Time Warner doesn't love online TV
Glenn Britt, head of Time Warner Cable (soon to be a pure-play cable operator), recently engaged in a revealing Q&A with the Wall Street Journal's Vishesh Kumar that highlights yet another impediment to TV networks putting their shows online. Britt warns that cable operators such as Time Warner won't be willing to pay a network as much for the rights to its programming if the same content is available online for free. As he put it:
If all of the programming goes to the Internet, and it's free, then there is a whole source of revenue that the entertainment business is not going to have anymore.
I think we will have to have a new formula for financing television programming, or else we just aren't going to get the same quality and quantity that we are used to today. That's just pure economics. People should think things through before they just go willy-nilly putting things on the Internet.
His argument makes sense if you believe the Net induces TV viewers to abandon the prime-time version of their favorite programs faster than, say, TiVo does. But it's hard to believe that many people skip watching "Gray's Anatomy" on their living room sets because they can tune it in later on their computers. Today, at least, programs transmitted online are viewed on computers, which suggests that the audience is separate from the TV-watching audience. It's time- and place-shifters, or college students who don't have TVs in their dorm rooms.
Britt may have a valid point about the long-term impact of ad-supported online programming. TV sets will eventually become smart enough to tune in ABC.com and Hulu as easily as they do over-the-air and cable broadcasts. But by discouraging programmers from making shows available online, Britt's conceding the Internet to content providers who represent a bigger threat to the entertainment-industry economics, including independent producers, user-generated sites and video bootleggers. Cable operators can try to stand in the way of online content reaching the TV -- after all, they're the ones whose set-top boxes have high-speed modems but no browsers -- or they can try to capitalize on it. Oddly enough, Britt himself said last week that his company planned to help consumers get more Web content to their TV sets (although his comments left some key questions unanswered). Go figure.

If Time Warner doesn't want to play ball, I guarantee that satellite will. They can try to cut off ESPN or MTV, but this is a hollow threat. The cable companies will pay whatever the studios demand because they couldn't survive without the premium programming. This is just Time Warner trying to create fear because they know that their legacy video product is starting to face real competition. Instead of innovating, they'd rather use their incumbent position to try and muscle out competitors. I would think that they would be happy earning more from getting people hooked on the broadband, but I guess when you've had it so sweet for so long, it's hard to give anything up. They can whine about online devaluing the content, but it's quickly becoming more risky to keep something off the net, then to put it all online.
Posted by: Davis Freeberg | June 02, 2008 at 03:54 PM
The middle man is going to get cut out eventually. Cable/satellite is a dying model of distribution. The internet will provide on demand to billions of channels, and to your tv.
Posted by: David | June 03, 2008 at 06:23 AM
Here's a great site to watch free online tv. THere are over 1000 channels to choose from.
http://www.tvweb360.com
Posted by: Star | June 03, 2008 at 11:15 PM
We watch TV via the Internet all the time. it is great. I don't have to run my life around TV. My wife and I have certain shows we want to watch. We usually download them or watch them online. It is great. We do it when we have time. Sometimes on a weekend we will watch two or three in a night. No commericals, can start stop it when we want.
I'd never go back to the Cable / Satellite model. To be honest if there was not the Internet to watch we probably wouldn't watch TV. We do have a basic cable subscription, but that is for our young daughter to watch her children's shows. We never use it.
Posted by: anonymous | June 04, 2008 at 10:57 AM