Written by Liz Gannes
Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 10:09 AM PT

 

Time Warner’s Cable Debate Spills Out

“[T]he long-term future of cable, as the Internet emerges as a viable venue for watching TV, is murky.”

That’s the word from a Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) covering Time Warner’s interest in reducing its stake in cable, possibly to free up resources for internet acquisitions.

Cynthia Brumfield at IP Democracy reminds us of this Advertising Age article from just yesterday, in which Time Warner President-COO and assumed CEO-elect Jeff Bewkes is quoted as saying cable will outlast VOD snippets:

Mr. Bewkes stressed, of course, that he’s not knocking new media, but he does believe the hype about online video is too one-sided, and that cable video on demand has huge potential. “Media coverage of video on demand is overweighted to the internet,” he said. “The biggest audiences for video on demand are on TV screens now and in the future.”

It appears that there’s some dissension in the ranks, with the two takes differing drastically. While we of course have high hopes for internet distribution, it’s unclear that Time Warner could acquire the chops to do it right. Om rekindles memories of the AOL acquisition of 2000 at GigaOM:

If they did go down this route it would be ironic, not to mention, short sighted… Given Time Waffler’s track record, it would be akin to shooting themselves in the foot.

Follow us on Twitter or subscribe to the feed

Sphere
Topic: Money & Power
« Previous Post Next Post »

Comments & Trackbacks

  1. As AMD founder Jerry Sanders used to say: “Real men own fabs”. But remember: TW has the selling itself for paper money in its genes.

    hubert on April 18th, 2007 at 12:23 am - Permalink
  2. You can get free access to Wall STreet Journal and those other subscription sites with a netpass from http://www.congoo.com

    David Ruban on April 22nd, 2007 at 8:50 am - Permalink

Leave a reply








Safari hates me

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have gotten caught in our trusty (but occasionally overly ambitious) spam filter. Please drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.