Verizon, Time Warner Cable Launch 'TV Everywhere' Trials Multiple users to begin testing new online video system... Last Spring Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes announced that Time Warner and Comcast would be taking the traditional TV model and putting it online -- delivering TV content for free to existing subscribers. The idea offers two functions: it hopes to differentiate the companies from satellite and telcoTV competitors, while preventing cord cutters who want to lower bills by just watching Internet video. According to the Wall Street Journal, Time Warner Cable's trial is close to getting underway in concert with a number of broadcasters: Under the test, TV shows will be made available on the Web to a limited number of homes. To access the shows, people in those homes will have to sign into Web sites and fill out a brief profile to prove they are Time Warner Cable subscribers. The test, which could be disclosed as early as Thursday will expand in coming months to include about 5,000 homes in several U.S. markets, said one person familiar with the matter. It's unclear in some cases which of the companies' TV shows will be involved in the trial, some of the people said. As we noted last week, even the guy in charge of the TV Everywhere initiative says there's seemingly no standards, no ground rules, a web of legal entanglements, and each operator seems to be approaching the service with different back-end technology. Comcast also recently started their own 5,000 user trial, and hopes to have the service commercially available by 2010. Verizon today also announced the launch of their own trial.
|
 glinc
join:2009-04-07
New York, NY | Awesome! If only broadband cards were unlimited!!! | |
| Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| stupid first of all, if I'm at home, why would I watch cable tv on my 19 inch computer monitor instead of my 55 inch HDTV? Aside from the diminished viewing experience, watching on the computer would count against comcast's cap, for a nice double whammy.
if I'm on travel or visiting someone that doesn't have cable or sat TV (how many people do you know without one or the other?) and there was a show or shows I really didn't want to miss, why wouldn't I just DVR them? I have a few shows I watch, but my world doesn't end if I miss a few episodes.
one final question: do telecom/cable CEOs have brains? | |
|  | OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: stupid Actually, I travel a lot. The nice hotels I stay in rarely have more than 10 or so channels. So, it would be great if I could watch Fox Soccer Channel from my FiOS. Hotels never carry Fox Soccer Channel.
It is not important enough that I want to DVR it, it would just be better entertainment for that evening. My fear is that the hotel will not provide enough bandwidth to actually watch the show. This is why I have not bought a SlingBox , yet. | |
| |  NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | said by nasadude:first of all, if I'm at home, why would I watch cable tv on my 19 inch computer monitor instead of my 55 inch HDTV? Aside from the diminished viewing experience, watching on the computer would count against comcast's cap, for a nice double whammy. There are some people that have home theater PCs hooked up to their 55 inch HDTV sets. This should work well for them. (I happen to be one of those folks.)
said by nasadude:if I'm on travel or visiting someone that doesn't have cable or sat TV (how many people do you know without one or the other?) What about the crappy selection of TV channels you get while staying in a hotel? For those people who travel frequently, TV everywhere could be really beneficial.
said by nasadude:and there was a show or shows I really didn't want to miss, why wouldn't I just DVR them? I have a few shows I watch, but my world doesn't end if I miss a few episodes. DVRs are definitely a way to go with this. (That's why I built a couple HTPCs to begin with.) However, if there are several shows you want to follow it could be quite daunting to come home from a week of travel and find time to sit down and watch 12 hours of TV every weekend.
I don't necessarily think that the current implementation of TV everywhere is the way to go. (I don't currently subscribe to cable TV, I use satellite-- so this whole thing won't affect me anyway.) But I do like the idea of some providers being forward-thinking enough to try to make shows available like this online.
Who knows-- perhaps this will one day lead to something really good for consumers... Like being able to purchase access to channels from an ala carte menu instead of being forced to take the (sometimes) hundreds of crap channels just to be able to watch the dozen or so you actually care about.
--
Trusting the Democrats to fix our economy and give us health care is like trusting the fox with keys to the henhouse, a brand new gas stove, and a pantry full of goodies for side dishes. In the end, all will be dead and nothing but lies will be told. | |
| | | | | Re: stupid Yes I am cord cutter and just Hulu, Fancast, CBSnews/video, TV.com, thewb.com and others to watch the stuff I use to via my cable subscription. I have a mac mini connected to my lcd tv and use a wireless mouse as a remote. I for one would pay an additional amount of money to buy into this - depending on how much they charged. Additional $10 to $20 I'd buy in. They already lost $75 month revenue from people like me and I will never subscribe to cable TV again; have no need, but they might get some cord cutters lost revenue if they offered TV everywhere to everyone. | |
|
| | | Gave up watching TV many years ago, and TV "Everywhere" not for me 
--
Consumer VoIP Reviews | |
|
| | Now here is a thought Let us view our DVR from anywhere. I have Fios and travel alot and i DVR a lot. I would like to be able to access my DVR online and view my content. Or be able to download DVR content onto a card and take card with me to play in computer. How does that sound??? | |
| | | | Re: Now here is a thought I already do both very easily. Tivo lets me transfer any show to my laptop, iPhone and my slingbox lets me sling anything that I forget to transfer. Works like a charm! | |
| | | | | Re: Now here is a thought Im a TIVO Head too!
Tivo out does any DVR out there.
Tivo works correctly ..I have had all other dvrs avail from the cable company , dish and Direct TV.
DirecTivo was great.
TIVO is the Xerox of the DVR industry.
Once you go Tivo there is no other DVR for you.
I love my TIVO !! | |
|
binded2
join:2009-08-11
Providence, RI | this is stupid this is stupid for many not just one reason being that there allready proved by the studios
the all in one that every one knows about is hulu
then you have the abc,cbs,nbc,fox,cw, networks that all have there own sites that provide VOD
some of them like fox the content is online within 24 hours
look at the south park studios web site
there content is on with in 24 hours stays online for a week then off line for 4 weeks then online perimently
wake up people every one has been saying this for a while now
that the cable corps are trying to wall garden most of there content
they already cap you mess with your bandwidth do you really think that they might not try to pull some sort of well if you use are tv service it wont count against your cap sort of trick
but also dont forget for now it might be free i sure as hell will bet my life on it that there will be a new charge on your bill for 15$ a month or some random number pulled from some CEO's ass about the vaule that there providing that you could have for free esle where that will count against your cap
also once they start doing there metering where do you really think this is going to go
$$$$$$$$$$$ for your cable corp enjoy | |
| |  dddane
join:2002-01-10
Chicago, IL | Re: this is stupid said by binded2:this is stupid for many not just one reason being that there allready proved by the studios the all in one that every one knows about is hulu $$$$$$$$$$$ for your cable corp enjoy As far as content being online, sure ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX have online content, but how many cable providers do? Also, the content available is not 100% of the content, its bits and pieces. TV Everywhere hopes to bring the entire content-lineup to your computer, phone, or whatever device it may be at the time. There are legal reasons why its easier for the broadcast networks to put their content online vs the cable networks. Broadcast networks are "must carry" and make their $$ from ad revenue strictly, so they have little to lose by putting it online and fully controlling it. Cable networks are not 'must carry' (i.e., free to receive) and rely on subscriber agreements for a percentage of their revenue. Cable companies fight cable networks putting content online since it draws away from their potential subscriber base. Also the studios themselves fight it for different reasons. The idea behind TV Everywhere is you ease these legal requirements because the person viewing the content online is already a paying subscriber. No longer will it matter if they're watching the simulcast of your network on the TV, they can watch it on their phone, computer, work computer, and everyone remains happy because they're still an eyeball who is paying their cable bill.
Hulu is not a sustainable business model in its present form. Right now what they're doing is recruiting eyeballs, and at some point they're going to have to figure out where to get the revenue. They're not getting the revenue from the 30 second ads they play before and in the middle of every hour of programming (which half of are PSAs anyhow)
TV Everywhere is an initiative of Time Warner (specifically Turner Broadcasting, a unit of TW), which at this point has zero to do with TimeWarner Cable now that they've split. Ultimately this is good for the consumer: TimeWarner at this point is strictly a content company, not a content + distribution company. | |
|
| | A Series of Tubes... I guess we really do need metered billing of scarce bandwidth now that TV Everywhere is "clogging the tubes". How can these companies whine about network congestion and then roll out crap like this. This is the worst kind of hypocrisy. | |
|
| |
|
|
