CBS spat with Time Warner Cable extends outage to network's official iPad, iPhone apps

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,772member


    CBS should go straight to iPad...and tell Time Warner to go eat it. 

  • Reply 22 of 30
    stevenozstevenoz Posts: 237member


    If you're in NYC, and in some other parts of the country, another option is to dump TWC completely, except for your cable modem, and get your TV stations the modern way.


     


    Check out aereo.com for all your basic over-the-air stations brought to you over the Internet. $8/mo for a HD picture that you can send to your TV via Apple TV or Roku. Plus you can record shows for later viewing.

  • Reply 23 of 30
    boeyc15boeyc15 Posts: 986member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samdoohickey View Post

    .... while cable companies will become primarily internet providers. .....br />








     

    Bingo... the more and faster people realize this is just a basic 'pipe' and is a utility... like, electricity, water etc and for the public good; the sooner this will happen. If comcast et all where truely visionary, they would spin off the 'cable pipe' business. Firewall it(so to speak) then offer the content deal(s) seperate. But untill they are 'forced' to do it, they have a strangle hold.

    In Korea, Japan etc, the pipe is a utility, you pay for the basic internet pipe... then choose content provider packages.
    Wow... who would of thunk!!
  • Reply 24 of 30
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    CBS should go straight to iPad...and tell Time Warner to go eat it. 





    CBS would but they make a lot more money by charging the cable companies retransmission rights to carry its channels (CBS + Showtime). It has been reported that CBS wants $2 per cable subscriber.

  • Reply 25 of 30
    syrclesyrcle Posts: 1member
    Thankfully I just switched to Direct TV a couple of months ago and enjoy their service WAY more than TWC's. I found the quality of TWC's signal to be pretty bad no matter where I lived, whether it be LA or NY, and their prices to be atrocious.
    Now I pay less money with Direct TV and can still watch CBS related shows both online and in demand and in HD, and the quality is great!
    I do have TWC internet still, as it's still the best service I have experienced, but overall I do not like how TWC does business, and I'm trying to understand, how a dispute between TWC and CBS, results in losses for the customers. Now everyone who is a subscriber of TWC, is now losing out to programming that is normally free of charge over the airwaves. Why should the customers be punished? Not a great way to keep customers at all, when their is a huge movement to go away from cable all together.
    If I were an existing customer, I'd switch like I did, or if you have good antenna reception; screw cable!
  • Reply 26 of 30
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stevenoz View Post


    If you're in NYC, and in some other parts of the country, another option is to dump TWC completely, except for your cable modem, and get your TV stations the modern way.


     


    Check out aereo.com for all your basic over-the-air stations brought to you over the Internet. $8/mo for a HD picture that you can send to your TV via Apple TV or Roku. Plus you can record shows for later viewing.



    It is funny that Time Warner has recommended viewers get Aereo to get their CBS.

  • Reply 27 of 30

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post



    That CBS is blocking TimeWarner internet customers from accessing their website seems to flaunt the spirit of Net Neutrality. Not all TW customers actually subscribe to TV programming, some only subscribe to internet. To suggest that an ISP is responsible for some kind of payment to a content provider is absurd, and contrary to the way the internet has been working since inception. Does CBS block access from .edu IP addresses, unless the institution pays a fee? I think not. This is absolutely wrong of CBS. They think they're being clever, but they are acting unethically and possibly illegally, IMO.


    Umm isn't it Time Warner that is blocking CBS? Hopefully CBS gives them the finger and streams over the internet and apps anyway. As soon as someone breaks free, the house of cable & satellite collapses. Sadly we don't have TW in Chicago, and even worse, because our local affiliate still broadcasts on VHF, many folk, me included, are not able to get them over the air. But I would love to see that CBS app inside my Apple TV, it would be all good!

  • Reply 28 of 30
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WisdomSeed View Post


    Umm isn't it Time Warner that is blocking CBS? Hopefully CBS gives them the finger and streams over the internet and apps anyway. As soon as someone breaks free, the house of cable & satellite collapses. Sadly we don't have TW in Chicago, and even worse, because our local affiliate still broadcasts on VHF, many folk, me included, are not able to get them over the air. But I would love to see that CBS app inside my Apple TV, it would be all good!





    Technically yes. CBS was allowing TWC to carry its signal while negotiating an increase in its retransmission fees (reportedly from $1 per subscriber to $2), forcing the issue into football season when is would be much more difficult to TWC to lose the channel. For $2 per cable subscriber, CBS isn't looking to enable the app that allows cord cutting.

  • Reply 29 of 30

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pt123 View Post




    Technically yes. CBS was allowing TWC to carry its signal while negotiating an increase in its retransmission fees (reportedly from $1 per subscriber to $2), forcing the issue into football season when is would be much more difficult to TWC to lose the channel. For $2 per cable subscriber, CBS isn't looking to enable the app that allows cord cutting.



    Hmmm. I can see CBS trying to get their money since they are being carried by the cable company and also drawing viewers away from broadcast since they are bundled with the availability of so many other channels. However, if they were an app on Apple TV, even in competition with other over the air networks, Fox, NBC, ABC, and the local yokels (CW, Weigel Broadcasting), the lack of competition would compensate for the loss of cable since they would be selling advertisers more eyes, or at least not fewer eyes as they are getting with cable. Or they can wait until their over the air licenses expire and live streaming becomes a requirement of having OTA broadcast capabilities.

  • Reply 30 of 30
    Not exactly on-topic.

    So the networks are free-to-air broadcast and make money off ads and the rates are based on viewership?

    TimeWarner and other cable companies all have two-way boxes now?

    So why not instead of charging for rebroadcast rights, trade for real numbers of viewers? How many watched live? How many recorded it? How many watched on-demand?

    The cable companies are surely keeping and keeping up with this data to help make decisions on which channels they should keep on their packages?

    Seems like a win-win-win(the last win provided that the rates relax a bit for subscribers.) The networks have even better data to negotiate ad rates. The cable companies don't have to negotiate for rebroadcasting rights anymore.
Sign In or Register to comment.