Roku Owners: Comcast Is About To Sell You Cable TV Without the Cable Box (bloomberg.com) 108
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Comcast is making its Xfinity TV service available to subscribers with Roku set-top players via a new app, paving the way for customers of the nation's largest cable provider to watch live programming without the cost or hassle of a cable box. Roku is the first set-stop box to offer the Xfinity TV service, Comcast said in a statement Tuesday. During a test period, subscribers will have to hang on to their cable devices. When the app formally rolls out later this year, they'll be able sign up without renting a cable box. While Comcast expects the majority of its customers to opt for the typical setup, traditional pay-TV providers are trying to be more flexible about where and how people can watch TV given the popularity of streaming services like Netflix and Amazon and the boxes that offer them. Customers with Roku players will be able to watch live TV, browse on-demand libraries and record shows, just as they can with Comcast's boxes. Those who use the Roku as their primary device instead of Comcast's X1 device will receive a $2.50 monthly credit, the company said.
We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! (Score:5, Insightful)
It was called "Clear QAM" and Comcast could have supported it at any time. The only reason it isn't is that the FCC has suffered regulatory capture and allowed Comcast to choose to encrypt, fucking over users of third-party tuners.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like analog cable, you can install channel filters to block channels to non-subscribers. This is a long-ago solved problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Think long and hard about why that won't scale for a minute
Re: (Score:3)
The fact is, they already implemented it once. They can always do it again. You're right that you have to install separate equipment on every single line coming from the distribution point. The installer put one on mine when I signed up for Internet-only service to block the Clear-QAM local channels.
Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact is, they already implemented it once. They can always do it again.
Unfortunately, this removes the ability to manage their channel space. When individual traps were used, channels were analog and didn't move around much, if at all. If you blocked "channel 65" to stop someone from getting free HBO, that was it.
Today channels can move around on a regular basis, putting something that will need more bandwidth on a "channel" where there is extra, combining similar services, etc. This is all managed by the boxes who are told what lives where.
Anyone who has had to rescan the system on their TV with clear-QAM knows this. Of course, now that it is almost all encrypted digital you don't scan the system with your TV anymore, so it is less visible when things change.
The installer put one on mine when I signed up for Internet-only service to block the Clear-QAM local channels.
Yes, since internet and cable are two different things, in two different frequency bands, using a trap is a good way of solving this problem. But using a trap to block just "HBO" or sports packages won't be practical today.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, digitally-switched traps or combiners could do it too (if they exist or could be made to exist). Since CableCard never really worked out, I've never had a reason to subscribe. The last time I had a subscription was Satellite where I connected the receiver to MythTV and controlled my own recording. Simply not possible to do well in HD with any current provider (without DMCA violations anyway).
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, digitally-switched traps or combiners could do it too (if they exist or could be made to exist).
The price would be outrageous. And people would do what they did with traps -- remove them. Or some smart guy learned you could drill a small hole all the way through the trap and insert a wire, and then put the trap back and nobody could see it wasn't working.
Since CableCard never really worked out,
I have two. They aren't working out? (Actually three, but one is in a cable box that doesn't have service enabled.)
Simply not possible to do well in HD with any current provider (without DMCA violations anyway).
Interesting. One of the cable cards that isn't working out is in a Silicon Dust three receiver unit, and I have no problems recording HD
Re: (Score:2)
One of the cable cards that isn't working out is in a Silicon Dust three receiver unit, and I have no problems recording HD content off of it.
If you're in a walled garden on Windows, I'm sure it works. But I want to do things my own way.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, digitally-switched traps or combiners could do it too (if they exist or could be made to exist).
They do exist. They are called cable boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
They do exist. They are called cable boxes.
I thought about that when I made my response. Actually, the cable box is not a trap or combiner because it also decodes the signal and presents one output at a time. A trap or combiner would remove the unwanted or unbought signals and allow the remaining signals to pass in to whatever other device would use them, such as an ATV-capable TV or VCR. Because it includes the tuning function as well as the selection function, it isn't the answer being sought.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer was already given earlier, though, that in today's networks, the networks selectively allocate RF channels only to the logical channels being viewed. The "tuner" is an active device that must request the channel you want from the router, and thus by necessity also includes the capability to perform selection.
One could imagine an application for a universal tuner under the customer's control that used said protocol to request logical channels, and a digital selector under the cable company's con
Re: (Score:2)
Well they did it for a number of years, but you're not entirely wrong. Having to do a truck roll every time someone changed service plans is a dumb way to manage access in the 21st century. Remote management of a data network makes all the sense in the world, especially as we get farther and farther away from cable's traditional multicasting-style roots.
(Comparatively, I suspect people would be up in arms if you had to go to the local cell phone sto
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect people would be up in arms if you had to go to the local cell phone store every time they wanted to change phones or plans
A majority of people think this is the case (in the US at least).
Re: We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they didn't use a notch filter for blocking that - those were "encrypted" with an analog obfuscation scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
And they didn't use a notch filter for blocking that
Yes, in many systems they used a trap to block the pay services like HBO -- until there became so many of them that individual traps became a logistical nightmare. Also, people learned how to defeat the traps (remove or deactivate).
That's what led to the sync-suppressed or sync-inverted scrambling systems that were applied later. Those could still be defeated with a bit more technical knowledge, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you could. You could do it exactly the same way the cable companies did it for analog cable: by putting filters on the line. They were just too goddamn cheap to keep doing it and wanted to pad their profit margin at the expense of consumer choice and market competition in TV-viewing hardware instead.
(The fact that cable boxes enabled Orwellian monitoring of viewing habits was an added bonus, of course.)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure you could. You could do it exactly the same way the cable companies did it for analog cable: by putting filters on the line.
That's not compatible with what customers are really asking for, though, which is a la carte. Even the cable companies are going to give that sooner or later. They've started moving in that direction just by offering more numerous and varied packages to different subscribers, which in turn is the problem with filters; they're simply incompatible with having umpteen different packages which you sell to different groups of people, or even different individuals. A box with hardware under their control is the o
Re: (Score:3)
No, no they couldn't. Cable Labs (wholly owned by the cable cartel) made it as difficult and expensive as fucking possible to make any CableCard-supporting device to be sold to consumers (as opposed to rented to them). CableCard was literally designed to fail.
Bullshit. First of all, most cable boxes are the basic standard-def, no recording pieces of shit that
Re: (Score:2)
You could do it exactly the same way the cable companies did it for analog cable: by putting filters on the line.
How do you trap out one channel but not another, when they are both carried on the same data stream?
Now, if you wanted to argue that they should have left the basic cable tier unencrypted, I'd go along with you on that. They CAN trap "cable" vs. "internet", so they can provide service in a way that if you have cable AT ALL you get the basic tier (which everyone gets who is buying cable) in clearQAM. The excuse for not using traps for this? "We have found cases where people can watch the video even with a t
Re:Orwellian (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The surveillance infrastructure isn't fully set up yet. Just wait.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked for one of them on the network side. Clear QAM was never the answer. If anything, it would have been CableCard.
Why?
1. Filters cost money to deploy and replace. (Both equipment and labor)
2. Impossible to charge per TV/device (Signal is 100% free past the filters)
3. Filters offer no fraud protection (very cheap and easy to bypass filters, or split out to neighbors)
Of those, probably #3 was the biggest issue at first. But they were sure excited to see what they could do with issue #2.
The CableCard sta
Re: (Score:2)
No shit. And that's exactly why the FCC shouldn't have allowed them to do it -- because charging per TV is FUCKING EVIL!
Oh, bullshit! The
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, there was a lack of regulation so the CableCard typically did not enable customers to used enhanced channel guides, video on demand, or other "premium" features.
Oh, bullshit! The CableCard spec was entirely within the control of Comcast and the rest of the cable cartel; if it lacked features it was entirely the fault of the cable companies themselves. In other words, they designed it to be inferior on purpose in order to drive cable box rentals.
No, that's what the GP was saying. Since there were no regulations requiring them to deliver that content to cablecard customers, they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The day Comcast started encrypting the signal to my house was the day I canceled service with them. I put an antenna in the attic and between that and Netflix I've been fine. One thing that was pretty shocking was seeing how good the over-the-air image quality was compared to what Comcast was dishing out.
Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! (Score:5, Interesting)
we lost a couple tivo and two old-school vhs decks (yes we used them to the very end) when analog signals were discontinued by cable company.
we then started using a vcr in conjunction with a scheduling feature of the cable box (essentially programming the vcr to record what we programmed the cable box to show and when).. that feature soon disappeared after.
we then lost four pc tuners when they started encrypting their new digital-only signals... even the fucking ota channels... GONE.
all of this while they jack up rates every 3-6 months, add more bogus bullshit below-the-line charges, and pull more and more channels off of "basic" and "expanded" basic and onto separate extra-cost tiers...
and they want to sell us a dvr (correction: rent) for 20 bucks a month more?
FUCK NO.
our bill is $140 for expanded basic, one sd box and slowest available internet. it used to be $105 for all of that PLUS every fucking extra tier and every fucking premium channel, and that was just 10 years ago.
if we could even get ota signals in the valley here, we'd be all over that and dump charter's lame ass. but we're stuck... this or only internet and their internet is so fucking shitty we can't rely on that for tv either.
Re: (Score:2)
If you had reliable internet without a data cap, there are IPTV options for Kodi. Legal? Probably not. $10 a month for about 400 channels. It works.
It's too bad Comcast won't just sell this sort of service. But I have found out I like some of the European channels Comcast (and indeed nobody else in North America) doesn't offer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Over-the-air digital TV is ATSC, not QAM.
And yes, I cut the cord years ago. Fuck Comcast!
Re: (Score:3)
So basically (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Expect it to not work so great if you happen to use AT&T for your internet.
Or count toward your bandwidth cap if you use Comcast.
Re: (Score:1)
Comcast? (Score:3)
I'm not sure I would ever buy anything from Comcast. There's a long history of people doing that and finding themselves on the losing end of the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I would ever buy anything from Comcast. There's a long history of people doing that and finding themselves on the losing end of the deal.
Like there is choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is. Don't watch tv, or put up an antenna and get OTA for free. That's what I do. The tv only exists for chromecasting netflix and youtube.
Re: (Score:3)
I get the choice between Comcast and Frontier Fios. Frontier have been imperfect (they messed up routing to our static subnet once and once moved the DNS servers without telling us) but you call them and they fix it. Waiting 5 months for anything doesn't sound like an option I would take.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you had no choice of affordable fast Internet? :(
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you had no choice of affordable fast Internet? :(
I would move. In fact I did.
Not so fast...are we sure this is going to happen? (Score:1)
https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-... [cnet.com]
Trump and his wonderful deregulations just announced today that Cable providers don't need to do this. I have to wonder if Comcast was aware of this before their announcement?
"Former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who had been appointed by Barack Obama, criticized the move, calling it a victory for "Cablewood over consumers." He also took a jab at Trump on Twitter. "$200 million Pai Tax on helpless cable subs. Trump helping little guy??"
Re: (Score:2)
I am surprised Tom only has like 500 followers on twitter
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, you think, Comcast, which spends millions of dollars lobbying [opensecrets.org] various governments, could possibly have been unaware of developments at FCC? Or, more generally, that Comcast, whose CEO played golf with the President [politico.com], is not benefiting from the barriers to entry imposed by the regulations?
The much more likely explanation is t
Re: (Score:2)
Trump and his wonderful deregulations just announced today that Cable providers don't need to do this. I have to wonder if Comcast was aware of this before their announcement?
OMG, give me a break. The weak FCC has been allowing cable companies to screw consumers for decades... .and through both ENTIRE Obama administrations. So let's not pretend there is some new anti-consumer "thing" happening, or that it is something Republican, or something Trump, because it really isn't.
Cable companies have been encryp
Maybe already too late for Comcast (Score:3)
Programming providers has better learn to be more nimble in their ability to change with the market, or they will go the way of brick and mortar rental stores.
Can you sign up outside of Comcast's area? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or is this only over Comcast's Internet service?
From TFA: "For now, Xfinity app will be available only in current markets".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or is this only over Comcast's Internet service?
Time Warner has a Roku live TV and on demand app. It only works on your home IP, if you connect outside your home, even on another TWC connection, you get a very limited (useless) set of channels.
I assume similar limitations for Comcast.
They don't understand cord-cutters (Score:3)
Cable is yet again trying to "modernize" itself too woo back the cord-cutters. Yeah, the Roku is not why people are cutting the cord. It's the pricing model that a $2.50 credit doesn't come even close to fixing.
Re: (Score:2)
Cable is yet again trying to "modernize" itself too woo back the cord-cutters. Yeah, the Roku is not why people are cutting the cord. It's the pricing model that a $2.50 credit doesn't come even close to fixing.
Not to mention, while you might get a $2.50 bill credit Comcast will now blame any service issues on the Roku (since they don't own it). Whereas if service doesn't work on an actual cable box it's on them to get it to work, or roll a tech to replace the box.
Re: (Score:1)
Cable is yet again trying to "modernize" itself too woo back the cord-cutters. Yeah, the Roku is not why people are cutting the cord. It's the pricing model that a $2.50 credit doesn't come even close to fixing.
Not to mention, while you might get a $2.50 bill credit Comcast will now blame any service issues on the Roku (since they don't own it). Whereas if service doesn't work on an actual cable box it's on them to get it to work, or roll a tech to replace the box.
Somehow, I think Comcast just raised the price of cable by $12.50.. you see they are giving back only $2.50 of the $15 they charge per month for the cable box
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow, I think Comcast just raised the price of cable by $12.50.. you see they are giving back only $2.50 of the $15 they charge per month for the cable box
That was my first thought. How could they credit you for something that is yours?
Re: (Score:2)
Cable is yet again trying to "modernize" itself too woo back the cord-cutters. Yeah, the Roku is not why people are cutting the cord. It's the pricing model that a $2.50 credit doesn't come even close to fixing.
But... for those of us who do have a Roku and a X1 box, this would save us $2.50 a month. I have both in my bedroom and I only use X1 satellite box occasionally. I got the Roku to watch NHL Live as my favorite team (Oilers) plays late at night, local time. Getting rid of the extra X1 box and saving a few dollars, assuming that the App works well, is a bit of a win in my book. Plus, the Roku supports wireless and can be moved around the house. The X1 box has to be wired with Coax.
So, for cord cutters, m
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Comcast is the ONLY high speed internet provider to my house. I can pay $100/mo for their 75Mb internet, or $90/mo for their 75Mb internet and the basic digital cable channels (except for the 13th month of service, where I have to be off their current "promotion" for 30 days before I can get back on). But it's $10 extra per cable box. and another $10 extra if you want that service in HD. So we have a single SD link on the TV my wife watches. If I can pay $87.50 for all of that and just plug in the
Re: (Score:2)
Other commenters are saying this is a credit against the "per-outlet" fee that's much higher. Each Roku gets its own fee.
I prefer VOD (Score:1)
TiVo? (Score:2)
What does this do that my TiVo doesn't do? I can already access the "On Demand" shows from Comcast via the TiVo. I already get the $2.50 credit and don't pay for the cable box* (although there is a monthly service fee for the TiVo box).
Even after returning a cable box, I had to call to actually stop them billing me for it. Also, the same for my cable modem after I bought my own and returned the rented cable modem to Comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you renting or leasing that TiVo from the cable co, or did you buy it outright?
If the latter, then you aren't paying a monthly fee for the box, you're paying for the piece of hardware which you own outright to be able to use the TiVo Service, which is a combination of a month by month license to use the proprietary part of the software, and the listings service (unfortunately not as good with the switch from Tribune Media Services/Gracenote to their new overlords Rovi), and some other "intellectual prop
Does it use Internet Data? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Customers get a $2.50 credit (Score:2)
Against at $15 charge for a cable box they no longer have .. sounds like a sweet deal for Comcast
Who exactly wants this? (Score:2)
>"Roku Owners: Comcast Is About To Sell You Cable TV Without the Cable Box"
Who cares? Who exactly wants to be FORCED to watch commercials now? I know I don't. That is what "streaming cable" means.
DVR on cable or OTA- fine
Netflix model- fine
Amazon pay-per-show model- fine
Network passes of uninterrupted shows- fine.
Streaming cable channels? Why?????
Re: (Score:2)
>"Sports and other live programming."
That is a good point. Thanks. Sometimes I forget about those, since I have ZERO interest in either. Although I know that many sports fans also like to watch recordings, even if it is just delayed enough to zip through endless, mind-numbing commercials.
Die Comcast Die (Score:2)
This seems to be IPTV (Score:2)
No DVR, no deal (Score:1)
Sorry but I'm paying for the privilege to skip ads. Streaming TV shows even with a Comcast account still requires watching ads or taking surveys without knowing how the results can be used/shared. I'll keep on getting gouged on price as long as I can skip commercials but once that option is taken away it's time to simply start torrenting content and drop pay TV entirely.
Do we still get to pay $10 extra for HD? (Score:2)
I'd say no, because you need an HD box, and that's where the $10 comes from, but they gave me the HD box and said for $10 I could upgrade to HD without changing anything but the size of the payment I make each month. Because fuck you, that's why.
Already doing that for years (Score:2)
Back to the past... (Score:2)
paving the way for customers of the nation's largest cable provider to watch live programming without the cost or hassle of a cable box.
You mean like they use to, when I could just plug the cable directly into my TV, use just my TV remote AND get HD channels? All without a cable box? Then one day they strangely decided that I just HAD to have a cable box. Which 1) required a fee if I wanted the HD cable box (SD was free) 2) required that I now use two different remotes to control my TV 3) a SEPERATE box for each and every TV I wanted to hook up.
Gee, thanks Comcast. You created an unnecessary problem, and then now offered a half-asse
All modern TV can work without the box (Score:1)
All modern TV sets have a PCMCIA slot for inserting a CAM module, just like a satellite receiver. I never understood why TV providers don't use them...
Time Warner Cable (Score:2)
TWC launched an app for Roku about three years ago. I use it on my two TVs with Roku 3's. One is on wifi, the other wired, and the video quality is as good as with a DVR. And the UI for the app is much better than on TWC's cable boxes; you can sort channels by name instead of channel number, navigation is quick and responsive, and everything is laid out logically for the D-pad instead of two dozen buttons on a normal remote. I mean, it's not exactly rocket science -- we're talking about basic TV function
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand roku has a bunch of models that range from cheap entry level all the way up to the roku ultra 4k that's priced a little higher than amazon fire tv probably it's closest competitor and just a little less than Apple TV.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand roku has a bunch of models that range from cheap entry level all the way up to the roku ultra 4k that's priced a little higher than amazon fire tv probably it's closest competitor and just a little less than Apple TV.
He means Apple TV.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have to. They can simply pass that cost on to the subscriber with a hefty surcharge for AppleTV. Currently (according to TFS) Roku users get a $2.50 discount. They could easily support AppleTV by giving them a $20/month surcharge. AppleTV users will be happy to pay that, esp. since they're soooooo worried about being seen as "low-income".