Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Time Warner Recommends Internet For Some Shows

Posted by timothy on from the how-to-keep-hulu-in-page-views dept.

EdIII writes "The dispute between Time Warner and Viacom over fees seems to be without any resolution this year. Time Warner faces the possibility of being without content for almost 20 channels. Alexander Dudley, a spokesperson for Time Warner, is fighting back: 'We will be telling our customers exactly where they can go to see these programs online,' Mr. Dudley said. 'We'll also be telling them how they can hook up their PCs to a television set.' Why pay for digital cable when many content providers are now providing it on demand via the Internet? Not to mention the widespread availability of TV shows in both standard and high definition on public and private torrent tracker sites. It is entirely possible to watch television with no commercials or advertising with only an Internet connection. So getting your content via the Internet is not exactly free, but it certainly isn't contributing to Time Warner or any other cable providers' revenue stream. The real question is why Time Warner would fight back by so clearly showing how increasingly obsolete they are becoming and that cable providers are losing their monopolistic grip on media delivery." If no agreement is reached, those channels are supposed to be dropped just after midnight tonight.

23 of 379 comments (clear)

  1. FiOS by oahazmatt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
    1. Re:FiOS by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    2. Re:FiOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Careful though... Time Warner's agreement with Viacom just happens to be expiring right now so make no mistake about it that Viacom will come to Direct TV with the exact same inflated demands which they are now asking of TWC when that contract expires as well.

      So anyone who's solution is to go with FIOS or Direct TV just be forewarned that Viacom will be at those doors rattling their chains before too long. Plus, chances are that with their TWC revenue gone (which Viacom is already adding into their 2009 profit projections), Viacom will be asking for even bigger pay days from these companies to make up the difference.

    3. Re:FiOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:FiOS by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So if Viacom got $2.25 per subscriber for these channels in 2008, and is asking $2.50 in 2009, how much are you going to refund to users? If it's more than $2.50, you're better off paying Viacom, if it's less, people will laugh at you ("take away the best 10% of my channels and knock 2% off my bill?")

    5. Re:FiOS by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:FiOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:FiOS by KutuluWare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What this means in English is that if the cable provider sells ESPN to someone, they must buy ESPN to resell it (obviously) but must also buy ESPN2 (and others). However, there is nothing that requires them to actually provide those chanels to anyone. So, they can easily sell and provide ESPN and only ESPN to anyone they want. They just have to charge the cost of ESPN plus extras or they will lose money on it.

      So you're saying the cable companies should *pay* for channels no one wants, *charge me* for the channels no one wants, but not actually *give me* the channels no one wants?

      In your mind, that scenario makes *more* sense than just sending the channels they have down the wire and letting me decide not to watch it?

  2. Why? by lbmouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The real question is why Time Warner would fight back by so clearly showing how increasingly obsolete they are becoming and that cable providers are losing their monopolistic grip on media delivery."

    Because they are also TWC via Road Runner.

  3. Re:Tag suggestion. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Those affected will lose Comedy Central. Daily Show, Colbert Report, South Park, Futurama, Reno 911, etc. While you can watch them online, not everyone wants to do this.

    As Cartman would say: "Suck my balls, Time Warner and Viacom!"

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  4. Incoming DDoS attack by volxdragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I forsee a DDoS attack on Viacom servers by the masses of users redirected there by Time Warner. Funny actually, because it will drive up Viacom's costs if they have to bring additional servers or bandwidth on-line to handle the load (unless they do something draconian like block all Time Warner address blocks :)).

  5. Think about how many shows you really watch by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I dropped cable because I did the math, and for the few shows I was interested in watching it was cheaper to buy the shows on iTunes than to pay for cable.

    If you think about it any given show is only $8/month (4 episodes at $1.99 each), and generally do not last a whole year. You can have quite a few shows in the line for less than the price of a normal cable subscription.

    And of course, there are the multiple free avenues that range in legality from Hulu to torrents (someone needs to make a torrent client called Zulu to turn that into a great line).

    As another poster here noted, Time Warner would probably be fine just becoming your value-added internet service provider even if they don't add much programming on top of that.

    Now of course, none of that advice probably applies if you watch a lot of sports. In those cases, I don't know there are really good alternatives other than frequent trips to a bar...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  6. Re:But what about bandwidth caps? by Aranykai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just how many shows are these people actually watching? An hour slot usually encodes to less than 700MB. At 250GB per month, assuming half of that was TV, they have:

    250GB x 1024 = 256000MB
    256000 / 700 = 365.7 Hours

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

    --
    If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
  7. Cable is quickly becoming too expensive by GWBasic · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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!

    --
    No, I will not work for your startup
  8. Why? It's time to rumble, that's why. by greg_barton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Things are getting lean, and the wolves come out when the food runs low. You're seeing the same dynamic between AMD/Intel/NVidia right now with AMD's open sourcing of it's graphics card firmware. You force the competition to expend resources at a time that it can't afford to do so, even if it costs you more resources. The gamble is that they'll break before you do.

    They're playing chicken.

  9. Re:Yeah, why not steal it? by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stealing? Who's talking about stealing?

    Viacom puts many of their shows online.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  10. Re:Videos will be disabled by Faylone · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  11. Re:Tag suggestion. by stile99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  12. Re:But what about bandwidth caps? by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Bandwidth caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  14. How to get to the heart of this. by rubato · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Come on! by KutuluWare · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    Unbelievable. The director of communications comes on to explain exactly what most people are wondering about, and YOU critqique him for not having a Slashdot account before today.

    I think you mean:

    "A random anonymous new user to /. who claims to be, and may or may not be, the director of communications..."

  16. Re:Come on! by KutuluWare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For the record, I tend to believe his claim, since 1. The Director of Digital Communications at TWC right now is Jeff Simmermon, and 2. The same username on other services (e.g. Twitter, YouTube) seems to be the same guy.

    However, his first post was 4:00 on 12/31/2008, so you can clearly see why the veteran /.'s around here would be a tad suspicious. Just saying.