Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Time Warner Cable Cuts iPad Live TV Access 50%

Posted by samzenpus on from the half-as-good dept.

Junior Samples writes "According to the article: 'Time Warner Cable March 16 slashed the number of channels available for live streaming on the Apple iPad — less than 24 hours after launching the TV Everywhere app. The No. 2 cable operator reduced to 15 channels from the original 32 offered up as the first-ever live TV broadcasts available for streaming on a portable media device. The concept allows participating media providers to grant unlimited on-demand access across multiple devices to monthly subscribers at no additional charge.'"

225 comments

  1. Re:What? by AnonGCB · · Score: 0

    Sorry - 15/32.

    Doesn't make their math any more correct, but at least I can save SOME face :D

    --
    http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
  2. Re:What? by yeshuawatso · · Score: 2

    (15-32)/32 = -53% reduction

  3. Re:What? by blair1q · · Score: 2

    It's a signed 5-bit int, but they're only taking the positive values.

  4. Gentleman, gentleman by kyuubiunl · · Score: 2

    Perhaps they meant for very large values of 15.

  5. Bait and Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is called "Bait and Switch".

    1. Re:Bait and Switch by praxis · · Score: 1

      It is not a free service, you must be a subscriber, for which you pay. They might have added a feature to their existing package without changing that packages rate, but the service is not free. For those that may have subscribed to the package because this feature addition was what tipped the cost/value analysis for them, it was a bait and switch.

    2. Re:Bait and Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many people out there are actually looking at this from a cost/benefit perspective and thinking to themselves - "Hey, now I can take my iPad into the bathroom and watch tv while I'm taking a shit! I'm totally signing up for cable now!"

    3. Re:Bait and Switch by tdrak · · Score: 1

      How many people out there are actually looking at this from a cost/benefit perspective and thinking to themselves - "Hey, now I can take my iPad into the bathroom and watch tv while I'm taking a shit! I'm totally signing up for cable now!"

      I am so signing up if you can do that!

    4. Re:Bait and Switch by macs4all · · Score: 1

      It is not a free service, you must be a subscriber, for which you pay. They might have added a feature to their existing package without changing that packages rate, but the service is not free. For those that may have subscribed to the package because this feature addition was what tipped the cost/value analysis for them, it was a bait and switch.

      Sorry, I meant a "no additional charge" service, if you were already a TW digital cable subscriber. I was thinking in terms of myself, I guess; since I fall into the TW digital cable subscriber category. Although, I don't have an iPad; so I guess it's a $350 minimum for me, eh?

    5. Re:Bait and Switch by MBC1977 · · Score: 1

      Methinks you don't understand what Bait and Switch is. It says clearly in th App Store, must be TWC Basic or higher and RR customer, in your own home?

      What is so difficult about those requirements? The app is free. You did not PAY for the app (though I think they should have charged 2.99 - 4.99for it).

      SMH sheesh...

      --
      Regards,

      MBC1977,
    6. Re:Bait and Switch by cgenman · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to this article, their authentication servers got overloaded, and they cut down the number of channels to reduce the authentication load while they bought more.

      While I normally rally against evil corporations hiding the truth, somehow "we couldn't convince the higher-ups to buy enough servers until everything went to pot" seems like normal operating launch-day problems.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    7. Re:Bait and Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not a free service, you must be a subscriber, for which you pay. They might have added a feature to their existing package without changing that packages rate, but the service is not free.

      I see you haven't worked for a cableco before. If there isn't a line item for a service by itself on your bill, the service is free. Try getting credit for not being able to order on-demand or PPV on your cable box. Because you were unable to order anything, you did not pay any money, and you will receive no refund. The company will use the term "complementary" to describe the service. This also applies to ISP email accounts quite often.

      I've worked for four cablecos, currently employed by one of the "Big Three" and this has been the policy at all of them.

    8. Re:Bait and Switch by shaitand · · Score: 1

      TWC/RR is engaging in the bait and switch, not the app store. The cost of providing this service comes out of your subscription fees.

      This is no different than the idiots who think instant viewing from netflix is 'free' or on demand from comcast. The cost of those 'free' services is built into your subscription. If they weren't included they could subtract their costs to provide those services from your bill.

      For those who signed up for the subscription for the primary purpose of instant viewing, on demand, or other streaming, it is those services they are paying for and the other services which are the add-on.

    9. Re:Bait and Switch by ShadowFoxx · · Score: 1

      Yes,... The press release stated that they had no idea thier app was going to rocket to #1 on launch day. This actually seems like a viable explenation. They also have stated they're working to fix the issue and bring back the full content.

    10. Re:Bait and Switch by nhstar · · Score: 1

      Not really... At least not on the part of Time Warner, or not intentionally anyway.

      Once the broadcasters got word of what they were offering, they told TW to pull it as they do not believe that this is covered under their current carriage agreement (the contract that lets a cable operator show content from a broadcaster http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html).

      --
      --- no sig to see here... move along.
    11. Re:Bait and Switch by Songilly · · Score: 1

      I might believe that, until you read further that the channels that they cut were everything but the ones they own. And then the article continues to state how: “We believe several cable network groups are seriously considering filing lawsuits against Time Warner Cable and sending cease and desist letters to TWC to stop them from in-home live streaming to iPads without a new contract (meaning ‘more’ money),” In other words they might have had technical difficulties, but I'm guessing they were threatened by the other content companies with law suites and chickened out.

    12. Re:Bait and Switch by praxis · · Score: 1

      It is on the part of Time Warner. They were the ones that advertised their new feature. They were the ones that benefited from potential increased subscriber numbers (from people that found the service not worth the cost in the past but had their minds tipped in favor of it by the new feature). They were the ones that didn't get permission from broadcasters beforehand or fully understand the regulatory implications of what they were going to do.

      Basically, they took the risk, it's their responsibility. The onus is on them to do the right thing and fully refund any customer that calls and asks for a refund based on being misled. I'm not saying the legally have to (maybe they do, for all I know), but they should in my view of morality.

      If I start a subscription read-all-you-can book site and then get told by the publishers I'm violating their copyright I shouldn't be able to claim to my customers "sorry, we're reducing our catalog to project Gutenberg titles. So sorry, so sad. Feel free to cancel when your 3-month subscription is up if you don't like it."

  6. And Android...no? by bogaboga · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why won't these 'successful' companies release Android apps as well? Android outsells iOS big-time, but still gets the short end of the stick!

    Heck, even my bank, which made 2.1 billion dollars in profit (last quarter), does not have an Android app...yet it keeps advertising iPhone and iPad apps as if iOS is the king in the mobile arena.

    I just do not get it especially when the notion of Android fragmentation is a myth and Google seems to confirm this. I am bewildered.

    1. Re:And Android...no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Android outsells iOS big-time, but still gets the short end of the stick!

      No, it doesn't. There are more Android phones than iPhones, but the iPhone isn't the only device that runs iOS. In terms of units sold, there are far more devices that run iOS.

    2. Re:And Android...no? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Why won't these 'successful' companies release Android apps as well?

      For the simple reason that Android Tablets haven't taken off.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:And Android...no? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Informative

      They released an iPad-specific app. Last I checked, the iPad is outselling all other competitors combined about 4:1.

      Another point of consideration with something like this is the rights protection/DRM that Apple has in iOS, which is consistent across the devices. Refer to the problems Netflix has been having in bringing their service to Android because of the inconsistent DRM protection offered across the Android lineup of devices.

      Also, you're conflating iPhones and iOS. Android smartphones are indeed outselling iPhones on a quarterly basis, and have been for the last few quarters. That said, all Android devices are, last I checked, still behind all iOS devices when it comes to sales on a quarterly basis. I saw some numbers from late last year that put iOS ahead by about 30-40M units in terms of installed base, with both the Android and iOS lines on the graph growing at the same rate, essentially meaning that they're keeping pace with each other, but that Apple got the head start. That's not to say that they'll always be ahead, of course, but they are for now.

      As for OS version fragmentation, you're right. It's not nearly the issue that some folks make it out to be. That said, there is an issue for customers who want to update to later versions and can't since their carrier won't permit reasonable updates after just a few months, but that's more of an issue with bad business practices that affect consumers negatively, rather than a problem for app developers.

    4. Re:And Android...no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that this case makes any difference since it is free, but companies have found it nearly impossible to sell apps on the Android app store.

    5. Re:And Android...no? by adamdoyle · · Score: 1

      Heck, even my bank, which made 2.1 billion dollars in profit (last quarter), does not have an Android app...

      BOA has an Android mobile banking app. They make slightly more than 2.1 billion/quarter, though.

    6. Re:And Android...no? by bogaboga · · Score: 1

      Ohh that's the mighty USA. I was referring to the Royal Bank of Canada.

    7. Re:And Android...no? by perlchild · · Score: 2

      but that's more of an issue with bad business practices that affect consumers negatively, rather than a problem for app developers.

      I'd say it becomes a platform problem if(or when, you pick) the bad business practices are rampant across most devices, up to the point where app developers need to take it into account when developing software, especially since the more fragmented markets seem to be the loud, highly visible, trend-setting north american markets.

      I thought they already did need to take precautions for software, denials from google notwithstanding

    8. Re:And Android...no? by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      That said, there is an issue for customers who want to update to later versions and can't since their carrier won't permit reasonable updates after just a few months, but that's more of an issue with bad business practices that affect consumers negatively, rather than a problem for app developers.

      That's something that I wish Google had been a little more proactive about. If the Android license had some requirement for support of some sort in regards to updates I think the entire Android environment would benefit tremendously. That being said, Google has more of a challenge on their hands compared to Apple because Google went to all (or most) handset and networks.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    9. Re:And Android...no? by adamdoyle · · Score: 1

      Ohh that's the mighty USA. I was referring to the Royal Bank of Canada.

      hmmm.. I've never seen "enrol" (with one one "L") before until I clicked your link. Is that spelling common in Canada?

    10. Re:And Android...no? by adamdoyle · · Score: 1

      (with one one "L")

      *only one

    11. Re:And Android...no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android users does not like to pay for apps and other stuff.

    12. Re:And Android...no? by bogaboga · · Score: 1

      That's Canadian English...just like an American would see an 'error' in the following words: neighbourhood, honour, colour and many others.

    13. Re:And Android...no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waiting for the Toshiba version as well?

    14. Re:And Android...no? by adamdoyle · · Score: 1

      I wasn't saying it was erroneous - just that I had never seen it. I often see the extraneous u's and associate it with UK-English... (and Canadian)

    15. Re:And Android...no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another point of consideration with something like this is the rights protection/DRM that Apple has in iOS, which is consistent across the devices. Refer to the problems Netflix has been having in bringing their service to Android because of the inconsistent DRM protection offered across the Android lineup of devices.

      This is a good thing. The last thing I want is for Shortsighted, Inc. to support Android, but not Linux. If the "consistent DRM framework" available is... you get to put whatever encryption you want into your application, then perfect: it will run on my desktop.

    16. Re:And Android...no? by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      I just do not get it especially when the notion of Android fragmentation is a myth and Google seems to confirm this. I am bewildered.

      It's not just about the OS -- it's about the different hardware capabilities, the lack of encryption (that's what's keeping Netflix off), the differing resolution, etc.

      Besides, Android users don't buy apps.

      http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/

    17. Re:And Android...no? by grapeape · · Score: 2

      Umm when your the consumer fragmentation is a pretty damn big issue. Lets put it this way I was enough for me to decide to ditch my 8 month old Samsung Android phones a few weeks ago and pick up a pair of iPhones, I would have rather stayed on android but at least now I know i'm going to get support for at least a couple phone generations. I was told I should just buy another brand of phone but frankly I just dont trust any of the android phone manufacturers to not just drop support on a whim after rolling out a new model 4 months later. You can blame google, blame the manufacturers, whatever...most consumers who dont give a crap about the politics are just going to drop them and find something else.

    18. Re:And Android...no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's bullshit. I bought TWO $0.99 apps in the last year. TWO OF THOSE BASTARDS!

    19. Re:And Android...no? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > They released an iPad-specific app.

      That's stupid. All of the other iDevices are much more portable. You are far more likely to actually enjoy this service if you are running something other than an iPad. If you're running an iPad, chances are that you have easy access to a much bigger screen or a much better method of "home streaming".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    20. Re:And Android...no? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I, too, have been tempted by the iPhone, but my iPad experience has convinced me to stay on Android for now. I find the headaches of iOS much, much more annoying than the headaches of Android - but then, I'm savvy enough to install Cyanogenmod on my phone, so I'm not worried about getting EOL'd. (Even if you never plan to install CM, I'd not buy an Android phone that it didn't support - it's your EOL protection.)

    21. Re:And Android...no? by neurocutie · · Score: 1

      actually the figure is 9:1... the ipad has 90% of the tablet market...
      so the priority is clearly ipad over (fragmented) Android table market for now...

    22. Re:And Android...no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all you did was choose what hole to have them insert the shaft.

    23. Re:And Android...no? by mirix · · Score: 1

      I'm Canadian, and apparently I've been spelling enrol wrong all these years, so don't feel too bad about it.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    24. Re:And Android...no? by alienzed · · Score: 1

      Because if you're not a 'techie', Android is an automaton that resembles a human being, not a cellphone.

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    25. Re:And Android...no? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Because Android doesn't have pervasive DRM, and without that you won't get media companies to sign on. That's why there isn't even a Netflix app for Android.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    26. Re:And Android...no? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Bullshit

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    27. Re:And Android...no? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Getting approval requires a 12 month lead time through many layers of bureaucracy. 12 months ago, nobody knew if Android was going to take off.

      Though, I have to say, citing Google as confirmation that Google's platform doesn't really have it's major problem is... you can see how that might be iffy.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    28. Re:And Android...no? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      There is a branch/ATM finder app. I've used it twice so far while traveling.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    29. Re:And Android...no? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I use my android tablet to stream video into the weight room while working out or the kitchen while working on things in there. In the yard while working on outside projects, etc.

    30. Re:And Android...no? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I pay for apps all the time.

    31. Re:And Android...no? by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      In the U.S. we speak Microsoft English.

    32. Re:And Android...no? by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Odd, it was just the other day that I was hearing about a game maker having to release multiple version of their game for Android owing to the fact that they found it ran differently on different versions or hardware....

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    33. Re:And Android...no? by SengirV · · Score: 1

      It's really quite simple, and can all be boiled down into three simple letters - DRM.

      Couple that with the wild west for app acquisition, as compared to the Apple's App store, and the thousands of bogus apps that just got squashed for key logging, etc... and you have businesses a little nervous.

      --

      Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

    34. Re:And Android...no? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      My bank has an excellent one. It simply is their mobile website without an address bar though. It is a really good website though, I use it on my desktop when I'm in super high latency low bandwidth situations.

      I really want them to start allowing photograph deposits though.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    35. Re:And Android...no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for letting us know that you're interested in his dick.

    36. Re:And Android...no? by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      growing at the same rate, essentially meaning that they're keeping pace with each other, but that Apple got the head start.

      Two lines growing at the same rate will never intersect. Thus Apple should still be ahead since they got the head start. But that is not the case. If Android's position has changed, which it has, they cannot be growing at identical rates.

    37. Re:And Android...no? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Assuming the same rate, you're correct, but these things change, of course. Also, I was clearly talking about iOS vs. Android, not iPhone vs. Android smartphone, which is what you linked. Apple had the iPad and the iPod to help boost its numbers, which kept it about on pace with Android, hence my statements. I had previously located some graphs from later in the year than the ones you provided, but I can't find them right now. In the meantime, here's another GigaOm article you should read. And here's an article that has some nice graphs on web tracking of iOS vs. Android. It's obviously not as good a metric as raw sales numbers, but it shows the trend I was talking about.

    38. Re:And Android...no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say what you want about market fragmentation being a non issue, but as a developer I can tell you it is a deal breaker.

      It doesn't matter that an android app _should_ run unmodified on any handset with the proper version of Android installed. As the developer it's my job to make sure it _does_ run on them all. That means I* have to test every single combination of phones and versions of Android that are included in the seemingly simple spec my boss handed me "runs on Android version x.xx or later". And if I miss something and a customer calls in complaining about how their obscure Chinese knockoff wouldn't run the app or some bug is causing problems, I'm the one who has to 1. fix it, and 2. explain to management why this happened.

      Or I could develop for iOS which has at any given time one "current generation" device of each type (phone tablet, iPod touch, etc.) and a handful of legacy versions with a known software obsolescence curve (If I build for iOS 4.xx I don't need to support the original iPhone for example because it can't run iOS 4.xx).

      To me the choice is simple: do I want to test on an iPhone, an iPad, and an iPod touch, or do I want to test on every single Android phone currently sold from several manufacturers (and explain to the boss why I need that many phones for testing). It also doesn't hurt that iOS is by no means an insignificant market segment.

      * more accurately my team but you get the idea.

    39. Re:And Android...no? by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      Interesting data, thank you for the links.

    40. Re:And Android...no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...just like an American would see an 'error' in the following words: neighbourhood, honour, colour and many outhers." There. Fixed that for you!

    41. Re:And Android...no? by grapeape · · Score: 1

      My ipad experience was what convinced me to switch, i dont do jailbreaking and rooting anymore cant really in my current position so I have to get devices based on what they can do out of the box rather than what they have the potential to do. My desk is currently an android graveyard with a g tablet, a galaxy s, an apad and a rooted pandigital novel, its not like I haven't tried. I'm willing to try again when and if google and manufacturers can get on the same page, as it is, its a great geek platform but nothing I can take seriously for corporate deployment. I do hope it matures and some sort of consistency is reached though it would be better for everyone...google, manufacturers and consumers.

    42. Re:And Android...no? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      You have to use the app while in range of your own (or some other subscriber's, I suppose) Wifi network. I hardly think the mobility of an iPod Touch or iPhone matters. However, the iPad offers a larger screen that can reasonably be viewed from several feet away.

  7. having our monikers on both sides of every coin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    & every never-ending fatal 'business' the world (& now, shopping the cosmos?). yes. yes. that should do it. as the invisible authors of the georgia stone would have it, it shall be?

  8. Pressure From Above? by macs4all · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Methinks that several of the "Channels" first heard about this when it was announced, and SOME of them bitched to TimeWarner that their current agreements didn't cover LIVE streaming of their content.

    Why mujst everybody monetize every single little thing? I understand these "networks" have a duty to their stockholders; but they are not getting the big picture. An iPad in the home of a person that is already a TW subscriber is absoutely the same as adding another TV in that same home. No more. No less.

    1. Re:Pressure From Above? by mikkelm · · Score: 2

      An MSO customer viewing live TV through a stream provided by the MSO could just as easily be network customer viewing live TV through a stream provided by the network.

    2. Re:Pressure From Above? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      An iPad in the home of a person that is already a TW subscriber is absoutely the same as adding another TV in that same home.

      It's not *absolutely* the same. The other TV in the home very likely, nowadays, has at least a cable box/DTA/other cable card device attached to it. (In other words, even local stations in analog are gone in some areas already, and will likely be gone in more soon.)

      I have no idea if the cable networks make more money for more 'outlets' in a house.

    3. Re:Pressure From Above? by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      An MSO customer viewing live TV through a stream provided by the MSO could just as easily be network customer viewing live TV through a stream provided by the network.

      Totally out of my element here, but would it be possible to spoof an iPad into thinking it was on the network that was directly connected to the Time Warner cable subscriber while some place not in the household? Seems plausible, but then again, a whole lot of people think that what happens in 24 is possible in real life.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    4. Re:Pressure From Above? by RalphSleigh · · Score: 1

      It's not the iPad you need to fool, but rather the server serving up the content. Which you could do, by connecting the two though the household, but it would probably be quite slow.

      --
      Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
    5. Re:Pressure From Above? by agrif · · Score: 1

      Totally out of my element here, but would it be possible to spoof an iPad into thinking it was on the network that was directly connected to the Time Warner cable subscriber while some place not in the household?

      You could just set up a VPN at home (I do it through my DD-WRT router, it was simple enough) and then you literally are on the home network. Of course, then you have to deal with the slow VPN connection.

      For a more tailor-made solution, you could use MobileSubstrate to hook whatever mechanism the app would use to check out the local network, and make it look like you're at home only to the TV app. Similar things have been done to make Apps think you're on wifi when you're really on 3G, so you can use Skype, etc. over wifi.

    6. Re:Pressure From Above? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its probably all to do with contracts with traditional "ground based" re-broadcasters, etc.

    7. Re:Pressure From Above? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      An iPad in the home of a person that is already a TW subscriber is absoutely the same as adding another TV in that same home.

      It's not *absolutely* the same. The other TV in the home very likely, nowadays, has at least a cable box/DTA/other cable card device attached to it. (In other words, even local stations in analog are gone in some areas already, and will likely be gone in more soon.)

      I have no idea if the cable networks make more money for more 'outlets' in a house.

      What I meant was, it is no different as far as TW is concerned.

      Most cable companies charge a small fee for each digital converter box; so, I guess that counts as "charging more". The "service" stays the same, but the equipment rental fee goes up.

    8. Re:Pressure From Above? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      its probably all to do with contracts with traditional "ground based" re-broadcasters, etc.

      Yeah, it feels like TW simply didn't do their legal homework, and maybe even thought that their content vendors would think it was cool.

    9. Re:Pressure From Above? by ekgringo · · Score: 1

      I have no idea if the cable networks make more money for more 'outlets' in a house.

      Most cable companies charge a small fee for each digital converter box; so, I guess that counts as "charging more". The "service" stays the same, but the equipment rental fee goes up.

      Of course with Comcast, that means the cable service is only available in the "digital" version that requires a converter box, even to watch local free stations. So if you have multiple TVs, you need multiple boxes unless you're creative. We have two boxes covering 6 TVs. The living room TV has one box that splits out to an HTPC for DVR and directly to the TV for when we don't want to deal with the HTPC. The other cable box is connected to a 5-way splitter (one for each of the extra TVs and a SlingBox). There are only two of us so this is sufficient and gives us access to our second cable box on laptops, desktops, and one iPhone as long as we have Internet access (and the iPhone app works over a 3G connection). The disadvantage is that all of the secondary TVs and computers will display the same channel. It might be awkward if you have guests stay over night who like to watch TV in the guest bedroom...

    10. Re:Pressure From Above? by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      While I don't disagree with your speculation, I'm just amazed that pure speculation gets a +insightful. Interesting, sure. But insightful? At least the mods will know what to do with this comment. Maybe.

  9. Re:What? by mirix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Close enough. Sometimes the pedants here give me a headache.

    --
    Sent from my PDP-11
  10. What? by mikkelm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ".. offered up as the first-ever live TV broadcasts available for streaming on a portable media device."

    Can't we go back to the days when advertising was merely dishonest? What do they achieve by lying about an accomplishment that does not impact the experience of the product?

  11. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    32/15=.5?

    Impressive editing skills here, keep up the good work.

    I've noticed that most corrections like this basically say: "I'm sooOOoo smart that I cannot understand what you're saying." That's not something I'd draw attention to.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  12. Quickly kill it before it grows too strong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Competition! Streaming Video!!! Our customers actually like it more than cable!!!!

    Kill it with fire now!!!!!

    1. Re:Quickly kill it before it grows too strong! by FliesLikeABrick · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.twcableuntangled.com/2011/03/heavy-demand-crashed-our-ipad-app-last-night-it%E2%80%99s-not-a-good-party-unless-you-run-out-of-beer/

      It was actually because they had capacity issues and have temporarily reduced the number of channels available so as to not knock the whole service offline again.

      (full disclosure: I used to work for TWC)

  13. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Are you sure you hit your intended target, there?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  14. Re:What? by creat3d · · Score: 1

    I can't tell if you're sarcastic or one of those aforementioned irritating pedants...

    --
    Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  15. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's becoming the norm. The iPad was the first glaring one and I thought it was the biggest black eye Steve Jobs ever got. Now you have to assume if some one announces an "unlimited" service or a service that actually sounds exciting it will get reduced right after launch. Often within days. 32 channels was hardly impressive given what's even in standard cable. 16 channels is pointless. We aren't even talking on the road you have to be at home to use it. Get a Slingbox and use your notebook. It may not be as sexy but at least you can get real cable and not a few whimpy channels.

  16. DRM by brunes69 · · Score: 2

    Because Android does not implement system-level DRM, that's why. IE, because it is open, media companies don't like it.

    This is exactly why Netflix has no Android app, they have said so right on their blog.

    1. Re:DRM by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 2

      http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/16/netflix-for-android-leaks-out-doesnt-seem-to-stream-video-righ/

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    2. Re:DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IIRC their blog post said they're waiting for DRM implementations on specific Android phones. Nothing is preventing a manufacturer from adding DRM on top of Android. I think the Galaxy S phones had at least a partially working implementation of PlayReady, the DRM scheme Netflix uses on the PC.

    3. Re:DRM by shaitand · · Score: 1

      This is supposed to be "fixed" in 3.0.

  17. Not on my app they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still have 32 channels. I also have Time Wanrer Signature at Home which combines 50mbps Wideband, Digital Phone and Digital Cable, so that could explain it perhaps. I checked just now and they are all there.

  18. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that you, charlie? step away from the blow for a little while before someone gets hurt...

  19. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been streaming live tv to my portable device with Dish Network ever since i got the SlingBox :)

  20. Because of apple userbase by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1, Insightful

    >> What do they achieve by lying about an accomplishment that does not impact the experience of the product?

    Welcome to Apple era. Check out this "OH SHINY!!" rambling on twitter about this app, and you have the reason why such lies work - it's easy to convince apple userbase (i.e. sheeple (there, I said it) ) if you market it right (no matter how useful the product is, or how truthful the advertisement is)

    http://twitter.com/#search?q=time%20warner%20ipad%20COOL

    1. Re:Because of apple userbase by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 0

      But you just did, itard.

  21. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Let's try this again: Did you reply to the right person? I didn't use the word 'half' anywhere. Seriously, double check, I think you hit 'reply' on the wrong post.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  22. Re:What? by WCguru42 · · Score: 2

    I can't tell if you're sarcastic or one of those aforementioned irritating pedants...

    The person you're replying to is what's known as a troll, and you should not feed him.

    --
    "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
  23. "first-ever" by PhattyMatty · · Score: 2

    "the first-ever live TV broadcasts available for streaming on a portable media device"

    Japan has had this technology for quite some time:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_mobile_phone_culture#Features

    1. Re:"first-ever" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I think it will be good to add in the US to this sentence, as this type of service on mobile phone existed for years in Europe...

      And even on the Ipad European telco released at least 8 month ago TV application to watch live broadcast (and I'm not mentioning Zattoo...)

    2. Re:"first-ever" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Japan has isn't the same thing as what this bit of marketingspeak is talking about. Their cell phones (including the one I owned when I lived over there) are equipped with 1seg tuners, which receive terrestrial broadcasts.

  24. It's a server issue by frdmfghtr · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to 9to5Mac, it's a server issue not pissed-off providers (although there may be some of those too)

    http://www.9to5mac.com/56532/time-warner-ipad-app-crashed-servers-halve-offering/

    ‘It’s not a good party unless you run out of beer,’ says TWC in regards to the loss of channels in the iPad app today. They deny outages are being caused by programmers who could have pulled their content even though some are reportedly upset.

    It appears that it actually isn’t the streaming load that is buckling the servers, but the authentication servers according to ablog post by Time Warner Cable’s Jeff Simmermon:

    Our engineering team is working as hard as they can to put a fix in place and get everything up and running as soon as they can. For the time being, the app is running with only 15 channels. We have found that by temporarily reducing the number of available channels, we can ease strain on the authentication process. This will enable us to offer at least some sort of an experience to our customers while we get a fix in place. We’ll add the other 17 channels back in as soon as we can fix the underlying issue, and we’ll be adding more channels in future iterations of the app as well.

    --
    Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    1. Re:It's a server issue by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Good thing that whole DRM idea is smoothing the way for implementation.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:It's a server issue by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean by "providers", so allow me to clarify. Assuming what you quoted is true, please ignore the following... However,

      Your local Cable Co acts as nothing but a conduit to external media. The issue may not be technical, but contractual (legal) between TWC (Time Warner Cable) and the stations they carry from SatCom links. Sometimes entire sporting events get blacked out for this reason. It's quite possible TWC got blind-sided by the content providers in the last minute as they too have contracts with Comcast and other local Cable Co's.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  25. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    You're replying to the wrong guy.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  26. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    perhaps you haven't even yet realized the hypocrisy you are actively ignoring...

    Nice attempt at pulling up... Heh.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  27. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I'm still not sure what you meant in your first post. Could you elaborate?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  28. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Ah, so you mean you did reply to the wrong guy and now you can't find a way to twist what you originally said into something that sounds like it belongs in the context of what I said.

    Okie, we'z all clear now. Thanks!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  29. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit501 · · Score: 0
    i mean exactly what i said, and always have. you're an ignorant hypocrite who hypocritically and ignorantly chooses to deny that fact... exactly as an ignorant hypocrite would be expected to act.

    you responded to someone making editorial comments with an editorial comment claiming editorial comments are useless and nothing something that you would do.

    you're an ignorant hypocrite.

    STILL.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  30. fyuldyuldyultyulty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.voguembt.com

    BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!
    SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!
    FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!

    our price:
    Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
    T-Shirt(VERSACE,womanPOLO,womanPaco,Chicano,womanEd Hardy womaned hardy) $12
    edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
    coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32;
    coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $15;
    CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $35;
    jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33;
    EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15;
    (air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb,) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

  31. Re:What? by cshake · · Score: 1

    I wonder why that battery operated handheld TV receiver I had in the 90s doesn't count as a portable media device.

  32. Re:What? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2

    Maybe he's using a pentium.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  33. Re:What? by narcc · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't waste your time with MichaelKristopeit### -- He/she/it/they is a fairly well-known troll(s?) with hundreds of usernames. MK doesn't care what you have to say -- it just wants to irritate you.

    --
    Required reading for internet skeptics
  34. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    i mean exactly what i said, and always have.

    It's the 'what you said' bit that's unclear.

    you responded to someone making editorial comments with an editorial comment claiming editorial comments are useless

    Actually, no, I didn't. Heh.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  35. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're completely sooOOoo pathetic.

    you responded to someone making editorial comments with an editorial comment claiming editorial comments are useless and nothing something that you would do.

    Oh my. You were mildly funny. That's new.

  36. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Oh yes, I worked that out ages ago. I'm just having a little fun. :)

    I do appreciate the heads up, though.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  37. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit502 · · Score: 0

    pentiums can solely edit and publish news articles?

  38. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit501 · · Score: 1

    you're an ignorant hypocrite

  39. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Uh, yeah, I understand what *I* said. Heh.

    Is english your native language? I'm just asking, I think we're just having a translation issue, here.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  40. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Didn't like where the other conversation was going?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  41. NOT first live TV broadcasts on portable media dev by Optic7 · · Score: 1

    Some that come to mind that have been doing it for a while now: livestation.com and flotv.com, NBA and MLB apps, etc. Welcome to like 2009.

  42. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit406 · · Score: 1
    who is "we"?

    you are NOTHING.

  43. Re:What? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

    It's not web 2.0-compatible unless it supports "streaming"! (something to do with urinating)

  44. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Well I do have one thing going for me, I can communicate clearly. ;)

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  45. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit407 · · Score: 1
    i am stating facts about your ignorant hypocrisy.

    you are telling lies about your actions... inline with your ignorant hypocrisy.

    you think conversations can be compartmentalized? that is very telling.

    you're an idiot.

  46. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    (psst, you still haven't gotten to my other reply here...)

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  47. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit408 · · Score: 1
    you have certainly communicated your ability to demonstrate ignorant hypocrisy, through lies containing nothing but hypocritical ignorance and denial of your own past recorded actions.

    you're an idiot.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen portable anagram based pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  48. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Well it's hard to not be ignorant, I still haven't been able to decipher your point!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  49. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Stating facts? I dunno about that. You're repeating yourself a lot, but the word 'fact' doesn't carry any meaning until you can clearly articulate your thoughts.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  50. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    you responded to someone making editorial comments with an editorial comment claiming editorial comments are useless

    ^^ I still didn't do this.

    and nothing something that you would do.

    Seriously, is English your native language?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  51. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit409 · · Score: 1
    ur mum's face still haven't gotten to your other reply here...

    you're an idiot.

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  52. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit410 · · Score: 0

    you're an ignorant hypocrite.

  53. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit411 · · Score: 1
    FACT: you're an ignorant hypocrite.

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  54. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit412 · · Score: 1
    you're an ignorant hypocrite

    you're = YOU ARE.

    seriously.

    you are an ignorant hypocrite.

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  55. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Yep, quite possibly. But your post still wasn't clear, could you elaborate?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  56. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    That'd be less disturbing if you weren't my brother.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  57. Android supported, and not new. by random_ID · · Score: 1

    This has been out for a while now. http://www.dishnetwork.com/tveverywhere/default.aspx

  58. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit406 · · Score: 1
    i am not your brother.

    i am michael kristopeit.

    you are an ignorant hypocrite.

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  59. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    You would have successfully proven that I was an ignorant hypocrite, if only you had linked to a post where I was being an ignorant hypocrite.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  60. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Oh, good, you've found proof then?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  61. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Oh, come on, I've already susssed that it was you. I can hear you banging away at your keyboard in the next room. I'm just glad it sounds like both hands are working the kb this time.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  62. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Right, you've said that. Why?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  63. Live TV Broadcasts on other portable devices by fartingfool · · Score: 1

    As varied as it will be to all the readers here, I live in a semi-urban area and I get at least 15 HD over-the-air channel and at least double that with standard definition and of the big networks too.

    The only difference it seems are they pulled the channels (temporarily for server reasons) that aren't typically broadcast OTA.

    I can see the small, but free, perk of having these subscriber-limited channels available on the iPad. Do they offer them on the computer as well?

  64. Re:NOT first live TV broadcasts on portable media by LodCrappo · · Score: 1

    If you pay attention to tech news, and the comments that follow the typical tech news story, you'll eventually come to terms with the fact that for some portion of our society, nothing matters unless it's done by Apple or done on an Apple device. Unsurprisingly, Apple is often seen as a leader with all kinds of "firsts" by this same group, as they simple don't register that something exists unless/until Apple does it.

    --
    -Lod
  65. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's pretty clear you're the older of the two. Is he still in Middle School?

    Captcha: warfare

  66. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit414 · · Score: 1
    considering i have linked to such posts, that post itself fulfills all necessary requirements of ignorant hypocrisy

    you're an idiot.

    offering a correction to someone for offering a correction, and stating that you would not bring attention to offering such corrections, as you come off as "sooOOoo smart" cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  67. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit415 · · Score: 0
    ur mum's face've found proof then.

    you're an ignorant hypocrite.

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  68. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit416 · · Score: 1
    i am michael kristopeit.

    you're an ignorant hypocrite.

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  69. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit417 · · Score: 0
    ur mum's face've said that.

    you're an idiot.

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  70. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    considering i have linked to such posts, that post itself fulfills all necessary requirements of ignorant hypocrisy

    No, pasting what I already said is not an explanation.

    offering a correction to someone for offering a correction, and stating that you would not bring attention to offering such corrections, as you come off as "sooOOoo smart"

    I didn't offer a correction. I also didn't try to come off as 'smart'. I also didn't make an editorial comment, nor did I say editorial comments are useless.

    Now we're back at the beginning again. Clarify.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  71. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0

    Seriously Tim, that's our mom we're talking about. You're gonna regret it.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  72. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Heh. *clickity clickity click* *mouseclick* *your reply shows up under my post*

    Maybe you should wait 10 minutes between typing and clicking submit.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  73. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    It's pretty clear why you don't wanna answer.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  74. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit418 · · Score: 0
    you're an ignorant hypocrite. i would not expect you to understand.

    you most certainly did not "come off as 'smart'"... you know 'smart'... that thing people 'say'. that 'word'.

    you're an idiot.

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  75. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit419 · · Score: 1
    ur mum's face're gonna regret it.

    i am michael kristopeit.

    you're an ignorant hypocrite

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  76. Re:Pressure From Above? Slingbox... by neurocutie · · Score: 1

    the ipad app issue is certainly the same as Slingbox, which the content providers have begrudgingly accepted as ok... for now...
    indeed, Slingbox does a lot more than this ipad app does.

    This ipad app is actually pretty cool and works well... modulo the slashing of channels available.

  77. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0

    I'm not gonna help you when Mom wants to know why you're up so late.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  78. Where the Cut? by MBC1977 · · Score: 1

    Don't know where they cut channels; I've still got 32 HD live channels.

    --
    Regards,

    MBC1977,
  79. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Warfare? Nice! Haha

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  80. Re:What? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    32/15=.5?

    Don't worry about the math, they more than make up for it with the English.

    "The No. 2 cable operator reduced to 15 channels from the original 32 offered up as the first-ever live TV broadcasts available for streaming on a portable media device."

    WTF?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  81. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit420 · · Score: 0
    ur mum's face should wait 10 minutes between clicking.

    you're an ignorant hypocrite.

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  82. Re:Android supported, and not new. (just Sling) by neurocutie · · Score: 1

    That Dish Network thing is just actually a Slingbox... which yes, isn't new and does support Android and is not restricted to your home network.

  83. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you feel?

  84. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit422 · · Score: 1
    ur mum's face're up so late.

    you are incapable of helping even yourself.

    you are an ignorant hypocrite.

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  85. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit407 · · Score: 0
    you're an idiot.

    does your idiocy amuse you?

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  86. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit408 · · Score: 0
    why did i say you were an ignorant hypocrite?

    would an ignorant hypocrite not understand that i would say something only because it's the truth?

    you're an idiot.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  87. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit408 · · Score: 0
    you are having trouble translating? that is very telling.

    an ignorant hypocrite tends to ignore their hypocrisy.

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  88. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit409 · · Score: 0
    i've noticed that most people that would correct the way others present most corrections like this basically say: "I'm sooOOoo ignorant of my hypocrisy." that's something you are drawing attention to.

    you're an ignorant hypocrite.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  89. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    i've noticed that most people that would correct the way others present most corrections like this basically say: "I'm sooOOoo ignorant of my hypocrisy." that's something you are drawing attention to.

    That isn't what I said.

    This is where elaboration and clear communication are useful. :)

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  90. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit423 · · Score: 0
    you're an ignorant hypocrite... which itself explains the denial and ignorance you are displaying of the hypocriticality of your statements.

    you're an idiot.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  91. Way to piss off customer base - Expect refunds by meerling · · Score: 1

    I'm betting they'll get a lot of cancellations demanding a full refund. After all, they threw away 90% (appx) of the reason most people would have wanted it.

    I'm sure there's something somebody is willing to pay for on the remaining dross, but probably not much. (I know what channels I watch, and what my daughter watches, and those went bye bye in what looked like a major bait and switch scam. Hope they have their papers in order and get the donuts out of the building, there are probably going to be investigators snooping around there soon.)

  92. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Oh I'm usually an ignorant hypocrite, the problem is I didn't say anything about hypocrisy in my original post. You're trying to cover up the fact that you responded to the wrong guy.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  93. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit423 · · Score: 0
    keep talking about yourself and the things you believe you are capable of, while in the middle of proving that you are also capable of the exact opposite.

    you're a self absorbed ignorant hypocrite.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  94. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit415 · · Score: 0
    no cipher was used. you're simply a peabrained moron, ignorant of your own hypocrisy and unable to change.

    it will always be hard for your to not be ignorant.

    cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  95. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Okay... so what you're saying is I'm able to both communicate clearly and.. uh.. be baffling?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  96. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit416 · · Score: 0
    ignorant hypocrisy = highest level of insightfulness.

    slashdot = stagnated

  97. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Sure you got the right post, there? There's no hypocrisy there.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  98. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit425 · · Score: 0
    you're not sure of what i'm saying? perhaps it's because you're an ignorant hypocrite.

    you're an ignorant hypocrite.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  99. Ugh by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    If you bothered to RTFA you'd see that the reduction in channels is temporary.

  100. Re:What? by shaitand · · Score: 1

    stop feeding the trolls!

  101. Expect refunds from Free App - DOES NOT COMPUTE!! by MBC1977 · · Score: 2

    If you go to the app store you would see the app is Free. And the reduction is temporary in anycase.

    --
    Regards,

    MBC1977,
  102. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    you see that? that is the ignorance i'm referencing.

    Wait.. do you mean my ignorance or yours? You don't know what hypocrisy is.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  103. Re:What? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

    I wonder why that battery operated handheld TV receiver I had in the 90s doesn't count as a portable media device.

    Because the only media it can play is... static? After all, you'll only get Canadian TV now. You could always hook it to a converter box I suppose, but that won't make it very portable now, will it?

  104. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    That isn't what I pointed out.

    I think you're replying to the wrong person.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  105. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit416 · · Score: 0
    ur mum's face're replying to the wrong person.

    you state your state of thought.... you are sooOOoo thinking, right? you're thinking?

    you can't understand that you didn't point anything out lest it would contradict your ignorant hypocrisy.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  106. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Wrong. Read it again. ;)

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  107. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit416 · · Score: 0
    the ignorant hypocrite emotes non-uniformity with false claims... exactly as expected.

    you're an idiot.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  108. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit416 · · Score: 0
    could ur mum's face elaborate?

    YOU ARE AN IGNORANT HYPOCRITE.

    you deny such understand BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IGNORANT HYPOCRITE.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  109. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit417 · · Score: 0
    ur mum's face did reply to the wrong guy.

    you're an idiot.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  110. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit418 · · Score: 0

    you're an ignorant hypocrite .

  111. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit410 · · Score: 0
    the ignorant hypocrite comments on the easy of their own ignorance.

    perhaps you are unable to decipher my point because a cipher was never used?

    do you understand the concept of facts and logic?

    you're an idiot.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  112. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit410 · · Score: 0
    ur mum's face is what's known as a troll.

    you're an ignorant hypocrite.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen pseudonym, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  113. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit411 · · Score: 1
    does the F stand the 50 or 53? do you understand WT difference is?

    you're an idiot.

    cower behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  114. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Still wrong!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  115. Re:What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    you deny such understand BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IGNORANT HYPOCRITE.

    *smirk*

    It's not quite irony but it's funny.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  116. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit411 · · Score: 1
    ur mum's face is wrong.

    you're an idiot.

    cower behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  117. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit406 · · Score: 1
    it's quite the truth.

    you're an idiot.

    cower behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

  118. Must be that new math. by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Reducing from 32 to 15 is not a 50% reduction.

  119. Re:NOT first live TV broadcasts on portable media by CompMD · · Score: 1

    Try "Welcome to 2003." Sprint offered live TV service (MobiTV I think) as part of their Vision services back in the day. You could watch something like 15 channels at crazy low resolution on a cheap flip phone.

  120. not the first ever live stream to portable device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People have been streaming live tv to handheld devices, PDAs and phones for a long time.

    And if you mean a service specifically set up for mobile devices, then the BBC's iplayer service had a Nokia N96 and N97 app three years ago IIRC.

  121. Re:What? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Speaking of ignorant, we capitalize the first letter of a new sentence in English.

  122. Useless (for me at least) by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Wake me up when I can use my TWC subscription to watch tv on my mobile device AWAY from my house. That would be cool.

    I don't have to be at my house to use my Netflix subscription. I dont' have to be at my house to watch something I rent/buy from the iTunes store. I don't have to be at my house to listen to rhapsody or the radio. Come on TWC...you have a chance to be really cool. If you do, I'll stop bad-mouthing your gawd-awful scientific atlantic DVRs.

  123. Re:What? by MichaelKristopeit411 · · Score: 1
    who is "we"?

    you are NOTHING.

    capitalization of the first letter of a new sentence "in English" does nothing to change the logical meaning of the sentence, and is thus simply a tool to aide the weak minded with reading comprehension.

    cower in my shadow behind your chosen food based pseudonym some more, feeb.

  124. Re:NOT first live TV broadcasts on portable media by Optic7 · · Score: 1

    That's what I was thinking too.

  125. Tv Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off, TWC wasn't the first to stream tv over the internet for customers. I've been using my sling adapter since I got it last fall to stream all my live tv channels to my phone and my net book no matter where I am. TWC has a great idea, the distributors are going to have kittens about it too, even though they are just providing the tv you pay for monthly within in your own house to all your capable devices, but the distributors see it as watching it multiple times, and they think they should get multiple times. Everything was so simple before the cable companies decided to offer online content. Working at DISH network I have been watching this ever growing storm about online content. But really if you think about it, they are offering these kind of products to customer to keep them from leaving the company and cutting the cord, which in the end will cost the distributors more. Imagine if more people were using torrent's, or just not watching TV and going out and enjoying themselves. I am at least out of my house and able to watch any channel that I want, that I PAY for monthly wherever I am, and my recorded DVR's , and some online content as well.