• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

TIME WARNER GETS STUNG, NOW FEELING THE "IVI TV" BACKLASH

gregg75

gregg75

Can somebody explain to me why networks would be flipping out over this Time Warner iPad app? People using it are required to already subscribe to these channels with Time Warner and it will only work with a Time Warner account on a Roadrunner internet connection. It would be pretty hard to steal cable with this procedure. It would have been nice if they offered an online version for people without iPads, like me.

Still not seeing the issue here. The commercials still play, advertisers should be happy. Its just like cable TV but the medium is different. These guys are going to have to move to the 21st century or get left behind. It took years for big media companies to feel safe about streaming shows and movies online, and meanwhile content was pirated. Now companies like Netflix and Hulu are doing great. If these companies were able to get access to streaming TV channels they could give TW, Comcast, etc a run for their money.
 
The network owners and TV stations want their cut of the action

Commercials mean nothing because Nielsen doesn't count aps users, so any additional viewers don't translate into higher ratings. If Nielsen can't count you (or doesn't choose to count you), the effect is the same.

TV stations and networks feel you pay the cable bill to get the signal delivered VIA CABLE. If you want an additional delivery method you pay again. It would be like having cable and a dish.

ISP providers are starting to fight back too. AT&T DSL is going to cap monthly downloads at 150gb. Which is ridiculously low considering if you get 5.0mb connection speed how much you could in theory download. I feel if I'm paying for a connection speed of 6.0 and I'm only getting 5.0, I ought to be able to get that 5.0 24/7

Well evidently that isn't going to be the case.

Basically it comes down to if there is money to be made, everyone wants their cut of the profit. What will happen is that the TV stations and networks will reach agreement to receive some money from TWC for streaming and everyone will be happy.

Except for the guys who forget about their ISP cap :)
 
AT&T e-mailed me a notice last week that my terms and conditions are subject to
change at any time.

The very next day another e-mail informed me that my connection was going up
$5 a month!!!!
 
Mark said:
The network owners and TV stations want their cut of the action

Commercials mean nothing because Nielsen doesn't count aps users, so any additional viewers don't translate into higher ratings. If Nielsen can't count you (or doesn't choose to count you), the effect is the same.

TV stations and networks feel you pay the cable bill to get the signal delivered VIA CABLE. If you want an additional delivery method you pay again. It would be like having cable and a dish.

ISP providers are starting to fight back too. AT&T DSL is going to cap monthly downloads at 150gb. Which is ridiculously low considering if you get 5.0mb connection speed how much you could in theory download. I feel if I'm paying for a connection speed of 6.0 and I'm only getting 5.0, I ought to be able to get that 5.0 24/7

Well evidently that isn't going to be the case.

Basically it comes down to if there is money to be made, everyone wants their cut of the profit. What will happen is that the TV stations and networks will reach agreement to receive some money from TWC for streaming and everyone will be happy.

Except for the guys who forget about their ISP cap :)
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be that hard to count users via an internet connected app. Seems like it would be a lot easier to do that than count people watching an analog feed of the same channel.

I was under the impression this was only working on Roadrunner internet which is Time Warner's ISP. So obviously they must be okay with the bandwidth requirements.

But I do agree that streaming isn't a very efficient way of getting TV out there. Perhaps in the future we will see a system that works like Bittorrent where people streaming also upload the stream to others. That way the system remains fast. But this would require even more bandwidth and most ISPs don't want to cooperate.
 
I think streaming is a great way to get TV out there. No wires from the telephone pole.
No box to rent. No dish to install. As long as you have a decent internet connection it's
just like watching regular TV.

If you lived in the middle of nowhere I bet you'd like it.
 
NOW, deadline.com is reporting that Time Warner added 17 new channels today (from the
ABC and NBC empires) which don't have a problem with the iPad app. Time Warner also
states on it's blog that those objecting to them streaming their channels "have chosen to sit
on the bank and kick rocks." (instead of going with the flow)

http://www.deadline.com/2011/04/tw-cable-ipad-app-adds-more-channels/#more-119389
 
gregg75 said:
I think streaming is a great way to get TV out there. No wires from the telephone pole.
No box to rent. No dish to install. As long as you have a decent internet connection it's
just like watching regular TV.

If you lived in the middle of nowhere I bet you'd like it.
Click to expand...

From a one-subscriber position streaming is acceptable. Not as good as OTA/cable/sat but OK. What isn't, and why it will never replace the aforementioned, is streaming currently requires a one-to-one connection and there is a fixed upper limit on the number of connections.

Years ago there was a "broadcast" capability but didn't fly because Inet speeds weren't fast enough. But to support "broadcast" methodology on the Internet would require a transport mechanism other than TCP/IP and that is a huge change.

As for the connection speed required....if you live "in the middle of nowhere" you probably don't have access to broadband and, no broadband, no streaming video.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom