Cable providers Comcast and Time Warner might be late to the Internet video party, but that doesn’t mean they are going to let us enjoy content for free that they pay for. Oh no, the TV Everywhere Model is designed to give Comcast and Time Warner paying subscribers access to content and block-out everyone else. And this system might find its way into Hulu.
You can’t blame the cable operators for their plans. They have to pay good money for access to cable stations. Then they, of course, pass along the cost to subs via a monthly bill. The thought is that those people that pay for the content should be able to watch all of it on both their TVs and computers.
Of course the other side is that if you don’t pay for those services, then you’ll be shut out. This authentication system will be used initially on sites like Comcast’s video site, Fancast, but there is always the possibility that it could eventually make its way on to Hulu.
Looks like Time Warner cable subscribers may someday get the option of the TiVo interface on their DVR boxes. According to Bloomberg, “TiVo is in talks to provide service through Time Warner Cable Inc.” although nothing specific has really been revealed yet.
Time Warner has been testing out a “consumption based billing” structure for its broadband internet service in Beaumont, Texas and plans to expand the trials to San Antonio and Austin; Rochester, New York; and Greensboro, North Carolina sometime this summer.
Up to this point, bandwidth has been capped at 5-, 10-, 20-, and 40-gigabyte levels ranging from $30 to $55 per month, but a recent post from Time Warner Chief Operating Officer, Landel Hobbs, responds to some criticism and outlines plans for two additional pricing tiers.
Time Warner subscribers almost, almost lost some of the best cable networks if a deal hadn’t been struck by the time the NYV ball dropped. Thankfully, Viacom and Time Warner came together in the name of the subscribers (and money) and penned an agreement in principle that will keep Dora and Stewart on the air.
We really ought to applaud Time Warner, I think. A company that owns the rights to broadcast some of the major networks in certain markets, LIN TV, has been playing hardball with the cable operator, demanding more money for access to the channels. Time Warner is all, “But, you can get these channels for free over the air, and many times online, why should we pay you (and raise our subscribers’ prices)?”
So, rather than pony up the cash—so far, at least—Time Warner is telling its subscribers how to watch these networks online for free. Not illegal stuff like The Pirate Bay, but legal avenues like Hulu and ABC’s streaming. A message on affected subscribers TVs informs them to go to Time Warner’s site for more information, including instructional videos and the like.
Now, how this all resolves itself is still up in the air—no one really expects Time Warner to leave the affected networks off its cable systems for good. That said, how greedy of LIN TV. How is it going to mark up the price of something that’s freely available elsewhere? Next thing you know, we’ll all be buying bottled water!
So Comcast is implementing a 250GB monthly bandwidth cap starting next month. While some consumers are up in arms about the true meaning of “unlimited” internet access, others have focused on how these caps will affect the innovation of web-based services, particularly video streaming and downloading.
Roku, maker of the Netflix-streaming box (reviewed here), isn’t too concerned, according to NewTeeVee. Tim Twerdhal, VP of consumer products, says:
“It really doesn’t give me a lot of concern. It’s unfortunate that the limitless possibilities are being capped by an ISP, but it has no direct business impact on us.”
Read More
Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable are all sniping at each other, emphasizing the minor advantages their overpriced service has over the competitor’s overpriced service. They’re trading whiny potshots over whether the fiber goes to the house, what “compression” means, and so on, when they should be doing that other stuff cable companies do, like throttling my bandwidth and reporting my usage statistics to the Department of Homeland Security.
You know when there’s this kind of catfight that none of them have anything decent to offer. If any one of them really had a truly superior product, they would be able to say so with authority and the benefits would be manifest. But this kind of little dust-up just means they’ve all got nothing and their lawyers just needed a workout.
Is this the beginning of the end for Usenet as we know it? Wouldn’t surprise me.
It broke last week that New York’s attorney general had targeted Usenet because of the existence of child pornography. Fair enough, no one wants that. But the reaction by several ISPs could set a dangerous precedent, and could threaten the way Usenet works.
Time Warner, my ISP (for the time being), will no longer carry Usenet at all once the end of the month rolls around. Not just binary groups, the only place where the offending content could be posted (other than plain text links, I suppose), but all of Usenet. That’s a shame, as I learned a good deal from the comp.sys* groups back in the day. No more free movies and so on, either. You’ll still be able to access Usenet through a third-party server like Giganews, but Time Warner will no longer provide access. I wonder if it’ll lower my bill, then?
Read More
Flickr’d
AT&T is the latest company to consider plans to charge heavy downloaders more than casual downloaders, crippling not only pirates but stifling legitimate innovation in the process. That’s what a spokesperson told the AP, though no specific plans have been announced as yet.
Even worse, this is DSL we’re talking about. We’re used to cable providers huffing and puffing about bandwidth hogs destroying the neighborhood’s capacity, but DSL? That’s a first (I think).
Time to get a Sweden-based seedbox.
Usenet is in the news today, but not for something as trivial as downloading music or movies or anything, but for efforts against child pornography. New York’s attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, said today that ISPs Verizon, Sprint and Time Warner have agreed to help block newsgroups known to carry child pornography. Some 88 groups have been identified in the plan, which contained as many as 11,390 pornographic images. Additionally, the ISPs said they’ll kick in some $1.1 million to help stop the spread of the offending content.
That’s the problem with something as unregulated as Usenet. While most of us will use it fairly innocently, maybe grab a missed TV episode or album or whatever, there are others who use it for that type of thing. And it’s people like that that will draw unwanted attention to the service.
How quickly would you reach Time Warner’s 40GB data cap? I’d be finished in like a week. No lie.
By now you’re probably well aware of Time Warner’s scheme to charge you by the gigabyte. Arrington wrote a piece yesterday on TechCrunch saying how it would destroy innovation—how can YouTube et al. make money if no one has the bandwidth to watch videos, or whatever?—and all that. But I’m not really interested in whether or not YouTube or some band new social network for left-handed people succeeds or fails; I just download a lot of stuff.
For example, yesterday I grabbed the 1080p rip of Cloverfield—horrendous, by the way—in a few hours off Usenet. That’s 9GB right there, or one-fourth of my would-be limit gone in a matter of a few hours. I’m grabbing Semi-Pro right now—that’s another 9GB. And There Will Be Blood should see an internal release in a few days (there’s already a terrible 720p scene rip).
Throw in your occasional album and you can see where this is going.
In well under one week, I would have shot past my monthly bandwidth limit.
I say this just to illustrate how quickly that 40GB cap can be shattered. So to all those who would like to say, “Well, 40GB should be plenty.” Yeah, well, sometimes it isn’t.
And $1 per gigabyte? Here, just take my bank account while you’re at it.
Photo from Flickr
This is a little out of left field, but it could also be interesting. Time Warner Cable is planning on releasing a set-top box to its customers with a built-in cable modem to allow them to watch “Internt TV” on their televisions.
The thing is, there’s no additional information on what this might be. Time Warner already has set-top cable boxes with full digital and HD capabilities, so what this additional device will give customers in addition is a mystery. And why they don’t just build the capability into future standard cable boxes is as well.
We’re guessing it’ll be some sort of DRM-friendly BitTorrent streaming box, but until we get more information, we can only guess.
Comedy Central said last week that it will stream the comedy triumvirate of “The Daily Show,” “The Colbert Report,” and “South Park,” in their entirety, on Fancast.com. (Silly name, but whatever.) Beyond the “wow, neat” reaction, there’s something else going on here that we already hinted at a few days ago: what if people, seeing all there favorite shows move online—”The Daily Show” was required viewing in my college—refuse to pay for cable TV? Looking closer, you see that some cable companies may be hurt more than others.
Read More
Tough times for Los Angelenos wanting to watch HDTV. Apartment dwellers in the city are, apparently, fed up with Time Warner’s foot-dragging when it comes to expanding HD content, especially those who aren’t allowed to install a DirecTV or Dish Network satellite dish. Right now, Los Angeles ranks dead last in HD channel availability in the top five TV markets in the country. (LA has 16. Compare that to San Antonio with 38.) Charlotte, NC has more HD channels than it!
I think Los Angelenos need to calm down a bit. Lots of those HD channels they’re missing out on are merely upconverted hotbeds of junk that you’d never want to watch anyway. Yes, it’s the principle of the matter, but they’re really not missing much. Aside from ESPN in HD and the occasional nature show, there’s not too much in the way of quality HD on cable.
In an earnings call today Time Warner reported that it was planning to spin off its Cable holdings, “under the right circumstances.” No specifics were noted but Time Warner Cable is obviously bolted on to the weak AOL and TW media holdings and not quite the best fit for a media company in the first place, synergy be damned. TWC had a $771 million in profit last quarter, which is pretty nice. Let’s see who picks them up. Hopefully not ComCast.
For whatever nerdy reason I switched over to OpenDNS about a month ago. Actually, no. The reason was because I was tired of seeing that stupid Time Warner Road Runner every time I mistyped a URL or whatever. Well now OpenDNS refuses to load several pages, including CrunchGear and Facebook. What gives? I go to the main site and it says everything is up and running, yet I try to visit the offending Web site and I still get that same error message up there. Everyone I talk to online says the site is loading just fine for them.
You all should know by now that I get annoyed very easily, so this latest issue is just another test of my patience.
Cable companies’ ads are typically woeful, but misleading? That’s unthinkable. Or is it? Not if you ask Verizon. And, please, do, they’d love to hear from you.
Verizon filed suit today against Time Warner, Internet darling, claiming that one of its ads is a pack of lies. You can see the ad for yourself right up there.
Verizon says the ad misrepresents its FTTP service, FiOS, and makes consumers think that you need to install a satellite dish in order to receive TV. That’s what I got out of the ad, too.
Oh, and Verizon, please come up with a better way to tell your potential customers whether or not they can get FiOS. Your Web site says I need to enter a landline telephone number to see if my residence qualifies. Well, it’s 2008 and I don’t have a traditional landline. Why isn’t my address sufficient? (Yes, I tried my address and it comes up with something like, “We’re not sure if you qualify, try your Verizon phone number instead!”) I’d gladly switch over to FiOS.
In order for Sprint and Clearwire to really get this WiMax thing underway nationwide, they’re going to need some pretty substantial moolah — like $3 billion.
According to the Wall Street Journal, “Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator, would put up as much as $1 billion, while No. 2 Time Warner Cable would add $500 million” along with smaller cable operator Bright House Networks chipping in another $100 million to $200 million. Google’s another possible funding source as well.
Read More
BitTorrent users know that they have to maintain a favorable download:upload ratio on the private trackers lest they be banned. Getting banned isn’t just your problem, either, as some sites will also ban the person who invited you there in the first place. Not good. So why take into consideration how hard it is to actually on some of these sites&mash;back i the day, OiNK was damn near impossible to see on unless you left your BitTorrent app on 24/7/365—and come up with a new ratio method? One popular music tracker is toying with the idea.
Read More
I’ll be damned, they’re actually doing it.
Time Warner will be testing out a pay-for-what-you-use program for its high speed Internet service in Beaumont, Texas. This, based on findings that about 5 percent of the network’s users account for more than half the bandwidth.
Here’s the problem, though. What happens when all the high-bandwidth users leave for the nearest competitor? You know, the competitor that offers unlimited bandwidth? Only in places where Time Warner has little-to-no competition (like Beaumont, coincidentally) will this work.
Read More
