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.
"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!
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.
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.
I got FiOS. I downloaded the season finale of Heroes in 10 minutes flat.
Eschew Obfuscation
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
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.
Hah! I've got no influence over the refund amount -- but yeah, I work for Time Warner Cable.
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.
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?")
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?