May 1, 2025

The TV Watch: Surviving CBS’s Fight With Time Warner Cable

An antenna? Where does that go, on top of the cathode-ray tube?

That’s one of the tips Time Warner Cable put up on screen after it stopped showing CBS around the country on Friday. There was also some invective about what CBS is demanding that led the cable company to impose a blackout.

As a subscriber in New York, I felt like the child who walks into the house to hear Mom explain that Dad is gone and can be visited on Wednesdays and alternate weekends. Children don’t care why, or who was wronged; they just don’t want divorce to change anything, and they especially don’t want to commute across town to see their father.

Plenty of people don’t love “Under the Dome” and rarely watch CBS (“The Big Bang Theory” reruns can be found on other channels), and relatively few prefer “CBS This Morning” to “Today” or “Good Morning America.”

But people don’t like to be told they can’t watch CBS because Time Warner Cable doesn’t want them to.

The shock is gradual. Just as a child can be assured that the parents will smooth over their differences in time for Christmas — Grandma is coming — it’s hard to imagine that CBS and Time Warner won’t find a temporary compromise in time for the next episode of “Under the Dome” or the PGA Championship next weekend.

But nevertheless this changes things, maybe forever.

So I followed Time Warner’s other piece of advice and signed up for Aereo: $8 a month plus tax, and the first month is free.

And that’s when I realized that like spouses in the middle of an ugly separation, both sides are completely insane.

Aereo allows viewers to watch broadcast network shows at any time, live, with an option to record for later viewing. It’s one thing to know that an alternative to cable exists. It’s another actually to try it. I was instantly able to watch CBS on Saturday, and instantly concluded I wasn’t missing much (golf). I don’t like watching live television on a laptop. It turns out that Aereo can be watched on a television set via Apple TV and similar systems.

Naturally, I couldn’t figure out how to make that work over the weekend, and will need to hire a specialist (someone who reads instructions), but I am quite confident that I will soon be able to watch CBS via Aereo on Apple TV, on my 40-inch living room television. For all I know, the technician will be able to access Apple TV in the kitchen as well. So: no need for Time Warner.

The only thing more suicidal than Time Warner inviting subscribers to try out its less expensive competition is for CBS to hold out for higher fees from Time Warner. The cable company and the network should be in league against their common enemy. CBS and other networks have gone to court to block companies like Aereo from showing their programs. Cable companies are required to pay a retransmission fee to the networks in order to present network programming. Aereo, on the other hand, argues that television is free via the airwaves, and pays nothing.

Aereo only offers broadcast channels. Showtime, which is owned by the CBS Corporation, is also being held hostage under the blackout. (The Showtime Web site gave a phone number for complaints against Time Warner beneath the faces of the stars of “Homeland,” “Dexter” and “Ray Donovan” looking like missing children on a milk carton.) But Netflix and other Web-streaming companies are well on the way to supplanting premium cable.

Mutually assured destruction is a deterrent that only works when there are two superpowers with the same nuclear capability. The battle between broadcast networks and cable providers is more like a toxic custody battle: If it is bad enough, neither parent wins, and children grow up too fast and go their own way.

Soon, everyone may be calling Aereo Mommy, and Netflix Daddy.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/arts/television/surviving-cbss-fight-with-time-warner-cable.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

State of the Art: Moving Forward in E-Readers

Our grandchildren will listen to our technology tales — spotty cellphone coverage, 24-hour movie viewing windows, three-hour battery life — and burst out laughing the minute they’re out of earshot.

Take e-book readers, like the Kindle and its rivals. “Come on, Grandma. You really couldn’t read Kindle books on a Nook, or vice versa? What a dumb system!” “Tell us again why you couldn’t read Harry Potter books on e-readers?” “Grandpa, what do you mean ‘monochrome’?”

This week, though, e-book readers just took their first slimy steps out of the primordial soup.

Both Barnes Noble and Kobo, its far less advertised rival, introduced nearly identical readers that are clearly intended to embarrass the industry leader, the Amazon Kindle.

They’re called the All-New Nook ($140) and the Kobo Touch Edition ($130).

Yes, Barnes Noble actually calls it, and capitalizes it, “All-New NOOK.” Not only is that cloying and annoying, like you’re doing their advertising for them (see also: the exclamation point on Yahoo!), but it’s going to look really silly when it’s no longer new. What are they going to call the next models? The Even Newer NOOK? The All-New All-New NOOK? The Newest NOOK Imaginable?

These two readers have the same latest-generation, six-inch E Ink screen as the latest Kindle: supercrisp black type against very light gray. But they’re smaller, because they do away with the Kindle’s thumb keyboard. Instead, they have the infrared-sensor E Ink touch screens that debuted on much more expensive Sony e-readers.

Good call. How often do you use the keyboard anyway? Maybe about 0.01 percent of the time — when you’re typing a book’s name while shopping, or when annotating something you’re reading. The rest of the time, the keyboard just makes the Kindle bigger. And on an e-book reader, size is, so to speak, huge; after all, you’ll be holding it for hours.

In weight, the Kobo is the winner. Among its competitors — the Kindle, and the touch-screen Nook and Sony Reader — it’s the lightest. It weighs seven ounces, which makes it only slightly less likely to blow away on the beach than an actual paperback book.

The Kobo is also the least expensive brand-name model, apart from the Kindle with Special Offers ($114), which displays ads on its screen saver and in the bottom inch of the home screen.

The All-New Nook is only slightly heavier, but it’s thicker and 0.3 inch wider, which, in blazer-pocket terms, may as well be a football field. That porkiness serves a good purpose: the battery goes for two months on a charge (Wi-Fi turned off). That’s twice the life of its rivals, and almost good enough to avoid being laughed at by grandchildren.

When you hold an e-reader, most of what you’re touching is the back. Both the Kobo and the Nook have slightly rubberized hard-plastic backs. The Nook’s back panel contains a shallow oval indentation, sort of a finger well. Its soft rim provides a secure, supremely comfortable grip for your fingers.

The Kobo’s back is sculptured in a quilted pattern, like a queen-size mattress for hamsters.

Each has built-in memory for 1,000 books, plus a memory-card slot.

Barnes Noble’s engineers have somehow managed to eliminate most of those flashes that occur every time you turn a page on an e-reader using E Ink. On the All-New Nook, you get that flash only once every six page turns. The rest of the time, each page briskly cross-fades into the next.

True, that once-every-six flash is more distracting than ever. But for the previous five pages, you’ve had a completely immersive, seamless reading experience. It’s fantastic.

The Nook’s advantages over the Kobo also include excellent control over the typeface (six fonts), font size, line spacing and even page margins. The Kobo offers only two fonts and no spacing or margin controls. It’s also slower than the Nook; sometimes you tap twice, wondering if your first tap even registered.

E-mail: pogue@nytimes.com

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 8, 2011

An earlier version of this column incorrectly reported that the new Nook and Kobo readers were the first to have infrared-sensor E-ink touch screens.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 8, 2011

An earlier version of this column omitted mention of Barnes Noble’s e-book app for Android tablets.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=930be1fef58f26dd2c2c51a6ff70a36f