Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
"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.
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.
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
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.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
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?
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
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.
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.
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.
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)'.
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 :)).
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.
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
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.
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a while, you realize the engineer enjoys it.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I hardly watch any of those channels anyways. I'll take the minute refund.
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
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.
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.
I call bullshit. They desperately DO want to raise subscriber rates. They just don't want to share with anyone else.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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.
/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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley