Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Time Warner Recommends Internet For Some Shows

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the how-to-keep-hulu-in-page-views dept.

The Media 379

EdIII writes "The dispute between Time Warner and Viacom over fees seems to be without any resolution this year. Time Warner faces the possibility of being without content for almost 20 channels. Alexander Dudley, a spokesperson for Time Warner, is fighting back: 'We will be telling our customers exactly where they can go to see these programs online,' Mr. Dudley said. 'We'll also be telling them how they can hook up their PCs to a television set.' Why pay for digital cable when many content providers are now providing it on demand via the Internet? Not to mention the widespread availability of TV shows in both standard and high definition on public and private torrent tracker sites. It is entirely possible to watch television with no commercials or advertising with only an Internet connection. So getting your content via the Internet is not exactly free, but it certainly isn't contributing to Time Warner or any other cable providers' revenue stream. The real question is why Time Warner would fight back by so clearly showing how increasingly obsolete they are becoming and that cable providers are losing their monopolistic grip on media delivery." If no agreement is reached, those channels are supposed to be dropped just after midnight tonight.

cancel ×

379 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Simple Answer On Torrents (0, Troll)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283391)

8,000 leechers, 4 seeders, your download will complete in 1 day, 17 hours, 49 minutes.

Re:Simple Answer On Torrents (3, Funny)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283659)

That looks like 8000 people have a poorly configured RSS client and are downloading 'Bob and his 3 friends drunk and naked (note: No sex)'.

Auto-superseed (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283911)

8,000 leechers, 4 seeders, your download will complete in 1 day, 17 hours, 49 minutes.

Until one of the seeders' BitTorrent clients detects a severe acute underseed and automatically turns on superseed mode [bittornado.com] for an hour. Would that help clear things up?

plus help on configuring their firewalls. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283953)

Make sure that the port forwarding is correctly set up. It helps a LOT with the speed. :)

Re:Simple Answer On Torrents (1)

xXShadowstormXx (939073) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283997)

8,000 leechers, 4 seeders, your download will complete in 1 day, 17 hours, 49 minutes.

You're not looking in the right places.

Re:Simple Answer On Torrents (1)

moose_hp (179683) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283999)

Well, unless the 8000 leechers have just the same chucks of incomplete data it won't be a problem.

Even 8000 leechers and 0 seeders woundn't be a problem if you can complete the whole file with the chunks.

If enought people is downloading or seeding stuff, the bottleneck becomes your own bandwidth.

Quick lesson (2, Informative)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284075)

"8,000 leechers, 4 seeders"

No problem there.

"your download will complete in 1 day, 17 hours, 49 minutes."

That part has nothing to do with the first part.

Do you not understand how torrents work, or are you just throwing in the "8,000 leechers, 4 seeders" even though it has nothing to do with your download being slow?

And no mods, his post wasn't insightful.

FiOS (3, Insightful)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283409)

I just warned Bright House (essentially Time Warner, both affected by this) that if they actually subtract stations from me they had best be prepared to adjust my bill accordingly or I would switch to FiOS, which just made itself available in our area. I already got a canned response telling me to use websites. I might switch anyway.

Re:FiOS (5, Informative)

jeffTWC (1442315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283643)

Hi -- I'm the director of digital communications at Time Warner Cable. And we actually will be refunding our customers for the lost channels while we wait for Viacom to come to an agreement. The amount is being worked out now, but it will automatically be credited to your bill.

Re:FiOS (4, Funny)

No2Gates (239823) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283741)

And that would be roughly $.50, correct? Damn, can't decide where to spend that big check.

Re:FiOS (3, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284019)

I suggest you consider the amount carefully. You already force us to take channels we don't want just so we can get the few we do want. Now you're going to drop a bunch of channels and the result will be we see practically no billing difference this month, and if it continues you'll just come up with an excuse to raise rates to compensate for the lost next month.

I have no problem with dropping the channels, with the exception of a couple of the nick channels they all otherwise suck, and since I don't have kids at this point, I can deal without the Nick channels. Perhaps you should use that additional bandwidth you'll have around to provide the those of us who you rip off for data services with what you actually claim to sell us rather than saturated upstreams.

And please, don't tell me about how thats not true, I know far too many TWC employees that work in your data centers to buy that bullshit. I know your profit margins are so ridiculous that it would make Cheney feel bad about it.

As I said, consider the amount carefully, as I suspect you'll have lawsuits that follow shortly after the service interruption. We've paid our bill, you don't give us the option to not pay for the channels we don't want, likewise, you don't have the option of not giving us channels you promised to give us.

I also wish you great luck in your digital phone efforts, I pray you get big enough that you actually have to provide a proper SLA to your customers like real phone companies do. Its nice getting to take the money without having to follow the rules isn't it?

Re:FiOS (2, Insightful)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284023)

So that's what UID numbers are up to as of today...

Re:FiOS (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284035)

Hi, I'm a subscriber. I can tell you what the refund will be in my case already. It will be $80 a month in my case, and I'll start getting it as soon as I hand in my cable box on Friday and tell you I'm getting DirectTV.

I shat a big log (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26283695)

I wanted your mouth to be my toilet bowl...

Re:FiOS (4, Funny)

speroni (1258316) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283891)

I got FiOS. I downloaded the season finale of Heroes in 10 minutes flat.

Re:FiOS (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26283977)

If you really have FiOS available, why on earth would you keep the Brighthouse service? Poor HDTV plagued with compression artifacts, which got worse the more channels they added, regular outages. We jumped to FiOS about 18 months ago, never had the service disappear, HDTV is passed-through untouched and doesn't suffer from the extra compress TW has to do to get it onto their aging gear. How's your broadband? That died more than the TV service with Brighthouse. What are they up to now 15/5mbps? FiOS: 20/20mbps is $65/month, the 50/30mbps is too dear for us, and they're apparently about to roll out 100/100mbps in some areas. *shudders* at the price it'll be.

The real problem here is cable companies forcing us into channel packages as required by the content providers. Both are about to get a reality check like the music and movie industries have had in recent years. We don't want to pay for 90% of the channels. Do I want 10 black channels, 5 religious ones, 10 shopping channel and so on? We'll get the desired programming elsewhere. It won't be long before you start seeing people canceling cable TV completely and using online services for the content they want.

Re:FiOS (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283983)

I bet DirecTV still has these channels. And I'll sure as hell be finding out if Time-Warner tries to pull them from my cable lineup.

Why? (5, Insightful)

lbmouse (473316) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283421)

"The real question is why Time Warner would fight back by so clearly showing how increasingly obsolete they are becoming and that cable providers are losing their monopolistic grip on media delivery."

Because they are also TWC via Road Runner.

Re:Why? (5, Interesting)

dougsyo (84601) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283613)

They will use this to justify metered broadband, with caps and overage fees. They're already trialing it in Beaumont TX now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060202618.html [washingtonpost.com]

Doug

Roadrunner has 40GB caps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26284165)

YA didnt TIME IDIOT Warner cap users to 40GB
haha ya useless now isnt it so they effectively are driving it to FiOS and all htere customers away GOOD.

NOW maybe hte 60GB CAP of there rogers will also goo POOF.

Re:Why? (1)

orev (71566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284197)

No, it's a negotiating tactic. First of all, they want to provide you an Internet connection so you have to pay for it, but they don't want you to use it because that costs them money.

The real reason is because it will be the Viacom channels losing revenue because the commercials they carry will no longer be reaching as many viewers. You can bet that Time Warner will be using that fact at the negotiating table.

That's not really the case, though, is it? (4, Interesting)

Scott Lockwood (218839) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283429)

. So getting your content via the Internet is not exactly free, but it certainly isn't contributing to Time Warner or any other cable providers' revenue stream.

It doesn't? They don't pay Time Warner for access to the internet, their own subscribers? In fact, this provides a way for them to cut costs - they're already paying for the bandwidth, and some people are going to download the shows anyway. Win / win from their standpoint.

nooo!!!!!!!!! (1)

toefraz (1275196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283433)

what! no more "the hills"?!?!? OH MY GAH!!!!!!

Connection (1)

Xaemyl (88001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283441)

I remember being a Time Warner cable subscriber here in L.A. a couple years back. Once they started offering faster internet connections as part of their overall cable packages, I ditched the digital cable, as I could get those shows streamed. I imagine a lot of people were doing the same thing.

Tag suggestion. (0, Flamebait)

mattgoldey (753976) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283447)

This story needs the "andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag. Srsly.

Re:Tag suggestion. (2, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283655)

Those affected will lose Comedy Central. Daily Show, Colbert Report, South Park, Futurama, Reno 911, etc. While you can watch them online, not everyone wants to do this.

As Cartman would say: "Suck my balls, Time Warner and Viacom!"

Re:Tag suggestion. (0, Flamebait)

mattgoldey (753976) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283733)

I stand by my original statement. :)

Re:Tag suggestion. (1)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283767)

I don't blame Time Warner for this. From various articles I have read, they do not want to up their subscriber fees which is why we have this result.

Re:Tag suggestion. (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284055)

If you knew anything about thier profit margins, you'd know they could pay about 600% more than they do now before they'd have any reason to raise their subscriber rates. Well, at least when you compare those profits to any normal business.

Re:Tag suggestion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26284039)

Those affected will lose Comedy Central. Daily Show, Colbert Report, South Park, Futurama, Reno 911, etc. While you can watch them online, not everyone wants to do this.

So, in order: Valuable; valuable; passed its prime about five years ago, if not more, if it even HAD a "prime" to pass; everyone who wants it has it on DVD already; oh boy more jokes about cops breaking in on bizarre fetishists and homosexual encounters how original.

Well, that's two for five. Better than you can expect from most TV channels. :-)

Re:Tag suggestion. (1)

Bobb Sledd (307434) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283673)

When I heard this story on the radio this morning, I instantly thought of that "andnothingofvaluewaslost" tag.

Yeah, why not steal it? (2, Interesting)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283465)

It's out there, it's possible to do. Why should I get cable when I can steal programs instead? For that matter, why don't I just steal cable?

I wish I had known about the value proposition of stealing a month ago, I would have saved a lot on my Xmas shopping.

Re:Yeah, why not steal it? (1)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283709)

Why should I get cable when I can steal programs instead?

What a dilemma :-)

Re:Yeah, why not steal it? (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283735)

Why should I have to do either?

This whole article is about the cable company not airing the channels anymore because they don't want to pay what Warner asks.

By the same lesson we learned on here, they should just continue to air the channels and not pay. Paying is clearly optional.

Re:Yeah, why not steal it? (2, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283989)

Stealing? Who's talking about stealing?

Viacom puts [nickjr.com] many [thedailyshow.com] of [southparkstudios.com] their [mtv.com] shows [tvland.com] online.

But what about bandwidth caps? (4, Interesting)

Vandil X (636030) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283549)

If Time Warner instructs people to watch the TV content over the Internet, and if that activity makes them go over their unpublicized bandwidth caps, aren't they just directing customers from one problem to another?

Re:But what about bandwidth caps? (1)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283719)

This is something I suspected all along that TWC knows they are losing their hold on the cable subscribers to streamed/downloaded shows. This is why they will most likely offer such a low bandwidth cap (40GB per month $54.99-ish) for the current pricing plan. They know how soon going over the limit would start to make their overage fees.

Comcast has it right for offering a 250GB cap. Very realistic and for the customer.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps? (1)

RobBebop (947356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283885)

If internet delivery of content is really an issue because of low bandwidth limits, then shouldn't I be able to get TV signals for dirt cheap? One service *must* have lower margins than the other and based on economics, I'd suspect it would be in the cable industries best interest to lower cable and to the point where they barely have any margin so they can retain customers who might become interested in internet delivery otherwise.

Oh course, Showtime and HBO can still be big for the cable companies because they each provide extra value to the customer and with a DVR a subscription to these becomes close to the equivalent of an On Demand Netflix/Blockbuster service. Surely the cable companies can leverage this.

Kudos to Viacom though. Content is king. If the network operators can't operate the networks efficiently, make an example of them and force them to trim their network supporting fat.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps? (3, Insightful)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283857)

Just how many shows are these people actually watching? An hour slot usually encodes to less than 700MB. At 250GB per month, assuming half of that was TV, they have:

250GB x 1024 = 256000MB
256000 / 700 = 365.7 Hours

That would be over 13 hours of TV a day, every day for a month. Right...

Re:But what about bandwidth caps? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284207)

That would be over 13 hours of TV a day, every day for a month. Right...

For a single user? It's a lot. For a family of 4 or 5?

I'll put it gently, since I don't know when my wife will do her annual "I wonder what hubby's writing on slashdot" foray... some people have the TV on damn near 'round the clock.

Morning newsertainment -- 3-4 hours. Afternoon soaps -- 2+ hours. Evening news -- 1 hr. Evening crap shows -- 3 hours. Night news -- 1 hr. Late-night shows -- 2 hrs.

That alone is 12 hours. For one damn person. Add in what *I* watch; add in what *the kids* watch, and you're talking 13-14 hours per day. And most families have kids who watch much more TV than that.

Re:But what about bandwidth caps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26283859)

If Time Warner instructs people to watch the TV content over the Internet, and if that activity makes them go over their unpublicized bandwidth caps, aren't they just directing customers from one problem to another?

Ah, I dare them to charge me for going over my "limits" when they're the ones directing me to streaming content. I'll (bitch)slap them with a lawsuit so fucking fast, it'll make FiOS bandwith seem slow...

I'm going to take them up on their advice (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283943)

I have a AT&T DSL connection for my internet and Time-Warner for my cable. And if Time-Warner cuts my Comedy Central, I'm not only going to use my DSL connection for my Comedy Central shows, I'm going to use it for ALL my shows. It'll even have the benefit of saving me that $80 a month I give to Time-Warner. So thanks for the advice, Time-Warner! See you Friday!

OH NO (1)

Justin Hopewell (1260242) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283563)

Oh no, I'll be losing the MTV lineup, Spike, and CMT. How ever will I survive.

Re:OH NO (1)

DeadManCoding (961283) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283699)

I can do without everything except Spike and Comedy Central. The rest of it can burn in the same spot in hell from where it spawned. I still catch the occasional MMA fight on Spike, and late night stand up on Comedy Central.

Re:OH NO (1)

Loopy1492 (1308571) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283729)

I record DS9 from Spike.

Re:OH NO (1)

Justin Hopewell (1260242) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284017)

To be honest, there are a few shows I like on Comedy Central like DS and CR, and if I'm flipping through the channels and Ninja Warrior or that Bansuki show (whatever its called.. the other crazy obstacle course show) I'll watch. Although that might be G4. G4 and Spike are pretty much the same channel, so I get confused. Anyway, point I was about to make is that I usually catch these shows online anyway.

Re:OH NO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26284031)

I hear spike is in the process of being renamed to The CSI Channel

Simple Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26283569)

Get rid of the addictive brain rotting device called the television. I did quite a while ago and I have a lot more time to help others in need and I can think a whole lot better. To top it all off, I have a whole lot more money saved as a result of not having cable.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

Lobster Quadrille (965591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284109)

Johnathan [theonion.com] , is that you?

Shut the fuck up.

Videos will be disabled (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26283585)

If you go to www.mtv.com or www.comedycentral.com (or any other Viacom property) and you're coming from a Time Warner-served IP, you'll get a nice pop up message that indicates your channels will be dropped on your (assumed) cable service.

It is also my understanding that after new years, should there be no deal, that Viacom will be pulling video access for a variety of their sites, if you're coming from the aforementioned ISP. Obviously its not that hard to do, if they already have that pop up working. I assume that this will not affect videos on hulu.

What's interesting here is that nobody is noticing that there is a disconnect between cable and ISP service. While the vast majority of people will have combined TV + ISP service through one provider, there obviously are some people getting caught in the crossfire.

Furthermore, if the video blocking does take place, this becomes some sort of inverse network neutrality. Instead of the carrier being the jerk that slows/eliminates the ability to reach a content provider, the content provider is using your carrier as a reason to not serve you.

Compare ESPN360 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283987)

Instead of the carrier being the jerk that slows/eliminates the ability to reach a content provider, the content provider is using your carrier as a reason to not serve you.

The Walt Disney Company has been doing this for years on ESPN360 [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Videos will be disabled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26284015)

Unless the ISP itself does the blocking, a temporary solution to this would be a proxy.

For your consideration: http://www.internetproxy.net/

Re:Videos will be disabled (3, Insightful)

Faylone (880739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284049)

Wait, so the ONLY way I could access the shows would be...through piracy?

Re:Videos will be disabled (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284117)

That would be kind of stupid for them to do, as they will then promptly loose the advertising revenue generated from those Time Warner users visiting their websites.

You can be sure that nice fat banner ad at the top of the page is worth a fortune to them. So they can show it to you one more time before you realize their website is now worthless? I don't think so, that would be truely retarded.

Shit, you're right, I can totally see them doing it now that I think about the other stupid crap network execs do these days. :(

Submitter's bias shows (2, Funny)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283593)

"The real question is why Time Warner would fight back by so clearly showing how increasingly obsolete they are becoming and that cable providers are losing their monopolistic grip on media delivery"

This is simple, and the wording clearly displays the submitter's bias.

Time Warner cable ALSO provides internet access. If they are being charged for programming that their internet subscribers can recieve online, then they are paying for something they don't need to. I have no doubt they would like to use the funds Viacom currently recieves for programming on other things, yet still be able to provide the content if necessary.

I suppose if the person asking the question weren't themselves behoden to the idea that cable is the Great Satan, then they could see that.

Re:Submitter's bias shows (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284153)

Note sure why you were modded Funny, as it's a good point.

The major counterargument is that most locales have more ISPs available than cable/satellite operators, and many people in practice only have one cable/satellite operator available (the cable company) because while technically they can use satellite if they so wish, in practice the local residents association has made it an unpleasant experience to do so. (For instance, the Condo I used to live in had an association that forbid drilling holes in the wall to allow coax through, or attaching a dish to a wall. You had to watch satellite with the door open and the dish on a temporary stand.

Even where people have the choice, many people have cable TV only, choosing to have the Internet from another operator. AT&T, for instance, pushes DSL + Cellular + Home phone line combinations.

If users can get the content they actually want via Hulu.com and a DSL connection, then they're not going feel as if they need the cable service. At all. So it's not in TW's best interests to encourage people to see the Internet as a great alternative to cable TV.

Unless (1)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284261)

"So it's not in TW's best interests to encourage people to see the Internet as a great alternative to cable TV."

However, if they can see the writing on the wall (which is something most Slashdotters don't give businesses enough credit for) then perhaps they realize cable is a dead end and want to get in on the transition.

And could you clarify your "counter argument"? I see you saying most people only have one cable provider, but I fail to see how that's a counterargument here. That other ISP's exist doesn't really have anything to do with cable internet service.

I guess I just don't see why a gaggle of ISP's providing services over Time Warner's lines, which would still be paid for by the subscriber and be a revenue stream for TWC, is a counterargument.

Great Profit Opportunity (4, Funny)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283629)

Lose 20 channels, tell people who bitch to use torrents, impose strict bandwidth caps, then charge out the ass for going over the limit.

It's a perfect circle.

Incoming DDoS attack (3, Insightful)

volxdragon (1297215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283671)

I forsee a DDoS attack on Viacom servers by the masses of users redirected there by Time Warner. Funny actually, because it will drive up Viacom's costs if they have to bring additional servers or bandwidth on-line to handle the load (unless they do something draconian like block all Time Warner address blocks :)).

Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable? (1)

Bruiser80 (1179083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283675)

I don't think you can. Standard analog cable flows through that line no matter what (at least that's my understanding of it). You need a digital box to use the digital broadcasts and premium channels, but I can still hook up a TV right to cable and get a NTSC signal.

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable? (1)

mvenezia (1097217) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283765)

I believe you can order internet service with just basic broadcast service (oh and a few stupid shopping channels)

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable? (1)

Bruiser80 (1179083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283883)

Right, meaning you're still paying for the TV service to get your internet. Just like having to pay for a land line to get DSL. Sounds like I'm paying too much for one crappy service either way :-/

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26283901)

Actually, we for a time had internet without cable service, and they had installed what they call a "video filter", which I understand to eventually filter the frequencies that are not used for internet...but this is a somewhat recent occurrence...I know that back in '01-'02, we had only internet through Comcast, and through a few splitters, was able to get basic cable. At the time, I was told that was why they charged extra if you had internet without TV...as far as why the charge difference now, who knows?

Yes you can order Internet Through TW w/o Cable (1)

vkapadia (35809) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283929)

You can order Internet through Time Warner w/o cable, at least in NYC.

I did this about 18 months ago. It required me repeating "no, I really don't want cable tv service" over and over until they gave up.

I think my friend did this years ago in Poughkeepsie, NY, but I'm not certain that it was Time-Warner (Time Warner services part of Poughkeepsie and Comcast services other parts, I believe).

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable? (1)

rveety (223650) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283937)

Yes you can. They install a filter on your cable line to block tv channels *and* charge you a $20/mo non-subscriber fee (at least in my area).

To avoid the $20 bogus fee I signed up for earthlink cable internet, and my bill comes from TW minus the non-subscriber fee.

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable? (1)

markwalling (863035) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283939)

You can order Road Runner al la carte for $49.95 in my market

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26284067)

If your house has ever had digital cable, you can have RoadRunner w/o cable service. If you're still on analog, order digital and RR, cancel the TV.

Re:Can you order Internet Trough TW w/o Cable? (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284213)

I don't think you can. Standard analog cable flows through that line no matter what (at least that's my understanding of it).

You can order Internet cable service without *ordering* cable. You get a slight discount over the ala carte charges if you get both, but it would cost us significantly more to add cable TV to our service.

I've been told that if we unplug the line from our cable modem and plug it into our TV, we'll have (basic) cable, but we don't get billed for cable TV, just phone and Internet (and Time Warner is our provider).

Why pay? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26283677)

Because you're sick of buffering everything for 20 minutes before watching and not having an easy way to discover new content that is outside the topic ranges of things you have been watching.

Think about how many shows you really watch (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283683)

I dropped cable because I did the math, and for the few shows I was interested in watching it was cheaper to buy the shows on iTunes than to pay for cable.

If you think about it any given show is only $8/month (4 episodes at $1.99 each), and generally do not last a whole year. You can have quite a few shows in the line for less than the price of a normal cable subscription.

And of course, there are the multiple free avenues that range in legality from Hulu to torrents (someone needs to make a torrent client called Zulu to turn that into a great line).

As another poster here noted, Time Warner would probably be fine just becoming your value-added internet service provider even if they don't add much programming on top of that.

Now of course, none of that advice probably applies if you watch a lot of sports. In those cases, I don't know there are really good alternatives other than frequent trips to a bar...

Re:Think about how many shows you really watch (1)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283807)

If you think about it any given show is only $8/month (4 episodes at $1.99 each),

What do you mean only? That's the price of a movie ticket, in a theater.

These are absurd prices. They are once again killing their golden goose by ripping people off.

What they should do is sell episodes *worldwide* (lots of people are willing to pay a reasonable amount to watch new stuff at the same time it airs in the US), at something like $0.25 per episode, or maybe $50 for all you can get.

Re:Think about how many shows you really watch (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284227)

His point is that, if you don't watch much TV, that's cheaper than cable. When we had just the lowest end package, our cable bill was $26/month, which costs more than four shows on iTunes. I don't know *when* was the last time I watched more than 2 shows at a time, so the cost comparison makes sense to me.

Re:Think about how many shows you really watch (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284241)

Of course, math is hard... more than THREE shows, I should have said.

Re:Think about how many shows you really watch (1)

enharmonix (988983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283827)

Now of course, none of that advice probably applies if you watch a lot of sports. In those cases, I don't know there are really good alternatives other than frequent trips to a bar...

It's Viacom stations, so unless that sport is Jackass, TWC is probably not canceling it.

SLASHDOT SUCKS ASS! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26283737)

sometimes you have to be reminded

Another thing TWC can tell their customers (1)

mmeister (862972) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283747)

Due to the fact that we're not providing a whole set of channels we claimed we would, you'll be receiving a nice credit to your account.

There should be no reason that TWC should be able to collect from their customers and then say "thanks, now go to the internet."

It's bad enough I have to pay for stupid channels I will *NEVER* watch. I'm no longer with TWC, but was never a fan of their crappy service when I was.

Re:Another thing TWC can tell their customers (4, Informative)

jeffTWC (1442315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284141)

Not sure if you caught this earlier in the thread, but we actually are providing a refund to our customers if Viacom pulls the plug ... Jeff Simmermon Director, Digital Communications Time Warner Cable

Re:Another thing TWC can tell their customers (1)

Orbijx (1208864) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284269)

Jeff,

Will said refund trickle down the line to customers of Bright House Networks, since we're not "Time Warner" by name, but we are by service?

'cause that would be really nice.

Right TWC! Who Needs Cable Anyway ... Right? (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283757)

From TFA:

The channels that would be affected are: Comedy Central, CMT: Pure Country, Logo, Palladia, MTV, MTV 2, MTV Hits, MTV Jams, MTV Tr3s, Nickelodeon, Noggin, Nick 2, Nicktoons, Spike, The N, TV Land, VH1, VH1 Classic, and VH1 Soul.

For a minute I was worried, but considering how often I watch any of those channels, I doubt I would notice.

On a related note: TWCNYC has now managed to mess up an appointment yet again, making sure my on-going intermittent cable problems last into the new year.

Thanks TWC for pointing out that a lot of shows are available for streaming. Let me go further and point out that a lot of shows are available for download directly from Amazon and iTunes, negating the need for a Cable provider at all.

Thanks to their stellar service the past month and a half, my New Years resolution is to move off TWC entirely within the next month.

Viacom bought a full-page ad (3, Interesting)

Bruiser80 (1179083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283781)

on the last page of the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinal.

It had a picture of Dora the Explorer with a tear in her eye. The text said that Time Warner was canceling 19 channels in the Milwaukee area.

Viacom's name was in very small text at the bottom of the page.

It's not really useful yet... (1)

Jorophose (1062218) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283817)

At least, it wouldn't be for someone like me.

Either I go with Rogers for fast speeds, and get charged crazy amounts with caps, or I go Teksavvy with 5mbps at the greatest... And that's still like 30$-40$ a month (or 25$ for the lowest plan at either rogers' or teksavvy). It's not really fast enough, or has enough bandwidth (the teksavvy one might but I'd need a change of modems and lose my 15% discount), to stream shows to all my TVs.

But then again, we're paying 60$/month for digital cable. If getting rid of the digital cable and going back to normal cable brings that back down a fair amount, then I end up "winning". But will analogue cable still be around for a long time? (for a TV tuner card)

And what about channels like CNN (the one with Larry King, Anderson Cooper, and the international one)? Can you even get those online? And what about channels like Spike and Speed?

Of course, it works great for NBC/Global/etc. for shows like House, Heroes, ER, etc. that are shown for free on the web... But these are shown free over the air as well. =/

(Just out of curiosity, what's the reccomended minimum for most of these services?)

Re:It's not really useful yet... (1)

Flying Scotsman (1255778) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283933)

But will analogue cable still be around for a long time? (for a TV tuner card)

It will be around, for at least local channels over cable, until at least 2012 per FCC mandate [arstechnica.com] . That might be a "long" time for certain definitions of "long."

TW pulls this all the time (2, Interesting)

Gotung (571984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283861)

Part of the reason I switched from Time Warner to AT&T u-verse is Time Warner's constant bullshit fighting with networks (CBS, Big Ten Network). Good riddance.

Connect PC to TV (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283865)

From the article:

'We'll also be telling them how they can hook up their PCs to a television set.'

Does this mean that indie developers will finally have the tools to develop multiplayer video games that run on one PC [pineight.com] , as opposed to a separate PC per player?

Re:Connect PC to TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26284121)

Stupid people annoy me. Please do us all a favor; kill yourself.

Cable is quickly becoming too expensive (1, Insightful)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283887)

When I looked at my last Comcast bill, I realized I'm paying almost $100 a month! (I have basic HDTV + the shitty Motorola DVR.) For that kind of money I'm better off buying a Mac Mini or dipping my toe into Linux + MythTV!

Re:Cable is quickly becoming too expensive (1)

rindeee (530084) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283993)

Mini + Netflix (nice streaming feature...works great) + Boxee + a 1TB Maxtor External drive ($114 w/free delivery from Amazon) for my own content (ripped personal DVDs, etc.). No cable service, just HSI. Don't miss it in the least and my monthly bill is $10 (Netflix) plus $29 for HSI (which I'd be paying for even if I did have cable or sat tv).

They charge you for TV whether you buy or not (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284087)

No cable service, just HSI. Don't miss it in the least and my monthly bill is $10 (Netflix) plus $29 for HSI

Where do you live? In Fort Wayne, Indiana, Comcast charges twice that much for high-speed Internet without phone or television. This $59.xx per month includes a $15/mo "line fee" that Comcast waives to all its TV subscribers, making local-channels-only "lifeline" TV essentially free.

bittorrent won't work for all of those shows (1)

tscheez (71929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283941)

there's not a big userbase for noggin. Unfortunately, my kid loves that channel.

Viacom loses what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26283957)

So now Viacom shows will no longer be shown on at least 20 channels... how much are they losing because of that? It seems like they are both losers.

odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26283965)

why are you guys being so negative towards TWC? TWC doesnt want to pay higher prices cause it would increase their customers bills to make up for the price rise... they are fighting to keep your bills lower...

why are you not cheering on TWC for not giving into demands and fighting for you?

Re:odd (1)

rochrist (844809) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284139)

The increase amount to less than a penny a day.

Why? It's time to rumble, that's why. (2, Insightful)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 5 years ago | (#26283979)

Things are getting lean, and the wolves come out when the food runs low. You're seeing the same dynamic between AMD/Intel/NVidia right now with AMD's open sourcing of it's graphics card firmware. You force the competition to expend resources at a time that it can't afford to do so, even if it costs you more resources. The gamble is that they'll break before you do.

They're playing chicken.

So glad I got Digital Cable for my HDTV (1)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284007)

Well now, I'm so glad I'm shelling out big bucks for my high-def digital cable and DVR service so I can watch all these hundreds of TV stations on my nice big new HDTV...

Oh wait, where did all my favorite channels go? Where are my kids channels going?

Well, shit.

Re:So glad I got Digital Cable for my HDTV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26284169)

I have TWC in upstate NY.
None of these channels are available in HD through TWC where I am.

Does this dispute have anything to do with HD broadcast availability or just coincidence?

Recently Downgraded to Limited Basic Cable (2, Interesting)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284041)

I recently downgraded from Comcast's Digital Premier to Limited Basic. My monthly cable bill for both TV and internet has gone from a whopping $227 to a more reasonable $60.

I'm amazed how little I miss - most of the channels I watched before, such as the networks, I still get. And the internet and other non-TV entertainment more than makes up for the rest.

Cable TV's pricing structure is increasingly becoming unsustainable with ever increasing carriage fees for channels that many people don't want or can live without.

It's only a matter of time, especially as TV and internet converge, some cable companies will choose to drop carriage of many channels and instead simply redirect to the channel's internet website.

Ron

A la carte pricing debate (1)

mamono (706685) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284129)

Maybe this will bring up the good old a la carte debate again. I, personally, resent having to pay $50+ a month when my entire family watches about 10 cable channels total. I looked into 4DTV a couple years ago but it didn't seem viable (limited DVR capabilities, lack of HD, still have to point to multiple satellites, etc.)

Do other Slashdotters have an a la carte TV solution that doesn't entail torrents, watching on the web/computer or illegal downloads?

The long-term picture. (1)

NetRanger (5584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284143)

In the long term, I think Time-Warner has the upper hand here. Viacom is wanting Time-Warner to pay a significant chunk of more money to carry its commercial-laden content. If Viacom is unable to fund itself through these constant deluges of crass commercials, then perhaps Viacom needs to find itself a better revenue stream. Squeezing the pipe that actually delivers the eyes that the advertisers are wanting to get in front of is not a good idea. TWC owns the pipe, Viacom simply owns the content. Which one is more valuable? Considering how digital on-demand style services are taking off, I think Viacom is playing a dangerous game here. TWC can afford to lose a few channels for a while much more than Viacom can afford to lose ad revenue due to 13+ million eyes disappearing overnight.

And folks, here you have it (3, Interesting)

kimvette (919543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284181)

Folks, as I called it when bandwidth caps were first mentioned, they are being implemented because the cable companies are terrified of using their current monopolies on subscription digital television delivery. I don't know what Time-Warner's cap is but Comcast's is 250GB. There is NO concern of P2P users hogging bandwidth - were that the case then Comcast would simply use QoS to keep those users in check. No, not at all. It's all about content delivery.

See, they were fine with advertising flat-fee UNLIMITED HIGH SPEED INTERNET for over a decade. However, now that the technology exists which allows content providers to deliver content directly to users via commodity entry-level PCs, suddenly there is a need for monthly bandwidth caps. Not bandwidth throttling where if you hit the limit (on the service where you agreed to unlimited internet, no less!) it's two strikes and you're out.

I'll bet that if they do not come to agreement today, Time Warner's response will not be customer-friendly. They will either block traffic or severely throttle traffic coming from the sites where the content is being streamed. In fact I hope that this is exactly how they will respond. Why? Because then Joe Sixpack will understand how net neutrality would help them. Comcast, TW, et. al are trying to convince Joe Sixpack that net neutrality is an evil thing, but this situation would be perfect for underscoring just how evil the monopolies are.

Want to end this fucking nonsense? Talk to your town council. Attend town meetings, and tell them you want competition. You want to pit Verizon against Quest against Comcast against Cox against Time Warner. Let everyone enter the town and COMPETE. Then, you will suddenly see bandwidth caps disappear, and actual customer service -- AND lower prices.

Comedy Central? (1)

British (51765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284211)

I like most of Comedy Central's original shows, but I'll lose my mind if they don't air Saving Silverman for the umpteenth time! They air that movie so much, it's like "The Beastmaster" to their TBS.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>