Time Warner Cable Pulls Some Channels From iPad App, Adds Others

[marksman]

This is getting off topic, but I have a directivo sitting in the corner collecting dust. I owned tivos since they first came out, but a few years the directv dvrs got good enough to replace the tivo experience, and as far as a I know the new tivo box will have a premium monthly charge, so I seriously doubt I will switch.

I am a big fan of the technology brought into the world by TiVo and ReplayTV, but TiVo has been one of the most amazingly horribly run companies I have ever seen. I am shocked they are still in business...and I guess they can thank Dish for that...

Anyways back to time warner fighting with fox.

 

[greengiant912]

My question though is how is this any different then having multiple TVs on your cable account? You can only watch TV on your account when your in your own home and on your own WiFi. Time warner took some pretty big steps to make sure you can't "steal" cable... It is a pretty secure app.

I am just wondering why Viacom and others are bitching? Its just like going in the other room and watching it on the other TV... Doesn't allow you to watch TV away from home..

 

[bella92108]

I am a big fan of the technology brought into the world by TiVo and ReplayTV, but TiVo has been one of the most amazingly horribly run companies I have ever seen. I am shocked they are still in business...and I guess they can thank Dish for that...

Wow... first I've EVER heard someone say a TV\Satellite Provider's DVR doesn't suck. I got rid of DirecTV cause their DVR sucked.

I went to Comcast, and had a Tivo Series 3 then now a Premier, and you'd have to pry this thing out of my cold dead hands. Tivo is arrogant, like Apple, but can be so because they have a quality product that no competitor touches.

You have your opinion, but anyone with a Tivo would disagree, lol, and you shouldn't be surprised their out of business because people love them, just to clue you in, hehe

 

[ftaok]

You clearly haven't left the US much. MOST other countries offer programming ala carte, and it works fine and is almost always about a buck a channel. It basically turns into you getting a bunch of the nonsense like home shopping free with subscription of 10 channels... television in the US is so regulated, taxes, and expensive because of things like ESPN and Disney having such a dominance on the providers, this country is f'd...

What they do in other countries has nothing to do with how they would do it in the USA. Do you seriously think the cable companies would introduce a choice where they stand to lose money? There's no way, unless the FCC forced them, that this would happen.

Also, $1/channel is way too low. Just because you can get 10 channels for $60, doesn't mean each channel would be priced at 60 cents. IIRC, a popular channel like ESPN costs the cable provider $4/subscriber ... and that's with Disney forcing the whole ABC/ESPN/Disney package of channels onto the cable co.

If ALC does happen, I would guess that most people would pay the same or more than they currently do. A small percentage may pay less, but it really depends on what channels they pick (and whether those channels survive).

And how is that a con? The reason cable companies say they charge so much is because they give 100s of channels. If there were only 40, they couldn't hide behind that.

It's a con when channels that focus on specific programming are forced to close up or offer the same old crap that everyone else does. For instance, a channel like BET may not survive to provide focused programming to the African American community because they would likely lose over half their subscriber base.

And since when is the goal of business to protect the undesirable? If 10 chain restaurants open in your town and nobody eats at 2 of them, should the other 8 raise their prices and give the overage to the 2 nobody likes? No, the 2 should shut down. No sense in having a business if nobody wants the business. Cable channels are a business.

This isn't the goal of diverse television programming. Take a look at Obama's position on ALC. This is what I'm referring to.

As for letting the less popular networks whither, I do see this as a con. Networks will need to appeal to a broader audience in order to compete. Get ready for 15 channels showing the same formuliac sitcom. 20 channels of reality TV shows. 10 channels of daytime/social talk shows. 15 channels of sports. And 13 channels of news. No room for channels like History Channel or Discovery Health ... as they'll morph into a TNT or SpikeTV.

 

[bella92108]

My question though is how is this any different then having multiple TVs on your cable account? You can only watch TV on your account when your in your own home and on your own WiFi. Time warner took some pretty big steps to make sure you can't "steal" cable... It is a pretty secure app.

I am just wondering why Viacom and others are bitching? Its just like going in the other room and watching it on the other TV... Doesn't allow you to watch TV away from home..

Well TECHNICALLY Time Warner and Comcast (my provider) have tiny fine print in their service docs that say you have to report "additional outlets" to them and are subject to monthly fee.... now clearly I'm not going to call them and tell them I have a 15" tv plugged in in the second bedroom so they can charge me $4.95 more per month, but it is within their rights to do so, it's just another shady tactic they use. There's only 1 of me in the house, so how can I be using the content on more than 1 TV at the same time? LOL

It's like software... TECHNICALLY you buy a license.. you can use it on as many computers as you want for personal use, just not simultaneously... so one license is fine if you have a desktop and laptop. The line blurs with things like operating systems where you might have the desktop and laptop on, but only using one at a time... so there's grey area...

Either way, this sh%t is bananas!

 

[bella92108]

What they do in other countries has nothing to do with how they would do it in the USA. Do you seriously think the cable companies would introduce a choice where they stand to lose money? There's no way, unless the FCC forced them, that this would happen.

Also, $1/channel is way too low. Just because you can get 10 channels for $60, doesn't mean each channel would be priced at 60 cents. IIRC, a popular channel like ESPN costs the cable provider $4/subscriber ... and that's with Disney forcing the whole ABC/ESPN/Disney package of channels onto the cable co.

If ALC does happen, I would guess that most people would pay the same or more than they currently do. A small percentage may pay less, but it really depends on what channels they pick (and whether those channels survive).

It's a con when channels that focus on specific programming are forced to close up or offer the same old crap that everyone else does. For instance, a channel like BET may not survive to provide focused programming to the African American community because they would likely lose over half their subscriber base.

This isn't the goal of diverse television programming. Take a look at Obama's position on ALC. This is what I'm referring to.

As for letting the less popular networks whither, I do see this as a con. Networks will need to appeal to a broader audience in order to compete. Get ready for 15 channels showing the same formuliac sitcom. 20 channels of reality TV shows. 10 channels of daytime/social talk shows. 15 channels of sports. And 13 channels of news. No room for channels like History Channel or Discovery Health ... as they'll morph into a TNT or SpikeTV.

So I pay $60 a month and get all of the channels you mentioned above:

SpikeTV - Unsubscribe Please
TNT - Unsubscribe Please
History Channel - Unsubscribe Please
Discovery Health - Unsubscribe Please
BET - Unsubscribe Please
ESPN - Unsubscribe Please
ABC Family - Unsubscribe Please
Disney - Unsubscribe Please


I'll take:

Discovery
TBS
Comedy Central
A&E
CNN
HGTV

I'd gladly pay $5 per channel knowing those channels are supported and any funding is stripped from the others. That'd half my monthly bill, and $5 a channel is more than fair, right?

If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.

But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.

 

[bella92108]

What they do in other countries has nothing to do with how they would do it in the USA.

Yeah because being hard headed and refusing to change with the times has done so well for us as a country (Car Industry, housing market, manufacturing process, infrastructure improvements, etc)....

 

[ftaok]

I'd gladly pay $5 per channel knowing those channels are supported and any funding is stripped from the others. That'd half my monthly bill, and $5 a channel is more than fair, right?

Then perhaps you'd be one of the ones that would end up paying less. However, if you think the channels you keep would remain unchanged, I think you'd be disappointed. Get ready for sitcoms, reality shows, and political pundits 24/7.

If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.

Just because a channel can't garner enough subscribers doesn't mean it's crap. Look at the stuff these days that get the ratings. This is what cable TV may be reduced to if forced to go ALC.

But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.

You're right that it's irrelevant, but not because of where the money comes from. It's irrelevant because it won't happen any time soon. There's no support for ALC from any group other than consumers. The Democrats don't want ALC because it will hurt diversity in programming. The Republicans don't want ALC because they see it as interfering with a free market. The cable companies don't want ALC because it involves change and may hurt their bottom line. The networks don't want ALC because it would mean fewer channels/less profits. People who work in the TV industry don't want ALC because they may lose their jobs.

Yeah because being hard headed and refusing to change with the times has done so well for us as a country (Car Industry, housing market, manufacturing process, infrastructure improvements, etc)....

I'm not saying that ALC is bad; some days, I'm on your side. I flip flop on this all the time because there are such goodsides and downsides to this. Change can be good, but there are always unintended consequences to change. In the end, it's just TV, so there's nothing earth shattering. Just good, honest debate.

BTW, this has gotten way off topic. Sorry.

 

[bella92108]

Just because a channel can't garner enough subscribers doesn't mean it's crap. Look at the stuff these days that get the ratings. This is what cable TV may be reduced to if forced to go ALC.

I'm not saying that ALC is bad; some days, I'm on your side. I flip flop on this all the time because there are such goodsides and downsides to this. Change can be good, but there are always unintended consequences to change. In the end, it's just TV, so there's nothing earth shattering. Just good, honest debate.

BTW, this has gotten way off topic. Sorry.

I have a condo in Italy and The Philippines. In Italy it's about $17 USD and I get all of the channels they offer, about 120, which does include ESPN, and does include Disney... In Manila, PH I get 95 channels for $9.50 USD per month, and I get 100 channels, even HBO.

Sure, in most international markets they don't have 17 ESPN and 15 HBO versions. But who really watches HBO Signature Black NorthEast?!?!? LOL... it's just a way the channels negotiate higher renewal rates with the cable company... like when you buy a car and they try to up the price by throwing in something else which has no value.

 

[thelonelylimo]

I was excited for this app. when I heard about it. The evening it was released it kept crashing. I gave up on it then; and the intro is a little much too. I'm deleting it. Thanks for letting me down again TWC.

 

[bella92108]

I was excited for this app. when I heard about it. The evening it was released it kept crashing. I gave up on it then; and the intro is a little much too. I'm deleting it. Thanks for letting me down again TWC.

HEHE, I giggled cause I thought u were being sarcastic about The Weather Channel letting you down... I forgot Time Warner's 11% marketshare is still a big chunk, I just didn't make the connection cause to me TWC is The Weather Channel... which would be cool if they streamed live, hehe.

 

[luckysob]

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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Great to see Golf Channel added. They've upped their game this year.

 

[marksman]

People are wrong who think Alacarte would boil down to a handful of channels. The opposite would happen as people would not purchase duplicate channels with similar content. They would choose the one they like best and then choose something more narrowly focused in their interest range.

People are confusing ratings on tv with what people would actually pay for to have brought into their home every month. They are not the same thing.

 

[bella92108]

People are wrong who think Alacarte would boil down to a handful of channels. The opposite would happen as people would not purchase duplicate channels with similar content. They would choose the one they like best and then choose something more narrowly focused in their interest range.

People are confusing ratings on tv with what people would actually pay for to have brought into their home every month. They are not the same thing.

Yeah, people just listen to the media. Everyone I know would just buy what they want, even if that meant 2 channels.

By their logic, cellular companies unlimited plan should be the only plan offered, and if cellular companies offered less then everyone would only buy the minimum plans, lol. Flawwed logic propagated by misinformation.

 

[thelonelylimo]

HEHE, I giggled cause I thought u were being sarcastic about The Weather Channel letting you down... I forgot Time Warner's 11% marketshare is still a big chunk, I just didn't make the connection cause to me TWC is The Weather Channel... which would be cool if they streamed live, hehe.

Understandable, but we are in a Time Warner Cable related thread.

Where I live it's either Time Warner Cable or DirecTV.. and DirecTV is satellite. I obviously went with the former, like anyone should if they can.

I would like to see The Weather Channel stream also, that would be great. You're right.

 

[rsocal]

Just buy a Slingbox and watch any channel you want, anywhere you want.

Absolutely, I have a sling box and use it for both my iPhone and iPad.
It works great, I've been very happy with it, the App that makes it work on iPad/iPhone works great as well!

 

[josephebacon]

It would be nice if it worked

But it doesn't.

I've repeatedly tried to log in to use it and the Time Warner application tells me my password is invalid. Several contacts with customer service failed to resolve the password problem.

So i deleted it and I'll just keep using Netflix which DOES work

 

[spiv]

My question though is how is this any different then having multiple TVs on your cable account? You can only watch TV on your account when your in your own home and on your own WiFi. Time warner took some pretty big steps to make sure you can't "steal" cable... It is a pretty secure app.

I am just wondering why Viacom and others are bitching? Its just like going in the other room and watching it on the other TV... Doesn't allow you to watch TV away from home..

This may be a very secure app, but the channels are bitching because they don't get their set-top box fee! I can't believe that Cablevision is actually going to win this one, but then again the Dolan family doesn't care who they piss off!

 

[bella92108]

Anyone know when Comcast's real live streaming will happen? They still claim to have had the first "streaming" app, but all it is is a player for the crappiest crap nobody wants to see, and has no live TV options (even though they promised in 2010, then "early 2011" now overdue). I just realized. If AT&T and Comcast were a couple, the dishes would pile up, and the trash would never get taken out. They both are the biggest and yet set expectations and ignore any attempt of meeting them, haha

 

[alent1234]

My question though is how is this any different then having multiple TVs on your cable account? You can only watch TV on your account when your in your own home and on your own WiFi. Time warner took some pretty big steps to make sure you can't "steal" cable... It is a pretty secure app.

I am just wondering why Viacom and others are bitching? Its just like going in the other room and watching it on the other TV... Doesn't allow you to watch TV away from home..

iPad is not Nielsen enabled. if people use the iPad app then the content owners don't know who's watching what and they can't scam more money out of the cable companies every few years.

the way the business is set up is revenues from cable customers and adds based on nielsen numbers

 

[OrangeSVTguy]

So I guess I see where my discovery channel went Andy why I got like 10 more stations . Guess I should read the news more often


Bring back Discovery