 Gami00
join:2010-03-11
Mississauga, ON |
Gami00
Member
2011-Apr-8 2:37 pm
it simple really.we should have users switch to piracy and internet video so that everyone wins... | |
|
shealyse
Premium Member
join:2004-04-15
Lexington, SC |
shealyse
Premium Member
2011-Apr-8 2:47 pm
What's Next?Is Viacom coming after all of us that are streaming their channels to computers and PDA devices both while at home, work, and anywhere else for that matter, by using a Slingbox?
I wonder what Viacom would try to do if TW was able to offer all of its customers who want this capability some sweet deal on a Slingbox?
Viacom and the others need to back off. Of course, that won't happen if they think that they can squeeze more money our of Time Warner. | |
|
| |
Making it easier for paying customers to view contentThat's a bit disingenuous.
The networks produce content that is supported by advertising, and to some extent by retransmission fees.
Time Warner sells access to content it doesn't produce and gets revenue from subscriber fees.
The networks themselves to some extent are distributing their content to various other devices such as tablets and mobile phones. By doing this they can provide another revenue stream and sell ad spots for this distribution method.
So it's not really paying customers. The customers pay Time Warner, who in turn pays the cable networks for distribution in a specific manner. The customers pay to watch on a TV set, not on an iPad. | |
|
 | | |
Re: Making it easier for paying customers to view contentSo by your intelligent statement..... I can't watch on a computer that I have connect a tuner to or on a HTPC that I have connected to a non-tv monitor?
I still question why TW or any other Cable/Sat/IPTV/Broadcaster company pay any content producer for content. Those content deliverers are doing the content producers a favor by bringing their product to the consumers at a cost they couldnt possibly do themselves.
It should be a mutually beneficial agreement between them all. They both need each other or they both fail. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Making it easier for paying customers to view contentsaid by Skippy25:So by your intelligent statement..... I can't watch on a computer that I have connect a tuner to or on a HTPC that I have connected to a non-tv monitor?
Of course you can. You're receiving the content via RF or the cable company's usual distribution method, not via an iPad app over the internet. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Making it easier for paying customers to view contentRemember, Time Warner is providing this content via "their" network. This is a network they built. You should reverse your reasoning. Remember, you can only access on your tablet if you subscribe to TW internet service. The broadcasters should provide a discount to TW for being able to get their content distributed to the audience the best manner possible.
The whole thing is upside down. Would you ever expect to charge Fedex to deliver your shipments? No!! You pay fedex to deliver your shipments! | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Making it easier for paying customers to view contentsaid by TheGuvnor9:Remember, Time Warner is providing this content via "their" network. This is a network they built. You should reverse your reasoning. Remember, you can only access on your tablet if you subscribe to TW internet service. The broadcasters should provide a discount to TW for being able to get their content distributed to the audience the best manner possible. I'm sure they would like to make it available everywhere. But they're testing the waters now. The fact that they're delivering it on iPad sets off all sorts of alarm bells. Today, the iPad is viewed as a vehicle for content deals, and not just another screen. The whole thing is upside down. Would you ever expect to charge Fedex to deliver your shipments? No!! You pay fedex to deliver your shipments! Time Warner isn't simply passing stuff through. They are reselling a product. Big difference. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Making it easier for paying customers to view contentAlarm bells, why, because they haven't determined the best way to set up advertisement on the consumer? The subscriber pays for the package and then they battle it out on how to best cram advertisement down our throats. In the meantime, as you claim, this is between two other parties, however, the cost will always get passed down to the subscriber. Just like Cee-Lo says "ain't that some shhhhhhhhhh" | |
|
| | | | | | |
FkHollywood to fifty nine
Anon
2011-Apr-10 3:44 am
to fifty nine
Someone ::cough::fifty nine::cough:: works for a content producer or the likes and has their feathers all in a ruffle! TW and CV are distributing content to a customer's home directly over their private and proprietary networks, which is exactly what they have contracts with the content providers to do.
They are not reselling anything! Just upgrading their offerings to the current technology. It is not their fault that content providers want to live in the 1900's!
As far as wanting to make the content available "everywhere" and setting off "alarm bells" as you say, you can not sue someone on their intentions. If streaming "everywhere" does come down the pike the content providers are shooting themselves in the foot by bringing law suits now as they will surely lose setting pretty strong presidents. | |
|
| | | | |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:said by Skippy25:So by your intelligent statement..... I can't watch on a computer that I have connect a tuner to or on a HTPC that I have connected to a non-tv monitor?
Of course you can. You're receiving the content via RF or the cable company's usual distribution method, not via an iPad app over the internet. It's not over the Internet. It's all on Time Warner Cable's network. It doesn't go out onto the Internet. They deliver the video to their headends via that same network, not via RF. RF is just how it gets to the home to your TV. TWC and every other major cable company, and FiOS and U-Verse use IP multicast to get the video to the point it is turned into RF. There is no major difference between IPTV and this video being delivered to the iPad. The customer can only view it within range of their wireless access point connected to their cable modem. It doesn't work any other way. | |
|
| | |
to fifty nine
Okay, as I wrote before this means Sony and Samsung TVs are not allowed to be used with cable. Because they are flat panels and can stream content from anywhere, including internet. Or what about a portable TV with Sling extender? That's even closer to iPad app. Also no? Wireless video extension system, where you plug video source into one tiny thing and another tiny thing into your TV? It's just stupid. Content providers got paid as usual. But they have so much ego, that they think they can force people to pay for their app even at home, where you can turn on TV and watch it right there. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Making it easier for paying customers to view contentApples to oranges. You're receiving the content over cable. Or what about a portable TV with Sling extender? That's even closer to iPad app. Also no? Again, totally different. You did not sign an agreement with the content producers. Your cable company did. The lawsuit isn't against you, it's against the cable company for using a distribution method that was not agreed to. Wireless video extension system, where you plug video source into one tiny thing and another tiny thing into your TV? See above. It's just stupid. Content providers got paid as usual. But they have so much ego, that they think they can force people to pay for their app even at home, where you can turn on TV and watch it right there.
Again, understand that this lawsuit is not against you. It's against the cable companies for breach of their distribution contract. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Making it easier for paying customers to view contentI understand that lawsuit is not against me. But it's trying to prevent Time Warner from allowing me to watch exactly same channels I have paid for on a different device in the very same household.
My internet is delivered over the same exact cable as the TV shows. Why is it different then?
Because TVs are getting smarter all the time, I (and probably TW's lawyers) can simply point out that there is not much difference between iPad and a small portable flat panel TV (+ Sling extension so you don't need to plug it in, or wireless video signal transmitter).
License for carrying video content talks about customer's home -- that limitation is also honored, by forcing you to only be able to use the app while you're at home, on the same exact network as your TV. You can't carry "tv iPad" in your car and watch the shows, which makes it even more like just another weird kind of TV set.
Goal of the suing is to either:
a) prohibit TW from providing users with app right now - bad for me
b) try to extort some more money from TW, which means lengthy delays and a higher price - also bad for me.
Hence the unhappiness.
Just because they're not suing me, doesn't mean I should be happy with their actions. | |
|
| | | |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Apr-8 9:30 pm
Re: Making it easier for paying customers to view contentsaid by bugabuga:My internet is delivered over the same exact cable as the TV shows. Why is it different then?
Because you people wanted Verizon to buy the mayor an indoor pool to be able to bring TV into homes over the same glass as interweb and telephone comes in on. | |
|
 joako
Premium Member
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:6 |
joako
Premium Member
2011-Apr-8 4:17 pm
It's a cable box.Seriously, there's really no difference between this and a cable box.
What if AT&T or other IPTV providers offered the same? It would run off the same exact network and streams that are sent to the set-top box!
To me, the headlines read: "Viacom asks TW to disallow Apple-branded cable boxes." | |
|
| | |
Re: It's a cable box.They could very easily get around this if there was an RF interface for the iPad. This wouldn't even be an issue.
But as it is they are mixing it with internet traffic and delivering it over internet service. That I believe is where the issue lies. | |
|
| | KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:2 |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2011-Apr-8 7:47 pm
Re: It's a cable box.Actually the cable modem IS an RF interface. so there for the iPad is getting its content over cable. | |
|
| | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Apr-8 9:33 pm
Re: It's a cable box.said by Kearnstd:Actually the cable modem IS an RF interface. so there for the iPad is getting its content over cable.
at&t tried that argument with their IP CATV over U-verse so they would not have to buy the mayors indoor pools but it didn't fly. You people said at&t must pay. | |
|
| | | |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:They could very easily get around this if there was an RF interface for the iPad. This wouldn't even be an issue.
But as it is they are mixing it with internet traffic and delivering it over internet service. That I believe is where the issue lies.
News Flash: All cable providers, as well as FiOS and U-Verse deliver their video to their headends/POPs via IP multicast, over the same links that are delivering Internet. The Cable companies convert this to RF via QAMs and other devices. All new satellite receivers that cable companies use, that are authorized by the content providers have IP multicast output ports. The content providers are expecting cable companies to move the video over an IP network. There is literally no difference between this traffic and the traffic going to the iPad app. | |
|
| | MOS_STP
Premium Member
join:2007-02-08
New York, NY |
to fifty nine
My TV has NO RF interface. | |
|
| | | |
FkHollywood to fifty nine
Anon
2011-Apr-9 10:39 pm
to fifty nine
I do not know why you keep repeating this; it is 100% false! The content is not being distributed on the internet. It is directly transmitted from the cable head end to the customers home on TW's private and proprietary network. Never does it even remotely come close to any thing that could be called the internet! | |
|
| | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Apr-9 10:50 pm
Re: It's a cable box.said by FkHollywood :I do not know why you keep repeating this; it is 100% false! The content is not being distributed on the internet. It is directly transmitted from the cable head end to the customers home on TW's private and proprietary network. Never does it even remotely come close to any thing that could be called the internet!
OK but how does the signal get to the iPad? I ass/u/me over WiFi using IP. If so I would have to look at Time Warner's agreement with the content producer's before I pass judgement. Then I would rule in the highest bidders favor. | |
|
| |
Really just a contract disputeAnd since we can't see the contract, none of us has any basis to comment on this topic.
Presumably if this does go to court, the filings will reveal the disputed language.
I don't really understand why Viacom and others are even contesting this. They will get more revenue over time. Everything I've seen indicates that the networks are paid by subscriber, not by number of TVs the subscriber has. So they are not losing money on subscriber fees.
The app just provides, essentially, another screen in the subscriber's home. This should only increase viewership and ad views, which will bring the network more rating points and increase ad rates.
Where's the downside for the networks? I don't get it.
Content is delivered only on TWC provided wifi, on premise. Content is delivered to the home in the same way it always has - over coax cable. | |
|
| MyDogHsFleas |
Some good analysis from the WSJ opinion section | |
|
|
|
