once you cut out the ~15min of commercials, you get about 1.2GB.

I've found that gets me quite good quality HDTV playback from transcoded recordings.

MPEG2 ATSC is about 8GB/hr, depending on the station. Nobody would transmit that over the net though. Not when h264 works so well at significantly lower bitrates.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[Ender_Stonebender]

<joke>You need to teach your wife about this new-fangled thing called "radio".</joke>

My wife also grew up in a household where the TV was turned on by the first person to get up in the morning and turned off by the last person to go to bed at night. Her entire family treats noise from the TV as though it were natural background noise, ignoring it and talking over it when it suits them. I suspect your wife is doing the same - leaving the TV on in order to have something other than silence in the house.

I've got to admit that I don't understand this. God knows that the actual CONTENT in that much TV isn't enough to keep anyone interested for that many hours out of the day. So why waste money by having it on? And why waste your attention by having something so damn distracting in your environment intentionally?

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[Belial6]

What I don't understand is why people think that everyone's mind is so feeble that TV is a distraction. Seriously, getting snooty about other peoples choice of entertainment doesn't make you smart.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[sorak]

Don't they get to jack up their rates from the second problem?

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[witherstaff]

I'm going to guess that most /. readers like the sound of computer fans for background noise. I talk over those all the time, ignore them as ubiquitous white noise. Also why bother ever turning them off, they're always busy downloading something or another.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[cgenman]

According to Nielsons, The average US household is watching 8 hours of TV a day.

Similarly, I believe Time Warner's trial caps are 40GB. The average American houseshold would hit that bandwidth cap in a week.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[mattack2]

I suspect you'll consider it "a smeared, splotchy mess", but Tivo Basic on my S3 Tivo comes close to what you're talking about (I'm watching it in a bedroom within a few feet on a 27" TV).

Cities of the Underworld - .71 GB - "Secret Holy Land"
Cities of the Underworld - .74 GB - "Barbarians' Lair"
Monk - .70 GB - "Mr Monk Falls In Love" (and that's padded a minute on each side so it's 1:02)

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[Anonymous Coward]

heh, sort of, the PC in our living room is always on (even if the TV it's connected to isn't) sometimes the fans make this really awful grinding noise but if you hit it a bit it goes away.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is why people think that everyone's mind is so feeble that TV is a distraction.

In my case, it is that my entertainment include the study of the psychology of attention. Elisabeth Styles book on the topic (with the simple title "The psychology of attention") is a decent primer, though the second edition editing is a bit weak.

Seriously, getting snooty about other peoples choice of entertainment doesn't make you smart.

No, it doesn't. However, choice of entertainment might make the difference between learning and not learning.

Personally, I think that TV is possible to use appropriately by a lot of people; that is, turning it on for watching something in particular, and turning it off afterwards. I'm not one of those people - if I have a TV, I tend to watch too much, and decrease reading and social activities. For me, the only way I've found to have control of the TV is to throw it out.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've ever been out into the woods, you'll note that there's a lot of background noise. Sometimes it affects you (gurgling sounds could indicate a good source of water nearby, or crackling bushes could indicate a bear up the path, both situations I've encountered with a positive outcome), and sometimes it doesn't. But it's there, and we're kind of built for it. If you grew up in the country, you're used to it, if you grew up in the city, you're used to it.

But, if I turn off my computer (and unplug my voltage converter...damn foreign countries and their 240v...), I get absolute silence (well, at least this time of the year when no one's at the dorm). I *wish* I had a tv to put on the in the background, because it does provide those noises that I'm otherwise missing. It's neither a distraction (my brain is already built and programmed to filter it out) and it's not entertainment (couldn't understand most of what was being said anyway). And no, I can't just open a window, it's -fuckall ÂC out there and I have a small radiator.

Point being, I wouldn't be surprised if they treat it in much the same way. It's white noise, exactly like one of those little boxes people shell out way to much money for. Only, occasionally there's something good on there (they might walk through right when some important breaking news is coming on, or The Daily Show, which is what this article was about to begin with). Hell, you might even be trying to think through something important when you hear a word in the background that creates a link in your mind that creates a *Eureka!* moment. That's the whole point of people going on long walks to think, and I'd much rather do laps around the house than take a walk through a suburb back home (100ÂF and no shade? f-that).

So basically, it's not distracting (at least to them), it's not wasting attention, it's adding something back into their environment that is often removed by the trappings of modern society (white noise, removed by good insulation), and it probably isn't even a waste financially depending on how much of a positive influence on their sanity having that white noise coupled with occasional specific positive outcomes is.

Oh, as for radio? Have you listened to radio lately? Music stations have started brand associations that they don't play the same song twice in less than an hour...and listening to the voices on NPR will make you puke after two, regardless of the quality of what they're saying. Unless it's on the weather channel or a PBS fundraising drive all day, I'd say the tv is a *vast* improvement.

Maybe you should do something positive. Find a bunch of quality old movies on DVD for super cheap (like ooolld 1920s-1940s), put them on a small computer, hook it up to there tv, and put it on *shuffle*. They get the same effect with the added bonus of maybe rediscovering something great they'd missed. And you're busy building a computer instead of whining.

OH NO

[Justin Hopewell]

Oh no, I'll be losing the MTV lineup, Spike, and CMT. How ever will I survive.

Re:OH NO

[DeadManCoding]

I can do without everything except Spike and Comedy Central. The rest of it can burn in the same spot in hell from where it spawned. I still catch the occasional MMA fight on Spike, and late night stand up on Comedy Central.

Re:OH NO

[Loopy1492]

I record DS9 from Spike.

Re:OH NO

[Justin Hopewell]

To be honest, there are a few shows I like on Comedy Central like DS and CR, and if I'm flipping through the channels and Ninja Warrior or that Bansuki show (whatever its called.. the other crazy obstacle course show) I'll watch. Although that might be G4. G4 and Spike are pretty much the same channel, so I get confused. Anyway, point I was about to make is that I usually catch these shows online anyway.

Re:OH NO

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear spike is in the process of being renamed to The CSI Channel

Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Get rid of the addictive brain rotting device called the television. I did quite a while ago and I have a lot more time to help others in need and I can think a whole lot better. To top it all off, I have a whole lot more money saved as a result of not having cable.

Re:Simple Solution

[Lobster Quadrille]

Johnathan, is that you?

Shut the fuck up.

Videos will be disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the ISP itself does the blocking, a temporary solution to this would be a proxy.

For your consideration: http://www.internetproxy.net/

Re:Videos will be disabled

[Faylone]

Wait, so the ONLY way I could access the shows would be...through piracy?

Re:Videos will be disabled

[BitZtream]

That would be kind of stupid for them to do, as they will then promptly loose the advertising revenue generated from those Time Warner users visiting their websites.

You can be sure that nice fat banner ad at the top of the page is worth a fortune to them. So they can show it to you one more time before you realize their website is now worthless? I don't think so, that would be truely retarded.

Shit, you're right, I can totally see them doing it now that I think about the other stupid crap network execs do these days. :(

Re:Videos will be disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

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,

The pop-up is displayed from a Verizon-served DSL IP, as well.

Re:Videos will be disabled

[epedersen]

I just tried to go to noggin.com from my Internet connection, and I got the pop-up. I am not on a time wanner connection, I am on an Integra connection. It might not filter by carrier, or if it does it doesn't do it very well.

Re:Videos will be disabled

[spazdor]

B-b-but we're working SO HARD to keep your business!

-Warner

Re:Videos will be disabled

[jetkins]

Viacom has already shown repeatedly that they don''t give a flying fig about network neutrality anyway. Blocking access to their sites to TW/RR addresses would simply be another example of their cavalier "we're Viacom, and we'll do whatever the hell we like" attitude.

Re:Videos will be disabled

[Mex]

You could wait and buy the DVD boxed version, too. No one will force you to pirate the content, you just have to wait.

Re:Videos will be disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Screen cap of the alert he's talking about, for those on other ISPs.

Re:Videos will be disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course, ThePirateBay will be blocking RoadRunner IPs from downloading torrents of these blocked shows. Ohh they won't?

Re:Videos will be disabled

[DynamiteNeon]

I only use time warner for my internet service (have Dish network for tv). So, if they really are going to filter out on the internet, then I'll be affected.

To be honest though, the only thing I'll be annoyed about is the Daily Show and Colbert Report. But, I know how to get those elsewhere if this really becomes an standoff.

Re:Videos will be disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

If they block video streaming from Time Warner customers this has gone from a simple rate dispute to a major net neutrality issue. Time to boycott Viacom if they pull crap like this.

Re:Videos will be disabled

[Mattatron]

As a Time-Warner customer in Austin, Texas, where TW recently had a spat with NBC, I would warn you that you will likely NOT be able to access Viacom websites to download your shows. TW said the exact same thing then (just download them), and NBC blocked TW IPs. We were shit out of luck. I pray for the day that FIOS is available in my apartment complex so I can dump TW.

Re:Videos will be disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

"...perhaps on the rare occasion pursuing the right course demands an act of piracy, ...piracy itself can be the right course?...." - Governer Weatherby Swan

Re:Videos will be disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect they make more from selling the shows on cable especially with the ad revenue on the cable channel (I assume they have ads on the channels) than they do from ads on the website. If my assumptions are correct, then it does make sense to pursue this course of action as it will increase pressure on Time Warner to accept the deal.

Re:Videos will be disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't and won't become a net neutrality issue. Net neutrality is more ISP's pulling this sort of shit, in this case it is the content provider, which though unfair isn't what net neutrality is about.

Submitter's bias shows

[GuloGulo]

"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"

This is simple, and the wording clearly displays the submitter's bias.

Time Warner cable ALSO provides internet access. If they are being charged for programming that their internet subscribers can recieve online, then they are paying for something they don't need to. I have no doubt they would like to use the funds Viacom currently recieves for programming on other things, yet still be able to provide the content if necessary.

I suppose if the person asking the question weren't themselves behoden to the idea that cable is the Great Satan, then they could see that.

Re:Submitter's bias shows

[squiggleslash]

Note sure why you were modded Funny, as it's a good point.

The major counterargument is that most locales have more ISPs available than cable/satellite operators, and many people in practice only have one cable/satellite operator available (the cable company) because while technically they can use satellite if they so wish, in practice the local residents association has made it an unpleasant experience to do so. (For instance, the Condo I used to live in had an association that forbid drilling holes in the wall to allow coax through, or attaching a dish to a wall. You had to watch satellite with the door open and the dish on a temporary stand.

Even where people have the choice, many people have cable TV only, choosing to have the Internet from another operator. AT&T, for instance, pushes DSL + Cellular + Home phone line combinations.

If users can get the content they actually want via Hulu.com and a DSL connection, then they're not going feel as if they need the cable service. At all. So it's not in TW's best interests to encourage people to see the Internet as a great alternative to cable TV.

Re:Submitter's bias shows

[Nethead]

DirecTV will supply you with a flat cable (even for HD) that can run through a closed slider or window. Get the service plan as they don't last forever, esp. if you have kids. (or slip the installer $10 for a handful.)

Great Profit Opportunity

[LordKaT]

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.

Re:Great Profit Opportunity

[sorak]

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.

But with the new HD convertors they will be able to use standard rabbit ears to get standard network...oh, never mind.

So how much do we have to pay them to get Jon Stewart back?

Re:Great Profit Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever modded the above as 'Funny' must have either a warped sense of humor or is out of touch with the real world. Maybe both... after all this is /.

Re:Great Profit Opportunity

[Legion303]

I hear Jon Stewart is very popular on usenet.

Incoming DDoS attack

[volxdragon]

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 :)).

Re:Incoming DDoS attack

[dpilot]

Today my wife/daughter had "I Love Lucy" playing (VitaMeataVegamin) and the crawl kept up the whole time, about the channel being dropped if you were a Time Warner customer, etc.

We've had corporate warfare playing on our computers now for decades - I guess it's time it made its way to our TV sets. The typical computer is a mishmash of a Microsoft OS, this company's free trial for this software, that company's free trial for that software, etc. Then we find out that this software doesn't play well with that software, and the next OS upgrade doesn't play well with either. It's corporate warfare, and the battleground they're fighting on is our computers.

For that matter, there have been several Internet outages as companies "negotiate" peering agreements.

Now it's moving to our TV sets, too.

AT this juncture it's a good idea to remember that apparently we are consumers, not customers. Our role in life is to give them our money, in exchange for whatever they deign to give us in return. Their agendas are apparently more important than delivering goods and services that discerning customers (What the heck are those?!?) want and are willing to pay for.

This too shall pass - I hope.

Re:Incoming DDoS attack

[penguinbrat]

Well, if you think about it - that would only be prudent planning on their part. From what has been said around here, TWC is actually telling their customers to use the internet to get their favourite shows - this means, as you pointed out, that VIACOMS cost will go up to support it. Since they are out for $$$ in the first place, it would only make since to prevent this.

On the note of $$$, this is making me wonder if the wall street melt down in the last few months is only the tip of the ice berg. That melt down was the result of mismanagement and greed, flat out - since they are the begining of everything (financially) it would mean a domino effect to the rest of the monopolies - the effects wouldn't be immediate although they will be there, and I'm curious if this is another start of things to come.

I'm basically getting at a communications meltdown (and any other monopolies) at the hands of the high end fat cats controlling it all - just as it happened on wall street, and for the same reason - greed and easy money.

Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable?

[Bruiser80]

I don't think you can. Standard analog cable flows through that line no matter what (at least that's my understanding of it). You need a digital box to use the digital broadcasts and premium channels, but I can still hook up a TV right to cable and get a NTSC signal.

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable?

[mvenezia]

I believe you can order internet service with just basic broadcast service (oh and a few stupid shopping channels)

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable?

[Bruiser80]

Right, meaning you're still paying for the TV service to get your internet. Just like having to pay for a land line to get DSL. Sounds like I'm paying too much for one crappy service either way :-/

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable?

[rveety]

Yes you can. They install a filter on your cable line to block tv channels *and* charge you a $20/mo non-subscriber fee (at least in my area).

To avoid the $20 bogus fee I signed up for earthlink cable internet, and my bill comes from TW minus the non-subscriber fee.

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable?

[markwalling]

You can order Road Runner al la carte for $49.95 in my market

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your house has ever had digital cable, you can have RoadRunner w/o cable service. If you're still on analog, order digital and RR, cancel the TV.

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable?

[Ironica]

I don't think you can. Standard analog cable flows through that line no matter what (at least that's my understanding of it).

You can order Internet cable service without *ordering* cable. You get a slight discount over the ala carte charges if you get both, but it would cost us significantly more to add cable TV to our service.

I've been told that if we unplug the line from our cable modem and plug it into our TV, we'll have (basic) cable, but we don't get billed for cable TV, just phone and Internet (and Time Warner is our provider).

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable?

[tilandal]

It depends on your local policy but yes you can. They are supposed to install a line filter to remove the analog channels from the internet service if you do this.

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable?

[NitroWolf]

I have, and have had TW internet for years without having cable.

I have a 15Mb down / 1Mb up connection for $50 a month or something like that. No cable or phone required, no discount if I get cable or phone unless I get one of their "bundles."

I was using torrents to get my TV, but I actually received a C&D letter, specifically naming one of the shows I downloaded, when and from where. So I stopped using torrents. I source my TV from other places now.

The funny thing is, I didn't realize how Fscking awesome other other source(s) are. Back in the day, they kinda sucked and were a pain to use. Fast forward 8 - 10 years and wow, holy shit it's about 10x faster than using Bit Torrent and stuff is immediately available.

I'll leave it up to astute readers to figure out what the other source(s) are, since it's far less trackable than torrents without some active intervention on the part of the MPAA et al.

Why pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why pay?

[clang_jangle]

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.

Probably depends on where you live and your ISP, but here with 6.0Mbps DSL I can happily live without cable. In fact, I've got more stuff downloaded and recorded than I actually have time to watch, between OTA, hulu, and bt. Screw the greedy cablecos, I don't need them anymore.

Think about how many shows you really watch

[SuperKendall]

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...

Re:Think about how many shows you really watch

[ccguy]

If you think about it any given show is only $8/month (4 episodes at $1.99 each),

What do you mean only? That's the price of a movie ticket, in a theater.

These are absurd prices. They are once again killing their golden goose by ripping people off.

What they should do is sell episodes *worldwide* (lots of people are willing to pay a reasonable amount to watch new stuff at the same time it airs in the US), at something like $0.25 per episode, or maybe $50 for all you can get.

Re:Think about how many shows you really watch

[enharmonix]

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...

It's Viacom stations, so unless that sport is Jackass, TWC is probably not canceling it.

Re:Think about how many shows you really watch

[Ironica]

His point is that, if you don't watch much TV, that's cheaper than cable. When we had just the lowest end package, our cable bill was $26/month, which costs more than four shows on iTunes. I don't know *when* was the last time I watched more than 2 shows at a time, so the cost comparison makes sense to me.

Re:Think about how many shows you really watch

[Ironica]

Of course, math is hard... more than THREE shows, I should have said.

Re:Think about how many shows you really watch

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

What they should do is sell episodes *worldwide* (lots of people are willing to pay a reasonable amount to watch new stuff at the same time it airs in the US), at something like $0.25 per episode, or maybe $50 for all you can get.

It would be nice if BBC did this as well, I'd pay the BBC for Top Gear Episodes if I could watch them realtime.

Re:Think about how many shows you really watch

[SuperKendall]

What do you mean only? That's the price of a movie ticket, in a theater.

I was talking about compared to cable however...

What a deal - 90 minutes to two hours of video, that you have to drive away from home for and endure with a number of other rude and annoying people crammed into tiny seats. Oh and you have to show up about an hour early between parking and trying to get decent seats.

One month of a show you like probably has (a) better acting and (b) better story than 90% of movies put in theaters, you can watch it whenever you like, and is probably at least 160 minutes of video (thinking about 40 minutes per episode once you cut commercials).

If you are arguing you do not use cable at all, and only go to movies... but even that makes little sense. You are trying to claim that $2 an episode for TV is terrible but then bringing up movies as an example of what should be done? That just seems crazy.

Re:Think about how many shows you really watch

[Aladrin]

I did the math, too, but differently. I realized it's cheaper to buy the DVDs (usually less than $2/ep, but depends on the show) and then I not only get to watch it, I can watch it in a marathon AND I have a hard copy. So I dropped cable TV as well. It just isn't worth it for me.

Re:Think about how many shows you really watch

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

What do you mean only? That's the price of a movie ticket, in a theater.

I haven't run across many movies I've enjoyed more than four episodes of the Office.

Another thing TWC can tell their customers

[mmeister]

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

[jeffTWC]

Not sure if you caught this earlier in the thread, but we actually are providing a refund to our customers if Viacom pulls the plug ... Jeff Simmermon Director, Digital Communications Time Warner Cable

Re:Another thing TWC can tell their customers

[Orbijx]

Jeff,

Will said refund trickle down the line to customers of Bright House Networks, since we're not "Time Warner" by name, but we are by service?

'cause that would be really nice.

Re:Another thing TWC can tell their customers

[jeffTWC]

I honestly don't know the answer to that -- but try BHNInsider on Twitter. He's the Brighthouse rep, and should be able to help.

Re:Another thing TWC can tell their customers

[Orbijx]

Thanks for the reply to that.

I'll give 'em a poke, since the local phone number is swamped with soccer moms calling in to QQ about Nickelodeon, PBR-swilling men callin' to complain that their beloved Spike is being spiked, et al. :)

Re:Another thing TWC can tell their customers

[HiThere]

I also noticed that you didn't quote any particular amount as the amount that would be refunded. I can sort of understand why, but until you get very specific, were I your customer I would continue to be quite irate.

Re:Another thing TWC can tell their customers

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly don't know the answer to that -- but try BHNInsider on Twitter. He's the Brighthouse rep, and should be able to help.

I don't have anything to contribute to this conversation (and am not a TW customer), but thanks for posting here. It's nice that your posting this information for us.

Thanks.

Re:Another thing TWC can tell their customers

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Another thing TWC can tell their customers

[GaryOlson]

Hear, hear! If TWC really wants to survive, act like a company which is interested in providing innovative service to customers at a competitive price. Instead of a regulated bureaucracy doing the very least to meet the minimum FCC regulations.

Datamine all that data on your customers and use your brains instead of brute forcing solutions. (Please don't tell me you need an example)

Instead of offering only the most meager, technically inadequate equipment on monthly fees, create partnerships with multiple equipment companies. Set terms accordingly: basic equipment TWC will service as part of the contract, more complicated equipment can have a more expensive contract, and/or provide/sponsor a DIY wiki for us gearheads.

Stop thinking the way the US government regulators want you to think. Stand up and engage the FCC in "constructive criticism"; they could use it. Lobbyists may be cheaper -- and you get what you pay for. Work with local governments on better methods for delivering last mile connections; stop acting like a monomaniacal monopoly.

Right TWC! Who Needs Cable Anyway ... Right?

[powerlord]

From TFA:

The channels that would be affected are: Comedy Central, CMT: Pure Country, Logo, Palladia, MTV, MTV 2, MTV Hits, MTV Jams, MTV Tr3s, Nickelodeon, Noggin, Nick 2, Nicktoons, Spike, The N, TV Land, VH1, VH1 Classic, and VH1 Soul.

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 for pointing out that a lot of shows are available for streaming. Let me go further and point out that a lot of shows are available for download directly from Amazon and iTunes, negating the need for a Cable provider at all.

Thanks to their stellar service the past month and a half, my New Years resolution is to move off TWC entirely within the next month.

Viacom bought a full-page ad

[Bruiser80]

on the last page of the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinal.

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.

Re:Viacom bought a full-page ad

[DannyO152]

Meanwhile, imagine the jollity as the advertisers discover they just lost Los Angeles, New York, Milwaukee, etc., consumers in a recession. Make-goods so fewer people can see more of your spots, oh yeah, that'll fly.

Isn't this what they call a popcorn moment?

It's not really useful yet...

[Jorophose]

At least, it wouldn't be for someone like me.

Either I go with Rogers for fast speeds, and get charged crazy amounts with caps, or I go Teksavvy with 5mbps at the greatest... And that's still like 30$-40$ a month (or 25$ for the lowest plan at either rogers' or teksavvy). It's not really fast enough, or has enough bandwidth (the teksavvy one might but I'd need a change of modems and lose my 15% discount), to stream shows to all my TVs.

But then again, we're paying 60$/month for digital cable. If getting rid of the digital cable and going back to normal cable brings that back down a fair amount, then I end up "winning". But will analogue cable still be around for a long time? (for a TV tuner card)

And what about channels like CNN (the one with Larry King, Anderson Cooper, and the international one)? Can you even get those online? And what about channels like Spike and Speed?

Of course, it works great for NBC/Global/etc. for shows like House, Heroes, ER, etc. that are shown for free on the web... But these are shown free over the air as well. =/

(Just out of curiosity, what's the reccomended minimum for most of these services?)

Re:It's not really useful yet...

[Flying Scotsman]

But will analogue cable still be around for a long time? (for a TV tuner card)

It will be around, for at least local channels over cable, until at least 2012 per FCC mandate. That might be a "long" time for certain definitions of "long."

Re:It's not really useful yet...

[Jorophose]

Not long enough, then... I was hoping more along the lines of "indefinately". I miss analogue's slow and graceful end, rather than digital's quick suprise death...

That said, is it possible to "scrape" those videos of most networks' streaming sites? Rather than record the shows, I figure I could always grab them off globaltv.com or nbc.com, or wherever, to later play them on a PMP.

(and as a sidenote, does Hauppauge make hybrid cards for PCI? or are they all PCIEx1?)

TW pulls this all the time

[Gotung]

Part of the reason I switched from Time Warner to AT&T u-verse is Time Warner's constant bullshit fighting with networks (CBS, Big Ten Network). Good riddance.

Connect PC to TV

[tepples]

From the article:

'We'll also be telling them how they can hook up their PCs to a television set.'

Does this mean that indie developers will finally have the tools to develop multiplayer video games that run on one PC, as opposed to a separate PC per player?

Re:Connect PC to TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid people annoy me. Please do us all a favor; kill yourself.

Cable is quickly becoming too expensive

[GWBasic]

When I looked at my last Comcast bill, I realized I'm paying almost $100 a month! (I have basic HDTV + the shitty Motorola DVR.) For that kind of money I'm better off buying a Mac Mini or dipping my toe into Linux + MythTV!

Re:Cable is quickly becoming too expensive

[rindeee]

Mini + Netflix (nice streaming feature...works great) + Boxee + a 1TB Maxtor External drive ($114 w/free delivery from Amazon) for my own content (ripped personal DVDs, etc.). No cable service, just HSI. Don't miss it in the least and my monthly bill is $10 (Netflix) plus $29 for HSI (which I'd be paying for even if I did have cable or sat tv).

Re:Cable is quickly becoming too expensive

[jdcope]

I also have Comcast. And I pay $113/mo, but for that I get internet, TV, and phone service. I dont think thats too bad. Then I have my Tivo at $13/mo on top of that.

Re:Cable is quickly becoming too expensive

[Dracos]

Over the past decade or more, cable fees have increased at 6 times the rate of inflation. Clearly the cable companies are greedy.

Perhaps TimeWarner could reduce their costs by shutting down their OnDemand shopping channels which I'm sure no one uses. This would also free up a lot of commercial time for real advertisers. Has TW said whether their rates will be lowered accordingly when these channels become unavailable?

That said, all of Viacom's channels have no interest for me other than Comedy Central (Daily Show, Colbert Report, and occasionally South Park), and Spike (for the original CSI).

Re:Cable is quickly becoming too expensive

[Oxy the moron]

I recently came to this realization myself. We have AT&T's U-Verse "service," and it costs us about $85/month. The basic landline phone is another $40. I built two MythTV boxes, bought some cheap Pinnacle USB HDTV Sticks (800se, they were $29.99 on buy.com), and we should be getting rid of AT&T services in the next few weeks.

Apart from a few annoyances with setup (getting dvb drivers working with these HDTV sticks, antenna issues) things are going very well thus far.

Re:Cable is quickly becoming too expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

are you crazy? shopping channels generate HUGE profits.

Auto-superseed

[tepples]

8,000 leechers, 4 seeders, your download will complete in 1 day, 17 hours, 49 minutes.

Until one of the seeders' BitTorrent clients detects a severe acute underseed and automatically turns on superseed mode for an hour. Would that help clear things up?

Yes you can order Internet Through TW w/o Cable

[vkapadia]

You can order Internet through Time Warner w/o cable, at least in NYC.

I did this about 18 months ago. It required me repeating "no, I really don't want cable tv service" over and over until they gave up.

I think my friend did this years ago in Poughkeepsie, NY, but I'm not certain that it was Time-Warner (Time Warner services part of Poughkeepsie and Comcast services other parts, I believe).

bittorrent won't work for all of those shows

[tscheez]

there's not a big userbase for noggin. Unfortunately, my kid loves that channel.

Re:bittorrent won't work for all of those shows

[batquux]

Yeah, it was the sole reason for getting the Standard package instead of Basic. Guess I'll just save that $25/month now.

I'm going to take them up on their advice

[elrous0]

I have a AT&T DSL connection for my internet and Time-Warner for my cable. And if Time-Warner cuts my Comedy Central, I'm not only going to use my DSL connection for my Comedy Central shows, I'm going to use it for ALL my shows. It'll even have the benefit of saving me that $80 a month I give to Time-Warner. So thanks for the advice, Time-Warner! See you Friday!

plus help on configuring their firewalls.

[khasim]

Make sure that the port forwarding is correctly set up. It helps a LOT with the speed. :)

Re:plus help on configuring their firewalls.

[cayenne8]

I made sure ports were set, and everything was working properly..but a couple years back, when I tried BT...I found that while there was some pretty good content out there, it was just dog SLOW to download almost anything. Took at least a day to download each tv show or so....

For some reason, I find I can download things faster than that with USENET using .nzb files.....

NOt sure what the problems was...but, maybe I'll try it again. Also, I'm just thinking you're less 'exposed' to the powers that be when downloading from USENET....on BT, people can see your IP and what you are actively involved with downloading/seeding/uploading......seems you are more at risk on BT?

Can someone more experience with BT maybe go through my points and maybe see where I'm wrong?

Re:plus help on configuring their firewalls.

[Anonymous Coward]

From a users standpoint, BitTorrent doesn't have too many things going for it -- if you've got your NNTP sources (and the credit card paying for NNTP access) ready. The essential difference lies in scaling: While distribution for NNTP download becomes more difficult the more users you have, BitTorrent actually scales positively with more users. Consider the following example: Scenario: One host, distributing an 1250 MB file at 1000 Mbps to 1000 clients with 10/1 Mbps of bandwidth each, all downloads start simultaneously.

Possibility I: NNTP/FTP/HTTP/Whatever: Each clients gets 1 Mbps of server bandwidth, everybody has the file after a bit more than two hours and 45 minutes. If there were only 100 instead of 1000 downloaders, they all would be done in about a quarter hour, so the distribution speed scales inversely to the number of clients.

Possibility II uses BitTorrent, so instead of a "server", we'll have a "seed" and the clients become "peers". In the same manner as before, 1000 downloads start simultaneously. Now our server ought to recognize he's the only seed and promptly switch to superseed mode (see GGP for details), supplying a different 1.25 MB piece to each client within the first ten seconds. Instead of only getting 1 Mbps from the servers, the peers can now, on average, use their full upload bandwidth distributing pieces amongst each other. Assuming such ideal conditions, the distribution bandwidth has doubled from 1 to 2 Gbps in only 10 seconds and our peers will finish the download in about half the time. Also, the server will only need to supply about half of the bandwidth, lowering his costs significantly. That way, it's even possible to seed something to thousands of people using a standard private DSL line with only a few mbps of upload capacity -- given enough peers willing to redistribute, of course.

The advantage from a users viewpoint tends to be more available content at lower/no cost /because/ middlemen like The Pirate Bay, Mininova and so on don't have to provide much storage or bandwidth. The negatives are directly connecting to others (who might just be working for the MAFIAA and snagging IP addresses) and potentially lower speeds. Both can pretty easily be mitigated by joining a private tracker. The sweet spot of users is around 10-30k, enough to provide lots of content and high distribution speed (i regularly get up to 90 Mbps on a 100 Mbps line) while not being large enough to attract attention). You lose some of the content variety the big ones provide and have to seed back as much as you download, but your downloads will be *much* faster than on a public site.

Re:plus help on configuring their firewalls.

[Lord Flipper]

For some reason, I find I can download things faster than that with USENET using .nzb files...

"For some reason?"

How about the fact that a serious USENET provider, say, Giganews, for example, has enough servers and backbone access to completely saturate 10 pipes to any one end-user client, no matter whether those 'pipes' are going into dial-up, dsl, cable, or fibre?

Do you think that situation, compared to the usually flaky upload streams that are possible on most Internet users' accounts, and the "I-got-mine-to-Hell-with-everybody-else" attitude of many torrent users might have something to do with it?

I would think so. I know p2p is very useful, and I wholeheartedly support the efforts to defend it, but I never, ever, go near p2p.

[And, although I have been a Giganews client as long as I can remember, almost (in 'computer' years), I am not endorsing them or suggesting that anyone use them, at all. There are other providers with different price points and usage levels, etc, that are worth looking into.]

Viacom loses what?

[Anonymous Coward]

So now Viacom shows will no longer be shown on at least 20 channels... how much are they losing because of that? It seems like they are both losers.

odd

[Anonymous Coward]

why are you guys being so negative towards TWC? TWC doesnt want to pay higher prices cause it would increase their customers bills to make up for the price rise... they are fighting to keep your bills lower...

why are you not cheering on TWC for not giving into demands and fighting for you?

Re:odd

[rochrist]

The increase amount to less than a penny a day.

Re:odd

[kimvette]

Whether or not TWC gives in the price of cable goes up. What year has it NOT gone up, despite the cost of technology and bandwidth from their side having decreased to a tiny fraction of what it used to cost?

Why? It's time to rumble, that's why.

[greg_barton]

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.

Compare ESPN360

[tepples]

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.

The Walt Disney Company has been doing this for years on ESPN360.

So glad I got Digital Cable for my HDTV

[Alzheimers]

Well now, I'm so glad I'm shelling out big bucks for my high-def digital cable and DVR service so I can watch all these hundreds of TV stations on my nice big new HDTV...

Oh wait, where did all my favorite channels go? Where are my kids channels going?

Well, shit.

Re:So glad I got Digital Cable for my HDTV

[Anonymous Coward]

I have TWC in upstate NY.
None of these channels are available in HD through TWC where I am.

Does this dispute have anything to do with HD broadcast availability or just coincidence?

Recently Downgraded to Limited Basic Cable

[Ron Bennett]

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

Re:Recently Downgraded to Limited Basic Cable

[SuperCharlie]

We recently moved and I had a chance to "renegotiate" all our services, TWC being one of them. I was up to ~120 a month for expanded basic and RoadRunner before the move and every way you slice it the cable TV part was costing about $70 a month which was just too much for me. After a few ping-pong are "you sure you dont want the package??" I managed to get limited basic cable and RoadRunner (7mb/~2mb) for ~65 a month. It is not something they wanted to do and they pushed hard for the "value meal".

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:Recently Downgraded to Limited Basic Cable

[BAM0027]

I've tried cable twice over the past four years or so, each stint lasting no more than six months. Each time, I found it more hassle DVRing, channel checking, or hunting down broadcast schedules that I canceled each time with no regrets.

Well, very few. There have been two times that I went to a friend's house to watch a live event.

As alternatives, I've watched the Olympics live streaming, downloaded whole series of tv shows (anime, out of print, and more) via BitTorrent, or explored movies on Hulu, Joost, YouTube, and other online offerings. I also have a very substantial (purchased) disc library (I still enjoy my HD-DVD player very much, thank you!). That includes box sets of great cable shows, like Rome, Deadwood, and more. Much of that has been ripped and served via my Xbox 360 to my living room.

Bottom line, I've saved at least $60 per month on cable, simplified my entertainment setup, and spent more efficient and pleasurable time in front of the tv (negligible ads!). No cable tv for me, thanks.

Re:Recently Downgraded to Limited Basic Cable

[piltdownman84]

My main beef with my cable operator is I have to subscribe to $60 of crap before I can buy the 'premium channels' I want. The only thing I watch on TV is soccer and hockey. I only watch 6 channels, but to get those I have to have 300 I don't watch. To get the 'premium sports' package I need to subscribe to Basic->Tier 3 digital cable. To get HD Sports I need Basic->Tier 2 Digital + Basic HD. Plus I now see they are nailing me $2/month for each of my digital boxes.

Quick lesson

[GuloGulo]

"8,000 leechers, 4 seeders"

No problem there.

"your download will complete in 1 day, 17 hours, 49 minutes."

That part has nothing to do with the first part.

Do you not understand how torrents work, or are you just throwing in the "8,000 leechers, 4 seeders" even though it has nothing to do with your download being slow?

And no mods, his post wasn't insightful.

Re:Quick lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be a problem if the 8000 leechers are all missing the same parts of the file(s) that the 4 seeders have. This doesn't seem very likely, but it is technically possible.

Re:Quick lesson

[AmberBlackCat]

How could (8000 leechers, 4 seeders) vs. (8004 seeders) not make a difference?

Re:Quick lesson

[Malevolyn]

Sometimes you happen upon a torrent seeded almost entirely by really slow connections, or by people who are seeding a lot of torrents. I've stumbled onto a couple recently with 1000+ seeds that refuse to go any higher than 60kb/s, but most of the ones I find with maybe 10-20 will fly.

There's no real significance there, it's just something I've noticed.

Re:Quick lesson

[darthflo]

Heh. The number of seeds is reported by the Tracker to all clients, including torrent aggregators like btjunkie or torrent finder. Search results are often sorted by the number of seeds (or, alternatively seeds - peers). High positions in search results might attract new users. New users generate ad revenue.
Need I say more? ;)

P.S.: Most trackers will only tell up to 50 addresses of seeds/peers to any peer at any one time.

Re:Quick lesson

[Malevolyn]

Sure, but I was just pointing out the lack of a real connection between number of seeds and download speeds.

Re:Quick lesson

[lysergic.acid]

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.

Re:Quick lesson

[GuloGulo]

"It could be a problem if the 8000 leechers are all missing the same parts of the file(s) that the 4 seeders have. This doesn't seem very likely, but it is technically possible."

Unlike most here, I don't consider "vastly, highly unlikely instances" in an effort to display my intellectual ability at the loss of my use of reason.

You seem to, but you'll forgive me if I ignore your specificty and pedantry in my own effort to avoid having conversations with people who think pedantry and specificty makes them anything other than a specific pedant.

In other words, your example is so rare and so unlikely that I consider anyone who forwards it and those like it a fucking loser.

They charge you for TV whether you buy or not

[tepples]

No cable service, just HSI. Don't miss it in the least and my monthly bill is $10 (Netflix) plus $29 for HSI

Where do you live? In Fort Wayne, Indiana, Comcast charges twice that much for high-speed Internet without phone or television. This $59.xx per month includes a $15/mo "line fee" that Comcast waives to all its TV subscribers, making local-channels-only "lifeline" TV essentially free.

Re:They charge you for TV whether you buy or not

[Anonymous Coward]

We live in a wonderful place called DSL-land

Re:They charge you for TV whether you buy or not

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what I do here in the twin cities with comcast. $8.50/month basic cable (only supposed to be channels 2-20, but they never installed a filter, shhh) and I believe $45 for internet. Add it all together, subtract the line fee discount which is more than the TV service, and my bill comes out to $55.xx each month after taxes.

Re:They charge you for TV whether you buy or not

[tepples]

Anonymous Coward wrote:

We live in a wonderful place called DSL-land

First you have to convince the phone company to put a hub within 2 miles of where you live. I know several people who live out of range. And then you might have to get voice service from the local phone monopoly, not Vonage or MagicJack or the cell phone company, because the local phone monopoly declines to sell naked DSL.

A la carte pricing debate

[mamono]

Maybe this will bring up the good old a la carte debate again. I, personally, resent having to pay $50+ a month when my entire family watches about 10 cable channels total. I looked into 4DTV a couple years ago but it didn't seem viable (limited DVR capabilities, lack of HD, still have to point to multiple satellites, etc.)

Do other Slashdotters have an a la carte TV solution that doesn't entail torrents, watching on the web/computer or illegal downloads?

Re:A la carte pricing debate

[enharmonix]

Do other Slashdotters have an a la carte TV solution that doesn't entail torrents, watching on the web/computer or illegal downloads?

None here, but I seem to recall hearing the FCC was mulling over the idea. This was some time ago, mind you. I don't think it ever really took off. Too bad, too. To get Noggin for the kids, we pay $60/mo for TV. Of the 150 or so channels we pay for, we only ever watch 6 of them.

Re:A la carte pricing debate

[man_ls]

SageTV can work with 4DTV receivers, for what that's worth -- although, obviously, to record multiple channels, they'd need to be on the same satellite or you'd need multiple dishes. And, having multiple BUDs in the back yard isn't something people are probably willing to do.

The long-term picture.

[NetRanger]

In the long term, I think Time-Warner has the upper hand here. Viacom is wanting Time-Warner to pay a significant chunk of more money to carry its commercial-laden content. If Viacom is unable to fund itself through these constant deluges of crass commercials, then perhaps Viacom needs to find itself a better revenue stream. Squeezing the pipe that actually delivers the eyes that the advertisers are wanting to get in front of is not a good idea. TWC owns the pipe, Viacom simply owns the content. Which one is more valuable? Considering how digital on-demand style services are taking off, I think Viacom is playing a dangerous game here. TWC can afford to lose a few channels for a while much more than Viacom can afford to lose ad revenue due to 13+ million eyes disappearing overnight.

Roadrunner has 40GB caps

[Anonymous Coward]

YA didnt TIME IDIOT Warner cap users to 40GB
haha ya useless now isnt it so they effectively are driving it to FiOS and all htere customers away GOOD.

NOW maybe hte 60GB CAP of there rogers will also goo POOF.

And folks, here you have it

[kimvette]

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.

Re:And folks, here you have it

[tgd]

You know what happens when a town or state takes on a company the size of these telecom companies?

The state loses.

New Hampshire tried to pull crap with Verizon a couple of years ago. They told Verizon to roll out fiber to the whole state or they wouldn't approve it in any of the state. Now mind you 3/4 of New Hampshire is extremely rural and extremely poor. Ie, the highest cost areas to roll out fiber are the areas most likely to not order service with it anyway.

What did Verizon do? It said "fuck you" in no uncertain terms to New Hampshire and sold the business to Fairpoint.

Result? No fiber for rural New Hampshire. No new fiber for any of the planned areas of New Hampshire that was planned but not rolled out and no TV-over-fiber service (we had been targeted for FiosTV early on).

New Hampshire tried to play hard ball and the state lost.

Re:And folks, here you have it

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The newspapers never became very expensive (bloated with ads though) because it has always been a Times vs Tribune vs Journal. None were able to make a state sponsored monopoly any in any one market. We are merely subscriber territories the cable companies buy and sell to each other. Look at satellite TV. Even with just two major companies, you get much more content/dollar. If it wasn't for our atmosphere the 30k miles each way, satellite providers would have destroyed landlines by now.

Re:And folks, here you have it

[Alarindris]

Don't get your hopes up. Joe Sixpack has never even heard the phrase net neutrality. He doesn't know the difference between the web, internet, email, or P2P. And if he gets throttled his first reaction will be "Hmm, interwebs are slow, maybe I need a shorter modem cord."

Re:And folks, here you have it

[DynamiteNeon]

You give Joe Sixpack too much credit.

At best, we could hope that the FCC gets annoyed and starts pushing them to find a resolution, but even that is doubtful depending on how much lobbying they're doing.

Re:And folks, here you have it

[ion.simon.c]

What happens if *every* state loses?

Re:And folks, here you have it

[ion.simon.c]

Net Neutrality is a *REALLY* bad idea. A network operator *must* be free to run his network any damn way he pleases. Things work out better that way.

Instead of wasting our time with all this NN noise, we should attack the problem at its root; the competition stifling incumbent operators and the subsequent explosion of ISP-specific interconnects from the customer's site to the greater Internet. (We should run *ONE* line from the customer's site to a common interconnect point, then let the ISPs duke it out from there!) If the barriers to starting up an ISP were sufficiently low, and *every* customer could change ISPs at a whim, we'd see *real* competition in the ISP business.

Re:And folks, here you have it

[Ostracus]

"You know what happens when a town or state takes on a company the size of these telecom companies?

The state loses."

Considering the costs to do so. I'm not certain it would have been a win. Regardless of who ends up providing a service. Geography and economics aren't going to disappear from the world as factors that need to dealt with.

For NH a lot of the area would have been better served with wireless (with lessor speeds than fiber naturally).

Re:And folks, here you have it

[kimvette]

New Hampshire tried to pull crap with Verizon a couple of years ago. They told Verizon to roll out fiber to the whole state or they wouldn't approve it in any of the state. Now mind you 3/4 of New Hampshire is extremely rural and extremely poor. Ie, the highest cost areas to roll out fiber are the areas most likely to not order service with it anyway.

Then Verizon ought to refund every single cent they received in the form of federal grants and FCC charges because those funds were intended for the express purpose of rolling out fibre to every address. Why isn't NH suing Verizon to get their share of those taxpayer dollars back?

Re:And folks, here you have it

[ion.simon.c]

Heh. You commented to the wrong post.

If the fate of the USF and other such monies are any indication, Verizon will get to keep all of the money it received. :/

Comedy Central?

[British]

I like most of Comedy Central's original shows, but I'll lose my mind if they don't air Saving Silverman for the umpteenth time! They air that movie so much, it's like "The Beastmaster" to their TBS.

Unless

[GuloGulo]

"So it's not in TW's best interests to encourage people to see the Internet as a great alternative to cable TV."

However, if they can see the writing on the wall (which is something most Slashdotters don't give businesses enough credit for) then perhaps they realize cable is a dead end and want to get in on the transition.

And could you clarify your "counter argument"? I see you saying most people only have one cable provider, but I fail to see how that's a counterargument here. That other ISP's exist doesn't really have anything to do with cable internet service.

I guess I just don't see why a gaggle of ISP's providing services over Time Warner's lines, which would still be paid for by the subscriber and be a revenue stream for TWC, is a counterargument.

Re:Unless

[squiggleslash]

And could you clarify your "counter argument"? I see you saying most people only have one cable provider, but I fail to see how that's a counterargument here. That other ISP's exist doesn't really have anything to do with cable internet service.

Could you clarify your objection? Hulu.com et al do not require cable Internet access specifically, just broadband Internet access. If Time Warner is saying "You can use the Internet instead of our cable TV service to watch your favorite shows", then many will use AT&T, Earthlink, or even one of the multitude of pre-WiMAX WISPs, to watch TV, bypassing Time Warner completely. So the argument "Time Warner doesn't care because you'll just use its Internet service to watch TV" doesn't really stand up.

Re:SLASHDOT SUCKS ASS!

[kimvette]

And yet, you take the time to come here, read, and post.

Doesn't Matter To Me

[kid_oliva]

I hardly watch any of those channels anyways. I'll take the minute refund.

Nothing of value actually

[guruevi]

Comedy Central, CMT: Pure Country, Logo, Palladia, MTV, MTV 2, MTV Hits, MTV Jams, MTV Tr3s, Nickelodeon, Noggin, Nick 2, Nicktoons, Spike, The N, TV Land, VH1, VH1 Classic, and VH1 Soul.

Except for Comedy Central (only late night) and some shows/movies at Spike nothing really to be mad about. I wish they would have taken MTV and VH1 off a long time ago, I can't see those channels making any money.

Guess we'll be hitting The Pirate Bay soon enough for a bunch of shows.

Re:Nothing of value actually

[NFNNMIDATA]

I actually watch a ton of stuff on tv land and nick@nite, and when they recently started showing infomercials instead of shows at 3 or 4 am I was fairly peeved. But this is far more annoying.

This kind of thing should never make it to the customer. As the customer, I don't care where you get channels from or what you pay, I only care about what I agreed to pay for what I agreed to buy. After the whole NFL network debacle (which is still ongoing), if they do this I'm going to have to finally get directv or that u-verse crap.

TWC is in the right

[ArchieBunker]

Viacom wanted to jack up rates for next year and TWC basically told them "NO". Good for them. If Viacom was offering more channels I could understand but to increase because they feel like it?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUKN3137458820081231

Try Dish network

[baomike]

From my bill:
Top 250 59.99
Dish HD Ultimate 20.00
Additional Recv 5.00
                                          84.99

I recently purchased a VIP211K receiever from Solid Signal. I think other places may have it cheaper.
THe VIP211K can for $40.00(one time) be enabled as a pvr. (you provide your own external USB hard drive)

Solid signal has a package deal, receiver and antenna (it is a three satellite feed horn for west coast people)

Dumb Pipe

[travisb828]

I have worked for a cable company for 8 years. It is not Comcast, but I live in a Comcast area. In a meeting something was said about the possibility of us becoming a dumb pipe. I don't think this will happen, but that is how I look at Comcast.

I hate the buggy Comcast DVR, and their on demand service is lame. One day I broke down, and got a Tivo. After scrweing around with Comcast to get a cable card installed, I was good to go. This lets me keep HBO and Showtime and have decent HD video service. With an Internet connection Tivo can connect to Amazon.com to rent movies and download shows from places like Revision3. There are several devices that connect to Netflix. From my experience, Netflix looks the best on a 360. The other thing thats nice being able to remove the channels you don't watch from the lineup. I don't need Noggin and the local public access with the poor quality video of a preacher. My next step will probably be a media PC of some kind. Probably Windows :( for Bluray support.

You could do all this with Mtyth TV or whatever else you can dream up, but thats my TV viewing setup. A mix of content coming over the video pipe and IP pipe. If you can afford it, get a business Internet connection from your local cable company. They are usually unfiltered and you can get a static IP. In the case of Comcast there is no bytecap.

Re:Dumb Pipe

[plasmacutter]

why on earth are you looking for blu-ray support.

Get a linux box, install mplayer and vlc, and get your blu-ray without encumbrance or obscene expense from usenet/pirate bay.

Re:Videos will be disabled (Confirmed)

[michaelhood]

I just visited MTV.com (bleck) from my TWC connection, sure enough, there's a white popup with a red bold heading:

ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!

Attention Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks customers, starting tonight, you will lose your favorite MTV shows on TV and online because of a dispute with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. You can stop this! Time Warner Cable customers call 1-800-762-3786 and Bright House Networks customers call 1-866-309-3279, AND DEMAND THEY KEEP YOUR CHANNEL! YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OLD TO CALL.

Amusingly, I refreshed the site to get this text and the box didn't show. Checked my cookies, it sets a cookie called "projxcookie" to "yes". Deleted/refreshed, and here it is again.

Project X, indeed.

Marketing 101

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! I've always said that the best marketing strategies start with explaining to your customers, in intricate detail, exactly how unnecessary your product is....

feh...

[rickb928]

I'll miss Spike, and what will i do for news coverage if I don't have The Comedy Channel???

Other than that, I could care about any of the other channels. And my moles in the subculture also couldn't care less. They don't even need their James Bond fix from Spike.

Nickelodeon is just a drug. There are others.

T-W is going to win this one.

Who the hell ever said TV was obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[borcharc]

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.

Bandwidth caps

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel like a lemming in a Disney documentary. The stage handlers are chasing us off the cliff and then are going to blame us for abusing our bandwidth usage.

Once they cut Viacom's coverage they'll begin to enforce ridiculously low bandwidth caps for us to download HD quality shows and movies.

That's what proxies and Tor are for...

[volxdragon]

Blocking based on IP is pointless on their part - it is trivial to get around (although the bandwidth available via proxies and Tor will suck for getting video streams, it is doable and people will find ways around the blocks).

Re:That's what proxies and Tor are for...

[Anonymous Coward]

The point isn't to stop every Time Warner customer accessing the show, rather it is to stop enough that the customers pressure Time Warner to reach an agreement to keep the channels. And I suspect a majority of customers, particularly the ones that were pointed to the websites by Time Warner, won't know it is possible to get round these blocks, let alone how to do it. And that may just be good enough for Viacom.

Re:Videos will be disabled (Confirmed)

[gmagill]

And trying to call that T.W. number results in nothing but busy-signals.

lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw Viacom. Teh net pwnez media PIGS!!

Only Points out the Broken Model

[BlueBoxSW.com]

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.

Re:Only Points out the Broken Model

[bornagainpenguin]

Or alternately you could just pony up for an account with Megaupload or etc and download those same 'must have' shows from there via a simple google search.

Average sized "one hour" episode of TV comes in at 350mbs at a clear enough resolution on a 36inch TV that it is indistinguishable from HD for my parents and I. Given how piss-poor the quality of most channels on the local cable monopoly are this results in a serious improvement for us. Also there's the net benefit of not having to put up with nearly twenty minutes of commercials every show we watch....

As for Netflix or @ppleTV--why bother? I don't personally have much success with bittorrent (thank you ever so much for replacing the manufacturer's firmware with your undocumented crap Verizon...you have no idea the warm and fuzzy feelings this has engendered for you in my heart....no really..) but you could easily set up a Media Center box with XBMC on your favorite Operating System and connect that to your TV and get just as good of an image--if not better depending on the hardware you use. Use Miro to automatically grab your favorite TV shows and you'll not have to do much else after the initial setup work.

--bornagainpenguin

Re:Only Points out the Broken Model

[Anonymous Coward]

I see where your going with this, but you're not going to replace tv for the masses unless it's one plug and one click to get going.

Most people won;t enjoy setting up a media center in their homes unless it's idiot proof.

Viacom will block free Web video

[jeffTWC]

Take a look at the popup that's showing up on websites owned by Viacom -- any of 'em, MTV.com, VH1.com, etc. The text says, in part "Attention Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks customers, starting tonight, you will lose your favorite MTV shows on TV and online because of a dispute with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks." Here's a screen shot: http://twitpic.com/ycvx It's that phrase "and online" that's really troubling. What does Viacom mean by that? If the statement's true and not just a scare tactic, then it either means: 1) They're going to take all their video content off the Web and ruin it for everybody. 2) They're somehow going to block Time Warner Cable / Bright House/ Roadrunner subscribers only from seeing their free video content, probably by blocking a range of IP addresses. Internal conversations here at Time Warner Cable indicate that Viacom's going to do the latter: block our customers from the same full Web experience that they provide everyone else for free. What will that do for the future of online video? We're not sure, but one thing's positive: it won't be good.

Re:Viacom will block free Web video

[jeffTWC]

And again, in case you missed it: I'm the director of digital communications for Time Warner Cable.

Re:Viacom will block free Web video

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh, I'm getting that message too.

Time Warner doesn't even service this area, but the microwave ISP I use goes through them so they'll block me as well, even though I use Dish.

Not that it really matters, as I don't like any of those channels and could just watch it over satelite if I did, or torrent them if I didn't have it.. but still.

Just because my hostname ends in *.rr.com(*.biz.rr.com, at that), does not mean I use time warner cable.

Re:Viacom will block free Web video

[Anonymous Coward]

And the "communications" companies wonder why we consumers have such a combative attitude towards "consolidated" communications services. For example, my cable is TWC, my cell phone is Metro PCS, home landline and wife's cell is Verizon, and DSL is a local ISP on Verizon lines. Yes, I pay about 50% premium for redundant communications connections. I would not require this type of redundancy if y'all would act like adults instead of small children throwing tantrums.

Although in this particular case TWC can appear to look the victim, grow up. Negotiate a proxy with a third/fourth/fifth party so Viacom can't determine the origin of the request. THINK!!!! Y'all are just the lamest creative thinkers I ever did see fall off a horse. Lawyers never solve a problem and negotiations just make you solve the problem on the opposition's terms. Create your own terms. Use the technology, technology is more flexible than the court system. Pointing fingers and saying "they did it" is just worthless.

Re:Viacom will block free Web video

[Squib]

I don't have Time-Warner, and I still see the pop-up, seen here in a screen shot...

We subscribe to Cox in Southern California.

Re:Viacom will block free Web video

[ion.simon.c]

I'm seeing that message. I'm a Comcast customer. Something smells fishy.

Methinks that Viacom IS NOT gonna block TWC internet customers. I doubt that they have the balls. :)

Re:Viacom will block free Web video

[ion.simon.c]

It's probably a scare tactic. I'm seeing that popup, too. I'm a Comcast customer.

If you *really* think that Viacom's gonna blackhole your customers, reroute your traffic to Viacom's sites through a couple of friend's networks. :D

Or just do without. *shrug*

Re:Viacom will block free Web video

[bored]

They would have to NAT it, because just changing the route isn't going to affect the source IP blocks. Of course then it would be pretty obvious if a huge chunk of traffic starts coming in from a small IP block, in that case it could get blocked too. Frankly, there probably isn't much TW can do other than upset their peering agreements if someone decides to block all their customers access.

Its about time, they are just getting some of their own medicine. The crap they have been pulling is frankly sickening. I canceled my cable a few years ago because they were charging to much for commercial laden crap. I could get by on PBS and HBO but that isn't a valid choice, so instead I am just a RR customer. I'm watching the AT&T u-verse creep toward my neighborhood. I hate AT&T as much as TW, but I will probably switch on principle. TW milks the crap out of the RR customers, how many other computer technologies are as stagnant as RR? When I signed up 10 years ago I got 1M up 3M down, now I have 512k up ~7M down, and I only have that because grande offers it. As soon as u-verse started showing up here TW magically starts offering turbo which they claim is 20/2, but you have to pay extra. I would have paid extra for that 10 years ago, but now there is enough bad blood they can fsck off. I'm just waiting to switch. Frankly after looking at the DOCSIS specs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS , there isn't any reason for the UP/DOWN disparity. Its just TW milking the market for everything they can get. I don't even consider them a full service ISP anymore, since they block ports that they originally didn't, canceled usenet service, etc..

Re:Viacom will block free Web video

[plasmacutter]

If they're going to hit below the belt by denying their online video content to internet subscribers because of a [i]TV[/i] licensing deal, I say you should hit below the belt and make some subtle jerking motions of your head toward usenet and pirate bay.

I know of several bands who have already done it in a furtive manner, thus not violating their contracts.

Unacceptable

[hamburgler007]

I live in NYC, where time warner has already implemented throttles on torrent traffic (which they deny). Then I find out about this last night via a scrolling message late at night, a day before the channels potentially go away. Time Warner already charges exorbitant fees (not to say that others don't), and their solution? To watch the shows I'm missing on cable via the internet, many of which are either not free or not legally available? I thought the fucking cable was so I could watch it directly on my tv, rather than wasting time downloading it and burning it onto a cd/dvd so I can watch it in the comfort of my living room on my tv. Time Warner's quirks have been an inconvenience up until this point. But if things fall through tonight, I will switching my internet service and probably drop cable all together.

Re:Unacceptable

[plasmacutter]

if they throttle torrents use a giganews account.

That's also a good way, but more delayed

[SuperKendall]

I did the math, too, but differently. I realized it's cheaper to buy the DVDs (usually less than $2/ep, but depends on the show) and then I not only get to watch it, I can watch it in a marathon AND I have a hard copy.

That is a good approach, as you say it's generally a bit cheaper and you get a hard copy you can keep.

However the drawback is the delay, with a number of shows it's fun to discuss them as they are ongoing (like Battlestar Galactica in my case). So I buy episodes online...

I do sometimes buy the series DVD's later as well, I don't mind giving money to the producers of a show I really like. That's why I'd prefer to pay $2 an episode than to give a large sum to a cable company where only the smallest trickle will make it back to the producer.

I used to steal cable.

[johnny cashed]

But then I realized it wasn't even worth it then.

Great post A++++++!!!11!!one!!eleven!!!1

[Chapter80]

Ah if I only had mod points.

First slash-dot-laugh-out-loud in quite a while.

How to get to the heart of this.

[rubato]

I'm sure it's no picnic to have to deal with Time Warner. My cable company is Charter, and there is no joy there either. But let's cut straight to the quick:

After the year we have had, with deflation raging and with the consequent loss of jobs and other economic suffering all around, for anyone to demand a fee increase from anyone over anything is an OUTRAGE.

Re:How to get to the heart of this.

[plasmacutter]

only thing deflating is the housing market.

Besides, what do you expect with stagnant wages for a decade?

When you offshore all the jobs, keep wages on the floor, and keep jacking up prices, people's capacity to go into debt to buy your stuff will eventually give out.

This was on NPR this very evening (around 7 pm to be exact).

It's the same point i've been making on reaganomics, and the point was also made on burn notice.. you can only push people so far before their bank accounts fold and they can't pay you anymore.

Attack the consumer/wage side, and the revenue side WILL eventually suffer. Then one of two things happens, you make salaries more generous or you drop your prices, and it's in your interest to make salaries more generous because deflation means your debt is suddenly a lot more burdensome.

Come on!

[SuperKendall]

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.

Would you prefer he clam up, or TWC just has some tiny message in a support forum somewhere saying they "are considering all options"? Why is not effort by a large company to actually communicate with customers directly with a real answer treated with the respect it deserves, in order to encourage MORE such communication?

I guess that's the last time TWC tries to help customers directly! That'll teach 'em to be responsive! Next time it's all through the PR folk.

Re:Come on!

[KutuluWare]

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:Come on!

[KutuluWare]

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:Come on!

[aussie_a]

To be honest such accounts and comments are rather meaningless without a link to the TWC website that backs up the claims in the comment.

Or must I register an official TWC and make a contradictory post to demonstrate how useless they are?

Lucky bastard

[Shakrai]

I got FiOS.

Why would they throttle where they tell you to go?

[SuperKendall]

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.

Now why would they do that when they are TELLING USERS TO GO THERE???

If anything Viacoms response is less friendly, potentially shutting off TWC customer access to those portals (though I'll believe it when I see it, some people are afraid because of TWC targeted popups they are getting there now).

You have way to much hate for the front end of the whole cable process (the cable company) and way too little regard for the fact that perhaps, just perhaps, the traditionally greedy content providers might just deserve some blame as well. In fact what does it matter if you can in fact have multiple cable companies when it's content providers driving the price you'll pay regardless?

I'm all for cable competition in towns but you are using a totally false example which then would render your complaints moot.

seems pretty directly opposed to net-neutrality

[Trepidity]

Most of the fighting about network neutrality is over whether an ISP should be able to charge a content provider to deliver their content (or pass it with higher priority). But it seems fairly similar for a content provider to be trying to use ability of an ISP's subscribers to access its content as a way of forcing the ISP-owning company to purchase some other product. What next, Google requiring Time Warner to sign up for Premium Google or its subscribers don't get the Calendar anymore?

Re:seems pretty directly opposed to net-neutrality

[mdmkolbe]

Wouldn't anti-trust laws be able to take care of that(*)? It seems here that someone is using one service as competitive leverage on completely unrelated service which IIUC is the essence of what anti-trust laws try to stop.

(*) By "that" I mean if Viacom chooses to block TWC customers; I don't want to start a general NN debate.

Burn those bastards houses down

[gelfling]

T+W pays my city a 15% bribe off the top for 'access' which they pass on to me. And for that I get crappy monopoly service and now no service?

Go Satellite and stab these motherfuckers in their beds. Kill them all.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

TURN THE SHIT OFF!!!!!!! Go outside, read a book, take up a new hobby, but for gods sake TURN THAT MINDLESS DRIBBLE OFF, it simply makes people stupid!!!

Only consequent, but it will hurt them too.

[Lonewolf666]

I guess they'll have to block online access too, otherwise the attempt to get more money out of Time Warner will fail because most TWC customers just watch the shows via internet. But Viacom will also suffer, because with less viewers they won't get the same advertisement fees anymore.

Not knowing your and their cost structure, I cannot advise you on what to do - cave in or fight it out. But it seems quite possible to me that Viacom will backpedal because dropping the TWC viewers hurts them more than TWC.

Disconnect cable TV and still have Roadrunner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeming that Time Warner is suggesting that we download movies, is it possible for me to not be forced to have Cable TV as part of my Internet service agreement? Am I the only one who feels that I should not be forced to pay for Cable TV from Time Warner, just to utilize their Internet service? Don't even get me started with the forced, non-alternative, monthly rental fee for their cable modems. Talk about a freaking monopoly!

Just record your own DVDs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats the big deal?

Use MythTV to record.

Transcode with mencoder. (Part of the mplayer package.)

Slice out some dvd menu sound from one of the recordings with sox.

Fabricate dvd menu graphics with the gimp. (Use mplayer with jpeg video output for a quick background.)

Create the dvd compilation with dvdauthor.

Make a disk image with mkisofs.

Test with your favorite dvdplayer. (xine?)

Burn with cdrecord/dvdrecord.

-

It helps to:

Configure your dvds (in dvdauthor) to autorepeat.

When transcoding, drop the video-bitrate down. You can easily get 4+ hours per disk, with minor artifacts that are acceptable to kids. You can also filter out commercials and whatnot with edit decision lists (-edlout/-edl flags) to mplayer/mencoder.

Don't you mean dropped already?

[Helldesk Hound]

> If no agreement is reached, those channels are supposed
> to be dropped just after midnight tonight.

Don't you mean they should have been dropped already?

At the time of me writing this it's nearly 5pm on 1/Jan/2009!

Suspicious of what though

[SuperKendall]

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.

Up the bills $0.01 a month? I blame Time Warner.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to what I read today, viacom networks account for 25% of what time warner customers watch, yet apparently only $0.23 of the cable bill goes to viacom. ...and yet this penny increase is going to kill us poor customers when time warner is already raping us in every way possible on our cable bills?

Looks like the only thing left that anyone in the house actually watches comes free over the air. Too bad we'll only save about $1 on our cable bill, due to the ass-raping "bundling" a.k.a. "you're paying us $100 a month no matter how little you want from us" plans. Time warner's prices only make sense for the first year, then you're paying $100 a month at a minimum.

So that viacom wants $0.26 a month instead of $0.25? I couldn't fucking care less about that. Time warner's just using it as an excuse to make it sound as if they actually care about their customers. The truth is that time warner only cares about new customers. They're the ones that get reasonable prices and same-day installation. After that, you pay out the ass and you're lucky if they'll come fix their shit within a week.

The solution to all these problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't watch TV.

Nice simple, you don't have to pay when you don't watch, it's saved me hundreds of dollars in the past years, and hours of time too.

Re:Why would they throttle where they tell you to

[ion.simon.c]

The popups are NOT targeted. I'm a Comcast customer and I can see them.

FiOS-Viability.

[Ostracus]

"It won't be long before you start seeing people canceling cable TV completely and using online services for the content they want."

For bulk transfer the internet's viable. For streaming it's hit or miss with network congestion (Hulu) and lowering of quality when bandwidth demands become too much (Netflix).

Re:FiOS-Viability.

[crovira]

Don't think webcast until we have IPv6 and some real bandwidth. (And frankly I don't see that happening in the 'States for years because of all the lawyers on every side gumming up the works with writs and estopels and suits. [In every society there come a time when its necessary to, as Shakespeare out it, "kill all of the lawyers" and start over again.])

Think podcast where the download of content is mediated by RSS and the playback is separate from download. I have not watched a TV channel or listened to a radio for years. My days are not empty desolate hours of staring at a flickering box where I have no choice and my only control is to change the hue of the flickering image.

I may have been an early adopter, but I have seen the future of media evolve slowly before my eyes ... and it works. :-)

Owning a broadcasting station is akin to owning a buggy whip manufacture, without any possibility for any after market.

Instant coffee will be disabled

[Ostracus]

What is this...waiting you keep talking about?

Think about how many stream shows you really watch

[Ostracus]

There's another issue in this economic debate no one's mentioning. The quality (both audio and video) of streaming vs sources like DVD's and analog Cable TV. I've noticed the quality has improved as technology has improved but there still is a quantifiable difference between the two.

humm this is why i dont have cable anymore.

[luther349]

for one the price of cable tv is just gotten out of hand. when i herd they even tested bandwidth caps i dropped them as a isp and got dsl that has no limits. you just pay more for faster speeds i have the fastest they offer in my area witch btw is cheaper and faster then the cable offering and has less down time. as for viacom they cant just ban time warner ips people will eat them alive enjoy that lawsuit. they can remove the channels and online videos completely and theirs not much anyone can do abought that. i say let them. they will quickly fold when there bank accounts start shrinking. they pulled this crap with a satellite provider and unfortunately the provider folded. this is why there pulling it again.

TimeWarner & Viacom Reach Deal

[Lord Flipper]

This, from http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/business/2008/12/31/D95E5EIG1_viacom_time_warner_cable/index.html [salon.com] (and AP Wire, probably):

Time Warner Chief Executive Glenn Britt on Wednesday had called Viacom's demand for a 12 percent increase in fees -- an extra $39 million on top of the estimated $300 million it pays Viacom annually -- extortion and outrageous given the recession. Viacom countered that the requested increase amounted to an extra $2.76 annually per subscriber.

Details of the deal were not immediately available.

Viacom had argued that Americans spend a fifth of their TV time watching Viacom shows but its fees made up less than 2.5 percent of the Time Warner cable bill.

Spokeswoman Kelly McAndrew said that despite ranking high in the ratings, Viacom's cable networks' average daily license fee was 65 percent lower than that of networks run by The Walt Disney Co., News Corp.'s Fox, Time Warner Inc.'s Turner Broadcasting System and Discovery Communications Inc.

Analyst Michael Nathanson with Bernstein Research said Viacom's channels had been "underpriced relative to their peers."

Re:TimeWarner & Viacom Reach Deal

[plasmacutter]

The channels in the dispute were Comedy Central, Logo, Palladia, MTV, MTV 2, MTV Hits, MTV Jams, MTV Tr3s, Nickelodeon, Noggin, Nick 2, Nicktoons, Spike, The N, TV Land, VH1, VH1 Classic, VH1 Soul and CMT: Pure Country.

crap!.. they made a deal!..

if only they'd be absolutely obstinate, we'd have a lot of worthless channels cleared from the cable lineup.

The only good shows removed would be colbert report and daily show, of course everyone knows where to get those *cough*

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Observation.

Or you could use TPB and not have a blacked screen

[plasmacutter]

I know of a source for shows that won't black your screen if you attach a second monitor.

Not true

[Anonymous Coward]

but it certainly isn't contributing to Time Warner or any other cable providers' revenue stream.

If I'm not mistaken, twc owns road runner internet, so they will simply encourage more use of that. Then they will move to pay per gigabyte, and will end up making a whole lot more money.

No longer an issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since I don't see it with it's own article yet, just thought I'd mention Viacom reached a deal so this whole thing is no longer an issue.

But I'd like to take this time to extend a personal, heartfelt, FUCK YOU to Viacom.

You see, they didn't just broadcast that little "message" to customers of Time Warner, it affected a LOT of regional cable providers.

Which resulted in me & 200 other phone agents having to work 4 hours of overtime with no breaks, lunches, etc. yesterday due to all the dickhead customers that called us freaking out on us for not reaching a deal with Viacom.
"Sir or Ma'am, we are not Time Warner, or affiliated with them. We have our own deal with Viacom already in place & you have no risk of losing your channels."

So hey, thanks for raping my New Year's Eve plans, assholes.

Only show I watch is Terminator

[Master of Transhuman]

And I download that here on the West Coast about the same time that it's scheduled to show - or even earlier - since somebody back east posted it earlier in the evening.

Television the way it should be!

Wow.

[gottabeme]

Your sig now seems incredibly ironic.

Without TV...?

[gottabeme]

Your point may be valid, but I think he has one as well. What if there was no TV? What if it hadn't been invented yet (or if that channel wasn't around), or what if they lived in a third-world country and didn't have TV (in which case the disorder would go undiagnosed)? How would the child be raised? How would the family cope? And so on. I am curious, and I wonder if a diet of TV shows is what such children really need, however helpful it may seem in the short term. Again, just curious; I'm not preaching.

Re:Without TV...?

[Fjandr]

I definitely understand questioning the best practices of dealing with the autistic, but the person I was replying to wrote their response in such a way that it seemed they had no interest in fostering actual intelligent debate, but would rather prefer to make a knee-jerk conclusion based on ignorance. It's possible I am wrong, but the above seems pretty likely given the word choices in the post.

Without knowing the exact circumstances of the family involved, it seems harsh to pass judgement on them for allowing their children to watch (and become dependent on, since autistics are compelled to follow routines) a specific channel/show. It can be hard enough for a family to survive with two full-time incomes, let alone dealing with two children with developmental problems. Having some time out to recharge is necessary for people who have to care for family members full-time. Serious breakdowns occur otherwise. It didn't sound like the television was used as a babysitter, but as a part of the overall strategy of dealing with a major medical condition.

As for other societies dealing with autism, if how it was dealt with in the past in the US is any indication, it was pretty horrible for the person suffering. That is, if they survived at all.

Again, there are a lot of issues surrounding autism that can be discussed intelligently, but the AC really didn't seem interested in discussion so much as holier-than-thou finger pointing.

Re:Without TV...?

[gottabeme]

Yeah, you're right.

Lawsuit material?

[gottabeme]

If that's really what it said, verbatim, could Time Warner sue Viacom for that ad? It's misleading and factually inaccurate, and it seems to me that it would definitely harm Time Warner's reputation, leading to loss of business.