Comcast, Time Warner Hope To Tame Internet VideoNew TV Everywhere trial starts, raises eyebrows... 08:57AM Wednesday Jun 24 2009 by Karl Bodetags: Video · competition · business · alternativesBack in March, Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes announced that Time Warner and Comcast would be taking the traditional TV model and putting it online -- offering 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. While there's a strong contingent (including HDNet CEO and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban) who believe Internet video is little more than a gnat in the eye of infallible legacy TV delivery, the New York Times notes how this new "TV Everywhere" concept is indeed aimed at preventing "cord cutting" before it really gets going. But the threat is real and Cuban's posturing is a strong indication he knows it -- and is worried. The first test of the new system will be announced today by Bewkes and Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, who'll inform us that a trial is starting using 5,000 Comcast customers and TV shows from Time Warner networks TNT and TBS. The system will use some kind of authentication to verify you're a cable customer, and while the carriers are promising the service will open up content -- some are nervous about content lock down. Given the recent ambitions to impose metered billing on customers to monetize and ration competing Internet video, some folks are obviously skeptical about the motivations here. Many believe forcing the existing model online behind authentication walls isn't really so much about innovation as it is about control. Cable executives are wholly terrified of a future where they're little more than dumb pipes delivering other people's content. While broadcasters and cable companies love to fight over money, neither wants the existing profitable structure to wither and die. That could result in cable carriers convincing broadcasters to stop posting content online for free -- and instead force it behind cable authentication walls. That of course would simply act to drive additional customers toward piracy -- a cycle executives haven't quite comprehended yet. More details should pop up later on this morning at the conference. Update: The full Time Warner press release is available here, but at this point offers only minimal additional information.
Related:- Blockbuster: Celebrating 10 Years Of No Broadband Strategy
- Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
- FiOS Broadens Multi-Room FiOS Functionality
- AT&T Launches New Video Portal
- Pittsburgh City Council Approves FiOS Franchise
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- Cable Industry: Shucks, Guess Nobody Wants CableCARDs
- Comcast Internet Video Launching Before Year End
|
 
IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC | How about that 250GB Cap, eh? Still got that 250GB cap to deal with....
Or maybe they can not have it count against your cap like the Comcast Digital Voice. | |
|  | nokiatech
join:2000-10-18
Stuart, FL | Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? CDV doesn't count against your internet cap because it does not use your internet connection. This probably will count against the cap. | |
| | | 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? said by nokiatech  :CDV doesn't count against your internet cap because it does not use your internet connection. This probably will count against the cap. Which is absolutely stupid, if TW is the one offering the content, it should not count against their caps, I could understand if the content is not being stream from them... | |
| | | | LurkerLito
join:2004-06-08
| Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? said by Cheese :Which is absolutely stupid, if TW is the one offering the content, it should not count against their caps, I could understand if the content is not being stream from them... If this doesn't count against their cap then the service would be favoring it's content over other companies like Hulu etc. Which would make them a target for Net Neutrality advocates for anti-competitive/monopoly behavior.
The cap should NOT exist in the first place. | |
| | | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? said by LurkerLito :said by Cheese :Which is absolutely stupid, if TW is the one offering the content, it should not count against their caps, I could understand if the content is not being stream from them... If this doesn't count against their cap then the service would be favoring it's content over other companies like Hulu etc. Which would make them a target for Net Neutrality advocates for anti-competitive/monopoly behavior. The cap should NOT exist in the first place. Of course it would favor their content, their pipes/their content, while HULU would work, it would just count against the caps.
And yes, there should be no caps, I agree. | |
| | | | | |
IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC | Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? The fact that we're even discussing the cap means that it's way too low... or shouldn't even exist at all... | |
| | | | | | | 
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY | Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? or time warner's low cap of 5gb! | |
| | | | | | | |
IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
1 edit | Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? That's probably 3 Netflix/Apple TV HD movies... | |
| | | | | | | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? It's barely 1 DVD ISO. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? said by en102 :It's barely 1 DVD ISO. even blu-ray maxes out at 50 GB. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? There's clearly a huge difference in those type of caps. I guess this is clearly a great pricing point, because the last mile networks of cable co's can only support 5, 15, 25, 100, 250gb caps.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? said by Pizz :There's clearly a huge difference in those type of caps. I guess this is clearly a great pricing point, because the last mile networks of cable co's can only support 5, 15, 25, 100, 250gb caps. If you want to break it down, a 38mbps DOCSIS channel (ignoring overhead) can transfer a total of 12,312GB/mo, or a total of 17.1GB/hour. Depending on MSO, local usage, and other such factors each downstream channel has 100-1000 modems attached.
It really doesn't matter what your position is on caps, the reality is usage is constrained by capacity which is not necessarily easily augmented. If this were a network built out on cheap commodity Ethernet, it would be a different story. | |
| | | | | | | | | | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? It is very easily augmented by investing money into the network. Money that both TWC and Comcast have gobs of and make more of every year.
Money that was given to them to the tune of $300 billion over the last 10 years, and that they pocketed. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
1 edit | Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? Sure you can. Look at pg. 25, 26 of the .pdf.
Also, seeing as how Comcast is a near monopoly in many of its areas, until real competition exists it's hard to sympathize with a company that makes billions in profits that wants to cap and/or throttle, regardless of the overall % of those margins.
As for links:
»www.newnetworks.com/attbroadband.htm
and...
»www.teletruth.org/docs/SBCMergerharms.pdf | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? Yeah, I'm still trying to digest it. I won't have a snarky comeback, though. It seems sane. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | More Options Kudos to cable for at least giving us more options. With the success of YouTube and Hulu, why wouldnt we expect them to try to get in on the action? | |
| | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: More Options said by baineschile :Kudos to cable for at least giving us more options. With the success of YouTube and Hulu, why wouldnt we expect them to try to get in on the action? they can smell the money!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| | | Mark F
join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN
1 edit | AOL has The Adventures Of Superman, Gilligan's Island, Man From U.N.C.L.E. and Wonder Woman, and, Hulu has, McHale's Navy, Kojak, Ironsides, and the original Battlestar Galacica, to name just a few.
Those are among the many shows not carried by any cable channel. In fact, TV Land, Sleuth, American Life and others have downsized their classic TV offerings. Which is driving classic TV fans to the internet.
And, that is partly why there is talk of caps and per byte billing. They would rather you watched something they have on cable, but when what you want to watch isn't on cable, they want a piece of that, too.
It's also about controling what we watch and how we watch it.
Verizon is to be offering internet-to-TV video streaming in a few months. But, Hulu, AOL, etc. won't be supported. By controlling what we watch, they won't have to worry so much about imposing caps.
Mark F. | |
| | gorehound
join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME | Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? slime warner and the rest of these hosebags will love it when the unintelligent masses pay the overages they will get after wasting their caps on a few days of watching HD feeds hours per day. | |
| | chasmn84
join:2009-05-07
Glen Ellyn, IL | Why is this always the first thing posted... the caps comments are getting old... especially if most people never come close to them and the company isn't trying to make money off of it. No overage fees charged so whats the problem? | |
| | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: How about that 250GB Cap, eh? said by chasmn84 :Why is this always the first thing posted... Because a cap, any cap, is a large mental obstacle -- a limiting factor. Metered billing (for those that do that) is going to be similarly limiting.
I think that time/data caps and metered billing have their place in an array of pricing options, but it's important to remember that the unlimited offering is probably the most beneficial environmental factor for the explosive success of the Internet as an innovation engine.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| 
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | Dumb pipes They already are!
Cable companies receive and retransmit other people's programming. | |
| | wxdude10
join:2004-11-15
Chelmsford, MA | Re: Dumb pipes I was going to make the exact same comment. If the content companies decided to take their business elsewhere, the cable companies would have NOTHING. They are already dumb pipes, they just don't want to admit it. | |
| | 
60529262
join:2007-01-11
Chicago, IL
| That one always makes me laugh. Unless you count filler like the Golf Channel and regional sports Comcast (for example) is little more than a dumb pipe now. They have to pay to get the stuff people really want to watch. Once the producers figure out a way to make more money by cutting out the cable middleman, the cable video cash cow is hamburger.
Time Warner is dumping its cable operation. If the content creators (like TW) felt that cable had long-term legs this would not be happening. Content is king, no matter how it gets to you. Cable could very well find itself as irrelevant at VHS in 10 years. | |
| | |
IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC | Re: Dumb pipes Caps and overage charges is a way to stay "relevant"... | |
| | | |
See 47 replies to this post | |
60529262
join:2007-01-11
Chicago, IL | TNT and TBS Really? TNT and TBS? Now there is some cutting-edge programming!
What's next, The Andy Griffith Channel?
 | |
| jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| Welcome to another edition of "As The Irony Wheel Turns!"
Given the recent ambitions to impose metered billing on customers to monetize and ration competing Internet video, some folks are obviously skeptical about the motivations here. Many believe forcing the existing model online behind authentication walls isn't really so much about innovation as it is about control. Customers are already skeptical over Comcast's TV-over-net offering (which is supposed to prevent defections and prevent people from seeing it as a penny-pinching scheme) yet Comcast has now announced that that same service will also eat into your internet cap allowance!
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| |
IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
1 edit | Re: Welcome Nice find.
It's Comcastic! | |
| | | | | 
Not Yer Avg Bear
@sbcglobal.net
 from:
IPPlanMan
| Re: Welcome said by espaeth :The small end of the funnel is the DOCSIS interface between your cable modem and their head-end. So you are saying that the basic transport mechanism is not up to the task? Maybe, instead of anti-competitive limits wrapped in network protection doublespeak, the NCTA and CableLabs might be working on fixing the problem? Of course not...because network protection is the last thing on their minds. Outrageous profit protection, however, keeps them up at night. For all of the bitching about the cost to provide things like SMS vs what wireless companies charge nobody has ever fully vetted and reported the cost to provide video over IP over residential cable vs what is charged by the cable mafia.
Greed is the problem. How much did Comcast make last year again? | |
| | | |
Cybrtweek
@comcast.net
from:
dadkins
| Re: Welcome NEWSFLASH!!! COMPANIES ARE IN BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY!
Why is it that EVERYONE that complains about caps and such are the same people that demand companies stop making any profit. They always have the same mentality that the company should give them everything for free. Why is that? Are you so important that companies should just bow they heads and hand over anything they are selling for nothing?
The business model of MAKING A PROFIT has been around since the very first trading companies and yet you don't seem to understand. It's simple! If you like what is being sold, it is the right price for you and you like the way the company does business then buy their product if not then KEEP YOUR DAMN MONEY and move on. If the company is not doing business appropriately they will lose money and go out of business in time. Simple right?
If Comcast is doing such a bad job at running THEIR business then why are they still in business? Its because they are still offering a service that the masses use and pay for. Oh and they will continue tto make money and reinvest as they see fit because IT'S THEIR BUSINESS!
Maybe you need to start a non-profit Internet company and give everyone unlimited access to put these “greedy” companies out of business. | |
| | | | |
Tweeker1
@comcast.net | Re: Welcome Everybody wants something for free... | |
|
Bob S
@rr.com |  HBO over Broadband
| |
| | | Mark F
join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN | Re: let the "tube" tell the tale: The more shows people watch online that aren't on cable (on their schedule, of course), the less cable they watch. Which is why companies like Comcast are interested. Now, if more online content was on cable, that'd change.
Mark F. | |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | DRM, proprietary players, low bit rates meh.
you KNOW thats what it'll be. | |
| old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| How much are we using? I would be interested in finding out how much I actually use my FIOS internet connection. It's hard to make sense of caps and such if you have no idea how much you are using now. Strangely, the providers can't seem to come up with a simple accurate way to tell you. | |
| | | |
|
|
