Latest TWC Attempt to Spin

[Tom Snyder]

Saw a new add this morning for Time Warner HD claiming that they have "the most free HD shows per week during primetime." The number was something like 188 to 0 for satellite.  Then they boasted about their new technology that will have that number continue to grow... with a a meter that kept going until it disappeared at 945.

"Hello, time warner cable? Yes, I'd like that free HD. What? I still have to pay for basic cable to get 'free?' "

Nice try, guys! But, the service with the most TRULY free HD prime times shows is my ANTENNA!!!!

BTW, D* addded two more HD channels this morning... Tennis Channel and CSTV (part of the sports package). Yeah, I know some will say "big deal... who cares about the Tennis Channel?" But what HD channels DOESN'T D* have?  :p

[Dan the Man]

Wow, is that a bunch of crap.

Now it is true that the number of HD channels on TWC will continue to grow. The true question is at what growth rate?

And this statement: "the most free HD shows per week during primetime." PRIMETIME is the key. During other time slots, they have little HD. What is out of that slot that is not an extra package? TBSHD, TNTHD and Discovery-HD?

And yes, free is not really the right thing to say because you are right Tom, my ANTENNA is the only free HD.

I bet the dish guys sue TWC over this one.....

[klwillis45]

Here's a novel idea for TWC. Put all the $$$ they spend on spin control towards fixing the actual problems. :eek:

[gparris]

TWC had years to update their system and Directv's planned satellite launch was not a pipe dream, but a coming reality.

During that time, TWC Wisconsin did not care enough about its subscribers to add capacity to match Directv like nearby Comcast or even other TWC systems in the country:
So it could add more HD channels, such as those  we would not be missing today
-like the twelve HD channels many other TWC locations currently offer.

These continued "spins" are a "call of panic" indicating they are losing the battle for their higher-end subscribers-their HD subscribers!

[Bebop]

That's what happens when TW had a monopoly here up to 90s. They didn't do anything until threaten, by that time it could be too late. TW's ads back then when DirecTV first started:  "We have free local channels" and now "We have free local HD cahnnels". :-)

If you read the news it's always areas TW has competition that get upgraded service first.

[tencom]

TWC had years to update their system and Directv's planned satellite launch was not a pipe dream, but a coming reality.

During that time, TWC Wisconsin did not care enough about its subscribers to add capacity to match Directv like nearby Comcast or even other TWC systems in the country:
So it could add more HD channels, such as those  we would not be missing today
-like the twelve HD channels many other TWC locations currently offer.

These continued "spins" are a "call of panic" indicating they are losing the battle for their higher-end subscribers-their HD subscribers!

Maybe Mr. G.Harris could come up with another 2.5 billion dollars for TWC, so  they could expand there bandwidth to accomadate more HD channels for an additional 15 analogue channels that could carry 32 HD  more HD streams.

[tencom]

TWC had years to update their system and Directv's planned satellite launch was not a pipe dream, but a coming reality.

During that time, TWC Wisconsin did not care enough about its subscribers to add capacity to match Directv like nearby Comcast or even other TWC systems in the country:
So it could add more HD channels, such as those  we would not be missing today
-like the twelve HD channels many other TWC locations currently offer.

These continued "spins" are a "call of panic" indicating they are losing the battle for their higher-end subscribers-their HD subscribers!

Maybe Mr, gharris  could  come-up with 2.5 billion dollars for TWC so they could expand their bandwidth for an additional 16 analog channels, to carry 32 more HD streams!

[syrett4]

Saw a new add this morning for Time Warner HD claiming that they have "the most free HD shows per week during primetime." The number was something like 188 to 0 for satellite.  Then they boasted about their new technology that will have that number continue to grow... with a a meter that kept going until it disappeared at 945.

"Hello, time warner cable? Yes, I'd like that free HD. What? I still have to pay for basic cable to get 'free?' "

Nice try, guys! But, the service with the most TRULY free HD prime times shows is my ANTENNA!!!!

BTW, D* addded two more HD channels this morning... Tennis Channel and CSTV (part of the sports package). Yeah, I know some will say "big deal... who cares about the Tennis Channel?" But what HD channels DOESN'T D* have?  :p

Two points.

1. I have DTV and I still get FOX, ABC and NBC HD so whatever number they come up with for them is fine, but satellite is not 0.  If they are comparing to Dish (which I am not familiar with) they they should state that specifically.  To lump Dish and DTV into all Satellite TV is misleading.

2. Regarding CSTV/Tennis HD - Its that "satisfy the masses" of TWC vs "Niche".    TWC only adds channels it thinks everyone wants while DTV adds all the channels it can provide and lets ME decide what I want to watch.  THAT is a HUGE difference in philosophy and one of the main reasons I switched last month.

[jeffski]

Not to mention with true FREE local HD via antenna, we can get ALL the subs offered.  

[Cheesehead Dave]

I did enjoy the NFLN's commercial Saturday night which sums up my feelings...

"My cable company says I can't have the NFL Network. They let me have four women's channels, though."

"Four Women's channels? I was in Korea!"

[tencom]

I did enjoy the NFLN's commercial Saturday night which sums up my feelings...

"My cable company says I can't have the NFL Network. They let me have four women's channels, though."

"Four Women's channels? I was in Korea!"

Of course the four womens channels cost subscribers less then the NFL channel and probably has much more original programming, instead of  repeats and rehash of previous games and speculation on upcoming games.

[Jack 1000]

Of course the four womens channels cost subscribers less then the NFL channel and probably has much more original programming, instead of  repeats and rehash of previous games and speculation on upcoming games.

Tend to agree,

It's a nutty debate.  However, I think that NFL Network thinks that they are bigger than they really are.  Football games represent the last of a dying breed of OTA sports that fans shouldn't have to pay extra to watch.  It's not like the NFL doesn't make enough money that they have to charge extra for their own network!!  No one was deprived when these games were on free TV, as they should remain.  But worse than that, NFL Network has not proven itself to be a top sports commodity like a channel such as ESPN, that solidifies its foundations with a 25 year history.

I am not sure how long the NFL Network has been around.  However, since the announced lack of carriage by TWC, there were maybe two good games that were of concern to the public who couldn't get the channel.  The same with The Big Ten Network.  There are maybe 5 games that are worthwhile to Wisconsinites all season on that channel.  Another issue is, what happens to that channel's value AFTER football season ends?

Yes, I believe that people who want the channel should have the choice to receive it.  But at what price?  I suppose the NFL Network could do off season "Best of" games.  But if you look at ESPN Classic, a channel created by a company with a strong foundation, they keep repeating the same events on that channel over and over again.  The question is the following:

Is there enough live coverage on a yearly basis to justify the cost to subscribers for a network that has had a relatively short life span?

Jack

[RLJSlick]

Well said I couldn't agree more.

Tend to agree,

It's a nutty debate.  However, I think that NFL Network thinks that they are bigger than they really are.  Football games represent the last of a dying breed of OTA sports that fans shouldn't have to pay extra to watch.  It's not like the NFL doesn't make enough money that they have to charge extra for their own network!!  No one was deprived when these games were on free TV, as they should remain.  But worse than that, NFL Network has not proven itself to be a top sports commodity like a channel such as ESPN, that solidifies its foundations with a 25 year history.

I am not sure how long the NFL Network has been around.  However, since the announced lack of carriage by TWC, there were maybe two good games that were of concern to the public who couldn't get the channel.  The same with The Big Ten Network.  There are maybe 5 games that are worthwhile to Wisconsinites all season on that channel.  Another issue is, what happens to that channel's value AFTER football season ends?

Yes, I believe that people who want the channel should have the choice to receive it.  But at what price?  I suppose the NFL Network could do off season "Best of" games.  But if you look at ESPN Classic, a channel created by a company with a strong foundation, they keep repeating the same events on that channel over and over again.  The question is the following:

Is there enough live coverage on a yearly basis to justify the cost to subscribers for a network that has had a relatively short life span?

Jack

[nick3092]

Maybe Mr, gharris  could  come-up with 2.5 billion dollars for TWC so they could expand their bandwidth for an additional 16 analog channels, to carry 32 more HD streams!

I think what he was getting at was that TW knew for a long time that their competition was increasing their capacity, and that it is not a monetary issue.  And I don't think it is a lack of funds that is stopping TW-WI.  I could call them up right now, saying I'm leaving them for DirecTV, and they will offer to cut quite a bit off my bill to keep me.  If they can afford to make offers like that when people leave, then that indicates they are not short on funds.

[gparris]

Now, I don't know where the heck some folks come up with such "interesting" dollar installation amounts :huh?:

- But according to the "experts" at avsforums, Milwaukee:
TWC is installing SDV right now and from the looks of it, it's done (or almost there), already!
See:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=652328

However, TWC Wisconsin seems to have very little desire to add what the other TWC locations, including the much smaller-serviced areas like TWC Maine do, for HD channel additions, unfortunately.
See:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/21/time-warner-adds-six-new-hd-channels-in-augusta-maine/

It's really not about the money to add more HD channels, it's the desire to offer them.

TWC Wisconsin management is thinking we, as Wisconsin HD subscribers, do not care (or know anything) about other TWC locations' HD channel offerings are!:(

For TWC, ignorance is "bliss" and if you can spin it enough, anything is believeable to the unknowing consumer.

(Remember those "flying pigs" commercials, not too far back?)