Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
"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??
" 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.
The channel owners are right. You have NO BUSINESS getting what you already pay for! Especially if it is more convenient for you.
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!
The fact that other companies have found a way to rip consumers off does not give you the right to do the same.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Yes, if your suite can stop the passage of time you can win! As soon as you enter the future, you're finished.
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...
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
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?
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
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
dont fight it, you'll just end up looking like a fool and be overtaken by more change happy competitors
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 ...
How SCOTUS decided that:
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.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
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!".
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
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.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. -- Isaac Asimov
With competition like this, I'm starting to think Netflix producing its own content is a great move.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
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.
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
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
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?
I thought they were talking about Canadian media companies.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Sounds like they've borrowed their definition of winning from Charlie Sheen.
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.
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...
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.
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).
Track IP - Remotely track the IP address of a machine via email or MySQL.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Your neighbor could watch it (if you give him your password...)
You could even rebroadcast it via P2P and the whole world could watch.
No sig today...
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.
...when cable channels are in a panic.
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.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
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.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
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).
http://www.bynarystudio.com
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.
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!
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.
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).
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?
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
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.
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.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
'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.
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.
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).
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
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!
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.
And go out and play! Do hobbies!
I've been 'free' for 32 years.
Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
Please mod this up. This is the best summary I've seen anywhere of the issue at play.
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.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
... and litigation is not the fucking way to do it. That's not what it's for.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
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.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Because they're providing what their paying customers want, for once. God(s) in heaven, we can't have that.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
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.
[jumps out window]
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
'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?
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.
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.
Yes, I am obsessed with ellipses.
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.
Best ending.
no points, mod parent up!
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
People are willingly paying for content and they *still* want to sue (somebody)?
Jonathanjk.com
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.
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.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Life is not for the lazy.
'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.
Have gnu, will travel.
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!
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.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
I think everyone has done this, and they did it yesterday.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
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.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
"I don't want to work for my money. I'd rather rest on my laurels."
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 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.
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.
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.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
And how's that been working out lately for the CD peddlers?
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Swimming in my neighbor's pool might be a crime. But stealing really isn't it.
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.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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.
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.
And all of that is why we want net neutrality.
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.
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, 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)
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.
We're geeks here, dude.
The only thing we run on a coaxial cable is 10base2.
>>>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).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
>>>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.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
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.
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!
'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?
"Oh noes, you burst my little bubble!"
Hilarious. Pass me the popcorn, please.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
'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."
Be seeing you...
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.
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.
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.
Evil is the money of root.
... 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.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
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!
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.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
"'If we allow this without litigation, everyone will do it tomorrow"
Translation: "Must...stop...infinitesimal innovation!"
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
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.
When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
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).