Cable Channels Panic Over iPad Streaming App

jfruhlinger writes "Time Warner Cable this month released an iPad app that would allow its subscribers to stream (some of) the channels they already pay for to their iPad, so long as they're connected to home Internet service provided by Time Warner Cable. The app probably seems like a baby step to most Slashdotters, and was extremely popular among subscribers — but it's thrown the owners of those channels into a panic, and they're threatening lawsuits. Time Warner says the contracts they've signed with the channels allow broadcast to any device in the home — 'I don't know what a TV is anymore,' says one company exec — but the channel owners fear that this will disrupt current and future revenue streams and that they need to stop it now. 'If we allow this without litigation, everyone will do it tomorrow,' says an anonymous source. 'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

Comments

"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[mehrotra.akash]

"If we litigate, we have a chance to win."

Is that really the lines a business should be thinking on to advance and expand business??

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Shikaku]

Yes.

See: recent patent issues with Android.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[cultiv8]

"If we litigate, we have a chance to win."

Is that really the lines a business should be thinking on to advance and expand business??

Yes, if your business model is dying.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Shikaku]

I mean no, but they do it anyway. :|

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

What, exactly, are they winning? Less viewers???

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[ifrag]

Another outbreak of insanity. There is also a chance it will swing the other way.

Hopefully a strong ruling will set precedent to prevent any such stupidity in the future.

Unless ads are being cut, I don't see what this has to do with revenue different from TV.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[LordNimon]

No, but they might be winning fewer viewers.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[elrous0]

If you can't innovate, litigate.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[count0]

>What, exactly, are they winning? Less viewers???

If they win they get more viewers and more money.

MORE VIEWERS
That's one of the points of TFA - Nielsen screws shows that allow streaming. By the measures that matter to them, they will actually win *more* viewers, because streaming isn't counted by Nielsen. Since tablet streaming cannibalizes views on a traditional TV, their Nielsen ratings will get worse if their show is a runaway success with ipad streaming households. Which sounds like they should be suing / working with Nielsen rather than the cableco.

MORE MONEY
It's not just about ratings, it's about revenue. Shareholders& the execs that answer to them demand growth, and here's a potential new source. They're hungry and implacable and not very thoughtful--something like zombies, or brain-sucked minions of Cthulu. The fact that a cable subscriber can already sit down, turn on the TV and watch the exact same paid-for content that TimesWarner now lets them stream in their house doesn't matter one bit to the crowd of shambling shareholders marching towards media innovation, drooling and murmuring "Grroowwwwth. Growwwwtthttthhhhh".

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[jgagnon]

I bet they're hoping for less fewer viewers. ;)

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[enderjsv]

You sure?

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/less-versus-fewer.aspx

Wouldn't viewers be a mass noun? Whatever. Off topic anyway. Fairly certain no one was confused by the term "less".

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[nebaz]

Anything you can put a simple number in front of uses "fewer" rather than "less". If you can say "10 viewers" then you can say "fewer viewers". Something like "beef", you can't say "10 beefs", you could say "10 pounds of beef", but that's not a simple number. So you could either say "less beef" or "fewer pounds of beef".

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[SomePgmr]

Is that really the lines a business should be thinking on to advance and expand business??
What it is, is desperation. And that makes me giggle a bit.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[AvitarX]

Please read your link.

I'll summarize though. If you can say "two [plural noun]" it is a count noun (can be counted).

An example of a mass noun would be snow (you can't say "two snows").

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[biek]

Allow Weird Al to demonstrate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[MonsterTrimble]

"If we litigate, we have a chance to win."

Maybe by Charlie Sheen's definition of winning.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[HTH NE1]

I read it as, "But, we haven't kicked and screamed yet! You can't make us do it until we've done our kicking and screaming!"

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

We live in a world where GE formally manages their tax compliance department as a profit center. Nothing can be so anathema to innovation as eating your own. When this is regularly happening, the above is, sadly, no surprise.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems their definition of winning is different than most peoples'. Perhaps they should fire this guy and replace him with someone who shares a more popular definition of winning. Charlie Sheen comes to mind.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[betterunixthanunix]

They want you to pay separately for streaming their channel to your iPad. They count anything that is not "expanding revenue streams" as a loss.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[ajs]

My real problem with taking this stance is that they've pre-determined that constraining the distribution of their content is defined as, "winning." Of course, we know from the history of every type of media to touch the Net that this is absurd. The services that win (though it might take a decade or more) are those that are least constrained. The only problem is that of determining how to monetize that process.

I do feel for the networks, though. They are trapped. If the TV model dies and is replaced by the model where every device has equal access to ubiquitous data, they're screwed. There is absolutely no way that they will be able to maintain the kind of revenues that they've enjoyed on the initial distribution, which means that they need to rely on the secondary distribution to make up the difference.

It's a hard thing to be in a nearly century-old market that suddenly undergoes such a tectonic shift, and I'm certain that several companies that are pillars of the entertainment business today will be gone in 20 years as a result. We just need to remember that that's their problem, and not one that we should allow them to force the federal government into trying to resolve for them.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[donny77]

But the Time Warner streams are not on demand, they are Live feed of the broadcast. Plus you have to subscribe to the channel on Time Warner to get the channel on the app. You also currently have to be streaming across a Time Warner cable modem for it to work. The viewership data would be easier to acquire than a traditional TV. Its a win, win, win and win!

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[lgw]

Technically, beef is both uncountable (the common usage) and countable (the flesh of N dead cows), and in the second usage the plural is "beeves". You can have "10 beeves", or "fewer beeves". You just don't hear that much outside of technical usage.

You also have less fish in the sea, but fewer fishes on my plate (fish becomes countable when it's food). See how simple English is.

But yes, anyone who thinks "less people" is proper usage is just wrong. Read a book!

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[eriks]

... streaming isn't counted by Nielsen

Then Nielsen is fucking stupid, and by extension so are the execs for the channels that are accepting what Neilsen says. Streaming views should be easier to collect and be more accurate than doing statistics on a sample and estimating how many viewers there were.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[93 Escort Wagon]

That's one of the points of TFA...

As soon as you admitted to reading the article, I stopped reading your comment. I have my standards.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[FictionPimp]

What exactly are they trying to win? Less customers? Less Market share? Less relevance?

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[lgw]

doesn't matter one bit to the crowd of shambling shareholders marching towards media innovation, drooling and murmuring "Grroowwwwth. Growwwwtthttthhhhh".

Oddly, my job is currently threatened by shareholders demanding that all the (costly) programs leading to growth be abandoned entirely in favor of a slightly larger dividend. At least it's a change, I guess.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[FictionPimp]

Exactly, when I stream a show I'm actively choosing to watch that show. Which is different then when nothing good is on and I just set it to G4 and let cops run to fill the background with noise.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless ads are being cut, I don't see what this has to do with revenue different from TV.

I guess you have been unaware that some "content providers" are trying to sell you the same thing twice (1 song = CD + iPod + ringtone = 3 products). TWC carries content, so it doesn't care if you watch it on an old cathode-ray tube TV, on some kind of home-built beamer system, or on an iPad, In fact they're probably using this to have more people bundle up their cable tv and internet with TWC as it only works if you have both services.

The revenue on TV is the same, it's the revenue they are hoping to generate by selling you the same thing twice that's at issue.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Skarecrow77]

You can if you refer to a snowstorm as a "snow".

For instance, the sentences "It snowed 3 times last winter." and "We had 3 snows last winter." are functionally equivalent.

Whether or not you agree that is correct usage depends on how quickly you update your dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snow for instance seems to think that usage is correct (definition #3).

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

Up here in Canada, I can get three of the four local stations via iPad. I'm guessing that this move is to allow the stations to get the extra ad revenue and such, rather than it all being taken by the cable provider.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a Pyrrhic victory if they do win, then get left behind when others embrace the new medium.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[pixelpusher220]

I see positives here. Currently mobile phone providers require extra money to be able to 'tether' your laptop through your phone - when the phone does this on it's own if they didn't disable it. I pay for data access. How I use that access should be unimportant to the data provider. I consume the same data whether on an iPhone or on my computer.

Comcast is basically claiming the same thing. They pay for the channels and if they want to allow their users (who already receive those channels) to access them via another device - it's up to them what they want to do with that 'data' that they receive from the channels.

Nice to see a greedy corporation be stuck in the same bind us little people are. Now maybe we'll get some legal standing that using data you have properly paid to access is valid no matter how you use it.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[geekoid]

A) That would only apply to nelson homes.

B) Time warner can tell what you are streaming, so it's more accurate viewer count

C) Anything they advertise on my 40" TV is just as relevant on my 23" computer monitors, a tables my phone. It's not less relevant because I watched it in my garage.

The real issue here, and it has been for a decade, is that previous advertising model have been shown to be grossly inaccurate and the people who make money from that don't know what the fuck to do.
I don't think it's a coincidental that as advertising and demographics become accurate, we are moving away from the main stream blah TV. I mean, the Nelson rating, by their natures, causes TV to fall into a small category of sameness.

How many people who fit the Nelsons modes would be the same people to watch Archer? The Venture Brothers?

I think the Family Guy pretty much showed how wrong they were.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[nurb432]

That it was their first thought is why America is financially doomed.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[h4rr4r]

10 beeves would correct English. A beef is a beef cattle. Beef is used for both the flesh of cattle, as in "one pound of beef" and for the animal itself in "There is a beef in that field".

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[The Great Pretender]

I'm not advocating what they're intending, quite the opposite, but I think the anonymous source was meaning more 'If we litigate we can give ourselves more time have a chance to figure out what the hell we can do in response', which would be a thought process that should be occurring. If you're about to be eaten by a bear, do you stand there and get eaten, or run around a bit hoping that you come up with a better idea before the bear finally catches you? (I couldn't think of a car analogy)

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Archangel Michael]

I do feel for the networks, though. They are trapped. If the TV model dies and is replaced by the model where every device has equal access to ubiquitous data, they're screwed if they don't adapt.

FTFY

The point is, that model is already being damaged by things like HULU and Netflix. It is only going to get worse for them. The networks need to figure it out, that cable/broadcast model is breaking under the stress of universal data access (Internet) They will adapt or die. If I was a board member, that would be directive to the CEO, figure it out, or we'll find someone who can.

Litigation is only a temporary solution. The writing is on the wall already.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[endymion.nz]

It's more likely that this will result in tighter IP laws, but I admire your optimism.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[McKing]

Neilsen gets the raw data from the cable companies on when shows are watched and even when you DVR something to watch it later. Neilsen isn't the "send out the TV diary to Neilsen families and collate the results" anymore.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[tattood]

I consume the same data whether on an iPhone or on my computer.

That may be true for you, but I doubt it is true for everyone. Viewing the Internet on the small screen on a phone is rather tedious. Having to scroll the page around, pinch to zoom, and use the on-screen keyboards is more of a hassle than having a laptop screen and keyboard. For me, when I am out and I think of something I want to look up, I will usually make a note of it on my phone, and then look it up later when I am at home on a computer. If it were free and convenient for everyone to tether their laptops, then more people would do it, and it would clog up the already slow wireless data network and make it that much more painful for everyone.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[LeonPierre]

Let's not get too silly.

Nielsen does provide metrics for current methods of streaming.

Not only that, but if Nielsen needs metrics for any new methods of streaming to non-TV devices from TWC, they can get this data without much hassle.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[theantipop]

What? So when I pay for a chunk of data every month, my ISP should make me pay more for a method of utilizing the service that allows me to use that chunk faster? What?

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[pixelpusher220]

Sadly it isn't that way for me but I wish it was. I have Sprint with unlimited* data over an aged Treo 700p. I've used PdaNet a few times and can clearly see the difference in the speed. It's not the data but simply the interface rendering that takes the extra time on the phone.

I pay Sprint for 'unlimited' data at a specific data rate (or max rate anyway). Even if there's a cap, there's no justification for saying I have to pay more to access it via another device. if my phone can do something with the data, say display it, and it can natively t it do something else with the data, say forward it to another device, how is that a problem? It doesn't hurt Sprint in way shape or form. What hurts them is providing services without the ability to actually meet those service requirements; i.e. unlimited data at a certain rate.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[zero0ne]

WHY does anyone give a shit about Nielsen?

Take for example Verizon FioS... one of their machines widgets was actually a top ten currently watching [Sports / news / drama / etc] show listing.

I could see that the top show people on FioS are watching is "Survivor" or "24"

Why do channel execs still care about this neilsen rating? I can almost guarantee that Verizon (lets limit this to FioS or any "cable box is required provider") has data that is 10000x more useful than any Nielsen data shows.

Assuming proper meta data for the commercials, shows, content in general, I bet they could show you:

- How often someone fast forwards through commercial X
- How many users have the show on their DVR; How many days after the show aired and was recorded that the user actually watched it; If they skipped the commercials; What show the user was watching INSTEAD of the one they recorded (extremely important as it tells you your primary competitor).
- The channel they spend the most time on
- Channels they visit frequently, but never really stay on it more than a few minutes (glimpse into how the channel surfers mind works)

This list is just the EASY data you can pull. Imagine the data mining potential for this. Tie this into the users subscription data, and you have a good idea of age. IF you wanted even more data, just offer your subscribers a 20 dollars off for one month coupon for filling out a simple survey asking them their relationship status, how many kids they have, etc.

Double up and implement a rating systems where the user gets prompted after a show to rate it. have it come up as a semi transparent layer (just a simple picture of 5 empty stars or something) and if the user presses a 1-5 on his controller during those few seconds its on screen, count it as a rating. Allow them only one rating per "episode" (so you can't have someone sitting there with a recorded copy of the show and constantly giving it a 5 rating).

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[nofx_3]

You are probably correct about utilization, but with data caps in place at all major carriers it is irrelevant. Fact is they provide you with 5GB per month on your "unlimited" plan (which is already B.S.), but in reality they don't build enough capacity for all users to even use their monthly allotment. So for users that have the potential to actually use their 5GB they are entitled to, they have to pay more. Same network, same device, same bandwidth, extra cost.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Kakari]

A bit offtopic, but I believe that is what they do for radio still, is it not?

Also, I don't believe the 'Nielsen box' has gone away.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's America dude...

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Maximum Prophet]

That's Arbitron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitron

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What, exactly, are they winning? Less viewers???

Duh! Winning!
If you were a warlock you'd know.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Bing Tsher E]

It's more like you paid $7 for a plate at an all you can eat buffet.

Now, you can take all the shrimp if you like. Screw those people at the other tables. You don't even have to eat all the shrimp. You paid for all you can eat and theoretically you could eat every shrimp. The owner of the resturant should have anticipated you and had an infinite amount of shrimp on hand to put out on the buffet table.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[increment1]

And if you can't litigate, obfuscate (with FUD).

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[camperdave]

Neilsen is still around? I thought that they died out long ago in favour of cable feed load counting, and digital tuner phone-homes. No wonder all the good shows keep getting cancelled.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Bing Tsher E]

How would these 10 beeves correct English? What in English needed correcting?

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Bing Tsher E]

This list is just the EASY data you can pull. Imagine the data mining potential for this. Tie this into the users subscription data, and you have a good idea of age. IF you wanted even more data, just offer your subscribers a 20 dollars off for one month coupon for filling out a simple survey asking them their relationship status, how many kids they have, etc.

I can just imagine the shrieking of the privacy folks here and many other places.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Bing Tsher E]

Multiple subscriptions per household.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Bing Tsher E]

The bear analogy works well.

I remember the old days on the University Campus, when the bears would lurk up in the last few rows of seats in the auditorium during the Linux User Group meetings. Good old bearded hackers.....

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[BoberFett]

So what you're saying is that if my wife is watching a show on the TV while I watch a show on the iPad, that there are no shows left for my neighbor to watch?

You've really bought into this whole information scarcity thing, huh?

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[ink]

Media broadcast/production companies don't want to know the real numbers -- although they could learn a lesson from Arbitron's PeopleMeter device. This little electronic sampler is what they moved to in order to more accurately measure radio listeners. They did away with the pen-and-paper surveys, and added in all kinds of non-traditional radio broadcasts at the same time (retail locations, etc.). Popular radio programs actually came out ahead, even though they fought tooth and nail to keep them out of their markets (they feared change).

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[h4rr4r]

Just like me to fuck that up. I meant of course; 10 beeves would be correct English.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Cwix]

It's wireless bandwidth scarcity that hes referring to... what brain dead moron modded you up?

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

... streaming isn't counted by Nielsen

Then Nielsen is fucking stupid, and by extension so are the execs for the channels that are accepting what Neilsen says. Streaming views should be easier to collect and be more accurate than doing statistics on a sample and estimating how many viewers there were.

Streaming viewing numbers are also easier to manipulate outside the control of Nielsen. Just stream your own show a couple thousand times and bang - instant hit.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

But Nielsen ratings is how they charge for commercials which is how they make money and pay the bills, etc.

That is the problem, Nielsen has a choke hold on TV and Channels that would make Gaddafi drool with evil envy. I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like it might be time to bring Monopoly hearings against Nielsen and free the shows/channels/providers from their tyrannical reign.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Solandri]

Then Nielsen is fucking stupid, and by extension so are the execs for the channels that are accepting what Neilsen says.

I agree it's stupid, but it's not really Nielsen's or TV stations' fault. It's the fault of advertisers who will only accept TV viewing stats based on what channel the TV is tuned into. They have decades of data correlating their TV advertisements to Nielsen ratings and marketing success. They have no data correlating their TV advertisements to streaming ratings and marketing success. So they cover up their eyes and pretend that streaming doesn't exist in order to stick with the tried and true.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Comen]

You mean Time Warner Cable, not Comcast.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[BoberFett]

Time Warner Cable has a problem with wireless scarcity? Do you even understand what is being discussed here?

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Americium]

That's not a fair comparison. Tethering generally uses a lot more data, about an order of magnitude more. The amount of connections also increases by an order of magnitude. People sporadically using data on their smartphones is vastly different to tethered laptops on all day long. So it makes perfect sense that it costs more for this service.

This is almost the opposite scenario, I don't understand the complaint, either way the channels get the same revenue, and the ads are shown to a wider audience, win win. Comcast is the one losing, now they have to carry that video over tcp and to the cable box. Comcast is incurring the extra cost, not the networks.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Americium]

So Hulu doesn't receive ad money? They can't calculate how many video views they get? Just because it's not in the metric you pick, doesn't mean the value is less, or that shareholders wouldn't understand. Everyone understands the online ad market, and everyone is chasing it!

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to take all the shrimp. I put one shrimp on my plate, and now the restaurant owner is demanding another $7! Oh, and it's not an all-you-can-eat buffet, because if I go back for a second plate I get charged $0.50/oz for my unreasonable usage. Wait, make that $1/oz if I take any shrimp on the second go.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[thegarbz]

It's more like you paid $7 for a plate at an all you can eat buffet.

Err no it's more like I paid $7 for a meal of a fixed size and took it home. Now I get to decide how I want to consume this meal, be it eat it, blend it and drink it, or burn it and snort the ashes. The provider provided a fixed meal for the cost of $7. I can do with it what I want.

Is this such a hard concept to understand? I have 1.5GB on my phone. 1.5GB whether I tether, or just use Google maps. I pay for 1.5GB / month and it should be of no interest to the provider if I am using it to download pictures of lolcats or downloading the latest movies.

Same thing here. We have a cable company who is providing an internet service as well, who has licensed the channels to be re-transmitted to the customer's home offering the customer on which device in his home he can view said content. What is wrong with this? I used to watch cable TV via a TV tuner in my computer. How is the iPad any different? Just because the data comes over IP? It still comes from the same provider down the same copper line to the same house.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a hard thing to be in a nearly century-old market that suddenly undergoes such a tectonic shift

We've been here before, a bit over a century ago, when a much older and much larger market suddenly faced its own annihilation.

It took exactly the same approach to prolong its life: lobbying and legislation. So for a while, in Britain at least, the automobile was artificially forced to travel at human walking pace, so horses still had something to offer.

I don't see many cars today crawling along after a man with a red flag, so I guess there's some hope of progress.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[AvitarX]

Agreed, you can fewer snows or less snow.

I was going to give an example of a word being either or (i intended to use soil).

To be fair to the original misuser. I always use less, never fewer.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[I(rispee_I(reme]

I pay for data access. How I use that access should be unimportant to the data provider.

See my signature. AT&T disallows internet access to their paying DSL customers by redirecting dns to a malware install site.

If you want to run an OS that their malware doesn't support, expect a long call to technical support every time they screw up their settings and reset the dns redirect.

Of course, the only alternative is Comcast, so which rotten egg would you like to suck today?

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

They are "Winning" in the same sense that Charlie Sheen is "Winning". Ok, maybe not since they're minus his Goddesses, his Tiger Blood, Adonis DNA, warlock powers...

But in terms of whack-job delusional "winning-while-getting-ass-kicked" denial, sure. They're winning.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't you just put in OpenDNS?

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[cdrguru]

When we lose broadcasting, we will lose most of the viewers. The current distribution systems do not have the capacity to deliver the same content to every home in the US. The cable and DSL distribution mechanisms work on the basis of a feed from the Internet at large coming to a "node" of some sort (DSLAM or neighborhood distribution node) and then going out to individual homes. The capacity of the feed from the Internet won't handle distribution to hundreds if not thousands of homes from a single location. So many, many more nodes would be needed. For DSL it isn't that complicated - more DSLAMs in the same CO but for cable it is fatal - it is running new fiber to new locations and splitting up the neighborhood nodes. Likely it would cost tens of millions for a small city. Nationwide? Billions and take 10 years to get it done.

And don't get me started on the limitations of wireless Internet. The capacity does not exist and will never exist to serve much bandwidth to anything but a small percentage of early adopters.

Whenever someone talks about the "death of broadcast TV" they don't understand the existing infrastructure and don't understand the costs to grow it beyond where it is today. It took 10-15 years for the cable companies to build out to where we are today. There is some capability for growth but nothing like what would be required for IPTV to everyone.

I believe Cox intentionally has the "on demand" service hopelessly crippled simply because they know that if everyone jumped on that service it would collapse completely. I believe the Comcast version is more usable but there must be some limiting factor on it as well - again the system bandwidth simply doesn't allow for what IPTV fans think they want.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anthony Mouse]

So why don't they just measure both and publish the number of TV viewers and streaming viewers separately? If they had started doing this ten years ago they would already have ten years of data.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Polo]

Streaming views should be easier to collect and be more accurate

Right, which means they don't need Nielsen to collect any data, they already HAVE the data and they don't need to pay for it.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like they could not see it coming. Concepts like the Internet were imagined as early as the 50s. If anything, those corporations were stupid not to think further ahead or not to educate themselves on the matters of technology.
They made a big mistake, they thought they could stop working and enjoy the money flowing in, and now instead of paying for their error they want to make laws to strip away technology from us. They should had seen at least 10 years ago this situation happening and they should had planned their future business model accordingly.
I don't feel for them at all, everyone has a job to do which earns them money but in the big picture also benefits society. And clearly these people did not do their job.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[TheSync]

"WHY does anyone give a shit about Nielsen?"

Because TV advertisers pay based on Nielsen numbers.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

The link is broken or a honey pot of some sort

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, $DEITY forbid that people should be able to enjoy your product, the way they want to enjoy it, when they want to enjoy it, on the device they want to use to enjoy it.

If that is 'losing' for these assholes, then I hope they fucking lose, and damn quick.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[EdIII]

So basically what you are saying is that we don't consume the same amount of data because of form factor limitations and behavior.

You still did not point out which is more, and why it is fair.

If it were free and convenient for everyone to tether their laptops, then more people would do it, and it would clog up the already slow wireless data network and make it that much more painful for everyone.

Annnnnnddddd? That is not the fault of the consumer. The fault lies squarely with the providers and the douchebag marketers and executives.

In the Beginning.... We paid for data by the minute. This was stupid and wholly unfair. They then doubled down on the stupidity by one of the providers realizing that they could separate themselves from the rest of the pack by offering "unlimited". It's all been downhill since then. This is because marketers and executives can't think themselves out of a wet paper bag and generally are supreme assholes. The shit does not roll down hill in these cases, it floats to the top like a stinky nutty cream.

Of course some of them can be really nice guys and gals.... but they don't get input from engineering and IT when they make their decisions. After all.... if engineers and IT were really that smart... they would be marketers and executives riiiiigggght????? "Just leave the business end of it to us. We will sell it".

Enter the world of overselling bandwidth. Very similar to the "640k is enough for anybody type mentality". They are gambling that you will not use that much of it, and want to find the optimum price point to get as much money as possible for the convenience of it all.

Now of course an iPad is going to use more bandwidth than a smart phone. Like you said, the form factor is actually suited to getting something done.

They have to charge more for the iPad because they are actually going to lose money on the bandwidth you use... and because of the overselling shit head executives.... they now actually don't have the bandwidth to deliver in the first place. As another poster said, "I pay for data access. How I use that access should be unimportant to the data provider". Unfortunately, that is wrong. Dead wrong. For all the reasons you pointed out.

Data access is going to cost differently depending on the technology. The smartest and fairest thing to do would be tiered pricing (like businesses, data centers, and the big boys do it) based on usage, your guaranteed minimums, and the maximum you want to be able to expand to when needed.

What I want is a single data access plan from my wireless provider FOR ALL THE DEVICES on the account. Give me a per device charge, my minimum (which is guaranteed and not subject to overselling, my maximum burst rate per device, and a tiered pricing plan that charges me for my total usage at the end of the month.

Of course that would be fair, transparent, and simple.

We can't have that because it does not allow the marketers to fool around to find the optimum amount of cash they can extract from us, while giving the least amount of service. Another reason why we can't have it is that the bandwidth does not actually exist. It really doesn't.

Maybe LTE will solve that problem. Maybe. Then again Netflix and YouTube are going to start streaming 1080p videos of some vapid bimbo and her rendition of Britney Spears or some basement dwelling Cheeto addict and his 1080p recording of Call of Duty where he "so totally own3s these noobs".

In order to get past all of this what has to happen is the consumer needs to finally be informed, perhaps with some charts and graphs, about how all of this really does cost a lot more money then they are paying, and how unlimited is going to be phased out and this is what they have to start paying for in "real life".

That's hugely unpopular though. Nobody wants to hear the truth about the real scarcity of bandwidth, our consumption patters are increasing dramatically (Netflix, YouTube), and ho

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[mgblst]

Why do they care about Nielsen rating?

Oh you know, the obvious reasons. It is from a netural third party, they have been using it for years, they are trusted. You know, no biggies.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[sjames]

It's not like the bandwidth is free. If you tether, you still have to pay. Presumably that would (at least in theory) pay for network upgrades. Of course, one might think the millions in federal subsidies and the crazy high price of text messages and other bandwidth would have paid for those upgrades already.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

It cracks me up that people are advocating a 3rd party to track what you're watching. Yet I imagine some of the same people freak out when Facebook or some ad corporation tries to do so.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[clanrat]

Funny how they can say this with a straight face knowing full well they've already lost.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[I(rispee_I(reme]

Sorry, I just used the first result for googling "shortest free redirect" since the link won't fit in my sig.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[dryeo]

Your link seems to point at 127.0.0.1

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[I(rispee_I(reme]

I do use openDNS, so it seems that AT&T is doing more than just redirecting DNS.

I've actually been installing the malware in virtualbox and then deleting the disk file... but this is still extremely shady behavior from a company that is nominally selling internet access.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[I(rispee_I(reme]

Oh, and here's the actual link I was attempting to redirect to.

It's a dslreports thread by someone attempting to find a way to connect to the internet without installing the crapware and features responses from users who claim to be AT&T support representatives.

The post linked to is a summary of the thread that outlines AT&T's policy and why it is evil.

Sorry about the busted link.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[currently_awake]

Your business model is based upon getting people to watch the adds in your programming. How exactly does this threaten that?

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[currently_awake]

This is like your landlord billing you for a parking space when you only have a bike, but then you buy a car- so he complains you're using all of the parking spot instead of just a bit at the end and now he can't rent out the rest of your parking spot to other bikes so now he wants to charge you more to park a car there.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nielson merely asked you to record a diary in a non-metered market. If you still watched CBS,ABC, Spike, etc it would be completely counted. In metered markets, the little magic cable box, you would not be metered due to the use of the application. Thus metered markets should have the application banned from participants or revert to the diary format.

Nielson also recognizes time shifted recordings as well, but I don't remember these getting the full weight.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[Kalriath]

Last I heard, Cable was even worse - the pipe is contended between up to 24 connections is it not?

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[twisted_pare]

No one has yet mentioned why the channels are scared. They have every right to be, it is based on oversubscription. (1) If you are a cable channel, you charge a few cents per viewer, per month to the cable company. This is not much for most channels, between around $0.15 and $1. For a major channel like ESPN it can be $3.50. (2) Most people don't care about most of the channels in their package. Of that $80/mo, I don't care about the $0.15 that is going to Women's Entertainment, but they still get their cut. WE depends on million of people that don't watch the channel paying for it. Many channels desperately need this model. (3) If you stream channels, then you could just stream what you want. Heck, the big boy marquee channels like ESPN could just charge people directly and cut out the cable co. For instance, why pay $80 for those channels when you could just buy it from ESPN for $15/mo directly. This is great for ESPN, but bad for the Classic Golf Channel. So you see, if you are many of these non-marquee networks, you will hate this new model because it empowers the consumer to get exactly what they want, making the popular channels more prosperous, and killing off those who depend on oversubscription to users that don't even want them. That is what this is really about.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[thegarbz]

That and ratings since as someone else has pointed out Neilson doesn't count streaming a channel as watching a channel, so unless they change their habits the all important ratings which define advertising revenue drop.

But to continue this analogy, on my $7 plate why should I care what agreement the chef had with the slaughterhouse? All I want is the food, and I want it for the fixed price I paid for.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[exomondo]

If you can't innovate, litigate.

What's this got to do with innovation?

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[stoborrobots]

This is probably short enough for your sig: http://v.gd/rTh91L

http://is.gd/ and http://v.gd/ (same folk) are pretty good for the moment...

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[AmiMoJo]

It is interesting that people are using mobile data as an example of "raw data, do what you want with it". Most mobile data plans are heavily locked down, for example blocking P2P traffic and degrading Skype calls. I can't watch iPlayer on my phone, the app says I have to be on wifi and the only reason I can think of is service providers complaining about mobile data usage. Youtube works so there does not seem to be a technical reason.

ISPs are using this as an excuse for killing net neutrality in the UK. If phone providers can get away with it they think they should. I suppose there is some argument that because mobile phone networks are a much scarcer resource than fixed line broadband some management of the traffic is necessary, although of course the actual reason a lot of stuff is blocked is competition with their own services (e.g. Skype).

What it boils down to is that the channels think they could charge for iPad streaming and want to stop other people offering it for free. It is exactly the same as how they think they can charge for a copy of a TV show on DVD and again for a digital copy if only people couldn't rip their own.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[AmiMoJo]

So why do cable companies even carry these channels that few people watch? Why hand over $0.15 per viewer when only 0.1% of your subscribers actually want it?

What about free channels? In the UK we have Freeview and Freesat where you can get channels over the air for nothing so presumably they can't really charge cable companies much (anything?) to carry them. In fact you would assume they would want to be carried for free to get advertising revenue, the same source of income they have on free platforms.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[thegarbz]

Maybe in the UK they are. But here on the other side of the world the mobile data is just data and is sold as such. Expensive data, but unimpeded none the less. I could have just as well chosen the standard ADSL / cable internet as an example. The point comes through the same. It is my data to consume how I want.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[AmiMoJo]

So it should be obvious why G4 prefers the current system. Neilson is there to provide the system the channels want, therefore they don't care about streaming.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[AmiMoJo]

So why not use better data if it is available? You would think that the opportunity to know exactly how effective their advertising is and how much they get from each programme should be attractive to them. Internet advertisers seem to love it.

There has to be some reason they bury their heads in the sand. Maybe they don't trust data from the networks, maybe they don't want clients to see exactly what money is wasted and what isn't. Beats me though.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[AmiMoJo]

I think you need to look at it from the view of the programme producers who are trying to get the TV channel to invest $25m in a season of their show.

The problem is that only the first sale of their product to the TV channel is guaranteed to make a return. The channel agrees to pay a certain amount per episode no matter how good or bad it is. Secondary distribution in the form of syndication, repeat fees, DVD sales and merchandising are all taking a risk because if the show isn't popular no-one will buy them. It is actually worse than that because even if the show is good it still might get cancelled early on and then no-one wants to buy the syndication/reruns/DVDs/merchandise either.

The TV channel is unlikely to find profit in the long run or from secondary sources attractive either since they basically need to get return on their $25m per season during the first airing.

Of course other forms of media just have to take a chance and produce stuff without any guarantee of a return. Maybe TV shows are a bit unique because of the cost of producing them, compared to say an album's worth of music or a radio show. The movie studios' solution has been to use hype to try to ensure that the film at least breaks even in the first week, before knowledge of poor quality becomes widespread. Since they don't have to follow it up next week either another episode they can get away with that.

It sucks but I have yet to hear anyone with a better way of raising the cash needed to produce the kind of slick high quality shows we want. SciFi in particular can be expensive; Stargate Universe had a budget of $2m/episode for example and TNG was $1m/episode back in the late 80s. Arguably TV channels should be willing to take more of a risk on shows and look at the long term. I wonder though if you threw enough money out on advertising and got someone to invest all the money required to make the show up front if you could release on the web and get enough viewers to recoup, or if you could be a bit more traditional and just hand the completed show to a TV channel in exchange for some of the advertising revenue.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[FictionPimp]

That said, this is the reason why a few months ago I got rid of cable and went to a netflix/hulu/ "Other streaming" only solution. I now find myself being more productive and finding my tv watching more enjoyable.

Now I watch the shows I like, fill late nights before bed with movies I've always wanted to watch and I save a thousand dollars a year I was using to create background noise. I can also fill my hulu queue full of crap and just let it play.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[jwhitener]

My real problem with taking this stance is that they've pre-determined that constraining the distribution of their content is defined as, "winning."

That may be part of it, but you also have to remember that TV shows compete. Popular shows from different networks are often aired on the same time slot. That produces a clear "winner" in terms of ratings, and the network that owns that show can then charge higher ad prices for that particular time slot. It may also lead to the cancelling of a competitors show. That is also defined as a "win".

In my minds of the networks, if you had more on demand TV via streaming, it would lead to 9pm monday show A, B, and C having more equal viewing numbers, as consumers would dvr one, watch one, and stream the other. As it is now, the more popular 2 shows win out, make more ad money, and the 3rd show either makes less or gets cancelled.

Sucks for the 3rd show, sucks for consumers, but that competition (networks believe), makes them more money if they "win" the time slot.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

[sys_mast]

but how do you tell if somebody is watching the channel or there TV is off and the box is left on that channel?

My thought is...

[mace9984]

" but the channel owners fear that this will disrupt current and future revenue streams and that they need to stop it now." No, me not watching your shows because they aren't in the format I wish will "disrupt your current and future revenue streams" though.

Re:My thought is...

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Although the more likely scenario is "me not watching your shows because they suck".

Re:My thought is...

[iluvcapra]

This lawsuit has nothing to do with you or your formats. It's strictly a business deal between content producers and a cable distributor; the content producers think Time Warner is welching on their deal to distribute the data according to their contract. What if a cable channel wants to stream their channel themselves for direct subscription revenues? TWCs action makes it less likely this would work, and it looks like TWC is just trying to make build a technological end run in order to stymie cable channels from selling themselves to subscribers a la carte.

It's remarkable how many people here are suddenly on the side of Time Warner Cable(!) and iPads(!!) as long as they're providing Teh Shiny New Modality.

Re:My thought is...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's remarkable how many people here are suddenly on the side of Time Warner Cable(!) and iPads(!!) as long as they're providing Teh Shiny New Modality.

Is it that remarkable? You talk about channels streaming their content directly, but how many of them actually were before this happened? If TWC comes up with a good idea, we're not going to attack them just for being TWC.

Re:My thought is...

[_Sprocket_]

No, me not watching your shows because they aren't in the format I wish will "disrupt your current and future revenue streams" though.

I know the smug response to this idea is going to be along the lines of dismissing the guy who talks about how they don't watch TV in their house. There is this underlying belief that the mainstream is chained to their favorite programs and they will climb every mountain in their way to maintain their program loyalty. Those who make a big deal about breaking that bond are the ones who turned their backs on the water-cooler society and fled to the mountains to be strange social pariah hermits; nobody else wants to be like that. But that's not it.

Once one misses one or two episodes of a show because of scheduling conflicts, it is much easier to miss the 3rd, 4th, and 5th episode and so on. If that happens enough, the show loses viability. That happens to enough shows on a given channel, the channel loses viability. The key here is what constitutes a scheduling conflict. In the day of Tivo, bit torrent, and other competitors who don't mind streaming their shows... the bar for conflict is dropping steadily.

One can almost hear the sound of revenue streams being disrupted line pane after pane of glass being shattered. It's already happening as people outside the industry proper toss around DVR and P2P rocks. Its only going to get worse as competing networks pick up a bat and start casting their programs through alternative channels.

Re:My thought is...

[iluvcapra]

If TWC comes up with a good idea, we're not going to attack them just for being TWC.

Time Warner is using its position as middleman to screw over its vendors and maintain its iron grip over channel lineup and billing. This is not a "good idea."

Re:My thought is...

[Anonymous Coward]

- TWC is providing a benefit to consumers for free.
- Most people are, in fact, consumers.
- TWC at least claims to have contractual rights to do exactly what they're doing.

Why should I be on the side of content creators again?

Re:My thought is...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the a la carte is what we deserve.

Re:My thought is...

[MonsterTrimble]

Oh lord, please mod this up. Amen.

Re:My thought is...

[betterunixthanunix]

People are probably taking Time Warner's side because streaming cable channels to your computer is so obvious that everyone is shocked that the channels are objecting to it. The fact that Time Warner is doing it, and channels are trying to stop them, is pretty much where everyone stops reading.

Really, there should be no litigation here. Customers pay for cable service, which means channels are streamed to them; it should make no difference what type of computer they use to watch those channels.

Re:My thought is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The cable channel is getting the same viewership whether they allow it on iPad and TVs or just TVs. The big problem is that Nielson currently has no way of counting streaming viewers, so the ratings get lower and so do the advertising revenues.

In other words, people are siding with Time-Warner and the iPad because the companies should work with Nielson to change the way ratings are conducted rather than attack their distributors and renege on the current contracts which allow such streaming. It's just a less aggressive, more cooperative way of solving problems that you don't quite agree with.

Re:My thought is...

[Em Adespoton]

Huh? Time Warner is using its position as middleman to enable its customers to view vendor's wares on more devices in the home. The issue here is that those devices also have the ability to stream the same data directly from the vendors at a higher profit margin than they've negotiated with TW by freeloading* off of TW's network stream. The screwing over is not just one way -- both entities are attempting to screw over the other, because they both want the money, and only one of them gets to charge the consumer at consumer rates. The vendors have a choice to have TW broadcast their wares to a larger audience at a lower price, or to a dedicated audience at a higher price -- and they want to be able to do both without TW eating into those profits by allowing the dedicated audience to be a part of the larger audience.

*This is where Net Neutrality gets interesting; it's not really freeloading, as consumers have already paid TW for that bandwidth. Personally, if I was a cable provider, I'd make it part of my contract with the vendors that they do not try to undercut my rates by providing the same content directly to my customers. at a price higher than the contract stipulates but lower than a 20% markup on that rate.

Re:My thought is...

[smelch]

Time Warner doesn't need to be the middle man for internet streaming which is supposedly their future revenue stream. Networks are fully capable of negotiating a contract that says "well, we can get $X from streaming over the internet, so we think you should give us Y% of that for every subscriber based on these ratings. Take it or leave it." People aren't going to pay to stream a channel they get for free with their cable package. They have every right to not allow Time Warner to have their channel. However, they do not have the right to say "You're paying to view these channels, but I'll be damned if you view it on this arbitrary device that could also use a second delivery mechanism from us even though it doesn't have to! We think we can squeeze more money out of you for no logical, moral or technical reason. We are ENTITLED to the revenue from the hypothetical second delivery mechanism that we don't even have available yet!"

Re:My thought is...

[afidel]

Except the end user has already paid for the content twice (subscription and ads), only freaking insane media cartel thinking demands that the customer pay for the content a *third* time. Personally I don't care because if they make it too expensive or too inconvenient I'll just stop using their product all together. I'm already going to be watching less tv this quarter because my cable provider is going 100% digital thus killing my HTPC's PVR capability until I can get a CableCard tuner, but that's ok because it's starting to get warm enough to enjoy the outdoors again =)

Re:My thought is...

[Anonymous Coward]

This lawsuit has nothing to do with you or your formats.

Exactly. Since when does the customer get involved in the product the customer is paying for? That's just crazy talk. That's also Socialist of you. Were you born in Kenya, by any chance?

Re:My thought is...

[thetartanavenger]

It's remarkable how many people here are suddenly on the side of Time Warner Cable(!) and iPads(!!) as long as they're providing Teh Shiny New Modality.

I hardly think it's all that remarkable. People could generally care less about the profits and contracts a company enters into, if they are provided with the content they want in a format they want. Just because the other companies have got themselves into a hooey over contract details doesn't mean consumers are going to stop actually wanting what a company has finally provided.

Re:My thought is...

[Desler]

It's remarkable how many people here are suddenly on the side of Time Warner Cable(!) and iPads(!!) as long as they're providing Teh Shiny New Modality.

How dare someone go against the Slashtard groupthink!! BURN THEM!!!

Re:My thought is...

[Attila Dimedici]

Are any of these channels streaming their shows yet? Or in any other way making them available on non-TV devices? Have any of these channels even announced that they are going to do so? If not, then Time Warner is not using its position to screw them over. It is using its position to provide a service that their customers desire.
An important thing to note is that Time Warner is not going to allow you to stream these shows to your Ipad whenever you want. They are going to make it possible for you to watch these shows on your Ipad instead of on your TV (or in addition to your TV), this is no different than if you had a TV that received the show wirelessly from your cable box.

Re:My thought is...

[Anonymous Coward]

They (cable channels) are absolutely free to stream their channels themselves. This doesn't stop them.

There is no end run here by Time Warner. If TW allowed you to see the content AWAY from your home/cable equipment THEN the cable channels would have a leg to stand on.

What TW is doing is streaming content you ALREADY paid for, to another point of use IN YOUR HOME. Happens to be wireless, but so what, I'm sure there are and have been other wireless solutions that work WITHIN YOUR HOME to send content you ALREADY PAID FOR to a new monitor/TV/display.

I can't take my iPad and have streaming TWC in my car, or my job or my friends house or Starbucks or anywhere other than MY HOME with my TIme Warner cable box/Cable Modem.

Re:My thought is...

[R3d M3rcury]

It's strictly a business deal between content producers and a cable distributor; the content producers think Time Warner is welching on their deal to distribute the data according to their contract.

The problem is, of course, that they are not.

Time Warner has the right (via these contracts) to distribute the cable channels' content to me in my house. How I view it--whether on my beautiful 50" Plasma TV with Dolby Surround Sound or on my crappy 20" Tube TV with mono speakers--is besides the point. The iPad app basically turns my $499 iPad into a 9.7" TV with a cable box so if I want to watch the game in the backyard, I don't have to drag a TV and wire out there.

What I choose to view the content on is not covered by the contract, nor should it be. Remember, these content producers are the same people who figure I should by a CD for my house, a CD for my car, and a CD for my office if I want to listen to their music in three different places. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.

What if a cable channel wants to stream their channel themselves for direct subscription revenues?

Frankly, Cable Channels have had the option to do this for many years. They choose not to. They choose not to because they're not certain that they'll make the same amount of money. They make x dollars now distributing through cable operators and they don't want to jeopardize that money. If they started doing their own distribution, they'd be competing against the cable operators. Cable operators hate competition.

It's remarkable how many people here are suddenly on the side of Time Warner Cable(!) and iPads(!!) as long as they're providing Teh Shiny New Modality.

I'll admit, it's kind of like watching two bullies fight. In this case, though, I'll root for TWC because of the contracts.

Look, if you figure you should be paid more because I watch your program on a 50" Plasma TV versus a 20" Tube TV, that's your right as a content producer. Write up the contracts appropriately. But don't come crying to me because you made this deal and then some new way to view your content came out and you figure you should be able to get more money.

Re:My thought is...

[Golddess]

It's remarkable how many people here are suddenly on the side of Time Warner Cable(!) and iPads(!!) as long as they're providing Teh Shiny New Modality.

Unless I'm missing something, all it looks like to me is a TV (an iPad) is displaying what channel a cable box (the router) is tuned to. And that, I believe, is why most people here are "supporting" TW. TW is doing the same thing they do with TVs, and the channel owners are saying "nono, it's different!"

But lets presume it is different. Lets get rid of the unused tuner* on the TV. Is it still different?

Now switch the TV out for one that can browse the web. Is it still different?

Now get rid of the cable connecting the cable box to the TV, adding a wireless transmitter/receiver to both the cable box and the TV. Is it still different?

Now put a battery on the TV. Is it still different?

Now instead of delivering all channels to the cable box and letting it tune to the single channel you want displayed on your TV, lets have the cable box tell the central office the single cable channel to send it. Is it still different from what TW was doing with the router and iPad?

*I know not all TVs have tuners built in, but wanted to address all possible differences.

Re:My thought is...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're pissed off about this...they must be having strokes at all their viewers who have TV Tuner cards or some type of way to record their shows. That being the case...they're all ready six feet under when these same people edit out their commercials and watch the 20 or 40 minutes of continuous programming.

Yeah...I feel real sorry for them and their doomed business model. Too bad I get to intentionally miss all the old farts who can't get it up without a blue pill or some lady talking about her choice of feminine hygiene or birth control. On the other hand...those Capitol One commercials with the Vikings are a hoot.

Re:My thought is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The PVR model is dead anyway. You know damn well that TV will be 100% streaming/download in the future. Any episode of any show or movie you want, whenever you want it.

Way better than the old PVR model (which is of course itself way better than the old TV broadcast model).

Check out XBMC, Boxee, and similar software for your HTPC.

Re:My thought is...

[Valcrus]

Remember tho these are the same people that sued to keep people from having DVRs as well. They are just as backwards as the newspapers. Heck most of the chnls out there almost put their own stuff online at least the major stations that are going to be pitching a fit right now.

Re:My thought is...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Once one misses one or two episodes of a show because of scheduling conflicts, it is much easier to miss the 3rd, 4th, and 5th episode and so on.

I highly recommend kicking the habit. I dropped cable and stopped watching awhile ago. I don't even know most of the shows that are on TV these days. It's kind of funny to see people get so wrapped up in their favorite TV series and actors/actresses, when I've never even heard of them.

I did finally spring for Netflix and appreciate their instant streaming of movies. But even that is getting old now that springtime is here!

Re:My thought is...

[robot256]

Once one misses one or two episodes of a show because of scheduling conflicts, it is much easier to miss the 3rd, 4th, and 5th episode and so on. If that happens enough, the show loses viability. That happens to enough shows on a given channel, the channel loses viability. The key here is what constitutes a scheduling conflict. In the day of Tivo, bit torrent, and other competitors who don't mind streaming their shows... the bar for conflict is dropping steadily.

Actually, this raises an interesting point. Back in the old days, if you missed a show you would never get to see it again (until re-runs next season), and so you would either make a big effort to see it, or get a summary from your friends and keep watching, or drop the series. Now, you can "pirate" the episode you missed and get back into it. Except once you pirate one episode, you're more likely to pirate the rest of them (since it's so much nicer), and that's the same as dropping it.

Re:My thought is...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's remarkable how many people here are suddenly on the side of Time Warner Cable(!) and iPads(!!) as long as they're providing Teh Shiny New Modality.

It's remarkable how often this idiotic comment gets posted.

• - Different individuals have different opinions.
• - Different acts can elicit different reactions.

Re:My thought is...

[Anonymous Coward]

until I can get a CableCard tuner

CableLabs will never approve a device that doesn't have the tuner built in by the OEM. Forget MythTV, they won't even support Windows if the exact configuration isn't certified by them.

Re:My thought is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the end user has already paid for the content twice (subscription and ads), only freaking insane media cartel thinking demands that the customer pay for the content a *third* time.

You're not paying for it twice already, any more than I can say I paid twice for a $20 item by paying with two $10 bills. The subscription cost and ads are each *part* of their revenue, but it's not like the subscription or ads alone pay all their costs and the other is just pure profit.

But yeah, iPad access as an additional cost (other than maybe considering it another outlet/cable box) is paying for content twice.

Re:My thought is...

[Shadow99_1]

This is why I find myself p2ping documentaries... I may watch two or three tv programs, but my 'tv watching' is dominated by other things.

Re:My thought is...

[bye]

*This is where Net Neutrality gets interesting; it's not really freeloading, as consumers have already paid TW for that bandwidth. Personally, if I was a cable provider, I'd make it part of my contract with the vendors that they do not try to undercut my rates by providing the same content directly to my customers. at a price higher than the contract stipulates but lower than a 20% markup on that rate.

That would be one of: pricing cartel, unfair competition, abuse of monopoly power - or all of them.

Re:My thought is...

[afidel]

Uh, you're wrong. Windows 7 and Ceton InfiniTV 4 are already certified and the HDHomeRun Prime from SiliconDust is currently undergoing certification. The biggest problem in getting a tuner right now is that Ceton has a 8+ week backlog of orders.

Re:My thought is...

[Em Adespoton]

I'll take D for 75 trillion dollars, please :D

'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'

[Anonymous Coward]

You've already lost.

Re:'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'

[LordStormes]

Hey execs, call Charlie Sheen. He's #WINNING all the time, right? Seriously. This app is basically, "Turn your iPad into a TV while it's tethered to Time Warner service," which is effectively the opposite analog to TVs that now have Netflix/Vudu support built into them so you can turn it into a quasi-PC. If anything, the TV channel execs should have been more pissed about that, because eyeballs that used to watch reruns of Dawson's Creek are now checking out Netflix and other cheap/free streaming video options on their TV. This app is doing nothing more than making their content get seen by more people in more ways. The reason they're pissed is because THEY want to sell streaming apps of their own, so you can buy the Glee app and pay every month for that. What they're not seeing is that you have to be tethered to home (and your TW internet connection), which makes this app only marginally useful. If you wanted to take your iPad to the beach and watch Glee, this app wouldn't help you and you'd need to buy the silly Glee app from the network anyway.

Re:'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'

[LordStormes]

The right solution here is for somebody to make a TV/Internet service that allows 100% a la carte channel/content offerings. I have to pay $80 for TV to get all the stuff I want to see, but I have interest in fewer than 1% of what's available. I don't want your Music Choice, or your porn (I have my own of both). I don't want Martha Stewart. I don't even want football games other than the ones my team plays in. Seriously, the best model for stuff like this is iTunes right now. For the last season of Stargate Atlantis, I didn't have a cable subscription, so I paid $20 for a 4-month season pass for SG:A, effectively paying $5 a month for the one show I cared about rather than $100 a month for a zillion shows that I couldn't care less for. I got all the episodes, in HD, when I wanted to watch them, and without commercial interruption. My only gripes are that the people who watched on TV got to see it a few days earlier, and that the video purchase ratings don't count as heavily when determining whether to renew a show. Maybe that's the solution - let's take a recently cancelled show (pick any of the ones SyFy recently axed). Set a production budget for a season of the show, and then post online, "We need X dollars, which is X/20 subscriptions at $20 each. If we can get at least X/20 pre-order subscriptions, we'll have a season." I bet they'd make a pretty nice profit, and have nobody to share it with (except maybe Apple/Amazon/Netflix).

Old buisness models

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, buggywhip makers decry the surging popularity of horseless carriages.
And big content wonders why no one wants to watch TV anymore...

Fear of technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Embracing the future instead of being afraid of it is the only way these companies will survive. Listen to consumers.

Re:Fear of technology

[Thud457]

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
-- Jack Valenti

Re:Fear of technology

[MorderVonAllem]

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

was not - it was Jack Valenti's

Re:Fear of technology

[Anonymous Coward]

that's his sig, not part of his post...moron

Re:Fear of technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Whooosh!

Re:Fear of technology

[Anonymous Coward]

woosh

they're right

[frozentier]

The channel owners are right. You have NO BUSINESS getting what you already pay for! Especially if it is more convenient for you.

Re:they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! If it is more convenient, a lot of people would be willing to pay money for the convenience, but no one is charging them! It's like giving money away! And if someone invents a better sofa that improves the TV watching experience, of course content providers have to be compensated!

Re:they're right

[Idbar]

I think the key sentence in the summary is "I don't know what a TV is anymore". The line between a TV and a computer has become so thin, that I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with a DRM system/License that TV makers have to have in order to ensure the device is an "actual TV", just like HDCP compliance. But as long as they get all the money for broadcasting poorly produced shows (realities, which lack actors and writers) and get lots of profit, they will litigate as much as they can, because all that money has to get into the pocket of some executive.

Re:they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with a DRM system/License that TV makers have to have in order to ensure the device is an "actual TV"

Aren't various HD formats already doing that? Either way, it's a good thing. The more of these DRM systems and extra charges, the more people will decide TV just isn't worth it.

Re:they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe so; some new Blu-Ray movies will require an HDMI connection (over component) because otherwise it could be copied (not that people won't find a way around that).

Re:they're right

[FesterDaFelcher]

Completely off topic, but... Which reality show nowadays does not have writers? Seriously, the "confessional" sessions they do with these reality show "contestants" (which are paid something to be on the show whether they win or not) are purely scripted. They ask leading questions to get the answers they want out of them, and then don't air the questions being asked. For example:

Producer/Writer: "What would you say to Contestant X if she took your hairspray, phrase it like you were talking to her."
Contestant Y: "You better watch out [bleep], cause I'm coming for you!"

How is that not completely scripted? It happens on every so-called reality show.

Re:they're right

[magarity]

I think the key sentence in the summary is "I don't know what a TV is anymore".

No kidding it's the key sentence; a television company exec doesn't know what a tele (far) vision (sight) is?!? The name itself is pretty self explanatory, duh. Is he another viktem of the publek edjakashun sistem or what?

Re:they're right

[ignavus]

The channel owners are right. You have NO BUSINESS getting what you already pay for! Especially if it is more convenient for you.

You know, it is almost Calvinistic: "People are - gasp - enjoying themselves ... without paying for it!"

Instead of going to hell, you just have to sign up to a perpetual contract to pay them loads of money whenever you are caught enjoying yourself. And whenever you aren't too, just to remind you.

Re:they're right

[unitron]

That wasn't a television company exec who said that, it was someone from Time-Warner Cable, and it wasn't a he.

they're right!

[eagl]

Good god, if a tv show intended for viewing on a tv inside a home was allowed to be shown on one of those newfangled gadgets that are electronical and have viewing screens that show magical MOVING IMAGES while inside a home, who KNOWS what might happen NEXT! We gotta stop this NOW, before someone thinks of a way to somehow magically store those shows to see them later inside that same house, or, god forbid, see the shows on TWO TVs in the same house at the same time!!!!!111eleventyone

everyone panic and someone for the love of god CALL THE LAWYERS!

why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it a threat and tv is not? Both can serve content and ads

Re:why?

[Joce640k]

Your neighbor could watch it (if you give him your password...)

You could even rebroadcast it via P2P and the whole world could watch.

Re:why?

[hedwards]

I'm guessing it's so that they can charge some sort of convenience fee for watching the same programming on a different device. And they might cut the commercials down by one per commercial break.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

And they might cut the commercials down by one per commercial break.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! (snort)

Stop, you're killing me! You really need to go into stand-up comedy.

Oh my God, they are only paying me ONCE.

[gurps_npc]

Person A has paid for the service. They have the right to get the TV. The channels are upset that they are only getting paid once when they see other businesses have managed to cheat and get paid twice.

The fact that other companies have found a way to rip consumers off does not give you the right to do the same.

Re:Oh my God, they are only paying me ONCE.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they do get paid twice, just not by the consumer. They get paid once by the advertisers and then again from the cable company based on subscribers.

Fuck them, fuck corporate America.

Re:Oh my God, they are only paying me ONCE.

[jwhitener]

Although on-demand streaming isn't available yet, Time Warner said it will be added later. As well as recording.

I'm not so sure it is about the subscription fee. More likely it is lack of Nielsen ratings combined with the inability to compete for time slots if customers can on-demand their popular shows.

Like others have said above, it basically boils down to a revenue model that is not evolving quickly enough to match modern technology. Nielsen should be fed stats from streaming, dvr's, hulu, etc.., enforced in contract between any content producer any content delivery service.

That would at least help advertisers and content delivery people to bargain fairly for ad price per show per time. The remaining issue, in the minds of the networks, would be that there wouldn't be a way to compete over a time slot. TV show vs TV show competition is a major aspect of the current model. But I think that is one of the things that will just need to die off. Total viewers should be the only stat they care about, and Nielsen and other ratings agencies need to evolve away from time slot competition.

if we litigate we have a chance to win...

[kawabago]

Yes, if your suite can stop the passage of time you can win! As soon as you enter the future, you're finished.

Re:if we litigate we have a chance to win...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately they are actually turning back time, by litigating us back to the stone age.

Not sure what the big deal is

[unassimilatible]

This is way less of a threat than the Slingbox, which has been around for years. I've been streaming my TiVo and cable content to myself over the Net for 5 years. And of course they have iPad and iPhone apps now...

Re:Not sure what the big deal is

[E-Rock]

The difference is that most people don't know they can do it or just won't put in the effort to set it up. Now, it's install a free iPad app from the AppStore I already use and connect to the home WiFi I'm already using.

It's like how USENET is the biggest channel for illegal programs and media, but most people don't know how to use it. So it flies under the radar.

Re:Not sure what the big deal is

[Jerry Rivers]

Yup, I do the same thing. I have a Slingbox hooked up to my sister's cable service in Canada so I can watch programming I can't get here in the states. Works like a dream, yet I don't hear any bitching by the content producers.

Re:Not sure what the big deal is

[Anonymous Coward]

The numbers using Slingbox are far fewer than those using iPads and other mobile devices.

Re:Not sure what the big deal is

[devent]

Hm, if I would watch TV anymore the Slingbox would be quite useful.
Just looked what I could watch and the only decent movie is Star Wars V, which I have on DVD and a rip on my media server, also I watched it already like 50 times.

Re:Not sure what the big deal is

[Anonymous Coward]

I see web ads trying to entice me to join up with a USENET feed service "really cheap" with access to all the free movies and applications I want. It is hilarity.

Re:Not sure what the big deal is

[Nailer235]

Honestly I've never even heard of the Slingbox before. But it looks really cool. I might have to pick one up, thanks.

Re:Not sure what the big deal is

[MickyTheIdiot]

your phone's ringing!

Re:Not sure what the big deal is

[Vrtigo1]

Actually, it's not. To use a slingbox, you actually need to have a slingbox. To stream via TWC's streaming app, you presumably only need to have the stream exit your network on a TWC IP address. It's trivial enough for an intelligent person to set up a network that would allow them to use their iPad anywhere and have the traffic exit their home cable modem, so you could presumably watch streaming TV without needing to be at your home. I doubt the cable channels realize this, it's entirely more probable that they're just pissed at TWC for offering their content on new devices without having to pay them additional fees. It sounds to me like TWC is in the clear here, so I say hats off to them for innovating and piss on the cable channels for whining about it when they pretty clearly have no legal basis for doing so.

Re:Not sure what the big deal is

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's more of a threat than the Slingbox. Slingboxes tie into whatever set top box, etc. you already have and stream the content, which means that the magic AC Nielson is using to get their data through said set top box still works. With the iPad streaming app, Nielson doesn't get their data, and that's what the providers are upset about.

Really, Nielson just needs to get with it, or Time Warner just needs to start dumping enough access logs on Nielson's lap that they wake up and figure out what to do with them.

Re:Not sure what the big deal is

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you get around the internet bandwidth caps?

Why?

[olsmeister]

If they have more eyeballs on their programming at more times of the day watching the ads, and TW is still paying their programming costs, what are they losing?

A chance to win...

[MetalliQaZ]

Summary: 'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'

Win what? There is no prize for being the last one to innovate. Ask Atari, AOL, and DEC.

-d

Re:A chance to win...

[gstoddart]

Summary: 'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'

Win what?

Money.

Specifically, the money they feel they should be getting paid every single time you watch a program, and on every single device.

Content providers would love it if we reached the level where every time I watched a movie I had bought on DVD, they get paid for it. Watch an episode again on your PVR, they get paid for it. Re-read a book, they get paid for it. In their ideal world, a single viewing is licensed as a one-time event, with each person watching being part of the revenue stream.

I've already heard the argument that fast forwarding commercials should be illegal because the advertiser paid for that, and you should be obligated to watch. This, of course, completely ignores the fact that local markets already change the ads to those they've sold, and that in a re-run of an episode, it's likely to be a different set of commercials. But, they'd like their commercials to be an unalterable part of the broadcast.

Re:A chance to win...

[MickyTheIdiot]

The title of "asshat."

Oops.. better check again. They already have that one.

Re:A chance to win...

[yuna49]

I've already heard the argument that fast forwarding commercials should be illegal because the advertiser paid for that, and you should be obligated to watch.

I once expressed annoyance over at AVS Forum about the fact that I couldn't tell my cable box to jump to a particular timestamp. (In that instance, I had stopped watching a golf tournament after three hours and wanted to skip to the fourth hour of coverage when I returned.) Someone reminded me that there's no chance in hell a cable box would permit such a option. Ads these days are designed to insure that they make an "impression," to use the ad-biz term, even when watched at high speeds. So, no, you can't skip over all our ads again, even though you already saw them the first time through.

We all knew this was coming...

[pasv]

dont fight it, you'll just end up looking like a fool and be overtaken by more change happy competitors

Re:We all knew this was coming...

[Desler]

be overtaken by more change happy competitors

What competitors?

Re:We all knew this was coming...

[Anonymous Coward]

Real life, hopefully.

I work for a retailer that sells mostly outdoor clothing and equipment. It's GREAT news for my company whenever someone decides they are going to turn off their television and spend more time outdoors. I view television as a competitor. You can pass your time watching TV, or you can go for a walk, hike, camp, fish, hunt, etc. Choose the latter and you probably want the stuff my company (or one of its competitors) sells.

So should anyone who offers self-taught programming classes, hobbyist equipment, power tools, or anything someone could be spending time doing if they kill the boob tube and decide on a more active (either intellectually or physically) lifestyle.

We should applaud content producers for making their content harder and more expensive for people to consume. The end result will be an American public who is healthier, more active, and smarter.

kudos

[YodasEvilTwin]

I applaud Time Warner's forward-thinking attitude. Now, if only the cable channels would realize that they have a huge market to tap instead of racing to "protect" their increasingly irrelevant delivery method ...

Would RIAA v Diamond cover this?

[OverlordQ]

How SCOTUS decided that:

Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user’s hard drive.... Such copying is a paradigmatic noncommercial personal use.

If I buy Time Warner Cable, and have Time Warner Internet, and get shows from Time Warner and this app requires the above, wouldn't displaying the stream on an iPad instead of a television simply be space-shifting the stream.

Re:Would RIAA v Diamond cover this?

[Anonymous Coward]

How SCOTUS decided that:

Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user’s hard drive.... Such copying is a paradigmatic noncommercial personal use.

If I buy Time Warner Cable, and have Time Warner Internet, and get shows from Time Warner and this app requires the above, wouldn't displaying the stream on an iPad instead of a television simply be space-shifting the stream.

Probably, but that didn't (and still doesn't) stop these copyright trolls from trying to re-litigate this crap over and over and over again. See also:

- trying to make the VCR illegal: Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios

- trying to make home audio recording equipment illegal: Audio Home Recording Act (they got a royalty on every DAT blank out of that, even if you were using it to record YOUR OWN BAND)

- trying to make PLAYER PIANOS illegal: White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company

Note that in many of the above cases, the industry then bought some legislation that gave them moneez in spite of court rulings.

Re:Would RIAA v Diamond cover this?

[jfruhlinger]

The lawsuits in the article wouldn't be about your right to stream the channels onto your iPad; it would be about Time Warner's right to make the app available to its customers. Nobody's claiming that you're violating copyright; the channels are claiming that Time Warner is violating its contracts with them. Basically, they're saying they only sold Time Warner the rights to show their programming on television sets, narrowly defined.

No surprise

[vivin]

This should come at no surprise to any one. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Of course they're going to panic when they see control of the distribution channels slip away from them. What these idiots don't understand is that if they adjusted their business model, they could make a decent amount of money with current technology. Maybe that's why they're idiots.

I'm sure they'll come up with some bullshit argument as to how this is "stifling competition". That seems to their answer for everything. Kind of like "OMG TERRORISTS!".

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

The media market has been changing ever since the radio was invented, then the TV appeared, then tapes, VCRs, until today where we can have everything and anything on the phone.

They other change their business model, as their predecessors did when facing change, or read the history books and see what happened to those that didn't. As far as I am concerned, if they deny access, people will either find a service that offers them what they need, or turn to piracy. Either way people WILL get what they want.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel no pitty for these knuckle heads. Revenue streams would have been sound had they gone to market first. ABC had a nice app, but then stopped putting their popular shows on. Just because I don't want to watch your show on my already paid for TV doesn't mean I should have to pay you extra money to watch it on a different device. Dish network has a very nice app that uses a sling adapter. It's great.

The time Warner app sounds like a nice deal. too bad these people are too shortsighted to see the ratings boost.

Re:No surprise

[MickyTheIdiot]

Don't make them think and innovate. That just hurts their head.

Re:No surprise

[anyGould]

You've got it backwards - Times Warner is trying to pre-emptively take over another distribution channel without having to pay for it.

I've got to side with the networks on this one - they sold the television rights, not the internet rights. And if they have any brains, they'll have their own apps up and running ASAP so that they are collecting the cash from that revenue stream - because consumers won't care who's getting the cash, as long as they can watch their show.

Re:No surprise

[Antisyzygy]

The fact of the matter is that business time and time again is anti-competitive and non-innovative because idiot business people try to protect "old revenue streams".

Re:No surprise

[McKing]

Time Warner is *not* providing the shows via the Internet, but through the same infrastructure that their customers already are watching the shows.

In the real world:
TW Cable -> TW DVR

is the same to me as:
TW Cable -> TW modem -> TW iPad app

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

But the stupid thing is they aren't losing control of the distribution channels. Those are still securely tied up through their contracts. The channel is still going to a TW customer, through TW equipment, the only practical difference is that the TW customer now has a choice to use the iPad as a display device in the same way they use their TV. It is not like TW are giving their customers the option the view the channel over the 'net, the TW customer can only make use of this when they are on their TW connection when they would also be able to watch the same channel on their TV.

Get Over It!

[Ancantus]

To Quote Stewie Griffin:

What's this? There's something wrong with the house! I don't like change!

That Time Warner App is a sad and pathetic first step in comparison to even things like Hulu. Those customers are PAYING for the PRIVILEGE to watch their shows! It doesn't matter if they watch it on their TVs, Computers, Ipads. The commercials are still being piped in (which is all those execs should care about), who gives a crap if they watch TV while walking from room to room.

Cry me a river TV execs, build a damn bridge, and get over it.

It's time

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time for us consumers to tell these businesses that what really counts is: how we want it. Not how they want us to have it. If they cannot embrace how technology is changing everything, then they deserve to die out.

Netflix

[markov_chain]

With competition like this, I'm starting to think Netflix producing its own content is a great move.

Increased Revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see the issue here. Its not like their removing the commercials. The users still get counted by the cable company as a viewer thus not hurting the channel owner's revenue stream.

In this case their actually helping it. More viewers more money. I bet most of these users would find alternative means to watch a TV show from their back yards if this service was available and not all being legal.

I must side with the cable company on this one. I pay for a service I should be able to view that service from ANY device within my household area.

The sad part is TWC finally did something GOOD...

[robmiracle]

for their subscribers. For a company that is loated and hated by most of their customers who feel trapped in a dictatorship of ever escalating pricing, poor quality and lack of innovation, this iPad app is a serious step towards them doing something great for their customers.

They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[cpu6502]

Yes they like litigation, but what they're really doing is protecting their income. Each channel gets around 75 cents per home, per month. (Some get as little as 10 cents, others like ESPN get 300 cents.)

It is only natural for a business to want to protect itself from losing a valuable revenue stream.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[gabereiser]

But it's still going to the home, via the iPad app... And you can only access it through your home network (Provider provided network) so essentially, you can only access this content from your home, of which it's already going to your TV! You just happen to be watching it on an uncomfortable 10" TV with no HDMI inputs or Coax Cable and with a giant paywall of use...

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[David89]

yes but you would only be getting channels that you are already paying for and can watch them only inside your home. if i didn't own a tv i wouldn't have the cable contract in the first place. if im watching it on my tv i surely wont be watching it on my phone, and viceversa. therefore they aren't loosing customers, actually the way i see it they are permitting viewing of simultaneous channels at once (instead on a parent having to watch a kid show because of his child, he can get his phone and watch another channel, therefore doubling the amount of commercials viewed inside the house).

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[DinDaddy]

But they still get that income. They can only stream to the iPad in the home through Time Warner's gateway, i.e. "devices in the home".

This is about a cash grab. Another "my content is making your offering more compelling, so I get the money even though you did the work".

On the bright side, it's happening to Time Warner.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[mysidia]

They're trying to preserve theoretical income they don't have yet.

Time warner is a middle man. The channels want to bypass the middle man and sell streaming content over their (Time warner) internet connection to end users for retail price (instead of discounted prices you sell to a middle man at), while still charging Time warner high prices deliver the same channels to the same subscribers' TV.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean I can't watch on my iPad while in my backyard using my neighbor's wireless? How will Time Warner know that I am not in my neighbor's home? He pays for TV and internet service from TW. That should be all I need. Now I won't need to have my own TW tv service. Sweet!

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[jejones]

Heck, I'd be willing to pay the channels I actually use $0.75 per month in exchange for the ability to stream their programming over the net, especially if I can stream it to my system running Linux. BS such as "TV Everywhere" is just a way for cable companies to keep as many people as possible paying for both internet service and cable TV. They are avoidable middlemen trying to preserve their government-granted monopolies.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[Em Adespoton]

Please mod this up. This is the best summary I've seen anywhere of the issue at play.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[Anonymous Coward]

And because it is using the internet instead of you going over there and tapping into his cable line it'll be a whole new crime when you are stealing something that isn't yours.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[Altus]

I believe the idea is that the app will only stream to you (based on your login credentials) when your IP address matches the IP address for the account you used to log in to the streaming server.

So you could be in your neighbors house on your wifi if you are close together enough but then you probably could have run a coaxial cable in that case and used a regular TV.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[X0563511]

... and litigation is not the fucking way to do it. That's not what it's for.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[Anonymous Coward]

... therefore they aren't loosing customers ...

Since I'm on ./ I've learned that as a non-native English speaker one should always double check whether one loose something or one loses something ...

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time warner is a middle man. The channels want to bypass the middle man and sell streaming content over their (Time warner) internet connection to end users for retail price (instead of discounted prices you sell to a middle man at), while still charging Time warner high prices deliver the same channels to the same subscribers' TV.

Here's something else to keep in mind that goes hand-in-hand with this. This is supposedly exactly what many Slashdotters have been claiming they've wanted for years and years -- a la carte TV channels. However, I can assure you that when they come, everyone around here will start bitching about how they're getting ripped off, nevermind that they're being offered exactly what they claimed they wanted. For some reason, Slashdotters feel that they're entitled to the bulk-discount pricing instead of the individual-purchaser pricing.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[Ryanrule]

The channels want to sell you their whole channel lineup, whether you want it all or not. Its like how cd's are, 10% good stuff, the rest crap you dont want but have to buy as part of the package.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[Attila Dimedici]

If I could pay for just the channels I watch, I would pay $3 per month. I might even go as high as $5 a month.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[pixelpusher220]

Except that there isn't anything stopping them from streaming directly to the consumer. If they do it better, more seamlessly than TWC people will get it directly.

The channels have way more power than TWC does now thanks to the internet. They're just too stupid to realize it.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[DesertBlade]

I would probably pay 2-5 each channel, if allowed to stream what ever show whenever I wanted, with no commercials. I think I watch only 4-5 stations on a regular basis so I figure it will run about $20-30 a month. Maybe even offer a discounted commercials included option.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[praxis]

I might be in the minority, but I do want a la carte TV channels. In fact they'd be getting infinitely more money from me that way as the only show I care to watch that's not available OTA is on HBO. That show is not worth $70 a month that Comcast would charge me, so no dice, but if I could get that one channel or show I'd gladly pay $10 or so a month for it.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[mysidia]

Except that there isn't anything stopping them from streaming directly to the consumer. If they do it better, more seamlessly than TWC people will get it directly.

Time warner can stop them, by not providing a sufficiently high quality internet connection, for the streaming to be successful. They could limit the longevity of a connection (so you can't watch a long program uninterrupted), shape certain bandwidth, or give the channels poor access to TW's network.

People streaming significant amount of Television will be using a lot of bandwidth (probably beyond the capabilities of their own internet connections, if everyone does it), so TW can discourage by capping internet usage... E.g. Verizon-style 2GB per month cap.

Time warner cable internet can provide much better access to their own streams, since they themselves are streaming it -- the stream data doesn't need to cross congested transit links (to other providers they pay for limited amounts of transit internet access needs)

The cable operator could also block/disrupt the channels' websites, or demand they pay for the ability to use their customers' internet connections.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[Man On Pink Corner]

And how's that been working out lately for the CD peddlers?

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[MBGMorden]

Here's something else to keep in mind that goes hand-in-hand with this. This is supposedly exactly what many Slashdotters have been claiming they've wanted for years and years -- a la carte TV channels. However, I can assure you that when they come, everyone around here will start bitching about how they're getting ripped off, nevermind that they're being offered exactly what they claimed they wanted. For some reason, Slashdotters feel that they're entitled to the bulk-discount pricing instead of the individual-purchaser pricing.

Why is that so bad? If buying the 8 channels you actually want costs more than buying 292 channels that you want along with those 8 channels, then it's of no use.

A la carte pricing is only viable when there is some semblance of parity with the overall package.

As to "bulk discount", that's a model that is completely outdated in related to things like TV channels. If you're buying physical goods, then bulk discounts make sense. You're taking a larger quantity of merchandise off of the owner's hands at once, meaning they recoup their investment on those items faster, and they no longer have to store the items. In the case of perishable items like food this becomes particularly important as there is an ever present danger that if they don't move enough product quickly enough it will spoil and need to be thrown out.

Digital goods suffer no such issues. There is no need to store any instance of the information beyond the first. It doesn't go stale, and they haven't paid for a set amount of copies ahead of time that they need to recoup the investment on. The whole notion that "it should be cheaper in bulk" is just an illogical holdover from the trade of physical goods.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[Attila Dimedici]

For no commercials, whetever show I wanted whenever I wanted, I might go as high as $10 a month...Of course then I would have to cut back on what channels I watch. That wouldn't be much of a hardship, since if I could watch the shows I like whenever I want to watch, I would not need to watch as many channels to find something I'm interested in when I want to watch TV.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[RobDude]

Swimming in my neighbor's pool might be a crime. But stealing really isn't it.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[SighKoPath]

And all of that is why we want net neutrality.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[Bing Tsher E]

We're geeks here, dude.

The only thing we run on a coaxial cable is 10base2.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[cpu6502]

>>>The channels want to bypass the middle man and sell streaming content over their (Time warner) internet connection to end users for retail price

Yeah you're probably right.
Why sell Syfy channel just once, when you can sell it twice? First to the CATV provider, and second to the iPhone user.
I apologize for my earlier post (which was modded -1).

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[cpu6502]

>>>This is supposedly exactly what many Slashdotters have been claiming they've wanted for years and years -- a la carte TV channels. However, I can assure you that when they come, everyone around here will start bitching about how they're getting ripped off,
>>>

Flat wrong.

What we want is to be able to buy the current bundles (~70 channels for basic, ~300 channels extended), OR individual channels. We want the choice

BTW a la carte already exists for Satellite radio and it works great. ~$15 for the whole bundle of channels, or $6 for forty channels of your choice. I now subscribe to XM radio where it used to be too expensive, because now I get exactly what I want.

Same with CATV - I'd choose MSNBC, FOXnews, Syfy, and that's it. $5 hookup fee plus ~$2/channel. Much, much less than $60 currently charged.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[unitron]

On the bright side, it's happening to Time Warner.

Couldn't happen to a nicer cable company.

Of course if you're one of their victims, I mean, customers who wants to watch a show on a little-bitty screen, then it's also happening to you.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[mysidia]

Hm... I just wonder how long it will be before someone makes an inexpensive network appliance containing a TV tuner, you just plug in to your cable, and comes with a free iPhone app to stream ANY channel locally at LAN performance, or remotely (from anywhere), by using your WAN...

And how long before that functionality gets integrated by major DVR manufacturers....

This would let you get all channels. Not just the few Time warner is streaming. It's not like you absolutely need the cable providers doing this to have it.

Are the Cable channels forgetting that the courts have ruled DVR as a service is not a copyright violation? Specifically Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings: Remote DVR Does Not Violate Copyright Protections Afforded to Television Program Copyright Holders

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[VirginMary]

I might be in the minority, but I do want a la carte TV channels. In fact they'd be getting infinitely more money from me that way as the only show I care to watch that's not available OTA is on HBO. That show is not worth $70 a month that Comcast would charge me, so no dice, but if I could get that one channel or show I'd gladly pay $10 or so a month for it.

Seconded! I don't pay for cable and don't watch OTA TV broadcasts either. I either watch DVDs or blu-ray discs or stream video over the 'net. If there was an à la carte service, there is the distinct possibility that I might pay for a cable channel or two. But, unlike you, I would not be willing to pay more than $5 per channel and even that seems high, given the other options that I have. Also, typically I would only watch a show or two per channel and at $5, that's $60 per year. Likely enough to buy whatever shows on DVD or even blu-ray. And yes, I *can* wait! Of course, if I paid for a channel or two, I'd be griping that their still in the stone age when I have to either record a show or watch it when it is on rather than streaming it whenever I feel like watching it. ;) I am certain that I would not pay $10 per channel. I pay $5 per month to stream animé in 720p w/o commercials. And the selection is quite large. Frequently I get episodes one week after they're released in Japan, w/ good subtitles. (I hate dubbed animé.) Btw., the streaming video looks awesome on my 46" TV. I have no idea why anyone would pay for cable! I also use Hulu. And gasp, I spend far more time reading than watching the boob tube! Let's say you have kids, then it is probably a good idea not to have TV available 24/7 anyway and, with the money you save, you can buy DVDs for them with material that you approve of.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home.

[mysidia]

And all of that is why we want net neutrality.

Maybe. But TW could stomp all over channels' streams without running afoul of any proposed net neutrality regulation.

Network neutrality merely provides that TW doesn't inspect customers' traffic and give different treatment based on the type of network service used.

Network neutrality doesn't say a provider can't have data caps for users, or that a provider cannot have network congestion at its peering/transit links, when the connection between the customers and the ISP's own servers is uncongested (due to larger backbone pipes inside the ISP network than the amount of bandwidth from peering arrangements to communicate with other providers).

Slingbox

[mario_grgic]

I have been doing this with a Slingbox for 8 years now, and I can (theoretically, since I have not really watched TV in at least 5 years now, beyond some BBC news here and there) watch my cable TV anywhere in the world either on my computer or mobile device. I don't remember anyone ever suing Slingbox.

Besides, you would think people wanting to watch your crappy, commercial riddled programming would be a good thing? But no, these fuckers are so set in their ways that any change is perceived as threat.

no different than Slingbox, which has been allowed

[neurocutie]

this TW app (which works pretty well), is not any different than Slingbox (its more restrictive than Slingbox, both in channels and in tying you to your home network, unlike Slingbox). So its not even "place shifting" or time shifting.

what's the beef?

For a second there

[future assassin]

I thought they were talking about Canadian media companies.

Re:For a second there

[multipartmixed]

Nah, Global and CityTV already have iPad apps. And they are available to anybody, regardless of who you get your internet from.

We're just waiting for CTV's iPad app and we can ditch the satellite. Their web site is pretty good, but I like the mobility of the iPad. And AirPlay, of course.

Media hype

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because one of the running stories by the media is that the iPad is "the device of the future" and it has to somehow be a part of every fourth story. So the mostly unexciting story that Time Warner customers can watch cable at home on their iPad without a Slingbox or similar is much bigger in the "news" than it actually is. The executives and lawyers hear this and think "WE ARE LOSING THE FUTURE THE IPAD AND FACEBOOK ARE EVERYTHING" so they make a lawsuit which is also huge news.

iPhone

Facebook

iPad

Hear more at 11!

Re:Media hype

[Creepy]

This is incredibly stupid - the iPad needs to be on the wi-fi network, so it HAS to be in close proximity, so it is ridiculous to assume it isn't being used by the content licensee.

A slingbox, on the other hand, is a proxy server (well, that and does content resizing if necessary) and makes it look like the content viewer is at some location when they could be anywhere (including off of the planet). Of course I could just record the content on my computer and set up a proxy server and do basically the same thing (would need to write an app to resize content as it is streamed).

The only way, and I repeat, the only way for the content owner to prevent it from being streamed anywhere on the planet is to control end-to-end communication of the content. Good luck there.

Winning!

[mosb1000]

Sounds like they've borrowed their definition of winning from Charlie Sheen.

Re:Winning!

[geekoid]

Hmm, Charlie Sheen manages to get out of a contract while still getting paid for said contract.
Yes, that does sound like winning.

Crazy like a fox.

Comcast already does this

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, are they late the party. Comcast already does this. I've not tried to see if I can watch at McDonald's but, I wouldn't be surprised if I can. Please, I get to watch the OnDemand stuff, HBO type stuff and so on.

What about redirection?

[HockeyPuck]

If I have an app that allows me to watch TV on an IP enabled device, what's to stop someone from writing an application that redirects (aka "rebroadcasts") the content to someone outside of your home network? Now you've got a way to circumvent the cable companies all together because now I could pay for the channels and then rebroadcast the content to all of my friends.

Re:What about redirection?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, you can already do that with off the shelf parts.

That said, a home internet connection doesn't normally have enough upstream to do this reliably, so 'all your friends' are more likely to just grab a torrent of the show.

Re:What about redirection?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can already do that. Get a TV card, a slingbox or one of the other many options. All of them are probably simpler to redirect than the iPad app.

Re:What about redirection?

[Em Adespoton]

As far as "an application that redirects" goes: if you're set on misusing the content, why not just set up a VPN? All your friends can then VPN to an isolated network node that has your iPod rebroadcasting via AirTunes, for example. Nothing needs to be written; the software's already all available and installed (and your router might even support VPNs out of the box).

Since it's a VPN, it's really not much different than inviting all your friends over to watch the show on your TV (which surprisingly is just as illegal).

Re:What about redirection?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can already do this with a Slingbox

Re:What about redirection?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is and never was anything technically stopping anyone from doing this. It is just a legal issue.
What is stopping someone from doing what you propose and trying to sell it? They'd get sued into oblivion.

captcha: innovate, heh.

First Impression

[Anonymous Coward]

I got the TWC iPad app. The first thing I noticed is there is no DVR, and therefore no commercial skipping. I thought "Wow so it's great I can now watch TV in rooms I don't have a TV in, and the tradeoff is I (more or less) have to watch their commercials now."

I'd thought the content providers, if anything, we're paying a premium to be there. They get way more add eyeballs this way.

Are they really that stupid? I never watched any commercials before this iPad thing came out.

Re:First Impression

[Em Adespoton]

They don't care about that; they don't get paid because you watch their ads; they get paid per household from TWC and per household from the advertisers. They still get paid even if you never see the ads. If I were an advertiser for one of these channels, I'd be delighted, as the channel would be ripping me off less -- but the channel only sees this as a lost possible revenue stream (TWC can legally provide to you for no further cost what they wanted to provide you for additional subscription cost themselves).

Unclear

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly does this affect their revenue stream? The exact same content with the exact same commercials is being shown on the iPad as is shown on the TV. If anything they are gaining revenue because this becomes more convenient. It only works while tied to the cable providers network in the home, so it is essentially like plugging in a 2nd tv. I'm really confused here as to how they think they have any sort of a case here at all.

Re:Unclear

[0123456]

How exactly does this affect their revenue stream? The exact same content with the exact same commercials is being shown on the iPad as is shown on the TV.

But they could be making you pay twice, once to watch it on the TV and again to watch it on the iPad. The holy grail of media distribution is to be able to charge you every time you access their media anywhere on anything.

Keep it up...

[Dunega]

Keep it up channel owners and I'll completely stop watching TV. Most of what you have out now is crap but there's a few gems in there. It wouldn't pain me much to stop watching it all together, already stopped buying music a long time ago and haven't gone to a movie in over two years.

Re:no different than Slingbox, which has been allo

[MistrBlank]

They're just upset they didn't think of this distribution model first, they didn't contract TW out of doing anything like it with their services and they weren't able to rip off consumer by providing it through their own distribution channels first.

Certainly, who would pay them for their channels to be streamed from their website if they can just stream it to their iPads for free* (free in the sense that you're already paying for it) on their TW accounts!

Which is the other issue, if this story didn't have iPad attached to it, they wouldn't care. It's a ME TOO case where the channel owners want to be making money off of it too and don't like that they were beaten to the punch.

I like it...

[Graham J - XVI]

...when cable channels are in a panic.

It's dumber than that

[Daetrin]

In other news, buggywhip makers decry the surging popularity of horseless carriages.

No, as far as i can tell from the description they're not worried that people don't want to buy buggywhips anymore. This is buggywhip makers complaining that people have discovered a new way to use their buggywhips, but each person is using the same whip for multiple purposes instead of buying a separate whip for each way in which they want to use it.

Re:It's dumber than that

[Old97]

Buggywhip manufacturers can't stop S&M! S&M is the wave (or whip) of the future. They can litigate if they wish, but if we choose to repurpose our buggywhips in the privacy of our own homes, they can't stop us. I'll pirate a buggywhip if I have to. I can get one through bitetorment.

What's good for the goose...

[rgviza]

I guess it's ok if you are the channel cutting out the cable network (HBO, Starz, Showtime on Netflix) but not the other way around... /shrug

typical

Of course this is like watching two guys you hate beat the shit out of each other. You can't help but to cheer the fact they are beating each other senseless.

People still pay for Cable?

[bynary]

I don't watch much TV anymore and what I do watch I find...ummm...online from...legitimate, yeah that's it, legitimate...sources (in Russia).

Re:People still pay for Cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Re:People still pay for Cable?

[anyGould]

I don't watch much TV anymore and what I do watch I find...ummm...online from...legitimate, yeah that's it, legitimate...sources (in Russia).

Here in Canada, I can get three of the four major networks via iApp. (CTV seems to be the slowpoke in this regard). I buy internet, but not cable, and can watch the two or three shows I sorta-care about that way. (The shows I *actually* care about - my must-sees - I buy from iTunes).

Even if I was in a Time Warner area, I wouldn't be interested in their app, because I'm sure it would require me to pay for the cable service first, and I don't want to pay for all the various tiers required so I can get at the four channels I actually want to watch.

VPN TV

[Anonymous Coward]

So if i VPN my home network i can watch cable from my home network and its still technically the same thing correct?

Imagine if...

[Anonymous Coward]

Two industries got together and said, we can let this new technology beat us we must find some way to sue them out of business! They would complain to the government that allowing the new technology would cost thousands of jobs hurting the economy and the working class asking for special tax breaks, subsidies and incentives.

Now suppose those two industries were passenger steamships and passenger trains and they sued passenger airlines. Imagine a world where it would take you two weeks to travel between North America and Europe. Where UPS, DHL and FedEx would not exist as we know them today.

These companies just don't get it. The Internet and on demand media is a disruptive business and technology just like the cotton gin, steam engine, trains, cars, airplanes and countless other examples before them. The quote "I don't know what a TV is anymore" sums up the problem better than anyone else could.

Written while streaming stuff on Netflix bypassing your antiquated business model of watching things when the cable channels feels it is in their best interest, not mine.

Serious?

[agent_vee]

You would think those channel owners would be happy that their viewers can watch their shows from anywhere in their home and they didn't have to do a damn thing!

Re:we must focus on (paying to see) the images

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that what you wrote is gibberish, yes?

This is bad for content generation

[sheemwaza]

This means that the cable company can now track exactly what you are watching (you're asking for a specific channel's content, not a firehose of all channels at once). This could make life difficult for the content networks and affect the efficiencies of bundling. Comcast might be paying 30 cents per household for the Crocheting network now, but when they can show hard numbers that nobody is watching, those numbers might get slashed, which is probably why those entities are scared right now.

Everyone complains about the homogenization of our channels (What the hell is up with the programming on the History channel?!), but this could do more to hurt the more "indy" channels out there.

Re:This is bad for content generation

[0123456]

So you're saying that TV channels might show things people want to watch rather than things people don't want to watch? And that's a bad thing?

Re:This is bad for content generation

[Hazard X]

The problem with it is that if they have solid numbers about what's popular, all that will be produced is clones of what's popular. Another way: because corporate bean counters only respond to the statistics (when available) it means that whatever the most popular thing is is what will be produced, no one will take risks on a radically different kind of show. Think back when "reality" TV shows were a "new" big thing, the first few were hugely successful, since then less so. Think of what horror would result if whomever made decisions on what new shows to approve had numbers for how popular other things were.

Re:This is bad for content generation

[dino2gnt]

IPTV services such as AT&T Uverse are like this already, but the networks that generate the content still rely on Nielsen ratings to decide popularity, rather than AT&T's streaming statistics.

Re:This is bad for content generation

[RoverDaddy]

I would think if you are using a set-top box / PVR from the cable company, they can already monitor the channel you're watching. Why wouldn't that box be sending the info back already?

Re:This is bad for content generation

[yuna49]

Do you really think cable operators don't know down to the minute how many of their subscribers' boxes are tuned to which channels? I'd be shocked if they don't know those figures already. I suspect that one reason Nielsen survives in the advertising marketplace is that they continue to provide an alternative measure of audience sizes independent of the cable and satellite operators.

That and the enormous amount of inertia in this field. When millions of dollars turn on a rating point, there's a lot of value in having an independent agency doing the measurements.

(Disclaimer: I once worked on audience measurement technologies in the early 1980's.)

Re:This is bad for content generation

[I(rispee_I(reme]

What the hell is up with the programming on the History channel?!

Well, since you asked...

Netflix funding movies and television

[drewzhrodague]

With competition like this, I'm starting to think Netflix producing its own content is a great move.

Is this how Sci-Fi, Bravo, A&E, TBS, etc., all started to produce their own shows? I welcome this from Netflix, Hulu, Microsoft, or any other vendor -- give us more science-fiction. How do I tell them this with my dollars?

Xfinitity/Comcast had an app for this for a while

[Phizzle]

Xfinity TV is the name of the app on the App Store. Lets you stream On-Demand stuff over wifi, has your channel guide for your ZIP Code and acts like a big remote control for your iPad 2. One thing I noticed is, its not the same selection as the regular On Demand, its considerably smaller with stuff like Discover channel missing, heavily loaded with BBC, HBO, and some other pay channels. All in all not a bad thing.

omg

[Charliemopps]

'If we allow this without litigation, everyone will do it tomorrow,' says an anonymous source.

Everyone's already doing it today you moron. Illegally. And you're making no money off it. STOP FORCING THE PUBLIC TO PIRATE YOUR CONTENT SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU'RE STUPID.

Re:omg

[Em Adespoton]

Not everyone's doing it illegally; some of us are doing it legally via slingbox and the like.

There are very few people who aren't doing it though. The only issue I can see here is that TWC gets very precise metrics on who is watching what -- the results of which mean they might want to pay less for niche channels, and might reveal this information to the channels' advertisers, who would then realize how much they were being bilked by the channels, and move to more profitable ones/pay less money per ad.

Who am I supposed to hate more?

[essjaytee]

I don't know who to root for here. It's a group of really, really, really evil companys against a merely really, really evil company.

Am I supposed to root for Time Warner? Really?!

They can't stop the future!

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't stop the future, these silly men.

Re:no different than Slingbox, which has been allo

[powerlord]

And its also less restrictive than a Slingbox, you don't need to dedicate a Stream from your Cable Co. (either hijack your main video feed, or pay for/use a secondary feed).

What's next?

[formfeed]

People using hacking devices called coax cables to create rogue secondary viewing locations?
People leaving the bed room door open, so they can watch the TV in the living room while being in the bed room?
People watching TV on devices that are under user control?

'If we allow this without litigation, everyone will do it tomorrow,'

Exactly!

Re:The sad part is TWC finally did something GOOD.

[Matheus]

I had no problem with TWC when i had them... right up until the much more evil Comcast came in a forced them out of our market... grr.

baybys, mommys tear gassed in brussels yesterday

[Anonymous Coward]

not seen on cnn, fox, slashdot? must not rank up there with stuff that really matters. smoking mommys & babys? honestly? are they that scary?

Turn it off!

[mallyn]

It's free;

And go out and play! Do hobbies!

I've been 'free' for 32 years.

Resistance if futile.

[Mysticalfruit]

Apparently these hacks missed the whole DVR revolution? They never ever heard of slingbox?

As far as I can recognize TV viewers fall into the following categories.

* Traditional TV watchers who structure their lives around watching specific shows at a specific time.
* DVR TV watchers who sit down and watch a previously recorded show. Maybe at some specific time (such as after the kids are in bed, etc) maybe not.
* Content consumers who watch their show of choice on their device of choice, may it be a tablet, laptop, smartphone, etc.

It's quite possible there's a Venn diagram of the latter two.

The executives want the first kind, stubbornly tolerate the second kind and absolutely hate the third kind (it would appear). What it comes down to is that their revenue model is breaking and they can't adapt fast enough.

I'm of the opinion that we need to move to an ala-carte system where you'd pay for the channels you want.

Re:Resistance if futile.

[geekoid]

The internet IS my dvr.

Hulu was very close to being THE place for TV for the next few decades, too bad the choked on greed* and went subscription.

I mean, a place that has ALL TV every produced, even with ad, would be awesome. AND the channel companies could cut Time Warner et al out. 30 sec commercial, 15 sec commercial, 30 sec commercial.
  also have a subscription model for all the content, just without commercials.

You advertise you're self as a DVR replacement. Everyone, except cable companies, would make money. Tie that in with related promotions.You would own the future of "TV" entertainment.

*by greed I mean taking a short term opportunity over a long term one for money. I don't mind that people make money, or even that they make lots of money.

Re:Resistance if futile.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable companies could make money too by becoming full-time ISPs and tiering their bandwidth to video content. They don't have to lose, they can win too along with the content providers and the consumer.

Re:Resistance if futile.

[SydShamino]

* Traditional TV watchers who structure their lives around watching specific shows at a specific time.

Given how they like to randomly shuffle around shows, I can't imagine they care at all about these viewers either. (Hello season finale of Detroit 187 randomly airing on a Sunday as the most recent example to spring to mind. Thank goodness for DVR magicks to pick it up while I'm recovering from SXSW.)

Re:Resistance if futile.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you on al a carte. I know there's a lot of Apple hate on Slashdot, but follow me on this for a sec. Imagine your only cable box is your Apple TV, and every TV channel is an app. Buy/subscribe what you want, and only that. I can't see any downsides to this in revenue and ease-of-use for a consumer. Nielsen would also go away entirely as the dev team would have exact numbers of eyeballs on the app.

Change Apple TV to any other device such as Roku, Vudu, WD Live.

Re:Resistance if futile.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here! Here! Someone buy this man a beer!

Re:Resistance if futile.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about skipping isochronous distribution entirely, and with it, scheduling of any kind?

Re:Resistance if futile.

[crdotson]

Why pay for channels? Pay for shows. Tags are the new "channels"; we're not dividing up VHF frequencies any more.

And that is why they'll FAIL

[Lead Butthead]

Because they're providing what their paying customers want, for once. God(s) in heaven, we can't have that.

Baby Boomers need to retire, let the children rule

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole communications industry is ruled by too many old men who are ignorant of the products and services they provide. Once the baby boomer generation retires can we will finally see some changes in how content is distributed. For now their are too many old men in rich suits pissing themselves about the interweb.

Oh my god, it's coming right for us!!!

[elrous0]

[jumps out window]

Re:Oh my god, it's coming right for us!!!

[PPH]

This Internets thing is evil. Perhaps we can get ARPA to reverse their policy and restrict access to it.

Win what?

[rangek]

'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

Win what? The ability to stop people from watching your shows? I would have thought people would want their shows to be watched. If they don't, why do they make sell them to the cable company?

Pretty obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

They are concerned about the loss of the ability to charge the same person more than once for the same content.

mod parent up

[WiiVault]

As someone who spent some time in the network TV world I just want to say you nailed it. These are indeed the 3 kinds of viewers. #1 is dying or moving on, #2 is stagnant with slight growth driven by free company boxes, and #3 is in huge growth thanks to smartphones, iPads, and media servers.

Re:mod parent up

[yuna49]

Back in the early 80's I worked on a foundation-supported audience measurement project. We used both diaries and telephone "coincidentals" to ask about viewing and attitudes toward programs. One question we asked was whether the person had "planned ahead" to watch a particular show. At the time that figure was only about 25% of a show's audience. (We had both cable and broadcast viewers in our samples, though the number of channels available to cable viewers was clearly much much smaller than today.) At that time, most people still seemed to fit the mold of the traditional "least objectionable program" viewer. I suspect that model still holds true for a lot of peoples' television viewing even today.

Already Possible?

[dragonjujotu]

Couldn't I technically do this anyway by properly setting up my computer with my cable box?

Let's see:
TV Tuner card
Cable Box
Wireless Router
Ability to remote into computer hosting the TV Tuner

Yep, looks feasible to me. Sure there might be some limitation with QAM/ClearQAM, but it certainly looks possible.

Isn't their problem with Nielsen?

[hawguy]

From TFA:

"They're upset because Nielsen can't yet capture all that data," said Richard Greenfield, an analyst with BTIG Research. "I think there's a lot of debate going on among the programmers as to what is and isn't allowed."

So why don't they just sue (or I dunno, maybe just ask) to have monitoring hooks for Nielsen built into the iPad software? How does Nielsen monitor usage these days? I imagine they are way past the "Fill out this journal every time you watch TV and we'll pay you $1/week" days.

It doesn't even have to be a part of the iPad app, since I'm sure TWC is tracking everything you watch on the app on their own, so they could just send a feed of viewing data for Nielsen families direct to Nielsen. Or does Nielsen not trust the cable companies to send accurate data?

Then everyone is happy - viewers get to watch TV on any device they want to and the cable companies get to count those viewers.

Re:Isn't their problem with Nielsen?

[mysidia]

So why don't they just sue (or I dunno, maybe just ask) to have monitoring hooks for Nielsen built into the iPad software? How does Nielsen monitor usage these days? I imagine they are way past the "Fill out this journal every time you watch TV and we'll pay you $1/week" days.

They don't have "just one thing" to do it. Most Nielsen households just get the "television diary" in the mail, where they are asked to journal their TV watching. Sent to random households. I see no reason this would be any different for iPad users, they would just need to adjust the questionnaire at most.

Other Nielsen households are randomly selected to get a special "nielsen box" installed on their TV for longer periods of time.

The Nielsen box is essentially an appliance that is hooked up to the TV's video inputs, and the Cable/Satellite box's output is hooked to the Nielsen box's inputs, so the Nielsen box monitors what signal is being transmitted to the TV. The Nielsen box is also hooked up to one of the TV's speaker outputs, so they can detect if the volume has been muted.

Anyways... this being all bespoke hardware... I see no reason the 'nielsen' TV box couldn't just as easily be converted into a passive sniffer box you plug in between your cable modem and your PC/router.

To monitor which streams you are pulling...

Re:Isn't their problem with Nielsen?

[yuna49]

Or does Nielsen not trust the cable companies to send accurate data?

No, the advertisers don't trust the cable companies to send accurate data. They'd rather trust an independent third-party whose been measuring audience sizes for over half a century.

Re:Isn't their problem with Nielsen?

[mysidia]

How does Nielsen monitor usage these days?

Most of the Year = People Meters

During Sweeps Periods; Journals sent out.

If only there was a way for both sides to lose

[mykos]

Best ending.

+1

[RingDev]

no points, mod parent up!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Stubborn thinking due to aging policies.

[ThreeDeeNut]

T.V. had it's day in the sun. But "television" is a business based on a product. The product of T.V. is aging and dying. The fact it still remains at all shows the power it once had. The fact that you have a computer monitor and t.v. when the monitor is better resolution, crisper, cleaner and has the ability to do everything the t.v. can do and more is absolute proof of redundancy of device. They of course are trying to make bigger screens to enhance the theater feel, but, in the end television was outmoded by the computer and a stringent hold on the market is due to the simplicity of delivery. But that will never outweight their biggest hurdle... watch what i tell you when i tell you. Computers ever become "understood" and simple tasks like flipping a channel for most people is just as easy as clicking... and they allow me to choose what i want when i want. So the device is effectively dead and the business struggles to hold on. What is amazing to me is that television refuses to embrace the internet. They think (maybe because the television industries name is tied to the product) that their product is dead. In fact, i believe it has never been more alive. Look at youTube. It is a pretty poorly built site with quite a bit of room for improvement... most importantly content such as the television industry provides. Should ABC or FOX or whatever other tv company choose they could develop their business in harmony with the internet rather than fighting a tide they will never win for (in my belief) for the reasons stated above. Maybe their investments in infrastructure will pave the way for other inventions and devices. People pay crazy money for DLC nowadays. I mean they spend $1.50 on this, 99 cents on that etc. A well formed tv conglomerate would do well supporting independent "television" products and offer them a good deal on media distribution through a good website where people pay $x.xx per show, season, etc. I'd certainly pay for a season of lost streamed to my computer i dont want to lose that... i just want to not need a television, cable box, supporting audio system, remote controls or any of the other garbae that goes with it. Nor do I need a tv guide so i can plan my day around my shows. TV companies still have the core people to organize better quality shows... wow, that was a long... sry all.

Hold I missed something here

[CrackedButter]

People are willingly paying for content and they *still* want to sue (somebody)?

Waging war on their paying customers

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again this is an example of a company waging war on its paying customers. And, once again, it is actually less hassle to get the content from an "illegal" source.

Really, the day that media moguls get it in their dense skulls that it might benefit them to make it easy for potential customers to pay them for a service that is in obvious demand, that day, the universe will stop existing. That's how mind-numbingly stupid they are.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The sad part is TWC finally did something GOOD.

[DigiShaman]

If you worked for a cable co such as TWC (I'm an ex-employee), this is nothing new. In-fighting between your local Cable Co and the broadcasters is an age old non-stop holy war. Both the providers and the conduit want a cut of the profit. The only thing new is that you guys on Slashdot are just now figuring this out. So the next time your sporting event gets blacked out, or your rates change, it's quite possible that your local Cable Co is passing the costs down to you along with other inflationary expenditures such as fuel and electricity.

What's a 'Home'?

[PPH]

'I don't know what a TV is anymore,' says one company exec

Its not so much that ....

contracts they've signed with the channels allow broadcast to any device in the home

... as what exactly qualifies as a home? Only that which lies within the walls? What about a TV out on the deck or in the pool house? My iPad on the front lawn (That's right. Stay off of it!). Next door? Down the street? In the next town?

Its all about the contract language and the distributor's inability to lock down the terms under which they get paid.

Re:The sad part is TWC finally did something GOOD.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they so hated? We have them in our town. I use them and have been happy with the service. It is reliable. They come on time, and I agree on their price. Heck, their pointy haired bosses seem to understand that I have something other than a tv in my home and like to use it my way and not there way. Where is the problem?

They should be happy!

[hAckz0r]

With this new method they are able to push even more Commercials out the door and increase the amount of time people are watching their station/content. What does it matter if they are using one device verses another, at least they are watching!

Misquote in the summary

[g0bshiTe]

'If we allow this without litigation, everyone will do it tomorrow,'

I think everyone has done this, and they did it yesterday.

Streaming cable is already here.

[Peaceful_Patriot]

I stream it on my droid when I'm away from home.

http://cvinetwork.com/

http://wwitv.com/

There are dozens of sites like these. Use with Windows at your own risk.

Allow me to translate.

[drunkennewfiemidget]

"I don't want to work for my money. I'd rather rest on my laurels."

Worried about advertising

[flimflammer]

Apparently, watching television from the app doesn't give any information regarding your viewership so they can't count you towards the ratings and advertising revenue decreases somewhat, and that's what they're upset about.

Shouldn't this be something easily fixed?

I did it years ago using MPEG4IP and a tuner card.

[pecosdave]

That particular program is incredibly out of date now, but I'm sure you can still get it to work, and the Sling Box has popped up since then, so the content providers can bite me.

BTW:

I don't really watch TV anymore. The Fox cartoons and Southpark now that all my Sci Fi shows are canceled.

so what

[Skapare]

I can already hook up a gadget to my cable box analog outputs and stream that video anywhere in standard definition (high definition in many cases). And this stream doesn't stop at my home boundary. An additional device lets me control the channel the cable box selects. All this is without any hacking on the box whatsoever. The only way Comcast can stop this is to make the box shut off all analog outputs, or disconnect my cable. Are they going to disconnect everyone that does this?

But I'm not talking to Comcast (they might care, but that's not the issue right here). Instead, I'm talking to Scripps Networks Interactive, which has now shown itself to be an utterly clueless company (well, given that it is old money, that was kind of a given, anyway). SNI needs to understand that Cablevision is actually doing them a good thing.

By Cablevision making this app, most people won't be forced to use the "dark" side of the internet and grab tools that let them take their viewing habits anywhere. OTOH, what is that a bad thing for an ad sponsored network? Oh, something about Nielsen? Get over it. Oh, you wanted to shaft the public for extra shill to be mobile? That's just mechanism ... you only deserved to be paid for viewed content, no more. Technology enables the masses more than it does the corporation. Learn to work within the new business models, or perish in chapter 11.

Once again Slashdot misunderstanding the basics

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about YOUR rights its about TIME WARNER's rights. Of course it is fair use to use something like Slingbox. The question is whether Time Warner's contract with the channels allow them to provide the service. Its a BIG difference.

Welcome to the new television business model

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI networks, you're time is running out. Netflix is producing and distributing shows, independents are producing and distributing shows, and viewers don't want to be tied down to their televisions anymore. You're analog companies living in a digital world.

Networks better realize that the way they've been doing things for the last several decades is dying off, and they're going to need to act fast if they're going to be around in the next several decades. Or even next several years.

Slingbox?

[dnahelicase]

I thought it was silly you had to be in a house with Time Warner Internet to get this to work to begin with. I like having a Slingbox so I don't have to even be in the same country, let alone the same home.

I mean, it's a little expensive, but it's a luxury like cable. You can use a tuner card and do it yourself, but the slingbox is easy. Especially if you have a SlingCatcher, you can use it as a cable box at home, but take it somewhere else and hook it up to a TV and be happy as well.

Is it the multi-tier system breaking?

[Wandering_Burr]

At the end of the day content producers and owners need to recognize that there is value to having people seeking out your show. Whether that is watching it live, later on DVR, or on TWCs iPad app because the DVR missed the episode it is contrary to their interest to make that content difficult for a fan to find.

The ecosystem also needs to clean up the rights to broadcast/stream so it is clear what is being purchased when a show is sold to a network. This should include a plan for getting content everywhere that Netflix streams to. They currently have 35 hardware devices on their supported tech list. They range from game consoles to Roku boxes to phones. If you own content you should have a plan to get your content to a sizeable chunk of this list. Having TWC send it to iPads is a good start. Clean up your contracts so it is clear if they can.

The crazy thing is they could probably get me to watch a non-skippable commercial on the TWC/iPad stream which I would skip right past on my Tivo.

[cc: any thread about hulu on non-computer hardware]

Oh, the horror!

[Lost Race]

Time Warner says the contracts they've signed with the channels allow broadcast to any device in the home â" 'I don't know what a TV is anymore,' says one company exec â" but the channel owners fear that this will disrupt current and future revenue streams and that they need to stop it now.

Oh the horror, that technology might actually improve people's lives without first being productized, monetized, marketed, legislated, litigated, and consecrated by all the proper authorities.

Technology has the power to break down so many barriers, to streamline so many stupid little inefficiencies in daily life, but a few big businesses are so invested in wringing profit out of those barriers and inefficiencies that we just can't seem to get rid of them -- instead we go to great lengths to preserve and enhance the barriers instead of just rolling right over them! (e.g. DRM)

I don't understand their panic

[JustNiz]

In most people's houses in the US, the only tangible difference between a streaming TV show and a broadcast TV show is that the signal uses different protocols. They even both come over the same cable from the same provider.

My actual TV (samsung LN52A750) is really a computer. it has an ethernet connector and apparently runs some form of Linux. An iPad (not that I would ever own one) is more locked-down and DRM-ridden than my TV actually.

Apparently you won't even be able to save the show on the iPad for later viewing, just view it in your own home. _Exactly_ identical to your TV service other than its on demand.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

this may be good for us in the end

[craftycoder]

If the content providers win and they start to stream their own content to us then I can get what I always wanted in the first place, that being "a la carte" pricing of cable TV content. I refuse to pay $50/month for the 4 channels I'd like to watch, so I just don't have TV. If all the cable channels start to stream their own content for a buck or two a month then I can finally get a little content which I for one would like. PBR on VS for the win!

Seriously?

[penguinman1337]

'If we allow this without litigation, everyone will do it tomorrow,' says an anonymous source. 'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

I couldn't have summed up the modern corporate philosophy better if I had tried. When in doubt, sue. How dare they do something innovative or convenient to their customers?

LOL

[he-sk]

"Oh noes, you burst my little bubble!"

Hilarious. Pass me the popcorn, please.

I don't know what a TV is anymore

[Nyder]

'I don't know what a TV is anymore,' says one company exec

Yes, that is apparent by what you put on it for us to watch.

or

"I don't know what a TV is anymore, " says one company exec, "because i was born into a rich family, cheated/paid my way thru school, and was given this job to pay for my coke habit."

DRM?

[yuna49]

I wonder if the iPad app includes DRM for this very reason. How does TW control access to the stream? Is it encrypted via a proprietary method? Can I intercept the stream with another box like a computer running Linux and watch it on that? Having just fought to require HDCP so they can ensure complete end-to-end control over HD content, the program producers may well worry that this app won't provide an equivalent level of security for their content. Perhaps the channel operators and program producers have more tech savvy than we here give them credit for.

This is incredibly stupid - the iPad needs to be on the wi-fi network, so it HAS to be in close proximity, so it is ridiculous to assume it isn't being used by the content licensee.

Why? Cable operators have fought for years against illegal redistribution of their services. Suppose I'm a TW cable subscriber and make a deal with my fellow apartment dwellers to share the cost of my subscription with whomever can see my wifi router.

The article is rather short on specifics. Can I stream a different channel than the one to which the set-top box is tuned? If not, that seems to make the producers' concerns a lot less persuasive.

Mine Eyes Have Seen A TV Show

[SEWilco]

Do they want my eyeballs or not?
I wouldn't be streaming unless that was the best way to get the show to my eyeballs, and they would have me watching less if I couldn't stream it.

Dumped all my cable tv

[Scratch-O-Matic]

I recently completely dropped all my television service after getting pissed off one too many times at my cable bill. No basic cable, no dish, no nothing. Only Internet. I figured I'd go out and get one of those digital broadcast converters when I had the urge to watch television..but I haven't had that urge yet. Instead, streaming from Netflix has completely filled my need. Several years ago I had a thought experiment in which I tried to decide if I'd rather give up tv or Internet if forced to choose. I reluctantly figured I'd do without the tv. The real decision was a much easier choice by far.

Streaming eventually invalidates Neilsen

[rsborg]

... streaming isn't counted by Nielsen

Then Nielsen is fucking stupid, and by extension so are the execs for the channels that are accepting what Neilsen says. Streaming views should be easier to collect and be more accurate than doing statistics on a sample and estimating how many viewers there were.

The reason is Nielsen will also be fighting the rearguard battle that the channels are starting to fight. They are all part of the same old-world horse and buggy-whip economy that gets invalidated by a massively disruptive technology invention.

Example? No one online trusts Neilsen, they use ComScore. As activity shifts from TV to streaming and online, Neilsen hasn't made the transition.

That's great!

[steeleyeball]

So the Channel owners sue ComCast and Apple... Comcast and Apple then put more ridiculous restrictions on their apps. Then people get annoyed with Apple, Comcast and the Cable Channels... This is a plan with no drawbacks!

Fuck all of them

[Legion303]

"'If we allow this without litigation, everyone will do it tomorrow"

Translation: "Must...stop...infinitesimal innovation!"

Good point

[Anonymous Coward]

I consume the same data whether on an iPhone or on my computer.

That may be true for you, but I doubt it is true for everyone. Viewing the Internet on the small screen on a phone is rather tedious.

So when we're using the data on our iPad, it should cost less than when we're using it on our big TV, and when we're using it on our iPhones it should cost even less. So Cable channels need to find a way to charge us less money.

Getting extremely tired of the bull

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that we as the pay television consumers are seriously approaching the "go !@#$ yourselves" point. I'm getting really tired of advancement in entertainment being held back the greedy must squeeze every single penny people. I don't expect change overnight, but I DO expect change. I realize that the contracts don't allow for a la cart programming, but they should. I'm tired of having to pay for crap I'll never watch and overpaying for things that make no sense. The second I try to use my technology for something its made to do I have yet another overpaid piece of human flotsam telling me I have to pay yet again for something I already pay through the nose for, well bite me!