Time Warner today announced that the company's TBS and TNT channels would offer subscribers the option to stream live television on their tablets and iPads -- but only if you subscribe to traditional cable TV. The news comes on the heels of a similar announcement from ABC that they'd be trialing live streaming in New York City and Philadelphia. All of these announcements are of course in response to Aereo, who the broadcasters are trying to sue into oblivion. By offering their own streaming options -- even if tying them to existing cable subscriptions makes them immensely less appealing -- the studios can claim they're giving consumers what they want, even if with the other hand they're suing innovators out of existence.
It works if WiFi avail; caps kill the cellphone route; too $
I live in the Philly metro area so I tried the ABC Live app on my iPad. It works fine over WiFi. But using it over a cell network would crush the caps too quickly to be useful or affordable. But if I am home, why watch ABC Live over an iPad at all when an HDTV is available. The only use I can see is if I want to sit outside in the yard under a tree and get some fresh air, then the iPad would be nice.
Same would apply to TBS & TNT.
P.S.>> ABC Live is not a true simulcast of the live TV broadcast. First, it is delayed by at least a minute to a minute and a half. Second, commercials are NOT the same as what is on the broadcast OTA TV channel or cable channel carrying ABC. They are different commercials injected in to the stream. -- "If you want to anger a conservative lie to him. If you want to anger a liberal tell him the truth."
Re: It works if WiFi avail; caps kill the cellphone route; too $
but yet Time Warner Cable will likely not carry it as they already streem the channels via their in the home TV everywhere app. Also TWC does not have a TV everywhere deal for Time Warner channels I would love to have access to adult swim gold maybe when the contract is up for Cartoon Network, tbs, tnt, and CNN is up we may get TV everywhere access.
2013-May-15 7:21 pm: ·
hobgoblin Sortof Agoblin Premium join:2001-11-25 Orchard Park, NY kudos:11
"The only use I can see is if I want to sit outside in the yard under a tree and get some fresh air, then the iPad would be nice."
Thats one of the uses I found for it.
Wrapping Gifts in an attic that has no TV Watching the royal wedding at 6 am in the morning in the bathroom while shaving Watching one of Mondays NHL game 7's on the iPad on CNBC while watching the other on the HDTV.
It's just convenience.
Hob -- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
I know it's my age and eyesight but who can watch a movie or tv show on what is considered a 'big' smartphone?
The first black & white televisions had a 1 - 3" screen and were the size of washing machines to refrigerators. Look it up.. it was so small they used manifying glass to make it bigger-- eventually normal screen sizes devloped through innovation.
I have no problem with TNT/TBS requiring you to subscribe with a pay-tv provider to access their content. After all they are pay-tv channels. What I find disgusting is that free ota networks (Fox and ABC) are pulling the same trick.
I have no problem with TNT/TBS requiring you to subscribe with a pay-tv provider to access their content.
You're missing the point.
People don't want to have to subscribe to cable in order to stream the content to whatever device. Why should users have to subscribe to 100 cable channels when all the channels they want to watch can be counted on their fingers?
Who would want to stream to their wireless device over an expensive wireless service (or even a home internet router), and STILL pay for expensive cable services at the same time? Why on Earth would any normal consumer who values money properly want to do that?