{"id":655863,"date":"2013-05-02T18:30:42","date_gmt":"2013-05-02T22:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gigaom.com\/?p=641840"},"modified":"2013-05-02T18:30:42","modified_gmt":"2013-05-02T22:30:42","slug":"time-warner-cable-ceos-response-on-aereo-yeah-we-could-do-that","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/655863","title":{"rendered":"Time Warner Cable CEO\u2019s response on Aereo: Yeah, we could do that"},"content":{"rendered":"

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt is thinking about delivering over the air television to consumers via the internet. The CEO of the nation’s second largest cable provider told the Washington Post<\/em> in an interview<\/a> Thursday that he found Aereo’s actions<\/a> “interesting,” and something his company might consider.<\/p>\n

From the Washington Post<\/em> article<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWhat Aereo is doing to bring broadcast signals to its customers is interesting,\u201d Time Warner Cable chief executive Glenn Britt said in an interview with The Washington Post. \u201cIf it is found legal, we could conceivably use similar technology.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That’s a big admission from Britt, and illustrates both how rapidly the internet is changing the television industry.<\/a> But what would be an even bigger admission would be if Britt would consider delivering that public broadcast package beyond its existing subscriber base.<\/p>\n

A modest proposal <\/h2>\n

In short, would Britt be willing to break the unspoken agreement that has kept the telcos and cable providers from infringing on each other’s turfs even as IP technology has made it possible for them to deliver their TV packages over the top?<\/p>\n

If Time Warner Cable were to implement an Aereo-like business model and offer it to anyone, it might hurt Aereo but it would set off a war between the telcos and cable companies to deliver their services over the top. In many cases, the technology isn’t stopping this revolution, but the business implications would give them pause. <\/p>\n

If Comcast’s Xfinity service were available everywhere and so were Verizon’s FiOS packages, then pay TV will have been decoupled from the entwork. All you would be left with are dumb pipes and whole lot of companies offering to provide the same channels of television. Would we need 20 “premium cable offerings?” <\/p>\n

My hunch is no, which would have trickle down effects on the money the networks make as well as hasten the rise of a la carte pay TV packages, or even simply paying for a show. However, all of this speculation is premature as Britt cushioned his statements by telling the Washington Post<\/em> that his company is only watching Aereo’s legal battle and that it doesn’t have concrete plans. <\/p>\n

Taking action on this sort of talk would hugely piss off the broadcasters that own some of the channels that Time Warner Cable depends on to keep its subscribers happy, and may just be a feint in the ongoing fight between cable providers and content companies about retransmission fees<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Back in the real world <\/h2>\n

But Britt is clearly a fan of shaking things up. Unlike many ISPs that view Netflix as a threat to their triple play bundle, Time Warner Cable sends out advertisements touting Netflix as a reason to upgrade broadband speeds. He’s also letting consumers stream live TV to their Roku boxes<\/a> with a Time Warner Subscription (that might come in handy should it elect to make an Aereo-style over the top offering). And he’s also been more vocal about the need for more flexible packages of channels for consumers.<\/p>\n

He reiterated that to the Washington Post<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe structure needs more flexibility,\u201d Britt said. A customer shouldn\u2019t have to pay for less popular channels like VH1 Honors in order to get Nick Jr. and MTV. \u201cThere are fellow citizens who are struggling financially and can\u2019t afford large programming packages. We want the ability to offer those customers smaller, more affordable packages.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It’s better to keep a customer paying you something, rather than decamping because they don’t want to pay for a $150 cable bill. Britt seems to get that, and wants to find a middle ground before the internet and over the top TV offerings take that ground out from under his feet. I wonder if he’s willing to take it even further.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:<\/strong>
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial<\/a>.<\/p>\n