Time Warner Cable Goes to Court for iPad App Content Rights

[b3beater]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Is this anything like paying for unlimited data plan on an iPhone but have to pay extra for texts... ;-)

 

[carmenodie]

TV programs are paid for by we the consumer. That is the reason commercial TV exist. Now, when cable streams TV programs, the networks and the cable people are triple dipping, as a whole into the pockets of the consumer.

1) We pay for TV programs by buying the goods and services advertised on TV.
TV programs are actually commercials for commercials.
2) We pay for Cable. So we pay our cable bill that gives us access to those already paid TV shoes by way of good ole shopping at Walmart.
3) We pay a surcharge to the networks through our cable bill(mine is a $1.83 a month through Atlantic broadband) to compensate them mother******* at the networks for being able to access their sh** through our cable provider.
This is greed incarnate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ingot]

If I lived alone and wasn't married, I'd seriously consider not having DirecTv or cable at all.

All I really watch is live sports and a few shows I watch on iTunes or Netflix. The 100 bucks a month I pay seems rather silly. Nonsense like this pushes 1 step closer to ditching cable / satellite.

Our family is doing quite well without cable. We ditched it a few months ago up here in Saskatchewan and have not looked back. Sports is not really an issue as I can follow my Riders on TSN.ca and old fashioned radio. Netflix and eztv cover the rest for us and we are saving a $100 a month. AND no throttling or capping YET.

 

[tbobmccoy]

Our family is doing quite well without cable. We ditched it a few months ago up here in Saskatchewan and have not looked back. Sports is not really an issue as I can follow my Riders on TSN.ca and old fashioned radio. Netflix and eztv cover the rest for us and we are saving a $100 a month. AND no throttling or capping YET.

I wish I could do this... I need someone to create an app that'll act like a tv; my wife doesn't want to think about what to watch, just when she wants to watch something. I've been trying hard to get her to break free of the coax snake for a long time and I just can't break her of the habit

 

[qtx43]

Weird = Unusual = An iPad app that only works in your house.

How many other apps do that? If there are many I'll withdraw my 'weird.'
I don't know of any others myself.

Well... when you put it that way. Okay, let's tentatively go with 'weird'. What would also be unusual is if the cable company let you watch it anywhere (not in your home). So, having covered all cases (in home plus not in home), the fact that the App even exists at all is weird. Except I don't think it's a weird app, it's useful and totally to be expected, even if it's not the holy grail of Apps. Why? Because 'unusual' is only tangentially a synonym for 'weird'.

 

[Mister Snitch]

Wait wait wait.

There's a lawsuit involving a cable-tv company and I'm on the cable-tv's side?

That IS odd, isn't it. This cable company is actually fighting for something that benefits their customers. (And, if they win, ALL cable customers, everywhere.) When did I step over into the Bizarro universe?

 

[Lord Bodak]

The networks really need to get with the times. The Time Warner app allows TW customers to watch the exact same content they have in front of their TVs that they're already paying for. This includes all the commercials.

The genie is out of the bottle. Bittorrent isn't going away. Either the networks and cable companies work together to provide access to the content the customers are paying for, or those customers will find alternate means to watch the content without paying for it or seeing the ads.

 

[Popeye206]

Anyone but me find it ironic that its the content creators trying to keep us from seeing their content however we like?

My prediction... the networks want to go direct.

Cable companies and satellite providers are a sales channel for them. With the internet, they can have direct access to the customers without cable or satellite. So... my guess is there are several looking to go direct soon.

Personally... I'd love it if it was $.99 per-channel per-month. My TV bill would drop below $10 per-month in no time.

 

[qtx43]

...that they're already paying for. This includes all the commercials.

Exactly. I don't know what the networks are whining about.

Personally... I'd love it if it was $.99 per-channel per-month. My TV bill would drop below $10 per-month in no time.

No it wouldn't. They'd still want to bring in the same revenue, so they'd raise prices until they did. Maybe some channels would go out of business, and maybe someone else would find an opportunity, but overall it'd be the same price for access to fewer channels.

 

[Ingot]

I wish I could do this... I need someone to create an app that'll act like a tv; my wife doesn't want to think about what to watch, just when she wants to watch something. I've been trying hard to get her to break free of the coax snake for a long time and I just can't break her of the habit

It did take a while. But once we got hooked on the PVR and watching only what we wanted to and when we wanted to, it became easier to make the transition. It is work for me though as I have to download the shows and handbrake them for the apple tv. On the positive side I am watching more shows from other regions in the world rather than just North American produced media. One great series I am loving is Great British Railway Journeys from the BBC.

 

[barkomatic]

That IS odd, isn't it. This cable company is actually fighting for something that benefits their customers. (And, if they win, ALL cable customers, everywhere.) When did I step over into the Bizarro universe?

This temporary "benefit" to consumers is merely a side effect. TWC is NOT doing this on behalf of consumers but to make its own services more attractive or competitive against those of others. Only being able to watch cable shows on your iPad within your own home is not a huge win anyway. Big deal.

If I were a content provider I would simply start offering my content directly to tablet users for a small monthly fee. Imagine not having a cable account but being able to pay HBO $15.00 a month to stream all programming.

However, the cable companies would be totally against that and either take them to court or remove them from the lineup. Cable TV is a dirty, dirty business on both ends make no mistake. In the long run consumers will not end up ahead.

 

[Consultant]

Actually, I don't think you do. Yes, they are the first to bring out an app, but in reality, Viacom wants to cut out the middleman, and sell content directly to you. Middlemen=overhead.

As a non-cable customer, I would rather have Viacom sell their content directly, or strike a deal with a internet pureplay supplier (hulu,netflix,youtube etc) for distribution.

Nope, it's not sold, but an iOS benefit.

Maybe you don't understand the concept of app is free for iPad? Those on the network are already paying the ability to view the shows.

 

[AlligatorBloodz]

This is a big deal. Interesting to see what happens. It all depends on how the contracts are worded.

The word "duh" comes to mind

 

[baleensavage]

Wow, for once I'm siding with Time Warner and hoping they win this one...

 

[AlligatorBloodz]

Our family is doing quite well without cable. We ditched it a few months ago up here in Saskatchewan and have not looked back. Sports is not really an issue as I can follow my Riders on TSN.ca and old fashioned radio. Netflix and eztv cover the rest for us and we are saving a $100 a month. AND no throttling or capping YET.

Same here. To save money we cut our home phone, satellite and replaced dsl with cable. We were paying like $200 a month. We got hulu plus for our iPads and have never looked back!

 

[alent1234]

I heard about this. It is really useless. You have to be home to use it. But you already have TV in the house. Most people would simply opt for another TV if they watch in another room.

I guess if you need to go to the toilet and a sporting event is on it would come in handy but then again you can just pause it.

say the kids are watching something or i'm playing on the x-box when my wife wants to watch desperate housewives. ipad and the TWC or cablevision app to the rescue

 

[hitekalex]

Can someone explain how this is different from something like SlingMedia streamers? Or EyeTV, which lets me stream every channel to my iPad, anywhere. Not just in my home.

 

[blevins321]

Can someone explain how this is different from something like SlingMedia streamers? Or EyeTV, which lets me stream every channel to my iPad, anywhere. Not just in my home.

Money is the only difference, from all sides. Time Warner (or other provider) doesn't lose a time for Slingbox viewing besides upload bandwidth. You're out the $150 or whatever the device costs, plus the app charges for mobile device viewing ($30 for my iPad. Providers (and this is where it gets tricky) think they deserve more money from Time Warner because TWC is sending the programming out over 'another medium.'

 

[srxtr]

Considering more and more people are moving away from cable, you'd think more people would support the TW app.

 

[*LTD*]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)

Why??

The iPad's just a fad.

 

[rdowns]

Personally... I'd love it if it was $.99 per-channel per-month. My TV bill would drop below $10 per-month in no time.

LMAO. They sell you a single episode for twice that.

 

[Popeye206]

Exactly. I don't know what the networks are whining about.
No it wouldn't. They'd still want to bring in the same revenue, so they'd raise prices until they did. Maybe some channels would go out of business, and maybe someone else would find an opportunity, but overall it'd be the same price for access to fewer channels.

I hear what you're saying, but disagree too.

I do agree some channels would die. Big deal. They would be the ones with no value anyway. These channels make some money from cable distribution, but remember, most make money from advertising.

For the good channels, they would probably make more.... what do you think they get now? 150 channels divided by their share of $30 a month (the base cost on Direct TV today). So, let's assume Direct TV takes $10 for their cost, then splits up $20 by 150 channels, that's only $.13 per-channel for their share. Something tells me it's less than that too. So, at $.99 per-channel, they would make more money per-subscriber and have direct control over the customer.

So... again... I disagree and think this is what some of the more popular channels are looking for.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

I setup one of my Macs as a VPN server so I can get a secure connection to home and watch LiveTV over 3G or WiFi when not at home. It works great.

That sounds better than what Time Warner is offering.

Most of us own a TV that's too heavy to cary around, I think.

Right but you are at home so you can watch the TV.

This isn't a service for sending your TV channels to you when away from home. It only allows you to watch it on devices around the home. But why not watch on the 40" TV instead of the ipad at home?

 

[derek1984]

I'm getting all ESPN channels free over 3G, not just at home on wifi. Clarity is pretty good too. Really an amazing app guys if you have TW.

 

[jedivulcan]

These lawsuits are missing one key piece; the consumer. Here we have digital content provider (Viacom) and a service provider (Time Warner) over which devices I bought being able to tune into set service of content that I'm paying for.

Neither one of these companies represent the consumer or doing it for anything else than their self-serving benefit. Damned shame...