

r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX 1 recommendation r81984 Premium Member Regulation ASAP This is all going to get out of control real fast.

Caps and per byte billing will be the norm and then to use any online video you will have to subscribe to cable TV.



These hybrid cabletv ISPs will destroy the internet.



pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Re: Regulation ASAP said by r81984: This is all going to get out of control real fast.

Caps and per byte billing will be the norm and then to use any online video you will have to subscribe to cable TV.



These hybrid cabletv ISPs will destroy the internet. I don't think this model is going to work very well for news. There is just so many free news sites that few people will pay it.



HB61

Maru Maru Mori Mori

Premium Member

join:2011-06-21

00000 HB61 Premium Member Re: Regulation ASAP Paywalls work fine for news, look at the WSJ. It just won't work for news organizations who suck.



jmn1207

Premium Member

join:2000-07-19

Sterling, VA jmn1207 Premium Member Re: Regulation ASAP said by HB61: Paywalls work fine for news, look at the WSJ. It just won't work for news organizations who suck.





This way, these paywall organizations will make more money than they have any right to make, and our cable providers will feel justified in raising our rates to cover the increase and make a bit of a profit for themselves. That is exactly why they want to move to a similar business model that consumers have to put up with for our cable TV service. We won't have any real control over the content that we can get. There are plenty of TV channels that would never survive if the customer could directly decide whether or not to pay for them. Instead, we have the cable companies paying for the channels and taking the consumer out of the equation.This way, these paywall organizations will make more money than they have any right to make, and our cable providers will feel justified in raising our rates to cover the increase and make a bit of a profit for themselves.



coldmoon

Premium Member

join:2002-02-04

Fulton, NY coldmoon Premium Member Re: Regulation ASAP said by jmn1207: said by HB61: Paywalls work fine for news, look at the WSJ. It just won't work for news organizations who suck.





This way, these paywall organizations will make more money than they have any right to make, and our cable providers will feel justified in raising our rates to cover the increase and make a bit of a profit for themselves.

That is exactly why they want to move to a similar business model that consumers have to put up with for our cable TV service. We won't have any real control over the content that we can get. There are plenty of TV channels that would never survive if the customer could directly decide whether or not to pay for them. Instead, we have the cable companies paying for the channels and taking the consumer out of the equation.This way, these paywall organizations will make more money than they have any right to make, and our cable providers will feel justified in raising our rates to cover the increase and make a bit of a profit for themselves.



If you are going to talk-the-talk, it's high time to start walking-the-walk...



JMHO It is interesting to note that the industry is quick with protestations of "let the market decide", yet will not work to make this a reality through À la carte consumer choice regarding channels they get.If you are going to talk-the-talk, it's high time to start walking-the-walk...JMHO

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23

Tuscaloosa, AL ISurfTooMuch Member Re: Regulation ASAP That's because they don't really mean "let the market decide". What they really mean is "let the market--as defined and controlled by us--decide".



It'd be like a playground where a group of kids convince the parents that things would work much better if the parents allowed the kids to make their own rules that governed use of the playground. The kids would argue that they could work out rules that were fair to everyone, and the parents would be able to go focus on other things. Then, once the parents had agreed to this and left, several of the big kids would get together, shake down all the other kids, and beat up the ones who won't fall in line, running them off the playground. Anyone wanting to play would have to follow the big kids' rules, such as the big kids getting first dibs on the swings, slides, monkey bars, etc., with everyone else taking what they didn't want. And if the parents ever came back to check in, they'd see what looked, superficially, like a smoothly operating playground. They might find a kid with a bloody nose, but the big kids would politely explain that this was a kid who had decided to start a fight because he thought the rules didn't apply to him. The other kids would nod in unison, and the parents would happily go back to watching TV, happy that this self-regulation was working so well.



DennisABC

@sbcglobal.net DennisABC to coldmoon

Anon to coldmoon

I agree most strongly. I want À la carte consumer choice.



ctgreybeard

Old dogs can learn new tricks

Premium Member

join:2001-11-13

Bethel, CT ctgreybeard Premium Member Re: Regulation ASAP I'm not at all sure that your favorite channels or my favorite channels would survive under the a-la-carte rule if we had to individually support each one. By pooling our support through bundling I provide support for your channel and you provide support for mine, regardless of our particular preferences. As they say in Sesame Street ... "Cooperation!"



In this market (non-mainstream cable channels) I'm not that convinced that "survival of the fittest" is the optimal model. A lot of worthy programming may get plowed under.



jmn1207

Premium Member

join:2000-07-19

Sterling, VA jmn1207 Premium Member Re: Regulation ASAP Well, I'd be willing to try paying $30 each month for a couple dozen channels all fighting like mad to provide quality programming. But your point has been raised before, and a likely scenario may end with a bunch of channels all airing some hugely popular Harry Potter clones followed by a very special episode of Glee: The 30-Something Years.



It would be nice if each content provider's offerings were made available individually to every cable or satellite TV subscriber. I would love to personally have some say when Disney comes knocking at my door demanding our first born for the privilege of being allowed to have ESPN 9c.



HB61

Maru Maru Mori Mori

Premium Member

join:2011-06-21

00000 HB61 to ctgreybeard

Premium Member to ctgreybeard

I would choose survival of the fittest over the cable welfare model any day. The only quality programming that would be plowed under would be that which virtually no one wants anyway. If a channel can't obtain enough subs to continue, it shouldn't exist anyway.



Few of the expensive to produce shows are actually produced by the channels they air on. They're produced and then purchased by a network. The shows would still be around, just consolidated. For those that are cheaper to produce, well they wouldn't require a boatload of subs to support (the horrible reality show crap airing in Bravo for example) anyway. Those channels could survive on sub and ad revenues because of their cheaply produced programming.



But if I don't want to drop $10/mo on ESPN (poker is not a sport) I shouldn't be compelled to in order to get some channel I do want. Sports in particular should be sold a la carte or on its own tier, regardless of the massive ratings they bring in. Let those who want it, pay for it and those who don't, not.

elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA elray to ctgreybeard

Member to ctgreybeard

said by ctgreybeard: I'm not at all sure that your favorite channels or my favorite channels would survive under the a-la-carte rule if we had to individually support each one. By pooling our support through bundling I provide support for your channel and you provide support for mine, regardless of our particular preferences. As they say in Sesame Street ... "Cooperation!"



In this market (non-mainstream cable channels) I'm not that convinced that "survival of the fittest" is the optimal model. A lot of worthy programming may get plowed under.





I have no problem with my favorite channel(s) succumbing under ala-carte, but please, don't make me pay for yours.



Your "cooperation" (tax) makes me pay $62 a month to watch one channel, and in time, will have me paying even more to subsidize everyone else's downloading habits.



Ala carte will not make your "worthy" programming fade away. Huh?I have no problem with my favorite channel(s) succumbing under ala-carte, but please, don't make me pay for yours.Your "cooperation" (tax) makes me pay $62 a month to watch one channel, and in time, will have me paying even more to subsidize everyone else's downloading habits.Ala carte will not make your "worthy" programming fade away.



noppy

@telus.net noppy to HB61

Anon to HB61

said by HB61: Paywalls work fine for news, look at the WSJ.



»secure.wikimedia.org/wik ··· /Paywall



may 16 201

»recoveringjournalist.typ ··· all.html



republicans pay big money(capitalism run amok) for access to biased stories and liberals find unbiased news at more open sources. Murdoch's empire is caving in around him, along with all his slaves. Noting that Ad revenues on a open site can make more money,, than having a smaller amount of users to pay to access your site.may 16 201republicans pay big money(capitalism run amok) for access to biased stories and liberals find unbiased news at more open sources. Murdoch's empire is caving in around him, along with all his slaves.



HB61

Maru Maru Mori Mori

Premium Member

join:2011-06-21

00000 HB61 Premium Member Re: Regulation ASAP LOL.



Mashiki

Balking The Enemy's Plans

join:2002-02-04

Woodstock, ON Mashiki to HB61

Member to HB61

said by HB61: Paywalls work fine for news, look at the WSJ. It just won't work for news organizations who suck.





CNN on the other hand, doesn't really have anything that I can't get anywhere else. News? Well I can read a paper from Japan, or the Philippines, Singapore, UK, Finland, Norway, Germany and they all use the same wire services as CNN. CNN doesn't offer any earth shattering commentary that isn't echoed in other services.



So what exactly are they trying to sell that I can get free, and in most cases better from somewhere else? It works for the WSJ because it offers something unique outside of just rebranded news from the wire services. People are willing to pay to read financial advice, and opinions from particular columnists who only write there.CNN on the other hand, doesn't really have anything that I can't get anywhere else. News? Well I can read a paper from Japan, or the Philippines, Singapore, UK, Finland, Norway, Germany and they all use the same wire services as CNN. CNN doesn't offer any earth shattering commentary that isn't echoed in other services.So what exactly are they trying to sell that I can get free, and in most cases better from somewhere else?



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25

Sussex, NJ fifty nine to pnh102

Member to pnh102

said by pnh102: said by r81984: This is all going to get out of control real fast.

Caps and per byte billing will be the norm and then to use any online video you will have to subscribe to cable TV.



These hybrid cabletv ISPs will destroy the internet.

I don't think this model is going to work very well for news. There is just so many free news sites that few people will pay it.



Like it or not, CNN has to make money. "Free" doesn't make money unless they're going to put additional ads in the online stream. Except that they will pay for it with their cable TV subscriptions.Like it or not, CNN has to make money. "Free" doesn't make money unless they're going to put additional ads in the online stream.



r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX 1 recommendation r81984 Premium Member Re: Regulation ASAP said by fifty nine: Except that they will pay for it with their cable TV subscriptions.



Like it or not, CNN has to make money. "Free" doesn't make money unless they're going to put additional ads in the online stream.



You should just pay CNN directly through their website, no cableTV needed. Who said anything about being free?You should just pay CNN directly through their website, no cableTV needed.



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25

Sussex, NJ fifty nine Member Re: Regulation ASAP said by r81984: said by fifty nine: Except that they will pay for it with their cable TV subscriptions.



Like it or not, CNN has to make money. "Free" doesn't make money unless they're going to put additional ads in the online stream.



You should just pay CNN directly through their website, no cableTV needed.

Who said anything about being free?You should just pay CNN directly through their website, no cableTV needed. I can guarantee you that people will cry foul about that more than they are about this.



Oh_Noes1

join:2011-06-11

Chicago, IL Oh_Noes1 Member Re: Regulation ASAP said by fifty nine: said by r81984: said by fifty nine: Except that they will pay for it with their cable TV subscriptions.



Like it or not, CNN has to make money. "Free" doesn't make money unless they're going to put additional ads in the online stream.



You should just pay CNN directly through their website, no cableTV needed.

Who said anything about being free?You should just pay CNN directly through their website, no cableTV needed.

I can guarantee you that people will cry foul about that more than they are about this.



Also, I wonder if they will crack down on the free CNN streams you can easily find online? I don't see how. If you have cable tv and pay for CNN, then you dont have to pay twice. If you do not have cable tv then you must pay a fee for online CNN streaming.Also, I wonder if they will crack down on the free CNN streams you can easily find online?



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25

Sussex, NJ fifty nine Member Re: Regulation ASAP said by Oh_Noes1: Also, I wonder if they will crack down on the free CNN streams you can easily find online?

They probably already do.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 to pnh102

Premium Member to pnh102

said by pnh102: said by r81984: This is all going to get out of control real fast.

Caps and per byte billing will be the norm and then to use any online video you will have to subscribe to cable TV.



These hybrid cabletv ISPs will destroy the internet.

I don't think this model is going to work very well for news. There is just so many free news sites that few people will pay it. I have Comcast, so I am getting it. It seems to work well. Just have to sign in to your Comcast account before viewing live TV on my iPad.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27

El Paso, TX Kamus Member Re: Regulation ASAP said by FFH5: I have Comcast, so I am getting it. It seems to work well. Just have to sign in to your Comcast account before viewing live TV on my iPad.





I rarely even visit the CNN website, they simply can't compete in coverage on all topics with many, many blogs you can simply search for and get instantly briefed. Well, as long as you don't rely on CNN (or worse, FOX news) as your main news source i guess that's OK.I rarely even visit the CNN website, they simply can't compete in coverage on all topics with many, many blogs you can simply search for and get instantly briefed.

Kamus Kamus to r81984

Member to r81984

said by r81984: This is all going to get out of control real fast.

Caps and per byte billing will be the norm and then to use any online video you will have to subscribe to cable TV.



These hybrid cabletv ISPs will destroy the internet.





If there's one thing we don't need from cable is news. The internet fills our news hunger in a much broader way than cable news ever has or will.

Try finding the aftermath of the "war on drugs" in Mexico on CNN.

You won't find it there... go to www.blogdelnarco.com and see just how much you are missing. (be warned, they don't censor ANYTHING and the news aren't corroborated, they just post everything that gets sent to them, from ANY party, even the cartels)

If anything, this slow transition from those news corporations goes to show just how obsolete their way of doing things is and just how far behind they are.

Same goes for tech news... who here goes to CNN to find out about the latest ISP news, or the latest gadget news, or the... you get the idea.



The internet won, there's still some assholes delaying the official crowning, but those will be taken care of. Hopefully in years and not a decade.



All i have to say if you still think you are missing out on the news is:



Google is your friend. Really? you watch CNN?If there's one thing we don't need from cable is news. The internet fills our news hunger in a much broader way than cable news ever has or will.Try finding the aftermath of the "war on drugs" in Mexico on CNN.You won't find it there... go to www.blogdelnarco.com and see just how much you are missing. (be warned, they don't censor ANYTHING and the news aren't corroborated, they just post everything that gets sent to them, from ANY party, even the cartels)If anything, this slow transition from those news corporations goes to show just how obsolete their way of doing things is and just how far behind they are.Same goes for tech news... who here goes to CNN to find out about the latest ISP news, or the latest gadget news, or the... you get the idea.The internet won, there's still some assholes delaying the official crowning, but those will be taken care of. Hopefully in years and not a decade.All i have to say if you still think you are missing out on the news is:Google is your friend.



MrMoody

Free range slave

Premium Member

join:2002-09-03

Smithfield, NC Netgear CM500

Asus RT-AC68

MrMoody Premium Member Re: Regulation ASAP said by Kamus: Google is your friend.

And it's still free, and they aren't going broke. Imagine that.



Bill Neilson

Premium Member

join:2009-07-08

Alexandria, VA 1 recommendation Bill Neilson to r81984

Premium Member to r81984

If people who wrote the regulations rules were truly looking out for consumers, I would agree



But it should scare EVERYONE that todays (and past, btw) politicians who are funded by major ISP's....would write the rules

88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 88615298 (banned) Member ESPN3 model slightly different you only need internet access from you cable company to get ESPN3 you don't need TV service.



tigers

join:2001-01-14

Irmo, SC tigers Member Re: ESPN3 model slightly different Not true for TWC. I have TWC internet but not their cable tv package and I'm blocked out of espn3.

88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 88615298 (banned) Member Re: ESPN3 model slightly different said by tigers: Not true for TWC. I have TWC internet but not their cable tv package and I'm blocked out of espn3.

That has nohting to do with what I was talking about. I never said ALL ISPs have acces to ESPN3. I merely stated you only had to have internet to get ESPN3. With this CNN thing you have to have cable too.



tigers

join:2001-01-14

Irmo, SC tigers Member Re: ESPN3 model slightly different said by 88615298: said by tigers: Not true for TWC. I have TWC internet but not their cable tv package and I'm blocked out of espn3.



That has nohting to do with what I was talking about. I never said ALL ISPs have acces to ESPN3. I merely stated you only had to have internet to get ESPN3. With this CNN thing you have to have cable too. And I'm saying that isn't true. I have internet thru TWC. I'm not allowed ESPN3 because I don't subscribe to TWC cable TV along with their internet package. Thus "you only had to have internet to get ESPN3" is not true in the case of TWC.



Silo

@verizon.net Silo Anon Verizon not listed on the app! The only providers listed are: COX, Comcast, AT&T U-verse, dish, and suddenlink.....



Where is Verizon as stated in the article?



epearce

join:2001-01-24

Temecula, CA epearce Member

Where is Verizon in the application?



IPPlanMan

Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20

Washington, DC IPPlanMan Member Thank you CNN. I remain unfazed in my mission to use as much data as possible on my iPhone 4.



Morac

Cat god

join:2001-08-30

Riverside, NJ Morac Member The restrictions aren't just for the iPad and iPhone apps, but for the cnn.com web site itself. In order to "unlock" live video on cnn.com you have to log in with your "TV service provider" credentials.



Listed providers are: Verizon, Cox, Comcast, AT&T U-Verse, Dish Network and Suddenlink.



treich

join:2006-12-12 treich Member yea where is verizon/frontier at?



mech1164

I'll Be Back

join:2001-11-19

Lodi, NJ mech1164 Member Sadly it seems people believe we are all willing cash machines. Just waiting to be sucked dry. Last I looked my bank account didn't have a 9 with ten zeros past it. This may work but I don't need it and I H3ll won't pay for it. I like the WSJ. That doesn't mean i'll cough up the money for more content. As far as all these sites are concerned POUND SAND!



jester121

Premium Member

join:2003-08-09

Lake Zurich, IL jester121 Premium Member Other than the usual lunatics posting their usual rants, is anyone really going to care or even notice? CNN's been losing viewership for years, and it's not because of a lack on online streaming capability, free or otherwise.



mech1164

I'll Be Back

join:2001-11-19

Lodi, NJ mech1164 Member Re: Yeah, and? said by jester121: Other than the usual lunatics posting their usual rants, is anyone really going to care or even notice? CNN's been losing viewership for years, and it's not because of a lack on online streaming capability, free or otherwise.

So true DAT. The best thing they had going they let go and replaced him with an even more boring lout. Ya wonder why they are losing more money.



AnClar

Premium Member

join:2003-07-31

Belton, TX AnClar Premium Member Re: Yeah, and? It's amazing how TWC just continues to shaft its subscribers! First they don't allow us to get HBO Go on our mobile devices, now they also won't support live CNN streaming on our mobile devices. What they give us instead is a useless crap iPad app that only works INSIDE YOUR HOME!!! That's why I have TVs inside my home cretins!!! Also no DOCSIS 3 anytime soon in my area. If I had any alternatives at all, I'd ditch TWC in a heartbeat, I'm so sick of them.

AnClar AnClar Premium Member LMAO. Another Time Warner shaft job! No HBO Go and now no CNN streams....hey idiots at TWC...WE ARE ALREADY PAYING YOU EXORBITANT AMOUNTS OF MONEY FOR HBO & CNN!!! All we get from you is a useless crap app for the IPad that only works in the house. Give us the services that other providers are already doing and that we are already paying for. If this keeps up I can see more lawsuits coming.



KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK KrK Premium Member This trend will grow. More and more sites will become paywalled gardens that you have to pay to access. Information can be better controlled that way.

funny0

join:2010-12-22 funny0 Member Re: One day the entire internet... won't be. said by KrK: This trend will grow. More and more sites will become paywalled gardens that you have to pay to access. Information can be better controlled that way.





the new copyright for news? NEWSRIGHTS? LOL.



HOME reporting is killing hte news business and , ipods with cams and such are killing hte news business wa wa wa .... and when fewer and fewer go there and we start sites that give it all out free the news that is , then what?the new copyright for news? NEWSRIGHTS? LOL.HOME reporting is killing hte news business and , ipods with cams and such are killing hte news business wa wa wa ....

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member doesn't Cablevision stream all channels with or without agreements? also not mentioned here



i could care less, cnn content isn't exactly worthy of download or streaming, IMO unless it's an exclusive such as Larry King rare interviews or another 9/11

JJV

Premium Member

join:2001-04-25

Seattle, WA JJV Premium Member It worked great while I was waiting around today.