Time Warner Cable adds 20 new channels TWCable TV for iPad app

On March 15, 2011, Time Warner Cable introduced a new innovation, the free TWCable TV app. Over 300,000 users have downloaded the app, turning their revolutionary Apple iPads into a TV screen and watching selected live cable TV channels in your home using a Wi-Fi connection with no new wires, no new TVs, and no new set-top boxes.

“We believe we have every right to deliver programming to the iPad app. Unfortunately, some TV networks disagree, and we decided to not carry their channels on the iPad lineup as of March 31. Instead, for the time being, we have decided to focus our iPad efforts on other enlightened programmers who understand the benefit and importance of allowing our subscribers – and their viewers – to watch their programming on any screen in their homes.” – Time Warner Cable

TWC has added 20 new channels to the lineup on their iPad app as of April 1:

• A&E
• ABC Family
• Disney Channel
• History
• Sleuth
• Disney XD
• SOAPnet
• Bravo
• E!
• Style
• Chiller
• ESPNews
• SyFy
• CNBC World
• Food Network
• Jewelry TV
• Travel Channel
• G4
• Lifetime Movie Network
• Galavision
• WE
• Golf Channel
• NY1 Manhattan
• YNN Austin
• Hallmark Channel
• NY1 Noticias

Customers will receive all of the available networks that are included in the cable package to which they subscribe.

“Your enthusiasm, and the enthusiasm of the programming partners who have embraced the app – rather than those who are solely focused on finding additional ways to reach into wallets of their own viewers – has convinced us more than ever that we are on the right path. We will continue to fight to ensure that you have access to the content you pay for, no matter which screen in your home you choose to view it on.” – Time Warner Cable

Visit www.twcableuntangled.com for additional information and updates.

MacDailyNews Take: The battle rages on.

Related articles:
Time Warner pulls several channels from TWCable TV iPad app – March 31, 2011
News Corp.’s Fox TV delivers cease and desist letter to Time Warner Cable over iPad app – March 31, 2011
Time Warner cuts back live TV iPad app due to overwhelming demand (updated) – March 16, 2011
Time Warner Cable first to launch iPad app that delivers live TV (Updated) – March 14, 2011


    1. not necessarily.
      We dont know all the details, but for all we know TWC could have licensing to provide their channels to customers via TV, and NOT the licensing via any other source.
      Look at Hulu for an example. you cant watch all their content on any device you want, each one of them has different licenses. you pay their fee… but you dont have the right to watch them anywhere.

      I kinda side with TWC, but if they did breech a contract… its their fault. only time will tell.

  1. I’m a touch disoriented – I’m not used to not complaining about my cable company;-)

    I wouldn’t have predicted that the TWCable app would be so appealing, but it is nice to have 2 extra TVs wherever we want them (albeit in range of our wifi). It would be killer with remote access.

  2. Ooooooh!!!!

    They added shopping channels! (QVC, HSN, and maybe Jewelry TV)

    I’ll bet those whores had no problem with Time Wanker making them available on other screens.

  3. Don’t buy into this “Enlightened Programmers” crap.

    What TWC is doing is defending the status quo of “bundled distribution” of content. Cable companies (and SatCos) have enjoyed 30+ years of being the sole “gatekeepers” of non-broadcast television content. Naturally, they want to keep it that way.

    Lately though, that exclusive status has been threatened by the emergence of broadband and now a successful viewing platform (wireless mobile devices and set-top boxes). The promise of this technology is total “a-la-cart” viewing, which will allow consumers to pay for only what they watch.

    This has led producers like HBO to develop applications which allow them to deliver on-demand content directly to consumers. Other companies (like Apple, Netflix and Hulu) are leveraging bi-lateral agreements with content producers to distribute via the internet.

    For now (at least in HBO’s case) this content is only available to existing cable subscribers. Regardless, the fact that content providers can now have their own alternate distribution gives them much more leverage in carriage negotiations with cable providers. The result over time will be fewer cable subscribers which will lead to lower prices for carriage.

    To respond, cable companies will try to get back on the playing field by offering their signal over broadband to subscribers. They will stay with their current business model, which includes bundled content/pricing. This keeps the consumer locked into paying more for stuff they don’t watch. But that’s where cable companies get their margins from.

    As for me, I’m rooting for content providers being able to distribute content on their own if they choose, independently or in addition to, cable/sat distribution. This will have the same effect on television content as iTunes had on music distribution: a welcome move away from “bundled” products and pricing.

    1. You are kinda right but enough wrong to make me want to explain some of this, but I have done it sooooo many times it gets annoying.

      First, HBO and the likes set prices based on subscriber numbers.

      Second, many satellite broadcasters require cable companies to take a bundle of channels and put them on certain tiers to get the main channels you want. This gets them more ad revenue. That is also why a la carte will not lower your cable bill.

      Third, HBO and the likes will soon raise (in my opinion) rates they charge NetFlix and the likes, because they make more money off cable, and if subscribers drop channels to use web and Netflix or Amazon or iTunes, broadcasters make less money. Book on that one.

      Fourth, cable companies are already switching business models to make up for lost revenue from video (and phone, a loss leader) to bigger business with faster and better internet. It is still the same size of plant in your town, with the same number of technicians needed to maintain, but with more emphasis on ISP than pay for view and other crap (sorry, its stuff I never use).

      so in the end, to get a better ISP experience, you will have more choices as this becomes the cash cow for more providers, who will now overbuild each other in certain markets to gain more subscribers. But it won’t be unlimited, because the more bandwidth people start to use for IP rather than RF, the more money it will cost to deliver that.

      Unless, of course it all becomes a regulated Common Carrier….

      1. Sorry TT, but you seem a little confused…

        “Second, many satellite broadcasters require cable companies to take a bundle of channels…”
        –Actually, satelite broadcasters compete with cable companies, and cannot “require” them to do anything.

        “Third, HBO and the likes will soon raise (in my opinion) rates they charge NetFlix and the likes…”
        –Actually, HBO does not sell rights to NetFlix to stream HBO content.

        “Fourth, cable companies are already switching business models to make up for lost revenue from video …”
        — Yes, cable companies are expanding their bandwidth to stay competitive. What does that have to do with carriage agreements?

        1. Satellite broadcasters are not Dish and DirectTV.
          They are the channels that your cable company receives for retransmission.
          Dish and Direct TV are re-broadcasters, just like cable and FIOS.

          I should have used a studio rather than HBO, but it is HBO that buys the rights from the studios for broadcast. The studios make much more money off of HBO, CineMax and the likes than they do NetFlix. (And BTW, HBO actually DOES have a lot of original content).

          The ISP model has everything to do with carriage, as it is passed by IP rather than RF. This affects the dynamics and value of carriage. Why should cable systems continue to pay the top dollar demanded by studios via HBO when they are being undercut by streaming that is okayed by the studios? This will eventually affect the prices charged by Netflix, Amazon or iTunes as the studios try to make up the loss from less cable revenue.

          So, in my haste to get the kids to baseball practice, I may not have explained it well, but I am not confused…..I think.

          1. Also, Deus, it is the content providers that set the rules for carriage.

            MTV, ESPN, Fox and the likes tell the cable companies what they will carry, and in some cases all or nothing, not the other way around as you stated. And then they base the price on the number of subscribers said cable company has.

            The cable companies, of course, can refuse these, or choose to pay higher per sub for only the channels they want, or maybe just come to a fair agreement depending on who they are.

            Ooops. Looks like someone was confused about this aspect….

  4. i will be way more impressed when content is available over the internet without needing a tv contract.
    It’s time for other providers of direct over the internet tv of new original content news etc and if possible NFL.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.