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

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

[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

[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

[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

[jeffTWC]

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

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

[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?

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

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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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

[Faylone]

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

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: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)'.

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 :)).

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...

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: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

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.

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.