Time Warner's TV Everywhere to pipe internet TV to Comcast subscribers

Just as we heard back in February, Time Warner and Comcast have joined hands in order to regain control on some of the content that is slipping right out from under 'em. In the olden days, the only portal for catching content was the 'tube; today, a vast array of television shows are available gratis on the web, and that's downright frightening for pay-TV operators. Today, both firms are detailing TV Everywhere in the most general way possible, only telling us that paying Comcast subscribers will soon have access to "premium long-form content" via a web portal. TNT and TBS are the only networks specifically named thus far, but considering that both of those already offer their best programming online to everyone, we're not terribly impressed.

The agreement also includes a trial with around 5,000 Comcast users, which will be used to heavily test a newfangled authentication technology that will be necessary to allow paying Comcast users to access the material from any internet-connected PC. NewTeeVee has also assembled a clean, easy-to-digest FAQ that explains what exactly all this is. To be frank, it seems like a solution in search of a problem from the consumer viewpoint. After all, with portals like Hulu and individual network websites already providing in-demand content online, why is there even a need for some "special portal" for Comcast users? We've heard that paying subs will have access to even more material, possibly movies or other premium shows. But we won't front: we certainly don't want TV Everywhere to convert some of the content that's already free into pay-only content in order to accomplish the aforesaid "even more" goal. At any rate, the public at large probably won't hear more about this until the trial sessions end at an undisclosed time, but you can bet we'll be keeping a cautious eye on any developments.

Read - TV Everywhere press release
Read - NewTeeVee FAQ

[ombsz @ Jun 24th 2009 10:33AM]

I hope their is more to this.

[OneLove @ Jun 24th 2009 10:35AM]

Their what?

[derX @ Jun 24th 2009 10:40AM]

Their there.

[FNG @ Jun 24th 2009 10:50AM]

they're their there

[ombsz @ Jun 24th 2009 11:40AM]

thanks for correcting me

[OneLove @ Jun 24th 2009 10:32AM]

Bite Me Time Warner and Comcast!

[GadgetGeek @ Jun 24th 2009 10:35AM]

Yeah I stopped paying for cable long ago... what's the point? you can watch just about anything online these days...

[Kiwi616 @ Jun 24th 2009 10:47AM]

TNT and TBS named so far because both are owned by Time Warner...duh

[Spiraling Shape @ Jun 24th 2009 11:43AM]

Um the point is that you can watch the content of Hulu on your TV without buying another box like a Roku.

[Josh @ Jun 24th 2009 10:36AM]

stupid stupid stupid tw/twx

so time warner is teaming up with comcast instead of time warner cable, i hate all of them

[carman @ Jun 24th 2009 10:40AM]

Comcast sucks...Comworst is the worst cable company for internet and cable tv. Stay away form them and run the other way.

[Brdystyls @ Jun 24th 2009 10:45AM]

I wish I could, we only have Quest dsl (they use direct tv) and comcast cable internet and tv. No other choice here in Denver. All the other companies are just subsidiaries of either one. There is a third option but I am not paying $400 dollars a month for T1 when cable is faster now and cheaper. OC3 would be nice but that thousands of dollars a month.

[FNG @ Jun 24th 2009 10:52AM]

and Microsoft pays millions in fines for a Monopoly on an OS!

[kjb434 @ Jun 24th 2009 10:40AM]

They didn't just join hands. They have been in a 50/50 partnership for many years regarding building their infrastructure and operations. They are identical.

[Quantumhair @ Jun 24th 2009 10:40AM]

I'm sure that "a newfangled authentication technology" will be easy to use and no burden on the consumer! Hooray!

[Stephen @ Jun 24th 2009 10:42AM]

I canceled cable early this month cause it doesn't make sense anymore to pay for it. Afterall comcast and the rest of them used to rely on TV ad revenue, there is no reason that over the past 20-30 years that cable costs should rise, if anything free market economics states that the price should fall, which actually proves that a monopoly exists (monopoly in the oligopoly sense). I say to hell with cable TV bring back Over The Air broadcasting with DTV it should be easier for the "cable" channels to broadcast through their broadcast owners. Afterall Comedy Central, MTV and the rest could easily use their local CBS affiliates tower and cut out the middle person (the cable line).

[Jon @ Jun 24th 2009 10:49AM]

Yea .. More internet streaming Yawn ..

[smudley @ Jun 24th 2009 10:56AM]

"a solution in search of a problem".... delicious!

[smudley @ Jun 24th 2009 10:59AM]

although i guess it worked for ritalin...

[JFredericks7931 @ Jun 24th 2009 10:57AM]

Nothing I want to see on TBS or TNT anyway. There is already Hulu for this.

[gowen @ Jun 24th 2009 11:25AM]

wow - read all of the comments above. While I don't disagree with what people are saying, you are all missing something fundemental. Who is paying for new content to get made? How do you square this awesome deal you have all jumped on? Stuff is not free and I don't think we REALLY want it to be either.

[Stephen @ Jun 24th 2009 11:40AM]

gowen, before cable TV existed how did broadcasting companies pay for shows, through advertising. Though ads sales may be down, they are less likely to go away (unfortunately, I think it was the inventor of the TV that said there should never be ads). Besides, radio stations exists, and one could say that the internet did really little to stop people from broadcasting radio stations over the internet for free, so why not television? Though I usually mute or change the channel when a commercial comes on (I don't really buy into it) it is clear that the ads still work (i.e. the amount of people that love and buy Apple and the IPhone instead of Linux and Nokia, though that is a bit of a US phenomena).

I'd say that the best things in life are free, or at least do not attract the best ads (i.e. Arrested Development, which Fox killed prematurely). So I'll say this, the internet is a free place, that brings revenue in the same way that TV, Radio and Newspapers have, through ads. Ads still exist through the internet and pay for services like HBO, which used to never have ads, even have ads today, so I say drop the cable bill to the basic service cost ($5.95 in my area) and offer all the channels that have ads, and the cable companies would still exist without a problem. That's my two cents. Oh tip to those with cable seeking to cut the monthly bill, at least for Comcast, call and say you want to speak with the "retention office" tell them you'll leave if they do not cut the montly cost in half, then comment that they are a monopoly, let them state how they are not and threaten to leave again. you'd be surprised how long you can play that cat and mouse game. before canceling cable last month I played that game for a year and half and have not paid more that $30 a month for extended cable.

[kal326 @ Jun 24th 2009 11:00AM]

And then after they have everybody suckling on the internet TV tit, they re-institute the bandwidth caps and start raking in overage fees. Its a win/win for them because you have to be a cable customer to get this new non-needed portal.

[digitalcole @ Jun 24th 2009 11:04AM]

Way to be behind the times guys, although I have faith that they'll screw this up (for the consumer) somehow.

[Rob Cannon @ Jun 24th 2009 1:58PM]

I think it makes since if it allows the following:
1) I can watch anything that would normally air on those channels, but on my schedule (i.e. On-Demand)
2) There is a large back-catalog available and not just last week's shows. I might discover a show and want to catch up on all of the episodes.
3) I am allows to view that content on all of the televisions in my house without having to jump through all of the hoops that Hulu makes me go through.

[ciphun @ Jun 24th 2009 3:02PM]

Hulu hardly makes you jump through ANY hoops. You don't even need to register to watch mostly all of their programming, with exception to material that is deemed to be on a mature level and even then, you only need to agree that you're 18 and older after signing in. I don't know what you consider jumping through hoops, when all you have to do is:
go to hulu.com
search for your show
find the show
click to watch

Where's the hoop jumping again?

[CraigJ @ Jun 24th 2009 11:05AM]

yuck!

[parksprodigy @ Jun 24th 2009 11:07AM]

I hope the premium channels they are talking about include the sports package I pay extra for and then maybe I'll finally be able to catch some O's games or international soccer matches while I'm at work.

[smudley @ Jun 24th 2009 11:09AM]

I think the last time I streamed an episode of anything was Battlestar Gallatica final episode... the experience was tepid at best. In any case any of these networks that are allowing streaming are not going to foot the cost of the bandwith necessary to handle considerable transition from pay cable to free streaming... I dont see why comcast is worried

[Jason @ Jun 24th 2009 11:13AM]

Comcast BLOWS.

[mcwelt @ Jun 24th 2009 11:15AM]

Lame.

You are now and will always be just a dumb pipe to me, Comcast.

[Randall Lind @ Jun 24th 2009 11:18AM]

Comcast Killed TechTV so screw them. The only sweet revenge is the fact G4tv turn into Spike TV 2.

[Haikibutsu @ Jun 25th 2009 6:14AM]

YES! THIS IS MY CHILDHOOD GRUDGE AGAINST COMCAST! MAN THE HARPOONS!

[Danny Moore @ Jun 24th 2009 11:43AM]

All the shows to watch can all be obtained via Hulu and sites such as this one. Speaking of which is Hulu the only good site that has a this type of offering?

[gowen @ Jun 24th 2009 11:59AM]

Stephen,

BULLSHIT. Do some sums. The networks have jumped into HULU because they are scared. Lets look at where we agree:

TV on cable - despite YOU not watching ads - manages to pay for itself the way its run with a mixture of us paying cable subscriptions and advertising. Your comment about how did TV used to work is ill founded and ignorant. It worked because there were only 3 channels to choose from so a fuck of a lot of people watched everything.

So Hulu have discovered that people like to pay nothing, watch fewer spots per hour and - on top of that - advertisers will only pay less per eyeball online than they do on TV.

Are you beginning to think that this might not add up.... are you getting it yet.

The whole notion that the web should be free - content and news want to be 'free' - is a ridiculous hippy concept that was born of the left coast long hairs who put the internet together. Go explain to the people who make content for a living that in fact what they make wants to be 'free'.

While you are at it, next time I come in to buy a burger from you, how about if I tell you that it wants to be 'free'.

You sir are a dumbass. This 'free' internet will not last and if you value what you contribute to society - ie. the notion that your time is worth something and you deserve to be paid for it - you will agree.

[Stephen @ Jun 24th 2009 12:31PM]

gowen, A little harsh I would say. No reason to fly off the handle. You ever think that that the cost of nearly everything in life is, well, substantially higher than the actual cost to produce it? I'll disregard your "hippy" and "burger flipping" comment as you know absolutely nothing about me or my career.

I do not devalue the work of those that create content for the internet, though I do need to clarify one point first, the internet was not created in california nor was it created by any company, it was in fact created by the military in connection with a number of colleges and universities (see Digital Capitalism, by Dan Schiller https://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=16-9780262692335-0).

As for your hippy comment, I have no problem with services such as the internet itself being paid for through tax dollars to expand and create, I think allowing corporation to control the internet (i.e. comcast with broadband capping and throttling http://www.freepress.net/release/342) is worse than government control at least I have a somewhat democratic vote. As for left wing long haired hippies, I am not really sure who your target is in that statement, but I'd say that if capitalism is supposed to bring about the best, most efficient productive tools in society, then the capitalist or really monopolist involved in cable TV are restricting that advancement by preventing people from using services that they even pay for the way they desire. I dropped comcast highspeed a year ago and went with dsl cause verizon, won't restrict what I download or stream, and cares a little (albeit not much) more about their consumers.

I certainly believe my time is valued, I wouldn't study half the stuff I have if I didn't, but I also understand that in the capitalist system the owners of companies actually look at their workers in a much different light, essentially they would rather pay the least they can and devalue a workers labor hours by under paying them while they themselve make a fortune (see Bill Gates and how he tried to get temp workers to perform the same job as full time employees to in fact forcefully raise the production by threatening to replace the full time employees with temp workers, really what kind of values does Bill Gates and Microsoft have?)

by the way i'd never sell you a burger in the first place cause I don't support fast food joints.

[Brdystyls @ Jun 24th 2009 12:32PM]

Dude your a moron. The internet was created by the government and stolen by hackers and made free. Duh. It should have always been free. Still is, just have to know where to look. We pay for speed not the internet. IMHO we should move toward a resource based system and leave the war inducing money behind us. We have the tech to do so. But you go ahead and follow the sheep off the cliff.

[Magallanes @ Jun 24th 2009 11:56AM]

We cant stop here, This is Comcast country!

[Jake @ Jun 24th 2009 12:14PM]

Yeah, so how much do those MF's at Comcast want to charge for this extra bit of service?

[hii @ Jun 24th 2009 11:24PM]

Battlestar Galactica?

FUCK YEARRR

[gowen @ Jun 24th 2009 12:47PM]

Stephen and Brdystyls,

you two are hilarious. you must live among unicorns.

you may not like the cable companies, but that is what they are offering. Go check their annual results to see if you think that their return on investment is unfairly high. However, I doubt any sane person would supposrt you in saying they should provide you with unlimited, fast bandwidth so that you can go get all of the content you want for free.

Tell me. What things in life do you think are worth paying for? I have to assume that you don't live in a hole in the road, so you have already attached a value to where you live. You wear clothes... you can see where this is going.

You do have choice. If you want a superfast connection to the internet so you can find all you want for free why dont you pay someone to come connect your computer to tthe internet's backbone.

I am well aware of how the internet started. My point is that content in NOT meant to be free. People put a huge amount of time, effort and money into making it and you value that you should be prepared to pay for it. What you are saying suggests that you attach NO value to this content as you don't think its worth anything. Wrong.

[ciphun @ Jun 24th 2009 3:10PM]

Content is meant to be free, unless the content owner wants to pay for it. My blog is content and it is free. Quite frankly, we already pay for their content when we watch their ads. That supports their cash flow for providing this content. To act as if they are not already receiving a residual for their content is biased at best.

I do agree with you that people can not expect to have things for free, but my disagreement with your statement is ignoring the fact that we've already been paying it.

Every time you got to a site like hulu.com you have to sit and watch ads. That in turn earns Hulu.com money (the content provided) and they in turn pay licensing fees to the networks (the content creators). To now want to add (because if you think this stuff from comcast will be ad free, well that's just laughable) a fee on top of that, well that's just like hulu.com asking you to pay before you can watch anything. If that should ever happen, I would be in disagreement with that.

[ciphun @ Jun 24th 2009 3:12PM]

Meant to say: "... unless the content owner wants to be paid for it..."

[grouperboy2002 @ Jun 24th 2009 12:53PM]

" I think allowing corporation to control the internet (i.e. comcast with broadband capping and throttling http://www.freepress.net/release/342) is worse than government control"


That is the most idiotic statement I have read on this website. First you would be taxed into oblivion for a government connection especially in this country and especially right now. Its actually already in the works but its not going to be as extreme as it would be. And you would be told what you can view and what you cant.

Fairness doctrine for the internet? Its being discussed about talk radio right now. The only reason it isnt being discussed about tv is because liberals still hold control of it.


It would be better to have government run internet? Like comparing the US post office to say UPS and FEDEX?



We're already going to have "post office" healthcare. I guess we should also have taxed to the hilt government CONTROLLED connections to the web too.



Gowen pegged you perfectly.

[uberfu @ Jun 24th 2009 1:36PM]

I'm already paying a piss load of cash every month for internet service. I'm not a fan of paying an extra fee for content that I'm already being charged for anyway.

Yes - Comcast does exactly that -whether I'm watching conetnt or not.

[gowen @ Jun 24th 2009 2:24PM]

if you are not using your comcast subscription then cancel it and rent stuff from Netflix. Come on guys - its not that hard.

[ciphun @ Jun 24th 2009 2:59PM]

I will not support this and I challenge every customer even those in the 5,000 test group to not support this. Let this fall and fail. This is a venture spurred only with the company in mind wrapped in a package as if it's a solution for consumers when it will be detrimental to consumers.

Please avoid them having this much control, it is not necessary and it is ridiculous. Better alternatives exist.

[Stephen @ Jun 24th 2009 4:42PM]

grouperboy and gowen, corporations already have enough control over the industry, my point is that comcast, has restricted technology advancement. Taxed are you kidding me, there are not enough taxes on income in the US, it is a joke, people who make millions or millions or even hundreds of thousands should pay a higher percentage of their income (look at Nokia for example, Finland has one of the highest income tax brackets in the world, and the difference in pay between their highest paid people vs lowest in the smallest gap amongst developed nations. So you throw the tax idea out, corporations alone in the US make out like bandits (bandits you know the ones that steal), by getting tax breaks so they can make more money, that is exactly why industry moved out of the US, it was never that we paid people too much, its that corporations found people that would take cheaper pay for a job. I won't touch the liberals have control of the TV systems, rupert murdoch, GE, Disney, Viacom and Time Warner do not constitute liberals in my mind, some might be socially liberal, but far from economically liberal.

ciphone makes a good point we do pay for a lot of the internet already through ISPs and ads, though if you are lucky and live in a town or city with free wifi it's not ass bad, but the town still pays for the access. Basically

Do you use Firefox (I do), do you use linux (I do), do you use Miro (I do), point is they are software that are produced without any intention of making profits, but to advance technology. Miro uses bittorrent, which has proven to allow downloading at faster speeds without one place taking the cost of the band width. Bittorrent was not created to allow illegal downloads, but in part to cut the cost to places like democracy now. I don't believe in fantasies, so no there are no unicorn where I am.

[pofc @ Jun 24th 2009 6:05PM]

Sounds like they are trying to reinvent the wheel. They need to partner up with a site like Hulu, then add the content to their Comcast on demand service.

[jed772 @ Jun 24th 2009 6:14PM]

2 Things.
How does this effect their caps?
If they decide to make some exception to their caps for their service only, or take other action to make sure that the competitions service would be inferior in some way, could they actually get away with that?