More than two years after the cable industry began promoting the concept of TV Everywhere, offering paying subscribers access to cable networks and shows online and on-demand, Time Warner, Inc. is finally moving to introduce live streaming of its TBS and TNT networks 24 hours a day to authenticated cable, satellite, and telco-TV subscribers.

The move comes just a few days after ABC announced its own Watch ABC service, which will also only be available to customers with a pay television subscription.

The move is designed to increase viewing and advertising opportunities for the Time Warner cable networks. Since online viewers will need credentials supplied by their pay-TV provider to reach the streams, non-paying viewers will be kept away.

A number of providers have their own implementation of TV Everywhere, introducing apps and viewing portals where paying customers can scroll through and watch cable channels without having to visit the website of each network.

Other stories of interest:

1. ESPN Finally Launching Online for Time Warner Cable Subscribers Oct. 25th
2. Updated: Here Come the Streaming Paywalls: Comcast, March Madness Now Charging for Online Access
3. Fox: You’ll Have to Wait 8-Days to Watch Our Shows Online, Unless You Are a Pay TV Subscriber
4. TV-Sized Ad Loads Coming to Online Video? – With Overcharging Schemes, You’ll Pay More to Watch Them
5. Turner Introduces New TV Everywhere App for Everyone But Time Warner Cable Customers

Wireless Industry: We’re running out of spectrum!
Wireless Industry: We’ve got plenty to room for unlimited ESPN!

America is on the verge of a wireless traffic data jam so bad, it could bring America to its knees.

Or not.

Stop the Cap! notices with some interest that while wireless carriers continue to sound the alarm about a spectrum crisis so serious it necessitates further compressing the UHF television dial and forces other spectrum users to become closer neighbors, the same giant phone companies warning of impending doom are negotiating with online video producers to offer customers “toll-free,” all-you-cat-eat streaming video of major sports events that won’t count against your usage allowance.

ESPN is in talks with at least one major carrier (AT&T or Verizon Wireless) to subsidize some of the costs of its streamed video content so that customers can watch as much as they want without running into a provider’s usage limit. Both Verizon and AT&T have signaled their interest in allowing content producers to pay for subscribers’ data usage. In fact, they don’t seem to care who pays for the enormous bandwidth consumed by streaming video, so long as someone does.

At a recent investment bank conference Verizon Wireless chief executive Dan Mead explained the next chapter in monetizing data usage will allow the company to rake in more revenue from third parties instead of customers already struggling with high wireless bills.

“We are actively exploring those opportunities and looking at every way to bring value to our customers,” said Mead.

Content producers are increasingly frustrated with the stingy caps on offer at AT&T and Verizon Wireless because customers stop accessing that content once they near their monthly usage limit. One large provider admitted to ESPN that “significant numbers” of customers are already reaching their cap before the end of their billing cycle, after which their online usage plummets to limit the sting of overlimit charges.

Offering “toll-free” data could dramatically increase the use of high bandwidth applications and increase profits at wireless providers based on new fees they could collect from content producers. Customers would still be subject to usage limits for all non-preferred content, a clear violation of Net Neutrality principles.

The buffet is open.

But in case you forgot, wireless carriers won exemption from Net Neutrality, arguing their networks lack the capacity to sustain a Net Neutral Internet experience. These same companies claim without more frequencies to handle the massive, potentially unsustainable amount of wireless traffic, the wireless data apocalypse could be at hand in just a few years. It was also the most-cited reason AT&T and Verizon discontinued their unlimited use data plans.

But unlimiting ESPN video? No problem.

In January 2010, Verizon Wireless was singing a very different tune to the FCC about the need to control and manage high bandwidth applications like the “toll-free” streaming video service ESPN proposes (underlining ours):

Wireless broadband services face technological and operational constraints arising from the need to manage spectrum sharing by a dynamically varying number of mobile users at any time. Thus, unlike, for example, cable broadband networks, where a known and relatively fixed number of subscribers share capacity in a given area, the capacity demand at any given cell site is much more variable as the number and mix of subscribers constantly change in sometimes highly unpredictable ways.

Are wireless carriers now part of the problem?

For example, as a subscriber using a high-bandwidth application such as streaming video moves from range of one cell site to another, the network must immediately provide the needed capacity for that subscriber, while not disrupting other subscribers using that same cell site. Of course, the problem is magnified many times over as multiple subscribers can be moving in and out of range of a cell site at any given moment. Moreover, the available bandwidth can fluctuate due to variations in radio frequency signal strength and quality, which can be affected by changing factors such as weather, traffic, speed, and the nearby presence of interfering devices (e.g., wireless microphones).

These problems compound those resulting from limited spectrum. As the Commission has repeatedly recognized in proclaiming an upcoming spectrum crisis, “as wireless is increasingly used as a platform for broadband communications services, the demand for spectrum bandwidth will likely continue to increase significantly, and spectrum availability may become critical to ensuring further innovation.”

A wireless carrier cannot readily increase capacity once it has exhausted its spectrum capacity. Thus, wireless broadband providers are left to acquire additional spectrum (to the extent available) or take measures that use their existing spectrum as efficiently as possible, which they do through a combination of investing in additional cell sites and network management practices that optimize network usage and address congestion so as to provide consumers with the quality of service they expect.

Regulators need to ask why wireless companies are telling the FCC there is a bandwidth crisis of epic proportions that requires the Commission to exempt them from important Net Neutrality principles while telling investment banks, shareholders and content producers the more traffic the merrier, as long as someone pays. Customers also might ask why their unlimited use data plans were discontinued while carriers seek deals to allow unlimited viewing with their preferred content partners.

What is the real motivation? The Wall Street Journal suggests one:

“Creating a second revenue stream for mobile broadband is the holy grail for wireless operators but collecting fees from content companies would probably make the FCC take a close look into the policy implications,” said Paul Gallant, managing director at Guggenheim Securities. An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

The Wall Street Journal takes a closer look at a plan to manage an end run around Net Neutrality by allowing preferred content partners to offer streaming video services exempt from your usage cap. (4 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. What Spectrum Crisis: Verizon Wireless Tries to Monetize Video Usage With New App
2. Bulldozing Wireless Net Neutrality: Carriers Want “Toll-Free” Data for Their Partners
3. Proof Verizon’s Banishment of ‘Unlimited Data’ is a Money Grab, Not a Capacity Concern
4. AT&T’s Internet Overcharging Merry-go-Round — Billing App Makers for Your ‘Overusage’
5. AT&T’s ‘Data Tsunami’: Upselling Customers for Higher Profits During Spectrum ‘Crisis’

The Heeley family have been Cox customers for over 15 years, buying cable television, broadband, and phone service that costs them nearly $200 a month.

With nearly $2,400 a year going into Cox’s bank accounts from their family alone, John Heeley was a little upset Cox sent him a warning message about his family’s “excessive Internet usage.”

“It seems we went over our usage cap by 40GB in April thanks to a rotten spring and a lot of Netflix viewing,” Heeley tells Stop the Cap! “I didn’t even understand the letter because I never knew there was a cap on the Internet.”

Cox, like certain other providers, have arbitrary usage limits on broadband accounts, with larger allowances granted to customers who upgrade to faster speeds for more money.

Heeley’s fiancé Shelley was angry after realizing just how much the couple already spends with Cox.

“I called them on the phone and the first thing they want to do is get you to upgrade and spend even more money with them,” she tells Stop the Cap! “They tried to vaguely threaten our service if we continued to ‘overuse the Internet’ and suggested we cut back or cancel Netflix which they think is the reason we went over the limit.”

Shelley says she was born at night, but not last night.

“How convenient they want you to stop using Netflix, Amazon, or other online video services that their cable TV competes with,” Shelley says. “It is unfair competition.”

Shelley requested a Cox supervisor and threatened the company right back, telling Cox if they sent one more letter like that, the Heeley family would take their business elsewhere.

“He told us quietly we could ignore the letter and any future letters and they will add a note on our account,” Shelley tells us. “He confided they have customers going over the limit all the time and the letter is really about educating customers about usage.”

It seems if Cox threatens you, threatening them back with account cancellation is usually the end of the story.

We found Broadband Reports‘ readers who exceed usage limits with Cox largely unafraid of any consequences:

• Rakeesh: I’ve gone everywhere from 300gb to 700gb over the cap for the last 19 months in a row. You’re fine.
• Skeechan: I have gone over too. The nastygrams seem to only be sent in selective markets. I am on Ultimate, perhaps that is why they haven’t sent me one since I have nowhere to go plan-wise. And being triple play since 1998 offers up a reliable and high ARPU. Of course that assumes they actually give a crap about common sense.
• Maltz: I went over my cap by about 30GB last month and got an email telling me that I was over. That was the end of it.

Other stories of interest:

1. AT&T Cracking Down on DSL/U-verse Usage While Promoting “No Bandwidth Limitations”
2. Cox Slams DSL in New Ads, But Cox Cable Customers Stuck With Usage Caps
3. Shaw Sneakiness: Company Lowers Usage Limits, Hopes Nobody Noticed
4. Cox’s 3 Steps to Fatter Profits With Internet Overcharging: Upgrade or Your Services Will Be Blocked
5. Netflix’s Reed Hastings Discovers Comcast’s Usage Cap: The End Run Around Net Neutrality

Time Warner Cable is seeking a patent for technology to let cable subscribers watch DVR recordings on mobile devices including tablets, smartphones, and computers outside of the home.

The patent application, obtained by FierceCable, shows most of the cable company’s efforts are directed at preserving licensing agreements for content viewing and managing restrictions on copying television shows and movies to external devices.

Time Warner Cable has proposed a three level security system for customer recordings. Level 1 would prohibit the customer from accessing DVR recordings, Level 2 would permit limited viewing and perhaps no copying, and Level 3 would allow open access to recordings and allow them to be shared with other devices.

The company theoretically could also use its security system to secure customer use, charging extra depending on how a customer wants to view DVR recordings remotely.

“Because of the increasing popularity of home networking, there is a growing need for a strategy that enables a user to perform authorized transfer of protected content, e.g., transferring content from an STT [set-top terminal] to a second device in a home network, and at the same time prevents unauthorized distribution of the protected content,” Time Warner Cable wrote in the patent application.

Time Warner could be the first cable company to allow remote viewing of DVR recordings if its patent application is approved. The company already offers a “whole home” DVR system that permits customers to start recorded shows on one television and finish them on another, but this enhancement would extend viewing outside of the home.

The company offered no comment about the patent or an estimate of when the service might become available.

Other stories of interest:

1. Verizon FiOS Turning On DRM to Prevent Copying of Recorded Content from Premium Channels
2. Oceanic/Time Warner Cable Subscribers Finally Get TWCable TV for iPad
3. Time Warner Cable & Viacom Make Peace: Comedy Central, MTV Coming to Apps
4. How Much Do You Love Time Warner Cable’s New TWC TV iPhone/iPad App?
5. Time Warner Cable Tries to Control Online Video Onslaught With iPad App to Manage Your Cable TV

The German Internet is functionally broken.

Deutsche Telekom, the largest telecommunications company in Germany, has announced it will introduce a brazen Internet Overcharging scheme for customers signing up for its broadband DSL service, including a throttle that reduces speeds to just 384kbps after as little as 75GB of monthly broadband usage.

For now, only new Telekom Deutschland customers signing up after May 1 will be affected by the usage limits. Customers will be offered the option of upgrading their Call & Surf package to get a larger usage allowance, although many parts of Germany are still reliant on DSL and its variants that cannot deliver the advertised speeds that go with the larger allowances:

• Up to 16Mbps: 75GB per month
• Up to 50Mbps: 200GB per month
• Up to 100Mbps: 300GB per month
• Up to 200Mbps: 400GB per month

“We want to offer customers the best network in the future and we will continue to invest billions to make that happen,” said Michael Hagspihl, marketing director of Telekom Deutschland. “However we cannot continue to sustain higher usage demand while lowering our prices. Customers with very high data volumes will have to pay more in the future.”

Company officials argue German broadband usage demands are accelerating at an ever-increasing rate, putting strain on the company’s network resources.

But critics question if usage demands are the root of the problem, why is DT exempting itself and its “preferred partners” from the data cap, including certain services that offer very high bandwidth video?

The Net Neutrality activist group Netzpolitik.org says DT is “massively violating Net Neutrality while the federal government looks away dreaming that the free market will solve the problem somehow.”

The group points out DT has admitted the speed throttle only applies to content providers who have not partnered up with the German telecom giant.

DT is exempting all of its own in-house content providers, the private television service Entertain, and telephone services (when provided by DT). For everyone else: the speed throttle gets closer the more customers use services like Apple iTunes or Amazon’s Lovefilm service. But DT says those companies can also get special treatment for the right price.

DT’s preferred partner cooperating agreements let “high quality content producers” pay for a managed services contract that guarantees exemption from the speed throttle and prioritization of their traffic on DT’s network, even if it means slowing down non-preferred partner content.

A parody future offer from DT.

“You cannot thumb your nose at Net Neutrality principles any better if you tried,” said Rene Pedersen, an Internet activist in Köln. “DT will have their emasculated two-tier Internet and all of Germany will have to suffer the consequences. Their own arguments do not even make sense. If there is a capacity crisis, how can they exempt some video providers that now consume the most network resources?”

“Until a few years ago, providers – just like the post – were just deliverers of packages,” said Netzpolitik’s Andre Masters. “This principle is called Net Neutrality – the equal treatment of data packets on the Internet, regardless of sender, recipient, or content. Now providers want to have a direct influence on the content sent, because they want to earn more money.”

Technology publisher Heise Online says the new usage restricting tariff has “triggered a veritable sh**storm” among net users who consider a 75GB usage limit untenable, particularly for families with multiple Internet users.

Heise is also critical of claims DT has made in the press that suggests German Internet users must either accept the usage caps or understand the company will have to spend at least €80 billion ($108 billion) to build a national fiber network to manage growing traffic.

In contrast, Goldman Sachs last year estimated the cost of wiring every home in the United States with Google Fiber would cost $140 billion, a number now considered inflated. Verizon FiOS managed to get costs down for its own fiber network to a level that suggests Google would only need around $90 billion — $10 billion more than DT claims it needs.

“DT is being disingenuous when they suggest it will cost €80 billion to solve their capacity problem. For that amount every household in Germany would get their own fiber cable with 200Mbps speeds or more,” Heise writes in their editorial. “To avoid slowing users down with a speed throttle, only a small fraction of this amount is needed to extend the Internet backbone and peering agreements between providers. For years network traffic has grown exponentially and DT has kept up with demand. So why does DT suddenly need to reshuffle the cards now?”

DT has also received criticism for how it has depicted its heavy users — mostly as content thieves and software pirates using file swapping networks to steal copyrighted works. But instead of dealing with copyright violations, DT wants a sweeping usage cap system that punishes every customer that wants to use their broadband connection.

“Customers are not insatiable Gierschlünde who want everything for free,” writes Heise. “They already pay a lot of money to Telekom: 12.5 million DSL customers roughly translates into around a half billion euros in sales per month.”

Back to the future.

The German news magazine Spiegel writes DT’s usage limits strangle the Internet for millions of Germans, especially for competing video providers:

When throttled, customers will need more than 23 hours to watch a DVD-quality movie. At Blu-ray resolution, it will take about two weeks to watch just one film.

[...] The implications of the end of Net Neutrality in Germany represents a form of economic censorship, and German politicians are standing by to watch it happen.

The federal government sees the Internet as a political bargaining chip and not as the social, cultural and economic tool it represents. The government acts in the interests of certain lobbyists, not Germany’s digital future. This allows German telecommunications companies to focus on their economic self-interests without government policies that demand investment in digital infrastructure.

A number of German Internet users are expected to switch to a cable provider, where available, to escape DT’s impending speed caps.

According to the Frankfurter Rundschau, many German cable companies also reserve the right to limit speeds for customers. But in practice, most don’t impose limits until traffic exceeds 60GB daily, and the speed cap is lifted the next day. A cable industry official says its cap currently impacts about 0.1 percent of customers, almost all who use peer-to-peer file swapping networks. Exempt from measurements that bring customers closer to a speed cap: web browsing, video streaming, and video-on-demand.

For now, Germany’s cable operators facing the same traffic growth DT speaks about find no need to impose further limits, stating their networks are handling the traffic with network upgrades as a normal course of business.

“It calls out DT’s claims as fraudulent, because cable Internet users visit the same websites and do the same things DT’s customers do and there only seems to be an ‘urgent’ problem in need of a speed throttle solution on BT’s network,” says Pedersen. “What needs to be throttled are the financial expectations of DT management and shareholders. The Internet is not their personal vault waiting to be plundered.”

What if Net Neutrality did not exist?  [Subtitled] (1 minute)

Other stories of interest:

1. All You Can Eat: New Zealand ISP Reintroduces Unlimited Usage Internet Service
2. CNN Mistakes Internet Overcharging for Net Neutrality
3. AT&T’s New Speed Throttle Being Used as Talking Point for Merger With T-Mobile
4. New Evidence Suggests Comcast Prioritizing Its Own Streamed Content; Usage Cap Must Go
5. Netflix Finally Wakes Up to Net Neutrality, Internet Overcharging Threat

Aereo plans to expand to nearly two dozen cities in the coming year.

Viewers of NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams learned an upstart online streaming video competitor seeking to help Americans control their cable bills is probably an illegal pirate operation that doesn’t pay for the programming that parent company Comcast-NBC pays hundreds of millions to produce.

On Tuesday Aereo bypassed the network television gatekeepers suing to shut the service down and bought a full-page ad in the New York Times to remind the country it is winning its case in court:

In addition to free spectrum and advertising revenues, the networks got very lucrative retransmission fees from these providers. And so, for many, broadcast television is now offered in expensive fixed bundles or packages. Yet many millions of Americans continue to use antennas to get broadcast TV.”

Despite the corporate media firewall that keeps positive reports about the competition off the nightly news, the little streaming company that could is having an impact.

In the last two weeks, virtual hysteria has broken out among major network officials who are threatening to pull the plug on free over the air TV if their multi-billion dollar operations are not granted immediate protection from a startup that rents out dime-sized antennas in New York City to stream local television stations.

Chase Carey from Fox said he’ll put the Fox Network behind a pay wall if Aereo keeps it up.

Leo Hindery who oversees a private equity firm and has a history with both cable and broadcast networks called Aereo tawdry and a “pissant little company” run by a man who helped launch the Fox Network and now threatens to ruin the broadcast television business model for everyone else. (Bloomberg News) (5 minutes)

Is media consolidation influencing the evening news?

A combination of networks and other big media interests are now preparing to take their battle to Congress, warning lawmakers the very concept of free over the air television is in peril if companies like Aereo are allowed to operate.

Why are they so threatened? Aereo effectively bypasses the “retransmission consent fees” that broadcasters now charge pay television providers for permission to carry their channels and networks. As advertising revenue declines from reduced viewing numbers and equipment that offers viewers a fast forward through ads, the broadcasters have found gold charging monthly fees to cable, satellite, and telephone company TV systems for each subscriber. Ultimately, consumers pay these fees through higher cable and satellite bills.

Aereo receives over the air signals from individual antennas and makes that programming available for online streaming. No retransmission consent fees are required, Aereo argues, because they are just serving as an antenna farm. Only one stream per antenna is allowed, they note, so the company is not mass-distributing programming.

The battle between broadcasters and Aereo is now turning up in news reports that have tried to walk a fine line between the positions of the executives at the networks suing Aereo and the streaming service itself. Not every news outlet is managing the balancing act successfully.

NBC News aired this incomplete report about Aereo on its evening newscast on April 9th. What is missing? The fact courts have so far sided with Aereo and against the broadcasters’ claims the service is pirating content.  (3 minutes)

The Verge points out NBC News did not make it far before they fell solidly in line behind their corporate owners:

In its piece on Aereo, NBC News included a lengthy explanation of what TV has meant to Americans through the decades. Aereo’s CEO Chet Kanojia is quoted, but only about how the service functions, and there’s nothing from him about the controversy. In contrast, NBC’s story includes a quote from Carey calling Aereo “piracy.” The network news group also tossed in this line: “Aereo doesn’t pay networks for the content they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to produce.”

What NBC didn’t say was that, according to two separate federal courts, Aereo’s service is legal. The ruling by the appeals court upheld a district judge’s decision and was not insignificant. The court allowed Aereo and Kanojia (photographed at right) to continue operating until the lawsuit with the broadcasters is resolved, which could take years. “We were disappointed that NBC News didn’t include a mention about the court decisions,” Virginia Lam, an Aereo spokesperson, told The Verge. “All we ask are that the facts be reported.”

A spokesperson for NBC News disagreed. “The report was a fair and straightforward telling of how the service operates in the changing media environment. It fully explained why Aereo argues that the service is legal, and included an interview with Kanojia. In the interest of full disclosure, it also noted that NBCUniversal, the parent company of NBC News, has filed suit against the service.”

 http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Broadcasters vs Aereo 4-15-13.flv

Robert Prather, president of local station owner Gray Television, tells Bloomberg News station owners are still trying to figure out what Aereo means for their business models. (3 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Aereo CEO Responds to Fox Threats 4-17-13.flv

Aereo’s CEO responded today to threats from Fox to turn its network into a pay cable service, suggesting that if Fox wanted to abandon over the air service, someone else might make use of that spectrum.  (3 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. HissyFitWatch: Fox TV Threatens Nuclear Option: “Subscription TV” if Aereo Decision Stands
2. Second TV Network Threatening to Sign Off Free Airwaves if Aereo Lives
3. Broadcasters Run to the Courts to Stop Disruptive Video Streaming; Aereo’s Legality
4. Must Fee TV: Broadcaster Consent Fees Will Turn ‘Free TV’ Into ‘Fee TV’ For Cable Subscribers
5. Attack on Your ‘Fast Forward’ Button by Copyright ‘Enforcers’

Time Warner Cable and Cablevision customers: Is Charter Cable in your future?

The best way the cable industry can grow revenue in the lucrative broadband business is to bring back the same type of collusion and control cable companies maintained over video programming 20 years ago.

Dr. John Malone did not want to sound nefarious in his recent interview with CNBC’s David Faber, but the new part-owner of Charter Communications has built a reputation as cable’s Darth Vader over the last 30 years. His detractors consider his way of doing business akin to a nationwide cable mafia, complete with exclusive, non-competitive territories that assure operators can charge sky-is-the-limit prices.

Malone is now back in the cable business in a big way, and analysts expect he will quickly amass influence in an industry he once led as CEO of the nation’s then-largest cable operator — Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI).

Why is John Malone back in the cable business and why buy a piece of Charter Cable? Malone tells CNBC’s David Faber Charter is a company with enormous growth potential through mergers and acquisitions. CNBC says Malone could be targeting Time Warner Cable and Cablevision for acquisition by Charter as early as next year. “There is consolidation yet to be done,” Malone hints.  (7 minutes)

Malone notes the cable industry is on the cusp of transformative consolidation through collaborative agreements, mergers, and outright acquisitions both here and abroad. CNBC speculated that could begin with efforts to further reduce the number of cable operators in the United States, perhaps beginning with a deal by Charter Communications to acquire both Time Warner Cable and Cablevision, which could combine under Malone’s stewardship and Charter’s executive leadership to “compete” with Comcast.

Dr. John Malone

CNBC reporters note Malone has high praise for Thomas Rutledge, CEO of Charter Communications. Rutledge’s earlier experience working for both Time Warner Cable and Cablevision could be an asset in combining all three companies into one. Analysts speculate such a deal could be pitched as early as 2014 when Time Warner Cable will undergo a management makeover with the departure of CEO Glenn Britt. CNBC also noted Cablevision’s imminent sale has been rumored for years, and current leader and family patriarch Chuck Dolan is 87 years old. With cheap credit and Malone’s business savvy, both companies could find themselves part of a Malone-engineered takeover that would vastly expand Charter Communications into the second largest cable operator in the country.

Malone sees the days of traditional cable television coming to an end as consumers turn to “over the top” online video for an increasing share of their viewing time. As cable television rates continue to increase, customers are cutting the cord. Malone believes today’s bloated cable packages are ripe for an upheaval from a-la-carte pricing or theme-based programming bouquets that break expensive sports programming or movie channels out of the traditional basic cable lineup. Malone even suspects a challenge to the industry’s current price models could surprisingly come from the programmers themselves.

Sports networks will be among the first to notice their affiliate revenue collected from cable and satellite companies (and passed on to customers in the form of higher rates) will stagnate as customers drop cable television. Declining viewer ratings also mean lower ad revenues. Malone believes at some point sports teams and/or programming networks will decide that the biggest barrier to winning new viewers is the $70-80 asking price for basic cable. If sports programmers find they can reach new audiences selling their programming online, direct-to-consumer, for $5-10 a month, the basic cable all-for-one-price model will quickly collapse.

“As the cable guys and the satellite guys start to lose customers to the over-the-top guys, some of those economics will be reflected back on the sports guys,” Malone said. “They’ll start losing advertising revenue. They’ll lose affiliate revenue. And they have to face reality that maybe you need to segregate your market like everybody else.”

John Malone predicts the demise of the traditional bundle of cable television programming within five years. The future is streamed video online, declares Malone, so it is important the cable industry move to manage that competitive threat by acquiring streaming competitors or launching their own services to assure video programming revenue can be protected.  (5 minutes)

Malone sees the future sustainability of the cable industry dependent on the high revenue broadband business.

“I think it is at a point in history when the most addictive thing in the communications world is high-speed connectivity,” Malone told CNBC. “Everywhere in the world that we operate, we’ve just seen the public want more and more data rate. Whether it’s wireless or wired. There’s a big appetite for it. Cable technology right now is the most cost-effective way to deliver that growth in speed.”

Malone believes there is also plenty of room for revenue growth and cost-cutting, which he said can best be accomplished by getting other cable operators together to “cooperate” and “coordinate” broad scale broadband projects that counter competitive threats from third parties.

Malone helped pioneer the cable industry business practice of “don’t compete in my backyard and I won’t compete in yours,” an informal agreement among operators to stay within their own specific territories, safe and secure from competition. In the 1980s and 1990s, Malone’s TCI was one among many cable operators buying and swapping cable systems to build large, regional system “clusters” where only a single cable company provides service, winning economy of scale and a formidable presence that discouraged other wired competitors from entering the business. In most cities, only the deep pockets of AT&T (U-verse) and Verizon (FiOS) have managed to shake things up.

Bring back the cable mafia? CNBC’s David Faber gets John Malone to admit vertical and horizontal integration — controlling the content and the pipeline — are important factors to protect cable revenue and expand American dominance in cable internationally. Malone is also a big supporter of industry consolidation and believes mergers and acquisitions are necessary to shrink the number of cable operators in the United States. (5 minutes)

The cable mafia?

Malone wants broadband to be carefully managed under the industry’s own control and direction.

Faber asked if Malone wanted to bring back the days of the “cable mafia.”

“Yes, I think we do want to bring back the days of @Home, the days of Ted Turner, the days when we all got together, because together we provided national scale,” Malone said. “Now I think we have the opportunity to create global scale,” he said. “The goal is not to be bigger. The goal is to be more cost-effective.”

Other stories of interest:

1. He’s Back: Dr. John Malone’s Liberty Media Buying 27.3% of Charter Cable
2. Former Cable Czar John Malone Says Internet Video is Too Chaotic: It Needs to Be Controlled (By Them)
3. Suddenlink Cable CEO: ‘People Don’t Realize the Days of Cable Company Upgrades are Basically Over’
4. Cable’s ‘Darth Vader’ is Back: John Malone’s Liberty Global Buys Virgin Media for $16.3 Billion
5. Cable Stock Booster Predicts AT&T Provides ‘Safe Passage’ for Cable Internet Overcharging Schemes

Since introducing its version of TV Everywhere more than a year ago, one of the most frustrating aspects of Time Warner Cable’s video streaming service has been it only works within your own home over the cable company’s own broadband service. As of tomorrow morning, that will change. If you own an Apple iOS tablet or smartphone, the cable company’s new version of its TWC TV app (free) will bring streamed and on-demand programming from a handful of cable networks regardless of where you happen to be.

There are several limitations however:

1. Having access to a Wi-Fi network while on the go will be a big help. Streaming access over 3G/4G service will initially be limited to Verizon Wireless customers, perhaps a fringe benefit of the agreement between Verizon and Time Warner Cable to collaborate in cross-marketing services;
2. Only nine cable networks and one Time Warner Cable-owned news channel will be available for live streaming when the service launches. None of them are particularly compelling. Programmers are fearful that streaming access outside of the home may open up cable programming to non-paying customers with access to a shared password;
3. Fox News Channel and Fox Business were reportedly going to be available as of tomorrow, but Time Warner Cable’s official blog post omits the two networks;
4. Android and desktop users will have to wait until summer to get the upgrade, an annoying prospect considering Android users now outnumber Apple iOS users, who have to wait.

The online programming guide is also being revamped to help users find TV channels and online on-demand content more quickly.

The initial out-of-home On Demand library offers over 1,100 hours of programming from the following providers:

BBC America
BET
CBeebies
CMT
Comedy Central
Cooking Channel
DIY
FEARnet
Food Network
Hallmark
HGTV
Logo
MTV
MTV2
Nick Jr.
Nickelodeon
Palladia
Spike
TeenNick
Travel Channel
Tr3S
TV Guide Network
TV Land
UniMas
Univision
VH1
VH1 Classic

Live TV streaming will be available from the following national networks:

Aspire
BBC America
beIN Sports (English/Spanish)
FearNet
GMC
Pac-12
TVGuide Network

Additionally, all Time Warner Cable local news channels will eventually be available out of home, though all local news, traffic and weather channels may not be available immediately. The following news channels will be available at launch:

NY1
NY1 Noticias
News 14 Carolina
YNN (New York and Texas)

Other stories of interest:

1. ESPN Finally Launching Online for Time Warner Cable Subscribers Oct. 25th
2. Time Warner Cable Introduces Android App, But Will Wait for ‘Ice Cream’ Before Streaming Video
3. Updated: Time Warner Cable Launches Desktop Streaming Cable TV for ‘Authenticated’ Subscribers
4. Fox News Channel – Time Warner Cable Deal Will Increase Cable Rates for Millions
5. Your Next Time Warner Cable Set-Top Box: Roku

Univision is joining Fox Television warning that if an upstart online video streaming service is allowed to stay in business, it will seriously consider turning off its free to watch over-the-air programming and go pay cable only.

Univision chairman Haim Saban says if Aereo continues to sell online streaming of its over the air stations, it could be forced to turn off more than 50 local broadcast affiliates, forcing viewers to cable, satellite, or telco pay television to keep watching.

Univision is no longer a small player in American broadcasting. The Spanish language network is now more popular than NBC in the ratings.

Saban says its local affiliates could find themselves off the air if the network abandons them — Univision’s network programming occupies most of the broadcast day, with most local stations airing only local news and a small selection of syndicated programming and program length commercials.

“To serve our community, we need to protect our product and revenue streams and therefore we too are considering all of our options — including converting to pay TV,” Saban said. “With Hispanics watching over-the-air news and entertainment at twice the rate of non-Hispanics, being forced to convert to cable would significantly impact this community.”

The real threat, according to industry analysts, is Aereo’s business model could offer an end run around lucrative retransmission consent fees now demanded by broadcast networks and local television stations. If the cable, satellite, and telco TV industry were to license Aereo’s technology, it could carry broadcast stations for free without paying broadcasters for permission to put their stations on the lineup.

The collateral damage could be felt by more than 13 million American households that have either abandoned pay television, can’t afford the asking price, or don’t have access for other reasons. If the networks make good on their threats, viewers would no longer have access to network programming for free.

Industry observers suggest Fox and Univision are engaged in saber-rattling for the benefit of Washington lawmakers that might be asked to choose sides in the dispute.

Aereo has responded to the industry’s line in the sand by reminding the networks they are violating a long-standing deal they made with Congress in return for access to the public airwaves.

“It’s disappointing to hear that Fox believes that consumers should not be permitted to use an antenna to access free-to-air broadcast television [after promising] that they would broadcast in the public interest and convenience, and that they would remain free-to-air.”

Bloomberg News reports on the conflict between Aereo and over the air broadcasters and how far both sides are really willing to go.  (5 minutes)

CNBC’s Julia Boorstein reports on Fox’s assertion Aereo is “pirating their signal” and notes the network may be preparing to convert its over the air free service into a pay channel.  (2 minutes)

CNBC talks with Aereo founder Chet Kanojia about the court decision to allow Aereo to keep operating. Kanojia also explains how Aereo works for consumers who don’t want to pay for a big cable TV package.  (6 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. HissyFitWatch: Fox TV Threatens Nuclear Option: “Subscription TV” if Aereo Decision Stands
2. Broadcasters Run to the Courts to Stop Disruptive Video Streaming; Aereo’s Legality
3. Must Fee TV: Broadcaster Consent Fees Will Turn ‘Free TV’ Into ‘Fee TV’ For Cable Subscribers
4. Everything New is Always a Threat to Everything Old – The Cable TV Monster
5. Fox: You’ll Have to Wait 8-Days to Watch Our Shows Online, Unless You Are a Pay TV Subscriber

Fox Television’s over the air signal may be scrambled and available “only by subscription” if the courts do not reverse their decision to allow an upstart television streaming service to continue operations while a broadcaster-backed lawsuit works through the legal system.

Aereo has been streaming New York City local stations to area residents that lease a tiny dime-sized antenna and receive the stations via the Internet. Broadcasters consider Aereo an end run around copyright law and retransmission consent fees paid by cable, satellite, and telco-TV operators. With millions in licensing fees at stake, several networks immediately filed suit to force the service to suspend operations.

But the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision last month that Aereo’s streaming service did not represent a “public performance,” meaning the company was not infringing on the copyrights of broadcasters. Until a final court ruling is made, Aereo can continue operating, the judges ruled.

That decision prompted a hissy fit by News Corporation’s president and chief operating officer, who declared he is considering turning the Fox television network into a subscription-only service, potentially meaning the service would be scrambled and unavailable for free over-the-air in the future.

“Aereo is stealing our signal,” Chase Carey said at the opening of the National Association of Broadcasters’ convention is Las Vegas last night. “If we can’t have our rights properly protected through legal and governmental solutions, we will pursue business solution. One solution would be to take the network and make it a subscription service. We’re not going to sit idly by and let people steal our content.”

Bloomberg Television explores Fox’s “nuclear option” of scrambling its broadcast outlets and forcing all Americans to pay for its content. (2 minutes)

CNN Money explains Aereo and its threat to the traditional broadcast retransmission consent fee system that has made over-the-air networks highly profitable with subscriber fees paid by your cable, satellite, or telco-TV provider and passed on to you in the form of higher cable or satellite bills.  (2 minutes)

Other stories of interest:

1. Broadcasters Run to the Courts to Stop Disruptive Video Streaming; Aereo’s Legality
2. Subscription Internet Television: Represents the Majority of Viewing by 2015
3. NY Post: Hulu to Abandon Web Streaming for Non-Cable TV Subscribers
4. Xbox Update: New Video Options Require a Cable-TV Subscription to Watch
5. Hulu for Sale? Restrictions for Non Cable/Satellite Subscribers May Be Forthcoming