AfterDawn: News

Comcast, Time Warner looking to offer TV online

According to a WSJ report, Comcast and Time Warner are considering giving paying cable subscribers access to cable programming online, at no added cost.

Negotiations with content holders have been ongoing for months, and the report specifically notes Viacom and NBC Universal as being interested parties. Those companies own many of the most popular cable networks including TNT, USA and the MTV family.



The new Web services, which could launch as soon as the Q3 2009, should help attract new subscribers, says the cable companies although it will have to compete with free ad-supported sites such as Hulu and TV.com.

Sources familiar to the situation added that the "proposed Web services would likely be in a streaming format with ads, accessible in and out of the home, and without any additional charge to cable-TV subscribers."

Brian Roberts, the chief executive of Comcast added, "online video is our friend, not our enemy."

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 21 Feb 2009 15:54

• Previous article

• 'The Dark Knight' breaks $1 billion milestone

• Next article

• God of War III confirmed for 2009 on PS3

• 7 comments

• b18bek9

  what these companies need to do is stop clogging their own bandwidth with more and more crap and look at laying more lines and getting their infrastructure in order before they pile on more and more to the service they so call give to consumers. Cough....bandwidth caps ...cough cough....and they have compressed hd programing even tho its free u get what u pay for...

  21.2.2009 16:41 #1

• Vivix729

  So, both of them are rolling out bandwidth caps, and now they are planning to introduce this as "no added cost?" Hmmmm.

  21.2.2009 16:42 #2

• ZippyDSM

  Uhg can't we have alacart through TVoverIP already?

  21.2.2009 17:24 #3

• Unfocused

  I'm sure that the marketing and accounting departments are patting themselves on the back for this offering. Marketing came up with the no extra cost section, and accounting is loving the fact that this pushes the subscribers even closer to their bandwidth cap.

  21.2.2009 17:56 #4

• Hard

  This has to be hilarious, now that they are going to start limiting monthly bandwidth, they come up with this. Of course they say it's free so the user will use their services and download, download, download and thus go over their bandwidth limit. Then they'll have nice extra charges on their internet bill to make up for this so called free service. Or should I just use my internet connection just to watch TV and do nothing else? These companies are just plain retarded.

  21.2.2009 23:27 #5

• ThePastor

  They could easily not count these shows in the bandwidth limit. Sort of like a cell-phone user not being charged for in-network calling.
  
  But, now you have a whole different can of worms.
  
  Let me start by saying that I think this is the future of video. This is a great step towards alacart on the web.
  
  But now, if caps are put in place the cable companies will still have a way of controlling your content.
  "You have a cap of so-much. Content from our servers don't count against that cap and content from other servers does. So, you should only view OUR content or you will reach your cap and we will charge you a ton of money."
  
  We need to watch this very carefully, and certainly a very good argument against caps.

  23.2.2009 16:36 #6

• IPRFenix

  It's going to have ads?... Why would you want to watch it if it has ads when other places do this very same thing? They say it's "free", but that's because they're not upping your bill. Regardless, it's NOT free. If it were "free" you wouldn't HAVE to subscribe to their PAID services. Because you DO have to subscribe to a service you DO have to pay for, it ISN'T free. Free isn't free if there's a catch (that involves paying money..). Just watch it at another ad supported site where you DON'T actually HAVE to pay.
  
  Also, even if they didn't count this towards your bandwidth, like in-network calling plans, it still presents a big negative impact on the service. Why? They already OVER charge for their services. These very services which are already old AND overloaded / sold. If they introduce another "service" to consume more of the bandwidth they claim they "had to cap" to keep speeds at a "reasonable level", without upgrading their infrastructure FIRST, this just becomes another two-three steps backwards.
  
  Of course, because they are a bunch of money grubbing bastards, they probably will count it towards your bandwidth cap just so they can complain and / or charge even more.

  23.2.2009 18:03 #7