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 Cable Launches iPad App With Live TV

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the padding-your-nielsons dept.

Desktops (Apple) 141

ShadowFoxx writes "Time Warner Cable Inc. is launching an iPad application that plays live TV, becoming the first cable company to do so. The app will be free to download on Tuesday morning, but it will only work for people who subscribe to both video and Internet service from the New York-based cable company. Even then, it only works in the home, when the iPad is connected to the company's cable modem via a Wi-Fi router."

cancel ×

141 comments

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

uh (4, Insightful)

mingot (665080) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496674)

Uh, then who cares? I mean unless you really need to watch TV on the crapper.

Re:uh (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496702)

Or if your in bed and want to watch something without turning the TV on and disturbing your partner.

Re:uh (4, Funny)

mingot (665080) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496734)

Not applicable on this website.

Re:uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496892)

Not applicable on this website.

He didn't say "female" partner.

Re:uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496966)

You aren't going to wake the blowup doll.

Re:uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497460)

Sure it is. Some people here probably still sleep in their Mommy's bed.

Re:uh (2)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496774)

It's not a story of what this app does, it's a story of what this app doesn't do. It can't leave home WiFi, won't work while a passenger in a moving bus/train, it essentially acts as a hand-held TV only where you already can put a TV.

Re:uh (3, Informative)

golden age villain (1607173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496976)

Plus it is not the first app to offer a similar service. Zattoo has had an app with which you can watch tv on the iPad for months. Plus it works on any WiFi network.

itards... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497032)

You don't get it. Ask any itard and right now he is twittering/fbing frantically on just how UBER SUPER COOL his tablet is, that he can now watch TV AT HOME!!!!!!!!11!!!

Re:itards... (2)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497364)

You don't get it. Ask any [iDevice fan] and right now he is twittering/fbing frantically on just how UBER SUPER COOL his tablet is, that he can now watch TV AT HOME!!!!!!!!11!!!

I'm not saying this is or isn't a true statement, but...

  • http://twitter.com/#!/taawd/status/47751718020194304
  • http://twitter.com/#!/ashleexk/status/47772853537488896
  • http://twitter.com/#!/KenoComberbun/status/47777150501265409
  • http://twitter.com/SCB8/statuses/47402067702194176

Heck, have them all: http://twitter.com/search/ipad%20tv%20time%20warner%20sweet#search?q=ipad%20tv%20time%20warner%20cool [twitter.com] (though "uber" turned up nothing ;)

HOLY MOTHER OF JESUS CHRIST!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497660)

Good job, sir!

So it is true!! There actually are lot of itards out there. And slashdot itards are out in masses to make anything and everything against apple as troll - no matter how true it is. *facepalm*

Re:uh (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497278)

It's not a story of what this app does, it's a story of what this app doesn't do. It can't leave home WiFi, won't work while a passenger in a moving bus/train, it essentially acts as a hand-held TV only where you already can put a TV.

Just use Orb.com app. Now you can watch live tv (via your computers tv tuner card) anywhere you have a connection.

Re:uh (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497486)

Except that Comcast went and encrypted their tv signal so that most of the channels no longer come through as Clear QAM.

Re:uh (2)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497632)

They're required to offer anything that should have been available over-the-air in the pre-digital days via Clear QAM. That means no History Channel and no Discovery, but then again, who would watch that crap when you've got six channels of PBS?

(Mind you, I'm not saying they don't encrypt those channels in some markets -- but they're not supposed to.)

Re:uh (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497812)

Yup, the basic over-the-air stations are still available but the signal seems degraded. Petty Comcast crap of course but when they're the only provider where I'm at (can't even get the phone company out at our house without paying for several poles worth of cabling), we're kinda' stuck. If we didn't have our internet and phone through comcast, I'd switch to satellite.

Re:uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497340)

I cannot put a TV next to my hot tub which is perched next to a waterfall above my pool; its a great place to watch college football on a sunny Saturday. My Ipad fits great there. There are several other places both inside and outside my home where it is not practical to plug a television into a power source and route a cable. We don't all live in one-bedroom apartments guys.

Re:uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35498312)

1. Watch TV on iPad next to hot tub
2. One of:
            a. Drop iPad in hot tub
            b. Splash a lot of water on iPad
3. iPad dies
4. iPad doesn't start up again
5. iTards cry the world over
6. iTards waste more money on more iPads
7. Everyone else shakes their heads thinking, "morons..."
8. ???
9. Profit

Re:uh (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496778)

What I don't understand is why those networks - whose sole objective should be to make their programs available to the greatest numbers - keep on dropping arbitrary limitations on this thing... I just don't get it. Just stream the whole damn thing from every where to everywhere for god's sake !!!! You are already broadcasting it to the entire country OTA, what the heck could be the point of crippling it so much on any other medium !!!!!

Re:uh (1)

dwightk (415372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496830)

I'm not sure Time Warner Cable is doing much OTA. I think they offer WiMAX sometimes, but that doesn't have anything to do with their television service.

Re:uh (1)

jejones (115979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496832)

Cable companies want you to continue to have to pay twice.

Re:uh (1)

afex (693734) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496844)

time warner broadcasts everything OTA? man, my mythTV box must be severely misconfigured, because i only get like 5 stations!

Re:uh (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497120)

That is why I generalized my comment with "those networks". I don't know Time Warner in particular, but the networks that do OTA have the same stupid rules... go figure.

Re:uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497186)

the cable companies can't broadcast it outside of the home area or they will get sued, not up to them

Re:uh (3, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497146)

The content producers have required contractual obligations by companies like TWC that prevent them from doing things like making a way for you to view it from outside your home.

Do you know how much effort went into just getting the legal OK for TWC to give you a DVR ... and then the outrageous amount of bullshit that happened to get network DVR allowed? And why you won't find things like a 30 second skip forward button on the remote with your TWC dvr ...

I'm sure TWC is going to do what they can to maximize their profit, but its not always them that makes the restrictions, just like its generally not them that require you to buy package deal for channels, its the people providing the channels ... that want to say they've sold just as many 'cooking network' subscriptions as HBO ... so advertisers think advertising on the cooking network is worth what they are being charged.

Re:uh (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497510)

The content producers have required contractual obligations by companies like TWC that prevent them from doing things like making it useful!!!

FTFY

Re:uh (2)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498392)

TWC is big enough that they can play hardball with the content providers to the benefit of their subscribers..

The reality is that since Time-Warner Cable IS A CONTENT PROVIDER they have very little incentive to do so, and instead have every temptation to stifle competitive content generation and distribution.

Re:uh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497686)

Really? You don't get it?
 
Advertising. To sell ad space, they need to be able to promise N amount of eyeballs for time period X. They can't do that unless they restrict how and when their content is seen. Which is why they are losing viewers--- more and more often, people feel like they should be able to watch whatever they want, whenever they want.

Re:uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496838)

It might be nice in the summer when you want to go out on your deck, patio, common area. You can get some good range out of your wifi hopefully. I know I would be able to go sit out on the grass under a tree and watch a show and I probably would. Honestly it's very limited and if you had to pay for the service then yeah it would suck, but you're not so it's a neat little feature that either will catch on or will silently die off in the next year.

What about the 30%? (0)

mystikkman (1487801) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496908)

From http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9209580/Apple_s_new_App_Store_rules_affect_Amazon_s_Kindle [computerworld.com]

"Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app," Apple's statement read.
"Apple processes all payments, keeping the same 30% share that it does today for other In-App Purchases," the company said.

Later Tuesday, Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller confirmed that those rules apply not only to newspaper and magazine publishers, but also to content sellers like Amazon.com, which offers a Kindle app for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad.

So now Apple will demand 30% of your internet and cable bill or pull this App?

Re:What about the 30%? (1)

dwightk (415372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497182)

hmm, seems like you, like many /.ers misunderstand how this works.

They would have to put an option to subscribe in the app and if you did Apple would take 30%. If you continued subscribing in the usual manner Apple would get nothing (beyond 30% of the cost of the app if there is one)

Maybe TimeWarner made a deal with apple and will be exempt.

Maybe they are trying to get this app out there so their customers will complain to Apple after the app is taken down in June.

I know I would love to have Apple strong arming Time Warner when it comes to billing ux.

Re:What about the 30%? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497268)

I think it's you who doesn't understand this. You're required to offer an in app subscription if you offer one out of app. Apple only gets 30% off the in app sales, but the option does have to be there.

I know I would love to have Apple strong arming Time Warner when it comes to billing ux [sic].

Why/how would Apple strong arm anyone? They have no say in pricing, and if they did they'd have no incentive to lower it. In fact the opposite, since 30% of more is more. If Apple held Time Warner to this, and Time Warner for some reason agreed, everyone who has Time Warner would see a price increase to make up the difference of what's going into Apple's pocket for contributing absolutely nothing.

Re:What about the 30%? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497304)

I know I would love to have Apple strong arming Time Warner when it comes to billing us.

Really sure about that? Are you really, really sure you want a scenario where the ultimate and most likely conclusion goes to the tune of "Apple-Time Warner"?

Re:What about the 30%? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497914)

the ultimate and most likely conclusion goes to the tune of "Apple-Time Warner"?

I doubt Apple would willingly hyphenate with anyone.

Yeah, exactly! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496916)

WTF, you're going to spend $500 or more on an iPad so you can ... watch tv?!? Really?

All this craze for the device is so that people can ... watch tv.

Talk about consumerism going nuts!

Re:Yeah, exactly! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497160)

No no, it's so you can be charged for running up your internet connection bill at home by streaming video to the ipad to watch at 1024x576. At least the xoom, with a 1280x800 screen, can do 1280x720.

Re:Yeah, exactly! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497570)

No no, it's so you can be charged for running up your internet connection bill at home by streaming video to the ipad to watch at 1024x576. At least the xoom, with a 1280x800 screen, can do 1280x720.

So wait... On one hand you semi-jokingly complain about the over charges they would no doubt apply for the amount of data it would take to stream at 1024x576, and then proceed to bash the iPad implying it's screen is too small by stating an even Larger video stream to a not-ipad as a good feature?!?

Man, Apple haters will go to any lengths

Re:Yeah, exactly! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498724)

No no, it's so you can be charged for running up your internet connection bill at home by streaming video to the ipad to watch at 1024x576. At least the xoom, with a 1280x800 screen, can do 1280x720.

So wait... On one hand you semi-jokingly complain about the over charges they would no doubt apply for the amount of data it would take to stream at 1024x576, and then proceed to bash the iPad implying it's screen is too small by stating an even Larger video stream to a not-ipad as a good feature?!?

Man, Apple haters will go to any lengths

Try again. When people look at video streaming packages, they forget that their internet billing can also rise since they can exceed their cap. So that was my first point. My second was that if you're going to watch a movie, the ipad isn't the best option available in the current generation of tablets - far from it.

As for your point, do you have any proof that the video stream is smaller for the ipad? It doesn't look like it, since it will only work over wifi. It's more likely that the iPad wil downres the video for display on the device's screen. After all, 1024x576 is a real oddball video format.

Re:Yeah, exactly! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497162)

WTF, you're going to spend $500 or more on an iPad so you can ... watch tv?!? Really?

All this craze for the device is so that people can ... watch tv.

Talk about consumerism going nuts!

Oh please, like you've never posted on Slashdot from a laptop.

Re:Yeah, exactly! (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497652)

Oh please, like you've never posted on Slashdot from a laptop.

Sure, but I've never watched TV on a laptop. Never seen a need to. See the distinction?

Re:Yeah, exactly! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497968)

Oh please, like you've never posted on Slashdot from a laptop.

Sure, but I've never watched TV on a laptop. Never seen a need to. See the distinction?

No. You still entertain yourself with your portable device but cannot understand why others do.

Re:Yeah, exactly! (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498054)

No. You still entertain yourself with your portable device but cannot understand why others do.

No. I use a portable device with a keyboard to post to /. because posting to /. requires a keyboard, at the very least a touchscreen. That is why I bought a laptop. But for watching TV in my home -- a completely passive act that requires neither a keyboard or a pointing device -- I already have a perfectly functional TV, and therefore don't need an interactive touchscreen device that's about one-tenth the size of my TV but costs almost as much. It's not "a portable device" if you're sitting on your living room couch, staring at it while holding it a few inches from your face. And, if you read TFA, you will see how this service requires you to be at home, sitting on your couch -- so I'd venture it makes a lot of sense to ask why you'd be staring at your iPad when your TV is right across the room.

Re:Yeah, exactly! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498200)

No. I use a portable device with a keyboard to post to /. because posting to /. requires a keyboard, at the very least a touchscreen. That is why I bought a laptop.

You could just use your computer, which was cheaper, and you're already required to sit down in front of it anyway. Sitting there at your desk with your laptop in your lap* just to post on Slashdot is just silly!

Re:Yeah, exactly! (1)

tealover (187148) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498608)

I have a really nice TV in the livng room, bu I don't have a spot in which to put one in my bedroom. I wouldnt mind having the optioon of watching the last quarter of a basketball game, or the last half hour of a film while laying on my nice comfy bed. I don't understand why people are hostile to the idea. I'm waiting for my cable provider to annouce something similar.

Re:Yeah, exactly! (2)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498484)

Sure, but I've never watched TV on a laptop. Never seen a need to. See the distinction?

That you are a prick that assumes no one else on the planet would ever want anything different than you? Yes, I think I see that distinction.

Yes, really (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498256)

WTF, you're going to spend $500 or more on an iPad so you can ... watch tv?!?

And play games and use it as a highly portable latop when travellign and draw and make music...

But all that is besides the point, because I think I would pay $500 not to have to bother with a cable box.

And of course you can send the display to a real TV if you wish.

Re:uh (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497456)

I had a similar setup with an El Gato EyeTV tuner plugged into my Mac Mini AV server. It could stream live and recorded shows to my iphone and I could browse channels from the iphone. Cool thing was it worked over 3G as well. I was 30 miles away, in town and brought up CNN at lunch. Once it buffered, was smooth steady stream.

Daughter would use this setup to watch tv up in her room (just has computer with access to family iTunes library). With the iPad doing this, as well as now being able to access shared iTunes accounts, these Apple tablets are finally becoming what I thought they should be to begin with; mobile/wireless displays.

Re:uh (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497718)

Uh, then who cares?

In theory you're right. In practice, people will set up a VPN so that your mobile device thinks it's at home no matter where it really is.

Re:uh (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497748)

But you can HDMI it to your TV! Watching directly on the TV is so 20 century.

Re:uh (3, Interesting)

DeadboltX (751907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498454)

While I agree that the app would be immensely more useful if you could use it over 3G or on the free WiFi at Starbucks or at my friends house, I also believe that this app still holds a place for usefulness.

If your house doesn't have enough TVs for everyone and you all want to watch something different then this will come in handy. You can now watch TV while cooking in the kitchen without buying one of those little counter top TVs. You can go outside for a smoke break without missing any of 'the game.' You can watch TV on your patio while BBQing or supervising the kids while they swim in the pool. You can prop it up on your desk in your home office so you can watch while you work.

There are all sorts of places in and around a home that don't normally have TV access. If anything this could be a reasonable argument to a spouse or parent for justifying getting one "But mom, it's a TV too!"

They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (2)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496692)

Watching your TV content outside the home has always been crippled by legal agreements between the content owners and distributors. See, if TV was available on the web without restriction, they wouldn't be able to charge the bar and restaurant owners the high per-TV rates they do now. So we're stuck with a fancy iPad app that turns your iPad into a small TV but only when you're on your home WiFi. Sure it could work over 3G, but that's not a deal Time Warner Cable wants to write... and by doing so may be protecting the space from somebody who does want to do such a deal.

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496748)

Bars and restaurants have not heard of netflix?

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (1)

spidrw (868429) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496758)

Guaranteed that somewhere in the Netflix T&C there is a clause about public use. Just like with cable/satellite companies.

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496808)

Can you watch a live football game on netflix?

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496870)

No, but they are on OTA tv. That is even cheaper than netflix, it is free!

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (1)

golden age villain (1607173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497022)

It is free on Zattoo as well but delayed by I think 20 sec. The experience of watching a game live (e.g. soccer in Europe) is usually ruined when the whole neighborhood starts screaming while the players are still 20 meters away from the goal.

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497046)

And its illegal to use OTA for public display of sporting events. I realize sports aren't big to slashdot users, but if you've ever watched any major sporting event like a NFL or MLB game, or a big race ... the first thing you hear and see is a 'no rebroadcasting without permission'.

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497074)

They can say anything they like that does not make it true. How is watching it while it is playing rebroadcasting?

Do they plan on coming after everyone with a tivo as well?

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497180)

They can say anything they like that does not make it true. How is watching it while it is playing rebroadcasting?

Because it's a public performance. It doesn't matter how you try to rearrange the words, it's illegal.

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497352)

Which is not rebroadcasting at all. That is a ban on public performance, which is quite different. I thought that had to do with the size of the screen anyway.

No, it's not illegal. (2)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497212)

And its illegal to use OTA for public display of sporting events. I realize sports aren't big to slashdot users, but if you've ever watched any major sporting event like a NFL or MLB game, or a big race ... the first thing you hear and see is a 'no rebroadcasting without permission'.

No, it's not. First, showing it isn't rebroadcasting.

Second, the ban on public display is only for screen sizes of 55" and greater. Don't you remember the fuss about churches being told that 55" screens were too big for watching the superbowl [msnbc.com] ?

Places are prohibited from charging admission to watch the Super Bowl, and the law prevents them from showing the game on a TV bigger than 55 inches.

Re:No, it's not illegal. (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497346)

And its illegal to use OTA for public display of sporting events. I realize sports aren't big to slashdot users, but if you've ever watched any major sporting event like a NFL or MLB game, or a big race ... the first thing you hear and see is a 'no rebroadcasting without permission'.

No, it's not. First, showing it isn't rebroadcasting.

Second, the ban on public display is only for screen sizes of 55" and greater. Don't you remember the fuss about churches being told that 55" screens were too big for watching the superbowl [msnbc.com] ?

Places are prohibited from charging admission to watch the Super Bowl, and the law prevents them from showing the game on a TV bigger than 55 inches.

That rule has been done away with now b/c of all the flack they got from coming down on church parties. It's been legal for the past 2-3 years.

Re:No, it's not illegal. (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497634)

And its illegal to use OTA for public display of sporting events. I realize sports aren't big to slashdot users, but if you've ever watched any major sporting event like a NFL or MLB game, or a big race ... the first thing you hear and see is a 'no rebroadcasting without permission'.

No, it's not. First, showing it isn't rebroadcasting.

Second, the ban on public display is only for screen sizes of 55" and greater. Don't you remember the fuss about churches being told that 55" screens were too big for watching the superbowl [msnbc.com] ?

Places are prohibited from charging admission to watch the Super Bowl, and the law prevents them from showing the game on a TV bigger than 55 inches.

That rule has been done away with now b/c of all the flack they got from coming down on church parties. It's been legal for the past 2-3 years.

[citation needed]

After all, I was kind enough to provide links in my original comment, and I'd love to learn that I'm wrong, and that someone actually did something middling reasonable :-)

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (3, Interesting)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496828)

Whan you are a content distributor and you do so much to make sure your viewers cannot view your content, there must be something wrong.

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (1)

BabyDuckHat (1503839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497144)

I think we'll literally have to wait until the executives of these companies retire or die so that someone who gets it can take over and stop pretending it's 1985.

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35498212)

Off-by-one error?
Or implying that it's worse than 1984?

It couldn't be a /. post declining to jam Orwell's book where it doesn't really fit, because that's quite impossible. But on the off chance it was, hat-tip to you, good sir!

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497196)

The reason for the limitations has nothing to do with restricting their viewers, and everything to do with preventing people who do not subscribe to their service from freeloading. It's been proven time and again that you have to lock this shit down, or people will abuse it and ruin it for everyone. There are a hell of a lot of people who read the headline and thought they'd be getting something for nothing.

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497482)

Its the content producers that prevent it from happening, not the distributors ... which is still just as retarded.

But ... much like counting netflix against your bandwidth usage, but not their own services, it also costs TWC more money to pipe video out onto the internet than it does to pipe it to their own network ... just like long distance costs providers more than local calls.

Re:They tried. They failed. Here's what's left... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497720)

So we're stuck with a fancy iPad app that turns your iPad into a small TV but only when you're on your home WiFi. Sure it could work over 3G, but that's not a deal Time Warner Cable wants to write...

VPN?

Limited much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496694)

Only works on the company's cable modem (since when is it legal to require you to lease the modem from the ISP?) and requires an additional subscription fee?

How about you make it work with a user ID, from any internet connection, and let us subscribe only to the internet version for a lower cost?

Re:Limited much? (1)

spidrw (868429) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496786)

For what it's worth, TWC modems are 'free'. Probably built into the cost of the service? Yes, but that's transparent to the user. I pay ~$40/month for 7 meg service (it's in a bundle, so I don't know what the actual price is). They (are trying to) do the same thing with ESPN360. They make you login to verify that you have TV service with them also, which causes a problem for Xbox 360 users. They're trying to protect their ancient revenue stream. If I can watch live TV on my ipad, including sports, TW isn't getting my $60/month anymore for cable. They don't like that. I don't blame them.

Re:Limited much? (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496826)

No they are not free. I just canceled my service with them and they were charging a couple bucks a month for the rental of the modem. I now have FIOS for internet and no pay for tv. Much faster and way more reliable. I can actually get HD streams from netflix now. Verizon does block port 25 outbound and does not disclose that ahead of time.

Re:Limited much? (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496800)

This will go great with bandwidth caps!

Oh wait, that'd be a PR nightmare. I'm sure this will be exempt. Want to compete? Tough luck!

Why not IPhone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496696)

Could they have made a IPhone version?

Live TV? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496718)

You mean that dumb thing that requires you to be around when they air the program? This is 2011, that crap has to go. I would rather not watch a program that deal with that garbage.

Re:Live TV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496868)

Live TV makes sense for live video streams which aren't going anywhere. That's mostly sports, although some news may apply, too.

There are Already Live TV Apps (1)

slashbaby (261784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496742)

I've been watching extensive coverage of the Japan Earthquake/Tsunami on NHK's app. CNN lets you watch live TV as well....

VPN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496746)

What if I VPN into my home network? Mmm. I bet that'll work.

Re:VPN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496806)

Good luck streaming video from your shitty home connection.

Re:VPN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497150)

I get 1.5mbit up. That is plenty for streaming if you're not worried about HD, which I'm not.

But then, I don't have cable tv, so the point is moot, though I do use orb.

The next hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496820)

From home for now... until someone hacks it.

Slingbox is your friend, people (1)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496848)

I've been using a Slingbox [slingbox.com] for years. It streams your TV feed over the Net. You can even use it to control your TiVo, and change channels remotely.

Great technology for those who must have access to their boob tube when away from home.

Re:Slingbox is your friend, people (1)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497098)

Technically piracy, in the eyes of the companies. But an equally fantastic alternative to actual piracy.

Re:Slingbox is your friend, people (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497376)

I've been using a Slingbox [slingbox.com] for years. It streams your TV feed over the Net. You can even use it to control your TiVo, and change channels remotely. Great technology for those who must have access to their boob tube when away from home.

OrbLive from Orb.com does the same. For Live tv it is not bad, even over 3G.

Re:Slingbox is your friend, people (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497792)

I was an early adopter of Slingbox. Now my Slingbox is unsupported by the current software. I can only use it with obsolete PC binaries.

and thus the internet becomes TV 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496906)

"but it will only work for people who subscribe to both video and Internet service from the New York-based cable company. Even then, it only works in the home, when the iPad is connected to the company's cable modem via a Wi-Fi router."

How the internet diverges from its origins and becomes yet another locked down, controlled content distribution medium.

What happened?

wheres my ip connectivity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496950)

and, BTW--

both 24.29.103.15 & 24.29.103.16
suck a55....

bet FCC is watching this very closely. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497064)

I can see the reason for this only be available for Comcast TV customers, but forcing them to also pay for Comcast Internet too? This should raise red flags.

Re:bet FCC is watching this very closely. (1)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497218)

Where in the article or the summary is Comcast mentioned?

Monkey see, monkey do (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497416)

The summary mentions that both your Internet and TV have to be through the local cable company. In one market, the one examined by the article, this is TWC. In another, it is Comcast. I don't see why other markets' cable companies wouldn't follow TWC's lead in this policy.

Re:Monkey see, monkey do (1)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497876)

That's at least a better explanation instead of just throwing Comcast out there with no way to infer what the AC is talking about.

Thank You.

In Which Case (3, Insightful)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497084)

In which case, I can use my iPad to watch live TV while I am watching live TV on my TV. It's like picture in picture that I can actually hold and it doesn't stop me from using picture in picture AGAIN while I am watching.

The drawback is that this means no more beating off to Telemundo with the sound off, my hands are going to be too busy flipping around the iPad while I work the remote to capture the money scenes on the DVR and watch them in slomo.

Next we NEED a DVR app for the iPad.

So it's...cable TV then? (1)

BabyDuckHat (1503839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497110)

What a bunch of dinosaurs.

wtf is an RNA purification? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497136)

Why is slashdot serving up this pseudo-scientific shit?

Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497222)

I hope Comcast releases an App with this functionality, too. Most of my television watching is live sport events. Unless it is a "big" game, I am satisfied having a window open on my computer's display while performing other tasks on my computer rather than relocating to the media room to watch on the big screen. Watching on espn3.com is my first choice, but when the event is not there I hunt down where it is on one of the web sites that was not shut down by ICE last month. It's a pain and the quality varies widely. Bring on the app.

Dish network already offers this (1)

Timmy D Programmer (704067) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497604)

Is this really something new?

VPN (1)

droidsURlooking4 (1543007) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497828)

solution anyone?

What about Apple's policy on subscriptions? (1)

fredmosby (545378) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498350)

I wonder how they're planning on getting around Apple's requirement that subscription services available through an app have the option to use In App Purchase.

How about an Apple TV port? (1)

kwerle (39371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498398)

I mean - that's about what they're limiting it to, anyway, aren't they? Oh, I guess you already have to have video form them, so why bother...

So.. why bother?

Allocation of resources (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498470)

How about Time Warner spends its time and money on improving its crappy upload speed and rolling out IPv6 instead?

Telenet in Belgium was first! (1)

NaughtyNimitz (763264) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498814)

Sorry to spoil your American Pride: but I as a customer can use the application YELO to watch live Video on my iPad. ONLY with my Telenet account and ONLY at places that have Telenet as their provider. (My Home , Some customers , the Central Train station in Antwerp).

(Telenet is one of the Flemish cable companies.)

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>