Funny That HBO Is Putting Shows Online, Just As Parent Time Warner Starts Charging Extra For Bandwidth

from the coincidence? dept

The NY Times is covering the news that HBO has finally decided it needs a real internet strategy, and will start offering its content online, free of (additional) charge to existing subscribers. The idea of putting the content online makes a lot of sense, and it sounds like it's offering features that many HBO subscribers would find useful, from access to archived materials to live streams. However, there is something a little odd about all this, as noted by the folks at The Hollywood Reporter. HBO is owned by Time Warner. Time Warner is the same company that is now starting to experiment with overage fees, sometimes based on very low usage -- which would clearly preclude watching very much online video.

It is true that both of these programs are merely tests -- and they're tests in totally different markets right now. However, the HBO online video will only be available to Time Warner customers. The Hollywood Reporter story suggests that it's a case of two parts of a business not communicating with one another -- but I'm sure some more conspiracy-minded thinkers will naturally assume it's really Time Warner's attempt to squeeze more money out of people. Sure, it will say the HBO streams are "free," but just wait until you get that broadband bill... Of course, there is also another possibility. The Hollywood Reporter story mentions the possibility that Time Warner would create a special "exception" to the bandwidth rule if that bandwidth was for watching Time Warner-only videos. That, of course, is exactly the sort of thing that will be sure to get network neutrality advocates up in arms, though it's a subtle shift from traditional network neutrality claims. This time it won't be about "better quality," but about which content counts towards a bandwidth cap.

Filed Under: bandwidth caps, content, hbo, online, video
Companies: time warner

Funny How Anti-Regulation Telco Buddy Kevin Martin Is Pro-Regulation When It Comes To Cable

from the should-have-sang-happy-birthday-louder dept

December's almost here, and with it, comes FCC chair Kevin Martin's birthday (December 14th, for those who care). This might not seem like a big deal to many, but it was just a couple years ago that a bunch of telco execs got together to sing Martin happy birthday just as he announced a bunch of policy positions that seemed to support the telcos' every wish. What's most amazing is that whenever he's pushed on telco issues, Martin likes to claim that he's against regulations -- but when it comes to companies that the telcos compete with, he's suddenly much more open to regulations. So, it should come as no surprise that the cable companies (who apparently forgot to send Martin a birthday cake) are about to wake up to a different world order, as Martin plans to make use of a loophole in the law to start regulating the cable companies -- including putting serious restrictions on growth. Now, there's no denying that the cableco's have a cushy position, which they all too often abuse. However, especially with the rise of satellite TV and IPTV, more competition is reaching the market. In the end, this move sounds like not just a way for Martin to hurt the cable companies, but also a way for him finally to force them to offer a la carte channel choices, a favorite of Martin's for years, not because of the importance of more choice, but because it could lead to more family friendly programming. It could very well be that regulation makes the most sense for the cable industry -- but it's hard to see how Martin can claim equal treatment of his friends in the telco industry, who he lets merge with abandon, while telling the cable companies they can't do the same.

Filed Under: cable, fcc, kevin martin, regulations
Companies: comcast, fcc, time warner

AOL Learns That You Can't Just Go 'Free, With Ads.' You Need To Give People Reasons To Visit

from the business-model-101 dept

It's been a little over a year since AOL made the big decision to go free. It was about the only thing the company could do at the time. It's subscriptions were dropping rapidly. It held little to differentiate itself from the many free services out there. It had failed to build a real broadband strategy for years. The problem, though, was that the decision to go free was made way too late and, most importantly, without much additional strategy behind it. It seemed like the strategy was basically just "if we go free, we'll sell ads." They left out the important middle step though: the company needed to actually give people a reason to visit and give advertisers a reason to buy ads. Without that step, it really isn't surprising that the company is realizing its "free, with ads" strategy isn't working as well as planned. On the same day that AOL officially bought another online ad company, it was revealed that the growth in ad revenue has been slowing, and it lost a big advertising partner. This is a good reminder, though, for other companies out there who are trying to figure out how to embrace "free" as a part of their business model. You can't really neglect the rest of your business model.

Filed Under: advertising, business models, free
Companies: aol, time warner

One Year After Tearing Down The Walls, AOL Still An Also-Ran

from the free,-as-in-CDs dept

Last year, in a move that came only six years too late, AOL decided that walled gardens were out and that free web services were in. For a brief period, there was a flurry of news about AOL's attempt to reinvent itself as a Yahoo-like portal. With the walls torn down, the challenge for management was to actually give people a reason to use AOL's services, thus driving up traffic and ad revenue. Simply being free would not be enough to bring people back unless there was a compelling reason. A year later, it doesn't look like the company has accomplished this. Earnings guidance was recently reduced as the company's growth rate continues to lag behind the industry average. As Wall Street gets antsy over its performance, it seems likely that we'll hear renewed calls for Time Warner to just dump AOL and finally wash its hands of the whole affair. AOL's problem is the same one facing Yahoo: it's not Google. The difference is that Yahoo still has a lot of market share and traffic to work with. Both companies have made several acquisitions in the past year or so in an attempt to reinvent themselves, but unless one of them stumbles onto the next MySpace, Facebook or YouTube, it's unlikely that acquisitions will hold the key to a turnaround.

Filed Under: free, walled garden
Companies: aol, google, time warner, yahoo

Was Burning The House Down Part Of The Free Installation Offer?

from the wow,-this-HD-stuff-sure-does-make-those-fire-engines-look-real dept

A Verizon installer apparently started a fire at a home in a Boston suburb earlier this week, when he was drilling on the outside of the house and hit an electrical main. Perhaps this story wouldn't be so notable if this sort of thing didn't happen with some frequency -- as it's not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Meanwhile, over at Broadband Reports, one of their users says a shoddy installation by Time Warner resulted in a chunk of their fence burning down. All things considered, though, perhaps these folks should just feel lucky that the techs didn't blow up their house and kill them.

Filed Under: cable, telco
Companies: comcast, time warner, verizon