# TiVo support for IPTV



## WorldBandRadio (Dec 20, 2010)

I saw an interesting comment on the Comcast TV forum of the DSL Reports message board about TiVo's [lack of?] support for IPTV:

Instead Comcast needs to move more quickly to IPTV. Better quality for all (of course tivo owners will be screwed until/unless tivo decides to pay the license, but it is in tivo control (tivo customers need to ask every day when tivo will be supporting IPTV)). Actually, thinking about it, tivo owners with lifetime should probably sell soon before the market drops out with the flood of lifetime tivos from Comcast subs on ebay.​
That raised my curiosity regarding TiVo's planned support for IPTV. Will my Roamio Pro become obsolete when Comcast goes all-IPTV?


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

In my opinion, if Comcast moves "All In" on IPTV it will really diminish the resale of cable TiVos. Is there really a way to retrofit a TiVo to operate on an IPTV system? If they are less than stellar streamers on IP now, will they perform satisfactorily with only IPTV?


----------



## schatham (Mar 17, 2007)

This is one of my reasons for buying the base Roamio, OTA capability. I doubt you need to worry though, it will be a decade before that happens.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

mschnebly said:


> Is there really a way to retrofit a TiVo to operate on an IPTV system?


It's perfectly capable now, in terms of hardware...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

WorldBandRadio said:


> That raised my curiosity regarding TiVo's planned support for IPTV. Will my Roamio Pro become obsolete when Comcast goes all-IPTV?


I've been the guy who's perhaps posted most on this forum about the potential danger to TiVo owners that Comcast may switch from QAM to IPTV, thereby making TiVos obsolete for use with Comcast cable TV service.

Honestly, we just don't know what's going to happen. *IF* Comcast does switch from QAM to IPTV, then I would expect that TiVos will cease to work with their service. I seriously doubt that Comcast would bend over backward to work with TiVo to engineer a software update that would allow the very, very small percentage of their customers on TiVos to continue accessing their service via IPTV through the native TiVo interface. Comcast, as well as all of the big cable companies, are moving toward the use of apps (which they design and control) as a means to access their services on retail device platforms such as Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV and Android TV. I think these cable companies see TiVo as the past, not the future. Although as long as they continue to transmit their channels via QAM, then they must support access via CableCARD-equipped devices such as TiVo (unless the law gets changed).

But again, it's a matter of IF and WHEN Comcast will shift from QAM to IPTV. Could happen next year. Or might not happen for another five years. Or maybe Comcast keeps some or all channels on QAM until the late 2020s when they exit the business because the whole concept of the linear cable channel bundle collapses since everything -- entertainment, sports, news -- has shifted to OTT direct-to-consumer streaming services owned by Netflix, Disney, AT&T, Amazon, Google, Apple and others. The TV landscape is pretty fluid right now. Several years back, Comcast flirted with the idea of employing switched digital video (as other cable co's have done) as a means to economize bandwidth but they held off, deciding that they would eventually make the bigger, final switch to IPTV. They've deployed their X1 boxes, which can handle both QAM and IPTV, to 60% or more of their user base now. There have been rumors for some time about them switching over to IPTV but no one knows. Perhaps they're pausing while they try to figure out where the whole industry is moving.

I personally would not spend close to $1000 on a new TiVo set-up, including lifetime service, to use with Comcast cable TV. Too risky for me, but maybe not for you. Maybe the box stops working with Comcast TV completely, or at least on certain channels, within the next few years. Who knows? We are reading reports that recent upgrades that Comcast is doing to their network in various areas is making their Xfinity OnDemand app for TiVo no longer operable but, so far, core functionality with actual linear channels remains intact.

The risk greatest, I'd say, is for those TiVo owners on Altice/Optimum cable TV (the #4 cable company in the US). They are currently converting their network over from cable to full fiber-to-the-home and, as that happens, switching from QAM to IPTV. TiVos will almost certainly be obsolete on their network after the switchover.

As for Comcast, it's a crapshoot. But, yes, if/when TiVos become useless on the largest cable provider in the country, they cease to be a viable retail product and their value on the resale market will plummet.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

This is not a new issue. I've stopped caring, since Comcast's video quality is so bad that much of their content in unwatchable anyway. That being said, who knows. They are clearly moving towards IPTV, but they announce stuff, say stuff, and then miss those dates, nothing changes and life goes on. My bet is that the first thing to go is QAM-based VOD, which is still running, but X1 boxes use IPTV. I believe some sports packages and foreign language packages are already IPTV-only. As to when more mainstream content goes to IPTV, who knows. Comcast claims that they are going to make IPTV compatible with TiVo, but based on recent patent litigation, I'm rather skeptical. It is also not impossible that they could move higher tiers, or all cable channels to IPTV, and leave locals and maybe Starter on QAM, since those are the most watched channels, and TiVo users will be left deciding what they want to do based on that.

My personal theory, as I stated in the DSLR thread, is that Comcast is waiting for several million more people to leave their pay tv service before making any big transitions. They've so badly over-compressed their HD that it's just not taking up that much bandwidth on the system compared to what it used to, and a lot more bandwidth is now used for DOCSIS 3 and DOCSIS 3.1 in order to deliver gigabit speeds.



NashGuy said:


> But again, it's a matter of IF and WHEN Comcast will shift from QAM to IPTV. Could happen next year. Or might not happen for another five years. Or maybe Comcast keeps some or all channels on QAM until the late 2020s when they exit the business because the whole concept of the linear cable channel bundle collapses since everything -- entertainment, sports, news -- has shifted to OTT direct-to-consumer streaming services owned by Netflix, Disney, AT&T, Amazon, Google, Apple and others. The TV landscape is pretty fluid right now.


I like that theory. The space is moving so much faster than any of us could have reasonably predicted even 3-5 years ago.



> The risk greatest, I'd say, is for those TiVo owners on Altice/Optimum cable TV (the #4 cable company in the US). They are currently converting their network over from cable to full fiber-to-the-home and, as that happens, switching from QAM to IPTV. TiVos will almost certainly be obsolete on their network after the switchover.


It depends if you have FiOS available. FiOS will likely be one of the last providers using QAM, since they have a dedicated 860mhz one-way QAM system that is of no value to anything except linear video. I strongly believe that Verizon will be doing linear QAM until they exit the pay TV business, which may be sooner than later, as they may want to streamline everything to OTT so that 5G and FiOS run on the same video platform. They're pushing their 5G customers onto YouTube TV.



> As for Comcast, it's a crapshoot. But, yes, if/when TiVos become useless on the largest cable provider in the country, they cease to be a viable retail product and their value on the resale market will plummet.


The resale value would drop if TiVos become useless on Comcast. However, some of the affected TiVos like the 2-tuner Premieres and 4-tuner Roamios can be used with OTA, which is a strong resale market, at least until 3.0 comes along. Comcast, however, is slightly less than half the QAM-based MSO market, with Charter, Verizon, Cox, Altice, and part of Frontier making up a little more than half of it. Further, some customers have Verizon FiOS, RCN, WOW, or another overbuilder available to switch to.

All that being said, I agree abotu not buying a new TiVo for use on Comcast. Not a good bet. Charter will most likely have QAM around in 5-7 years, as they are technologically behind Comcast is basically everything, but who knows if we will still have a pay tv market as we know it today by then.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Don't be concerned about resale value. Dvr's are tools, they aren't houses or cars. Use your tools, take care of them, the day will come when they won't of be value/of any use to any one. Tools eventually wear out. You buy new tools.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

tenthplanet said:


> Don't be concerned about resale value. Dvr's are tools, they aren't houses or cars. Use your tools, take care of them, the day will come when they won't of be value/of any use to any one. Tools eventually wear out. You buy new tools.


One of the most sensible posts found anywhere in the TiVo forums. Ever.


----------



## Anotherpyr (May 6, 2015)

tenthplanet said:


> Don't be concerned about resale value. Dvr's are tools, they aren't houses or cars. Use your tools, take care of them, the day will come when they won't of be value/of any use to any one. Tools eventually wear out. You buy new tools.


I agree. If you're worried about resale value sell now, or pack away and sell when they're rare because the rest have been destroyed or recycled for their raw materials.


----------



## WorldBandRadio (Dec 20, 2010)

tenthplanet said:


> Don't be concerned about resale value. ....


I'm not. The person in the message I quoted seemed to have a concern, though.

My concern is: how much longer will my current TiVo continue to work, and does TiVo have a plan to deal with IPTV?

I've read that Comcast is already starting to move its X1 platform to IPTV, so I have to wonder how long before Comcast's QAM goes away completely and my TiVo does little more than hold up the dust?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Anotherpyr said:


> I agree. If you're worried about resale value sell now, or pack away and sell when they're rare because the rest have been restored or recycled for their raw materials.


Right. I have a Series 2 DT (649080) in perfect operating condition stored in the basement since 2009, just waiting for it to become a priceless antique.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tenthplanet said:


> Don't be concerned about resale value. Dvr's are tools, they aren't houses or cars. Use your tools, take care of them, the day will come when they won't of be value/of any use to any one. Tools eventually wear out. You buy new tools.


The resale value of TiVos with lifetime service is cited by many folks as a reason why it makes economic sense to go that route rather than rent a DVR from the cable company. Buy a new TiVo Bolt 3TB with lifetime, plus a Mini for your 2nd TV, for a total of $1230, use them for five years, then sell them for a total of, say, $500 (after eBay fees and shipping costs). That works out to an effective cost of a little more than $12 per month for DVR service on two TVs, which is probably much cheaper than what you'd pay if you used the cable company's boxes.

My point is that that rationale would pretty much cease to exist at the moment when Comcast TV service becomes incompatible with TiVos (IF that were to ever happen). Let's say you spend $1230 now for that same TiVo hardware with lifetime service and then, 24 months later, Comcast TV becomes incompatible with TiVo. (Or, perhaps, all but the most basic tier of channels becomes incompatible.) At that point, about 45% of the target market for CableCARD-equipped TiVos would just be gone. If it's seemed like TiVo has struggled to survive in the retail market the last few years, then it becomes completely infeasible for them to do so at that point (as far as CableCARD devices, not necessarily OTA devices). Losing Comcast compatibility would almost certainly mean the end of TiVo selling new CableCARD-equipped DVRs.

Meanwhile, eBay and other resale markets would be flooded with used TiVos from Comcast customers who could no longer use them. (This is the scenario referenced in the OP at the start of this thread.) So there would be a big rise in the supply of used TiVos. Meanwhile, there would be far less demand for used TiVos since no other Comcast customers would be looking to buy one. As far as that goes, lots of folks on other pay TV systems (Charter, Verizon FiOS, etc.) might decide against buying a used TiVo too because it appears to be a dying product. So instead of fetching $500, maybe you get $250 for your lifetime Bolt and Mini. (Keep in mind that the 3TB Bolt can't do OTA, only CableCARD.) In which case, you spent a net amount of $980 for 24 months of DVR service on two TVs, which works out to an average of about $41 per month. Not nearly as attractive a figure as $12.

That said, if you really want to stay with Comcast TV (rather than satellite or a streaming service like Hulu Live or YouTube TV) and you greatly prefer TiVo over Comcast's X1 (and there are certainly reasons to prefer TiVo), then maybe those figures don't bother you. Just something to think about.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

The economics of buying Tivo versus using the cableco provided boxes should NEVER include resale value. You are talking about selling a five or more year old item of consumer electronics. 5 years is forever in this market. The best time to buy new Tivo DVRs was the spring/summer of 2014 when there were all those discount coupons floating around. I purchased 2 Roamio Pros and 5 Minis, ALL with lifetime service, for ~$2400. Doing so, compared to using Verizon's Quantum DVRs (brand new at the time) saved us over $100 per month, so we broke even in about 2 years. Back then, you could be very sure of getting at least 2 years out of the equipment, so any resale value would be a bonus. Today, the future longevity of TiVos is not so clear.

If you are not sure you can recoup the investment by USING the TiVos you probably shouldn't buy one.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

Diana Collins said:


> The economics of buying Tivo versus using the cableco provided boxes should NEVER include resale value. You are talking about selling a five or more year old item of consumer electronics. 5 years is forever in this market. The best time to buy new Tivo DVRs was the spring/summer of 2014 when there were all those discount coupons floating around. I purchased 2 Roamio Pros and 5 Minis, ALL with lifetime service, for ~$2400. Doing so, compared to using Verizon's Quantum DVRs (brand new at the time) saved us over $100 per month, so we broke even in about 2 years. Back then, you could be very sure of getting at least 2 years out of the equipment, so any resale value would be a bonus. Today, the future longevity of TiVos is not so clear.
> 
> If you are not sure you can recoup the investment by USING the TiVos you probably shouldn't buy one.


Somewhat off the subject, but one can do what I have done, buy used or refurbished units at prices far less than new. Then keep two, three or four years sell them and buy a newer used model. And, while computing TiVo costs versus cable company boxes, how about considering that TiVo's are quite superior to the cable co boxes, at least as far as the POS boxes from Spectrum.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> The economics of buying Tivo versus using the cableco provided boxes should NEVER include resale value. You are talking about selling a five or more year old item of consumer electronics. 5 years is forever in this market. The best time to buy new Tivo DVRs was the spring/summer of 2014 when there were all those discount coupons floating around. I purchased 2 Roamio Pros and 5 Minis, ALL with lifetime service, for ~$2400. Doing so, compared to using Verizon's Quantum DVRs (brand new at the time) saved us over $100 per month, so we broke even in about 2 years. Back then, you could be very sure of getting at least 2 years out of the equipment, so any resale value would be a bonus. Today, the future longevity of TiVos is not so clear.
> 
> If you are not sure you can recoup the investment by USING the TiVos you probably shouldn't buy one.


Many posters on this forum over the years, who have sold their used TiVos with lifetime service for decent amounts of money, would disagree with you.

But I do agree that the future longevity of TiVos is less clear now than in the past, for a number of reasons.

At any rate, if you aren't including future resale value for a TiVo with lifetime service, then that makes the decision to drop $1000 or more up-front on TiVo even dicier because it increases the amount of time you'd need to keep and use the equipment to recoup your initial investment.


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

New Comcast Xfinity install last week. One vertical box sure looks like a cable modem, has 4 wired ports and I can connect to it wirelessly. Other box is rectangular and not as elegant as my Roamio. Red light comes on when I assume it is recording. Seems like IPTV is not here in Chicago now.

I may buy an OTA Bolt once a few comments appear here. Maybe the Roamio tuners will generate less heat. My Roamio will go to a friend.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

chicagobrownblue said:


> Maybe the Roamio tuners will generate less heat.


The warmest location on a Roamio is the area surrounding the tuner. They seem to be the same tuners. Roamio (OTA & basic) do a better job of removing the heat. An external fan does an amazing job on a Bolt and a Roamio.


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> At any rate, if you aren't including future resale value for a TiVo with lifetime service, then that makes the decision to drop $1000 or more up-front on TiVo even dicier because it increases the amount of time you'd need to keep and use the equipment to recoup your initial *investment*.


Since when is consumption an investment? And if $1000 is an investment you probably can't afford to spend it.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Comcast claims that they are going to make IPTV compatible with TiVo


Did they? I don't recall seeing that before... do you have a link?

Of course, they'd probably just do a port of their app, so you wouldn't be able to record anything (except on the "network" DVR), or really use the TiVo interface.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

wmcbrine said:


> Did they? I don't recall seeing that before... do you have a link?
> 
> Of course, they'd probably just do a port of their app, so you wouldn't be able to record anything (except on the "network" DVR), or really use the TiVo interface.


I thought that I saw that posted as well, something like "we're working on a solution for that" here at some point in the past few months.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

From the post "*Comcast Cable Cards No Long Compatible with VOD on Fiber Networks"

*


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chicagobrownblue said:


> Since when is consumption an investment? And if $1000 is an investment you probably can't afford to spend it.


You want to play semantics? OK, let's Google the definition of the word "investment". Click here and expand the box at the top of the page.

You'll note that the second bullet listed under definition 1 is:

_a thing that is worth buying because it may be profitable or useful in the future.
"a used car is rarely a good investment"_​
If you buy a $1000 device with the expectation that it will be useful to you for several years but instead is only useful for a few months, that's a "poor investment," as defined above.

As far as making judgments about what others can or can't afford to spend:


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> From the post "*Comcast Cable Cards No Long Compatible with VOD on Fiber Networks"
> 
> *


Yes, I remember reading that comment too. Hard to know whether the Comcast rep really knows what he's talking about, both with regard to an 18-month timeline for transitioning to IPTV as well as development of a solution to allow TiVos to work with Comcast IPTV.

The last credible public statements I can remember about this topic were back in the 2014-15 timeframe. In 2014, Multichannel News reported that, per a statement filed with the FCC, the two companies were working on a post-CableCARD solution to support TiVo access to both linear channels and VOD services from Comcast TV. Then TiVo affirmed and expounded on that agreement in a 2015 blog post entitled "Future of CableCARD". Excerpt:

_Longer term, we want to transition with the cable industry to a more modern, IP-based cardless security solution. As part of our agreement, Comcast has agreed to work with TiVo on a two-way non-CableCARD security solution that will enable retail devices to access the full Comcast lineup of linear and VOD programming, whether QAM- or IP-delivered._​If there have been any statements on this issue from either company since then, please post/link them here. I do know that, since 2015, there was the failed AllVid/"Unlock the Box" initiative to prompt the FCC to require a digital/non-physical successor standard to CableCARD. I also know that there's been some legal bad blood between TiVo and Comcast, with TiVo lawsuits against Comcast for patent infringement. TiVo has lost at least one of those suits. Meanwhile, Comcast switched from TiVo/Rovi program guide data to Gracenote. And Comcast has clearly signaled that their vision for the future of retail device access to Comcast TV service is through the Xfinity Stream app, which they are deploying on Roku and smart TVs, with more device platforms to be supported going forward.

At this point, it doesn't seem like Comcast is interested in "playing nice" with TiVo (which, if I recall correctly, is probably used by only about 1% of their TV subscribers). We'll see what happens...


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> You want to play semantics? OK, let's Google the definition of the word "investment". Click here and expand the box at the top of the page.
> 
> You'll note that the second bullet listed under definition 1 is:
> 
> ...


The demise of cable cards and the 100% control of the TV market by IPTV threads have been around for many, many years. This has become a "the sky is falling mindset" of the chicken littles.

My investments pay interest, dividends, capital gains and occasionally capital losses. I harvest the losses to offset other investment gains. I did not buy my Tivo to help fund my retirement, don't expect it to pay dividends and will give it to a friend when and if I am done with it.

And, I paid $100 for my TiVo and either $350 or $450 for service including a final upgrade to lifetime. So, my cost is $450 or $550. So the $1000 figure is the typical hyperbole of someone who can not afford a TiVo.

You might want to look at the investment thread that has a heading of "
*49% of Americans save nothing for retirement"*

I bet some of those people have TiVos they can't afford.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

(pure speculation) If TiVo does come up with a solution for Comcast IPTV I expect it will require being on the “new experience” UI, so would only be available to Roamio and BOLT users.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chicagobrownblue said:


> The demise of cable cards and the 100% control of the TV market by IPTV threads have been around for many, many years. This has become a "the sky is falling mindset" of the chicken littles.
> 
> My investments pay interest, dividends, capital gains and occasionally capital losses. I harvest the losses to offset other investment gains. I did not buy my Tivo to help fund my retirement, don't expect it to pay dividends and will give it to a friend when and if I am done with it.
> 
> ...


I've earned series 7 and 63 licenses and spent years working for a major investment bank. Save your lecture about investments or about what I can afford. _(Seriously, what the hell does any of this have to do with the purported topic of this thread?)_

As for $1000 being hyperbole, nope. Here are the current prices right from TiVo.com:

TiVo Bolt Vox - 500 GB model, 4 tuners: $199.99
TiVo Bolt Vox - 1TB model, 4 tuners: $299.99 (out of stock)
TiVo Bolt Vox - 3 TB model, 6 tuners: $499.99
All-In Service: $549.99
TiVo Mini Vox: $179.99

I would bet that the average cable-subscribing TiVo owner has service to at least 2 TVs. If you're ordering direct from TiVo at their standard everyday prices listed above, then you're looking at spending a minimum of $929.97 plus tax for the cheapest Bolt plus one Mini plus All-In. Including sales tax, that comes to $1,016 where I live.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> From the post "*Comcast Cable Cards No Long Compatible with VOD on Fiber Networks"*


Semi-related post by @TiVo_Ted from the same thread, from July...


TiVo_Ted said:


> Hi guys, sorry I haven't weighed in on this yet. We built the Xfinity On-Demand app back in 2011 to interface with Comcast's (now legacy) on-demand system. This system streams over digital cable (QAM) channels and does not support IP delivery. The app mechanism that we used on the TiVo box (HME) has also been largely put into maintenance mode. This is why the look & feel of the XOD app is still the old blue with yellow menu highlights.
> 
> As Comcast upgrades their network, they have committed to maintaining support for using CableCARD to access linear TV channels, but not on-demand channels. It's still early days, but we are working closely with Comcast to design and build a more modern way to access their new digital services.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

krkaufman said:


> (pure speculation) If TiVo does come up with a solution for Comcast IPTV I expect it will require being on the "new experience" UI, so would only be available to Roamio and BOLT users.


I dunno. It might be more on the lines of the Comcast app ported to TiVo with search hooks like Netflix. A solution for Comcast IPTV doesn't necessarily mean local storage.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> I dunno. It might be more on the lines of the Comcast app ported to TiVo with search hooks like Netflix. A solution for Comcast IPTV doesn't necessarily mean local storage.


Makes sense, from what I've heard is Comcast thinks the future of storage is the cloud including anything like a DVR.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I dunno. It might be more on the lines of the Comcast app ported to TiVo with search hooks like Netflix. A solution for Comcast IPTV doesn't necessarily mean local storage.


I have a hard time seeing that as something TiVo would consider a worthwhile approach, since it would offer no differentiation from the Comcast app on Roku ... aside from the significant hardware cost difference.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

krkaufman said:


> I have a hard time seeing that as something TiVo would consider a worthwhile approach, since it would offer no differentiation from the Comcast app on Roku ... aside from the significant hardware cost difference.


Bundle it with OTA. Despite all the cable channels, a huge amount of time shifting is still major networks which are available OTA


----------



## Anotherpyr (May 6, 2015)

dlfl said:


> Right. I have a Series 2 DT (649080) in perfect operating condition stored in the basement since 2009, just waiting for it to become a priceless antique.


They become completely worthless before they become priceless antiques. And some never recover their value. But I've been surprised by the prices I've seen old boomboxes bring on eBay.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

WorldBandRadio said:


> I've read that Comcast is already starting to move its X1 platform to IPTV, so I have to wonder how long before Comcast's QAM goes away completely and my TiVo does little more than hold up the dust?


We don't know. I would not recommend using Comcast at all due to both their atrocious VQ and the decline of traditional pay tv in general. If you're hell bent on using Comcast, buy a used Premiere 4 or Roamio with lifetime, and that way you would have as much sunk into the system. The Premiere 4 does exactly the same thing on cable as the Bolt, it's just somewhat less responsive. The apps are crap anyway, so you're better off getting a Roku or Apple TV for 4k streaming.



chicagobrownblue said:


> New Comcast Xfinity install last week. One vertical box sure looks like a cable modem, has 4 wired ports and I can connect to it wirelessly. Other box is rectangular and not as elegant as my Roamio. Red light comes on when I assume it is recording. Seems like IPTV is not here in Chicago now.
> 
> I may buy an OTA Bolt once a few comments appear here. Maybe the Roamio tuners will generate less heat. My Roamio will go to a friend.


Vertical box is their XB3 gateway contraption. Comcast's shareholders thank you for shelling out $11/mo for their overpriced router. Other box is some version of an XG1. Did you not plug any of these devices in? The XG1 can do QAM or IPTV, but no market is using IPTV for the core cable packages yet. There are some sports and international programming, in addition to X1 VOD that's on IP.



wmcbrine said:


> Did they? I don't recall seeing that before... do you have a link?


Unfortunately not. About two years ago, I complained about their atrocious MPEG-4 on the DSLReports Comcast Direct forum, and I got a call from a Comcast employee who is fairly high up, and we discussed many technical things at length. He claimed Comcast was working on making TiVos compatible with IPTV, but it was one of many, many topics discussed in passing. If that work went anywhere since, or how the patent fight affected it, I don't know.



> Of course, they'd probably just do a port of their app, so you wouldn't be able to record anything (except on the "network" DVR), or really use the TiVo interface.


That's possible, in which case it would be meaningless, since you would lose the native TiVo interface and may as well use a Roku. However, since the fall of cable tv and Comcast's atrocious VQ, I don't even really care anymore. After the MPEG-4 downgrade, I switched to a local cable company for like 6 months, then I cut the cord, and I haven't looked back since. If I want news or sports I'll get YouTube TV for a few months. Without cable, I have 850 hours of streaming content in my backlog, plus plenty of stuff on PBS that comes up on a weekly basis.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I'm still not convinced that Comcast is actually going to go IP. The cost to do so is significant, and I'm wondering if they are stalling now to see where the market goes in a couple of years. Based on the mass exodus from MVPDs and bloated cable bundles, I think we're going to see a reckoning for less popular cable channels within the next few years that significant consolidation is needed, whether that comes from MVPD subscriber losses for those channels that are too small to get on the vMVPDs, or whether it comes from MVPDs getting more aggressive with cutting costs, I think a lot of channels are going to disappear. So Comcast may be stalling to either make a transition to IPTV easier with fewer channels, more bandwidth, and fewer subscribers that need to be converted, or they may be stalling to see if enough channels disappear that it's not worth moving from MPEG-4 QAM at all. If 120 HD channels becomes 60 HD channels, you're talking 6 out of 125 QAMs used for HD video, which is barely worth moving away from.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Anotherpyr said:


> They become completely worthless before they become priceless antiques. And some never recover their value. But I've been surprised by the prices I've seen old boomboxes bring on eBay.


LOL my S2 TiVo won't become a priceless antique before our sun explodes and burns up the earth. At least an old boombox can function.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Many posters on this forum over the years, who have sold their used TiVos with lifetime service for decent amounts of money, would disagree with you.
> 
> But I do agree that the future longevity of TiVos is less clear now than in the past, for a number of reasons.
> 
> At any rate, if you aren't including future resale value for a TiVo with lifetime service, then that makes the decision to drop $1000 or more up-front on TiVo even dicier because it increases the amount of time you'd need to keep and use the equipment to recoup your initial investment.


As you point out, the situation has changed since then. If and when we want to sell our TiVos, if we can get ~$500 for each of them, great! But I never counted on it. We switched from DirecTV with their STBs to Verizon with TiVo. The $100/month was the savings over Fios and 2 Quantum DVRs and 5 IPCs. Versus DirecTV we saved about $160/month, so from that perspective we broke even in ~16 months, still not counting resale value. Of course, we have 6 TVs and a Slingbox - for folks with only one or two TVs it is MUCH harder to justify.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> Of course, we have 6 TVs and a Slingbox - for folks with only one or two TVs it is MUCH harder to justify.


I guess so, but still not as hard to justify as having 6 TVs


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> I guess so, but still not as hard to justify as having 6 TVs


That's a LOT of TVs, especially these days with everything streaming. At my next place, I'm going all-in on Google Cast- every TV, speaker, and stereo will have it so that I can stream from a Chromebook or Android phone. Whether secondary TVs get TiVo Minis or not... I haven't decided yet. Definite maybe there.


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

I spoke to a couple of Comcast reps at CEDIA last month. As you might expect, the lawsuits have made them pretty pissed off and they are not inclined to help TiVo integrate in any way. They said they are heading toward an all IP architecture, and that TiVo will eventually no longer work on their system.

Don't forget, that we are dealing with a company that doesn't accept many of the TiVo patents and refuses to pay at least one of them to the detriment of their customers. Remember when they turned off the ability to remotely schedule recordings? 

So, unless the government forces Comcast to work with 3rd party DVRs, I would say that TiVo's days are numbered with Comcast. Will it be next year, or the year after that? Probably not, but it's coming.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Scooby Doo said:


> I guess so, but still not as hard to justify as having 6 TVs


LOL...yeah, well...it is historical. One in each bedroom (3), one in the kitchen, one in the family room, and one in the rec room. Only 2 are 1080p, the rest are 720p, so that gives you some idea how old they are. The youngest is 8 years old.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

DigitalDawn said:


> I spoke to a couple of Comcast reps at CEDIA last month. As you might expect, the lawsuits have made them pretty pissed off and they are not inclined to help TiVo integrate in any way. They said they are heading toward an all IP architecture, and that TiVo will eventually no longer work on their system.


That's too bad. That whole situation is just ugly. I don't know whether to blame TiVo for patent troll-ish behavior, or Comcast for a crappy rip-off of TiVo instead of just getting the real thing from TiVo like they could have. They seem to think that they can do whatever they want just because they are so big.



> So, unless the government forces Comcast to work with 3rd party DVRs, I would say that TiVo's days are numbered with Comcast. Will it be next year, or the year after that? Probably not, but it's coming.


At this point, I think it's irrelevant anyway. Look at how fast the market landscape has changed in the past 2-3 years, and extrapolate that out a couple of years, and traditional pay tv will be so irrelevant that no one will care. As it is today, if you have an XG1 stacked up with a Roamio OTA and a Roku, 90%+ of DVR'ed viewing can be done on the TiVo anyway, as the premiums all have streaming apps on Roku, and the only content really left on cable is sports and news, which are inherently live by their nature. And then that begs the question of why anyone would pay for Comcast's poor quality and overpriced TV? If they really need those live sports and news, YouTube TV or DirecTV NOW does it better, easier, and cheaper.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Bigg said:


> That's too bad. That whole situation is just ugly. *I don't know whether to blame TiVo for patent troll-ish behavior*, or Comcast for a crappy rip-off of TiVo instead of just getting the real thing from TiVo like they could have. They seem to think that they can do whatever they want just because they are so big.


Just a pet peeve of mine: it really isn't "troll-ish behavior" to enforce your intellectual property rights and to try to stop someone from violating your patents.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

DigitalDawn said:


> I spoke to a couple of Comcast reps at CEDIA last month. As you might expect, the lawsuits have made them pretty pissed off and they are not inclined to help TiVo integrate in any way. They said they are heading toward an all IP architecture, and that TiVo will eventually no longer work on their system.


Perhaps current TiVo boxes, as they stand. But who knows what may happen between now and then.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

Bigg said:


> If they really need those live sports and news, YouTube TV or DirecTV NOW does it better, easier, and cheaper.


Ask those with YouTube TV how much they enjoyed watching the baseball playoffs and NBA last night. Short answer? They didn't, because of an outage. Yes, I know it doesn't happen much and I enjoy my YouTube TV. But I was overcome by the feeling to be "That Guy," so I did.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> Just a pet peeve of mine: it really isn't "troll-ish behavior" to enforce your intellectual property rights and to try to stop someone from violating your patents.


I say "troll-ish", because a true patent troll doesn't make anything and just sues other companies. TiVo is "troll-ish", as they seem to make more lawsuits than DVRs, but they're not a true patent troll, as they do have a functional, shipping product.



sangs said:


> Ask those with YouTube TV how much they enjoyed watching the baseball playoffs and NBA last night. Short answer? They didn't, because of an outage. Yes, I know it doesn't happen much and I enjoy my YouTube TV. But I was overcome by the feeling to be "That Guy," so I did.


Cable goes out sometimes too. Satellite rarely does for more than a few minutes. If you have FiOS that's about the best, but some moron could still mow down a telephone pole or dig through a fiber line and cut your service. Happened to a family friend a few months ago, his whole complex was offline because some idiot hit a fiber line while digging, and Verizon had to send crews out to splice hundreds of fiber strands on a weekend. Not cheap. Hopefully they sued whoever cut it for those OT bills!


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> Just a pet peeve of mine: it really isn't "troll-ish behavior" to enforce your intellectual property rights and to try to stop someone from violating your patents.


By all means. But a lot of Tivo patents should never have been granted, like the "grid" guide.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

Bigg said:


> If you have FiOS that's about the best, but some moron could still mow down a telephone pole or dig through a fiber line and cut your service. Happened to a family friend a few months ago, his whole complex was offline because some idiot hit a fiber line while digging, and Verizon had to send crews out to splice hundreds of fiber strands on a weekend. Not cheap. Hopefully they sued whoever cut it for those OT bills!


I do have FiOS and the only reason I'll ever give it up is if I move to an area that doesn't have it. To say it's reliable is an understatement. (And that digging outage certainly isn't on them.)


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

mdavej said:


> By all means. But a lot of Tivo patents should never have been granted, like the "grid" guide.


Right up there with the patent on how to pick up heavy objects (spoiler: bend your knees when lifting), another real patent?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

sangs said:


> I do have FiOS and the only reason I'll ever give it up is if I move to an area that doesn't have it. To say it's reliable is an understatement. (And that digging outage certainly isn't on them.)


It's not on Verizon, but it still happened. They had tons of guys on OT re-splicing the cable for several days, but my point is, anything can break.



Mikeguy said:


> Right up there with the patent on how to pick up heavy objects (spoiler: bend your knees when lifting), another real patent?


The process, business, and software patents should never have existed in the first place.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> If they really need those live sports and news, YouTube TV or DirecTV NOW does it better, easier, and cheaper.


Huh?

Directv Now has only basic cable sports and net even all of them. Missing a lot of RSNs and local OTA. They don't do sports well at all. Nor news. They only have a handful of news channels.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> The process, business, and software patents should never have existed in the first place.


One of the problems with blanket opposition to software patents is that many technologies can now be implemented in software or hardware. For example, 20 years ago tuners were custom-designed sophisticated electronics. Today, many tuners just digitize a fairly wideband channel (20MHz+) and then do all the tuning and demodulation in software. Should one solution be patentable and not the other?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Huh?
> 
> Directv Now has only basic cable sports and net even all of them. Missing a lot of RSNs and local OTA. They don't do sports well at all. Nor news. They only have a handful of news channels.


They generally have a lot of RSNs, although it can vary by market. It's possible your market is an outlier, but in general, they have a superb sports lineup.

You are just wrong about news. YTTV has CNBC, FBN, FNC, MSNBC, CNN, HLN, and BBC. They even have Big News, Cheddar, and Newsy for those who want some more off-beat options. I looked at YTTV for Hartford-New Haven, and it is extremely well targeted. They have all the channels for basketball, baseball, election coverage and debates, and The Olympics, i.e. everything that pay tv is needed for. They did a slam-dunk job on targeting the right set of channels, plus some Disney garbage, but I'm sure that came along as a force-bundle with the ESPNs.

DTVN is a lot more expensive, but they have bundles with all the bloated crap that people left cable to avoid. YTTV has a much better targeted lineup that really excels at picking all the strengths of live tv and drops most of the junk.



Scooby Doo said:


> One of the problems with blanket opposition to software patents is that many technologies can now be implemented in software or hardware. For example, 20 years ago tuners were custom-designed sophisticated electronics. Today, many tuners just digitize a fairly wideband channel (20MHz+) and then do all the tuning and demodulation in software. Should one solution be patentable and not the other?


I'd rather have fewer patents than more patents and invalidate patents as needed, or possibly grandfather old patents in, but not grant new ones if the process can be done in software.


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Vertical box is their XB3 gateway contraption. Comcast's shareholders thank you for shelling out $11/mo for their overpriced router.


Basic cable and internet is included in my rent. Bulk pricing per unit for most high-rises in Chicago costs about $60/unit. My point is that cable modem and DVR is au current in big modern buildings in Chicago not IPTV.


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> As for $1000 being hyperbole, nope. Here are the current prices right from TiVo.com:
> 
> TiVo Bolt Vox - 500 GB model, 4 tuners: $199.99
> TiVo Bolt Vox - 1TB model, 4 tuners: $299.99 (out of stock)
> ...


OMG, you pay list price for stuff and are not clever. How about buying a brand new OTA Bolt for $249, lifetime for $249 for a total of ~$500? Add a c*** c*** b****** and voila.



NashGuy said:


> If you're ordering direct from TiVo at their standard everyday prices listed above,


You would be stupid! Black Friday is 5 weeks away. And Tivo has deals all the time.



NashGuy said:


> I've earned series 7 and 63 licenses and spent years working for a major investment bank.


You have all that and can't afford / complain about paying $1000 for a DVR? Seriously?_



NashGuy said:



*Save your lecture about investments* or about what I can afford. (Seriously, what the hell does any of this have to do with the purported topic of this thread?)

Click to expand...

_You're analyzing a consumer purchase like an investment, paying full retail and using residual values. Sounds like you think your Tivo is an investment.

I've earned series 7 and 63. And aced the series 3 (commodity trading license) because I do work on advanced option models. Never had a Tivo DVR investment analysis request in 30 years.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Do us a favor and quit name dropping "series 7 and 63", which apparently means you have figured out how to milk the market to the disadvantage of the rest of us who work for our money.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chicagobrownblue said:


> Basic cable and internet is included in my rent. Bulk pricing per unit for most high-rises in Chicago costs about $60/unit. My point is that cable modem and DVR is au current in big modern buildings in Chicago not IPTV.


Do they include the router?


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Do they include the router?


WiFi & Wireless Router and cable modem all in one package. Xfinity DVR in a second box. I'm going to pay for a cable card to use my Tivo on Comcast.


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

dlfl said:


> Do us a favor and quit name dropping "series 7 and 63", which apparently means you have figured out how to milk the market to the disadvantage of the rest of us who work for our money.


I only worked with institutional clients; mostly institutional bond traders, commodity traders and hedge funds. They did the heavy lifting of milking the ordinary folks


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> They generally have a lot of RSNs, although it can vary by market. It's possible your market is an outlier, but in general, they have a superb sports lineup.


They don't have a lot of RSNs. Many are missing. I only get half of mine. And directv now doesn't support the alternates of RSNs or channels like btn or sec. nor do they have out of market sports like every cable and satellite system. They have basic sports. That is not as your characterized it as better than cable systems.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

chicagobrownblue said:


> How about buying a brand new OTA Bolt for $249, lifetime for $249 for a total of ~$500? Add a c*** c*** b****** and voila.


That probably won't work on the Bolt OTA, since they removed some circuitry as well as removing the c*** c*** b******.


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

snerd said:


> That probably won't work on the Bolt OTA, since they removed some circuitry as well as removing the c*** c*** b******.


OK. Very interesting. The majority of my recordings are from major networks that are OTA. I may get the new Bolt OTA initially just for its intended purpose. Four tuners in the Bolt, 5 tuners in my Xfinity DVR and nothing to watch.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

snerd said:


> That probably won't work on the Bolt OTA, since they removed some circuitry as well as removing the c*** c*** b******.


Last year I bought a Roamio OTA on BF. If the price is right I might buy the Bolt OTA this year. I would like to have the faster internet interface. I already have the CC bracket. But the hardware shouldn't be needed to see if there is support for the card. Only a month to go.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

TonyD79 said:


> They don't have a lot of RSNs. Many are missing. I only get half of mine. And directv now doesn't support the alternates of RSNs or channels like btn or sec. nor do they have out of market sports like every cable and satellite system. They have basic sports. That is not as your characterized it as better than cable systems.


So you're wanting a full blown cable lineup in a cheap streaming service? I think cable is for you.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mschnebly said:


> So you're wanting a full blown cable lineup in a cheap streaming service? I think cable is for you.


Read back in the thread. I was responding to a post that said that directv now was better than cable at sports.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Mikeguy said:


> Just a pet peeve of mine: it really isn't "troll-ish behavior" to enforce your intellectual property rights and to try to stop someone from violating your patents.


_"If people are willing to talk to us, fine, but if they're not even answering our calls [and not willing to make a deal], then we're going to sue them [MVPD's and DVR makers]."_
-Former TiVo CEO Tom Rogers in response to a question--after much back and forth--regarding his strategy for deciding who TiVo will sue for patent infringement.

So, "partner" with TiVo and *pay*, or get sued only because you don't "partner" with TiVo. Comcast "partnered" and was not sued (until most recently). DirecTV "partnered" with TiVo--with the clause that TiVo could not sue DirecTV for patent infringement--and DirecTV was not sued. All the other big boys weren't interested in TiVo products, software, or patents, and took the position that their devices did not infringe on TiVo patents, but they all got sued. Hmm.

The strategy worked and kept TiVo alive, but none of the suits were ever filed because of any belief by TiVo of true patent infringement. It was a necessary move for survival. While it was not ethical, it was certainly the best possible business move Tom Rogers could do in TiVo's circumstances at the time. Had Tivo not taken the _sue everybody who won't make deals with us strategy_, TiVo would have died. However unpleasant the lack of ethics, Tom Rogers does deserve credit for the survival of TiVo, and I suspect his good friend Charlie Ergen (Yes, they really are friends) has some respect for Tom Rogers and his decisions and ability to keep his company, TiVo, from going under.

Even with the TiVo vs Echostar case, due to an appellate court decision--which also chided the trial judge for his errors--TiVo was looking at the current trial rendered irrelevant to work arounds implemented on the offending DVRs (several models of Echostar/Dish DVR's were *not* named in the suit because those models did not exist when TiVo filed suit) and having to start a whole new trial to determine if the work arounds were in violation of patents, and the workarounds was where the money was.

TiVo appealed that Appellate Court decision to the Supreme Court but it would be many months before The Supreme Court would even make a decision to hear that appeal. With Tivo close to running out of money, Tom Rogers decided that he didn't, _". . . want to wait for the Supreme Court," _ and accepted Echostar's settlement terms, which included a lifeline of a lot cash (well, a lot of money for TiVo; a cheap settlement for Echostar) in exchange for granting Echostar lifetime license to all of TiVo's patents (this does not include any patents filed after the settlement nor any of the Rovi patents folded into the new Rovi/TiVo company) while TiVo was granted lifetime license to a few of Echostar's patents relative to Echostar's countersuit that they would also drop.

There would be no "gun to the head" scenario TiVo for which TiVo had hope: there would be no payment per offending DVR; There would be no agreement to "partner" with TiVo all on TiVo's terms of requiring Dish to pay for all R&D (as is the norm when "partnering" with TiVo); there would be no addtional fee charged to millons of Dish DVR subscribers (at the time Dish had by far the most DVR's in homes than anyone); that additional fee would not be passed on to TiVo, in addtion to separate payments for Dish using TiVo patents.

The Echostar vs TiVo settlement set the standard for subsequent TiVo settlements: forget about forcing "partnerships" with long term revenue of payments (considering how awful the Comcast and DirecTV agreements turned out even before the settlement), but, instead, just take the cash and run with immediate, but short term gains, and keep TiVo alive. None of the big boys of DVR makers or MVPD's wanted anything from TiVo, and once Rogers accepted that, take the money and run was the new goal, not locking them into TiVo for never ending payments to use its DVR's, UI, software and patents, which was the original goal that would have made TiVo be a larger and healthier company today with a future for some time.

That suit was considered by both parties as nothing more than just business. Recently, Dish decided to license TiVo patents (originally Rovi patents, I believe) for Dish's voice control features. This agreement occurred before TiVo implemented any of its Vox features on TiVo DVR's. Most recently Dish, along with DirecTV and Spectrum, now use Rovi for its metadata. No hurt feelings; it's just all business.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

TonyD79 said:


> Huh?
> 
> Directv Now has only basic cable sports and net even all of them. Missing a lot of RSNs and local OTA. They don't do sports well at all. Nor news. They only have a handful of news channels.


AT&T's plan is to mirror all the DirecTV channels over to DirecTVNow virtual MVPD. DIRECTVNow will eventually have everything DirecTV has in terms of content and channels sooner than later. it's part of AT&T's plan to completely get out of a satellite side of the business.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

chicagobrownblue said:


> OMG, you pay list price for stuff and are not clever. How about buying a brand new OTA Bolt for $249, lifetime for $249 for a total of ~$500? Add a c*** c*** b****** and voila.
> 
> You would be stupid! Black Friday is 5 weeks away. And Tivo has deals all the time.
> 
> ...


Buying almost anything in the consumer rehlm is an investment, particularly durable goods or hardware that should have a multi-year lifespan with updated API's and software like TVs, audio systems, and certainly DVRs. When people plunk down that much money for such systems they expect a return on that investment for quite some time, and not have the need to replace that device in just a few years.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Series3Sub said:


> The strategy worked and kept TiVo alive, *but none of the suits were ever filed because of any belief by TiVo of true patent infringement*. It was a necessary move for survival. While it was not ethical, it was certainly the best possible business move Tom Rogers could do in TiVo's circumstances at the time.


Perhaps you have inside/other information, but I haven't heard of anything in support of this aspect, either in your summary or otherwise, if you're suggesting that TiVo did not have a factual and legal basis for its patent claims. Part of the decision as to whether to file a lawsuit is factual and legal: is there a basis for the claims. Part also is procedural: can the purported plaintiff afford to file suit, $-wise and timewise. And another part may be business and strategy-driven. There is nothing inherently unethical about that.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Mikeguy said:


> Perhaps you have inside/other information, but I haven't heard of anything in support of this aspect, either in your summary or otherwise, if you're suggesting that TiVo did not have a factual and legal basis for its patent claims. Part of the decision as to whether to file a lawsuit is factual and legal: is there a basis for the claims. Part also is procedural: can the purported plaintiff afford to file suit, $-wise and timewise. And another part may be business and strategy-driven. There is nothing inherently unethical about that.


Anybody can file a lawsuit for any reason they want that has nothing to do with the ideals of law. This is not a fantasy Paper Chase universe; This is the ugly real world where there is no Father Christmas, Easter Bunny, or Great Pumpkin.

Perhaps it is better phrased as the following: It is not _right_ when a company files a suit for patent violation when the party filing that suit knows there is no violation, or does not know if there is violation, or even care if the party being sued is violating those patents, especially when the motivation for filing the suit is to coerce the other party into paying them money, not for reasons that are meritorious. That is an abuse of an important and overburdened institution, and abuse is not ethical.

Examining code for the possibility of patent violation is extremely difficult, and most often those suits filed are allowed to proceed by judges who are out of there depth on the subject, as are the jurors and even computer scientists. There are plenty of published writings regarding the abuse of patent lawsuits, rogue [patent] courts in the words of the late Supreme Court associate Scalia, documented examples of questionable ethics at the most famous patent Court in Texas, and general mess at the US patent office that keeps granting patents when it shouldn't. Avail yourself at your leisure.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Series3Sub said:


> Anybody can file a lawsuit for any reason they want that has nothing to do with the ideals of law. This is not a fantasy Paper Chase universe; This is the ugly real world where there is no Father Christmas, Easter Bunny, or Great Pumpkin.
> 
> Perhaps it is better phrased as the following: *It is not right when a company files a suit for patent violation when the party filing that suit knows there is no violation, or does not know if there is violation, or even care if the party being sued is violating those patents*, especially when the motivation for filing the suit is to coerce the other party into paying them money, not for reasons that are meritorious. That is an abuse of an important and overburdened institution, and abuse is not ethical.


Absolutely. But you're assuming that the patents claims are not meritorious and that patent infringement due diligence was not done.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

Hey look at that? A thread in the TiVo forums that's gone completely off track. That almost never happens.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

sangs said:


> Hey look at that? A thread in the TiVo forums that's gone completely off track. That almost never happens.


Correction: That almost always happens.  I agree the many OT posts are irritating. But even if there was a thread manager (read "dictator") who prevented OT posts, would you really like that? Don't think I would. I like the freedom that exists. And who would you trust to decide what's OT? (Besides yourself.)

BTW, you and I have just crapped on this thread with OT posts.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chicagobrownblue said:


> WiFi & Wireless Router and cable modem all in one package. Xfinity DVR in a second box. I'm going to pay for a cable card to use my Tivo on Comcast.


You should be able to give up the XFinity DVR and get a CableCard instead with a slight credit on your bill, unless you want both. That sucks that they force CrapCast down your throat though in your building. Those bulk deals should be illegal.



TonyD79 said:


> They don't have a lot of RSNs. Many are missing. I only get half of mine. And directv now doesn't support the alternates of RSNs or channels like btn or sec. nor do they have out of market sports like every cable and satellite system. They have basic sports. That is not as your characterized it as better than cable systems.


Again, they have a lot of RSNs, but it _does vary by market_. BTN and SEC are specialty channels to begin with, and are included in many streaming packages. Their alternates are very much niche channels.

I said that streaming packages do TV better, easier, and cheaper than cable/satellite. That's absolutely true. Part of the way they do it better, easier, and cheaper is by cutting out most of the 400 channels of garbage or extreme niche stuff like alternates for college conference TV channels that almost no one watches.

If you look at YTTV, they are the best targeted service that we've ever seen. They cover sports, news, elections, and Olympics without much extra garbage added in, and at a fairly reasonable price point of $40/mo.



dlfl said:


> Correction: That almost always happens.  I agree the many OT posts are irritating.


This particular one was ripe to go off-track to begin with, since the OP was addressing a topic that has already been beaten to death, pending new information from Comcast or Comcast subscribers.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Using a baseball metaphor, why blame the players and the umpires for things that are really due to defects in the rules? (Such as patent law that allows things to be patented that shouldn't be.) Such as expecting executive orders to correct defects in our immigration laws. If you embrace that kind of stuff repeadedly as expedient, rather than doing the hard work of correcting the law, you're starting down the slippery slope toward having no rule of law.


----------



## compnurd (Oct 6, 2011)

Series3Sub said:


> AT&T's plan is to mirror all the DirecTV channels over to DirecTVNow virtual MVPD. DIRECTVNow will eventually have everything DirecTV has in terms of content and channels sooner than later. it's part of AT&T's plan to completely get out of a satellite side of the business.


That is not accurate ATT plans to release another new Streaming Service that does this.. Not Directv Now


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

compnurd said:


> That is not accurate ATT plans to release another new Streaming Service that does this.. Not Directv Now


Yes. And I will be interested in it. I thought I saw it would have local storage but the delivery mechanism was going to be stream. Basically their satellite offering over the internet.


----------



## compnurd (Oct 6, 2011)

TonyD79 said:


> Yes. And I will be interested in it. I thought I saw it would have local storage but the delivery mechanism was going to be stream. Basically their satellite offering over the internet.


Yeh It has all been confirmed that the client will be this C71k that the specs on have been released.. but no word on if it will talk to a new Genie type host


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

compnurd said:


> Yeh It has all been confirmed that the client will be this C71k that the specs on have been released.. but no word on if it will talk to a new Genie type host


At that point, there is no need for the host. Everything is IP.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

compnurd said:


> Yeh It has all been confirmed that the client will be this C71k that the specs on have been released.. but no word on if it will talk to a new Genie type host


Is there a link I can read up on?


----------



## compnurd (Oct 6, 2011)

TonyD79 said:


> Is there a link I can read up on?


Mostly just speculation

DirecTV to Launch Android TV-Based OTT Set-Top Box (EXCLUSIVE)


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

compnurd said:


> Mostly just speculation
> 
> DirecTV to Launch Android TV-Based OTT Set-Top Box (EXCLUSIVE)


Better than nothing.

Thank you.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

compnurd said:


> Mostly just speculation
> 
> DirecTV to Launch Android TV-Based OTT Set-Top Box (EXCLUSIVE)


That's consistent with what we've been hearing for months. The HS27 sounds like a DBS-based server, as the C71KW-400 wouldn't need a server, it already has it's own service running in the cloud. This could be a huge step forward for Android TV as well, which is currently a bit niche, even though it is on some smart TVs. AT&T is serious about owning the TV space in many markets moving forward, but they need to fix their brand confusion. They are likely going to launch AT&T TV, which is in addition to DirecTV, DirecTV NOW, AT&T Watch, and AT&T U-Verse TV, all of which are basically separate services.


----------



## compnurd (Oct 6, 2011)

Bigg said:


> That's consistent with what we've been hearing for months. The HS27 sounds like a DBS-based server, as the C71KW-400 wouldn't need a server, it already has it's own service running in the cloud. This could be a huge step forward for Android TV as well, which is currently a bit niche, even though it is on some smart TVs. AT&T is serious about owning the TV space in many markets moving forward, but they need to fix their brand confusion. They are likely going to launch AT&T TV, which is in addition to DirecTV, DirecTV NOW, AT&T Watch, and AT&T U-Verse TV, all of which are basically separate services.


I think the brand confusion helps them. 5 services and people will be too stupid to know they are all for one company and will sign up for one


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

compnurd said:


> I think the brand confusion helps them. 5 services and people will be too stupid to know they are all for one company and will sign up for one


Because AT&T doesn't have a good brand? They have 2-going-on-3 different "DirecTV" products which are very confusing. They have to spend millions and millions of dollars advertising that you don't need a dish for DirecTV NOW because they re-used the DirecTV brand. They should have left DirecTV as satellite, U-Verse as managed IPTV, and then made a new brand with AT&T for their streaming stuff.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> That's consistent with what we've been hearing for months. The HS27 sounds like a DBS-based server, as the C71KW-400 wouldn't need a server, it already has it's own service running in the cloud. This could be a huge step forward for Android TV as well, which is currently a bit niche, even though it is on some smart TVs. AT&T is serious about owning the TV space in many markets moving forward, but they need to fix their brand confusion. They are likely going to launch AT&T TV, which is in addition to DirecTV, DirecTV NOW, AT&T Watch, and AT&T U-Verse TV, all of which are basically separate services.


Yeah, the manual for the C71 references the HS27. Those model numbers suggest that these boxes are the next-gen successors to the current C61 Genie Mini and the HS17 home server. (For those who don't know, the HS17 contains the satellite tuners and DVR hard drive. It wirelessly feeds live and recorded satellite TV to the C61 client boxes, which connect to each TV by HDMI. When AT&T introduced that hardware awhile back, I think they intended it to be the default configuration for homes with multiple TVs.)

But given that the C71 runs Google's Android TV (with access to lots of apps on the Google Play store) and otherwise matches the description that AT&T's CEO has given for the "thin client" (i.e. no hard drive) box that will be used in their upcoming "home-centric" OTT streaming DirecTV service, it sounds to me like this box might also be used there too. (For whatever reason, the CEO tends to refer to the current DTV Now product as "mobile-centric" and the upcoming service, which will use AT&T's own hardware, as "home-centric".)

Makes sense. Produce one box, the C71, that could be used by itself for streaming DirecTV -- fetching live TV and cloud DVR from AT&T's servers -- AND that could be used in conjunction with a central home server (the HS27) for customers still using satellite. It would lower production and support costs to use the same client boxes on both versions of their DirecTV service. It would also make it much easier to transition satellite customers over to streaming in the future. They could keep the boxes already connected to their TVs (maybe a firmware update would be required). Perhaps the local recordings on their HS27 could be uploaded to AT&T's cloud DVR before the customer boxes it up and ships it back to AT&T. AT&T has made it clear that they want to shift the bulk of their customers away from satellite and over to OTT streaming in the next few years, with satellite mainly being used to serve rural customers (who presumably lack decent broadband service options).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, the manual for the C71 references the HS27.


Yeah, that sounds like it will be a dual streaming/satellite thin client, as the streaming side wouldn't need a server in-home.



> But given that the C71 runs Google's Android TV (with access to lots of apps on the Google Play store) and otherwise matches the description that AT&T's CEO has given for the "thin client" (i.e. no hard drive) box that will be used in their upcoming "home-centric" OTT streaming DirecTV service, it sounds to me like this box might also be used there too. (For whatever reason, the CEO tends to refer to the current DTV Now product as "mobile-centric" and the upcoming service, which will use AT&T's own hardware, as "home-centric".)


Strange. They have Rokus and Apple TVs all over their stores.



> Makes sense. Produce one box, the C71, that could be used by itself for streaming DirecTV -- fetching live TV and cloud DVR from AT&T's servers -- AND that could be used in conjunction with a central home server (the HS27) for customers still using satellite. It would lower production and support costs to use the same client boxes on both versions of their DirecTV service.


It makes sense if it can work without internet, which presumably a highly customized software setup would. Lots of rural DirecTV customers don't have standard, hardwired always-on internet connections, and might be relying on mobile devices or hotspots to get online.



> AT&T has made it clear that they want to shift the bulk of their customers away from satellite and over to OTT streaming in the next few years, with satellite mainly being used to serve rural customers (who presumably lack decent broadband service options).


I don't think they're going to move existing DirecTV installs to streaming, as the DBS system is already there, but they might, at some point, move U-Verse and new installs over to streaming. Rural and commercial are going to continue to be strongholds for DirecTV, but those are niches, not the mass market. A few years down the road they'll probably have 4k streaming too, although that requires a lot of bandwidth, so satellite may serve that niche too if there are ever sports channels available in 4k, which may or may not happen.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I don't think they're going to move existing DirecTV installs to streaming, as the DBS system is already there, but they might, at some point, move U-Verse and new installs over to streaming.


Execs on AT&T Video Transition Strategy: More OTT with Directv Shifted to Rural Areas - Telecompetitor

AT&T clearly sees DBS as the past and OTT as the future. It will take years for them to complete the transition (particularly in rural areas) but they're definitely going to push consumers in the direction of OTT and will incentivize them to do so with lower prices.


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

Bigg said:


> I'm still not convinced that Comcast is actually going to go IP. The cost to do so is significant, and I'm wondering if they are stalling now to see where the market goes in a couple of years. Based on the mass exodus from MVPDs and bloated cable bundles, I think we're going to see a reckoning for less popular cable channels within the next few years that significant consolidation is needed, whether that comes from MVPD subscriber losses for those channels that are too small to get on the vMVPDs, or whether it comes from MVPDs getting more aggressive with cutting costs, I think a lot of channels are going to disappear. So Comcast may be stalling to either make a transition to IPTV easier with fewer channels, more bandwidth, and fewer subscribers that need to be converted, or they may be stalling to see if enough channels disappear that it's not worth moving from MPEG-4 QAM at all. If 120 HD channels becomes 60 HD channels, you're talking 6 out of 125 QAMs used for HD video, which is barely worth moving away from.


There is quite a number of mpeg4 SD duplicates they could just drop to free up space. But if push came to shove, I'd hope they'd keep a package of HD mpeg4 channels for those with CableCARD devices.

Could they drop the 1.66GB/HD-hour recordings down even further?

Xfinity Fiber-Only Network Now in Your Area and Comcast (Xfinity) the TiVo Killer!!! have me freaked out.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T clearly sees DBS as the past and OTT as the future. It will take years for them to complete the transition (particularly in rural areas) but they're definitely going to push consumers in the direction of OTT and will incentivize them to do so with lower prices.


 Agreed. My point is that they are not going to go back and push DBS customers to streaming. Once they have DBS installed, they will just give them huge discounts on DBS through bundling. They may inadvertently push some DBS subs over to OTT out of market, but within their 21-state territory, where they have decent VDSL or FTTH, I think they will continue the bundles, as they already have all the equipment there.

As people move and change services, however, I agree that they will focus on OTT, as the up front costs are much lower than DBS.

I saw areas in Michigan where the DirecTV dishes grew like weeds in the 2016-2017 timeframe, clearly the result of aggressive bundling and transitioning people from U-Verse to DirecTV DBS. I think those folks will stay on DBS for a while, at least until they move.



TKnight206 said:


> There is quite a number of mpeg4 SD duplicates they could just drop to free up space. But if push came to shove, I'd hope they'd keep a package of HD mpeg4 channels for those with CableCARD devices.
> 
> Could they drop the 1.66GB/HD-hour recordings down even further?


The SD is MPEG-2, and if they drop those, they have to replace DTAs, although that's becoming less of an issue as they have most houses and boxes on X1.

When they go IP, they are going to go IP, and the QAM channels will be gone. I'm not entirely convinced that they are going to go IP for their core cable lineup, however, as they are only using up about 12 QAMs or 72mhz for their entire HD lineup. I think what will happen first is sports packages and secondary premium channels and stuff like that will get *added* to IPTV, and the existing channels will stay on QAM. I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see QAM VOD and some lesser watched QAM channels moved to IP in the next year or two, however.

They're at about 2GB/hour, and they've compressed about as much as they possible can... or at least that's what we think. We didn't think that they could compress anywhere close to the level that they've compressed to already. Their encoding technology is actually amazing, they're just bit starving it so badly that it looks like garbage. It's sad too, because with the tech that they have, they could get amazing picture quality out of a marginal amount of bandwidth, they just pushed it too far.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

TKnight206 said:


> There is quite a number of mpeg4 SD duplicates they could just drop to free up space. But if push came to shove, I'd hope they'd keep a package of HD mpeg4 channels for those with CableCARD devices.
> 
> Could they drop the 1.66GB/HD-hour recordings down even further?
> 
> Xfinity Fiber-Only Network Now in Your Area and Comcast (Xfinity) the TiVo Killer!!! have me freaked out.


This is exactly what they are telling us is coming for our area too. No real time frame though, just a heads up I guess.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TKnight206 said:


> Xfinity Fiber-Only Network Now in Your Area and Comcast (Xfinity) the TiVo Killer!!! have me freaked out.


Thanks for that first link there to the article on Xfinity's support site. I had never read an official statement like that from Comcast confirming that TiVos are incompatible with Xfinity TV service in areas where Comcast's network is fiber-only (i.e. FTTH, fiber-to-the-home). The article also states that, currently, standalone TV service is not available to those homes. Rather, it must be combined with broadband service. Surely that means that Comcast's TV service is 100% IPTV for those homes. (Interestingly, the article seems to lay the blame for TiVo's incompatibility on TiVo rather than the fact that Comcast is using a transmission method that doesn't work with CableCARD. Ha!)

That said, I wouldn't worry too much about Comcast switching your neighborhood over from HFC (hybrid fiber/coaxial) to FTTH. FTTH is the exception to the rule for Comcast. They mostly seem to be doing FTTH for new neighborhoods that they expand into. Also, in some cases, it looks like Comcast is converting a few existing neighborhoods here and there but, based on anecdotal reports, those appear to be gated communities, condos or other situations where Comcast has an agreement in place with the entire neighborhood (through the homeowners' association) to be the sole network provider, with the cost of basic TV+internet included in homeowners' association fees.

The vast majority of Comcast's network is HFC, not FTTH. Upgrades that Comcast has done lately have pushed fiber out deeper into the network. The standard that Comcast is working toward (and may already have in place nationwide) is "N+0," with fiber all the way out to each local neighborhood node, and only the last leg of the network from the node to each home being old-fashioned coaxial cable rather than fiber. Comcast is further upgrading their HFC network with RemotePHY/Distributed Access Architecture technologies, which will pave the way for offering upload speeds as fast as download speeds (FDX, full duplex DOCSIS 3.1), along with other long-term benefits (cost savings, full network virtualization, etc.). Given Comcast's stated roadmap and ongoing investment in upgrading their HFC network in the coming years, it seems unlikely that they'll be converting major chunks of their footprint over to FTTH. As far as I know, Altice/Optimum is the only major cable company doing that. Here's a recent story about Comcast's recent and upcoming HFC improvements:
Comcast Testing FDX With MaxLinear, Other Vendors

Now, that said, Comcast _could_ choose to shut down QAM and go to IPTV on their HFC network too, and I predict that they _eventually_ will. But, so far, there are no reports of that having happened anywhere and no public statements from Comcast indicating that they definitely plan to do that. The worst thing I've read is that, in some areas where Comcast has made upgrades to their HFC network, the Xfinity OnDemand app for TiVo no longer works. But otherwise, TiVo functionality remains the same.



Bigg said:


> Agreed. My point is that they are not going to go back and push DBS customers to streaming. Once they have DBS installed, they will just give them huge discounts on DBS through bundling. They may inadvertently push some DBS subs over to OTT out of market, but within their 21-state territory, where they have decent VDSL or FTTH, I think they will continue the bundles, as they already have all the equipment there.


Eh, I don't know. Anecdotal reports are that AT&T has already been selling DirecTV Now to existing DBS subs who call in. Why wouldn't they do the same with the forthcoming "streaming DTV" service, which will reportedly be priced more than DTV Now but less than DBS, but with margins that are overall better than DBS? I get that a lot of the higher margins for the forthcoming service will be based on lower acquisition/install costs (cheaper STBs, no pro install needed). But if the new service has a lower ongoing regular monthly price than DBS, I can definitely see customers finding that out and calling up AT&T themselves and asking to switch. Yes, AT&T could just offer to price match DBS down to the level of the new streaming service to avoid switching out equipment but I tend to think that AT&T would just prefer to switch it out as it would expedite their long-term goal of moving all subs over to the same technology platform (OTT). We'll see...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Thanks for that first link there to the article on Xfinity's support site. I had never read an official statement like that from Comcast confirming that TiVos are incompatible with Xfinity TV service in areas where Comcast's network is fiber-only (i.e. FTTH, fiber-to-the-home). The article also states that, currently, standalone TV service is not available to those homes. Rather, it must be combined with broadband service. Surely that means that Comcast's TV service is 100% IPTV for those homes. (Interestingly, the article seems to lay the blame for TiVo's incompatibility on TiVo rather than the fact that Comcast is using a transmission method that doesn't work with CableCARD. Ha!)


WHOA! TKnight206 uncovered something really, really interesting. All of the fiber installations that I have heard of up until now were using RFoG, which effectively is HFC with smaller nodes, and has no effect on CableCard, QAM, or TiVo. However, this is something entirely new. Comcast's site says that they are deploying an "xFi Fiber Gateway" on EPON. Some more searching revealed a model number of Arris X5001 on this site. This thread tantalizingly didn't show a picture of the entire X5001.

What's interesting is that I can't find ANYTHING else about the X5001 or the symmetrical gigabit, so it must be an incredibly limited rollout. My guess is that they will convert their RFoG to EPON over time. What I can't figure out is why they didn't go the route that Cox did and offer RFoG and EPON at the same time, which Cox did, and that allows CableCards, X1 boxes with DOCSIS modems and eMTAs to work the same as the rest of the network, while having symmetrical gigabit for home broadband only.

Yeah, Comcast's thing about hoping TiVo develops hardware compatible with the Xfinity Stream App is total BS, as a TiVo needs direct access to the MPEG-4 video streams to record them to disk. If their replacement for TiVo is the Stream App, then you may as well get a Roku.

I would note, however, that *TiVo is still compatible with vast majority of Comcast FTTH rollouts*, which are based on RFoG. This EPON appears to be a very small, very limited test.



> That said, I wouldn't worry too much about Comcast switching your neighborhood over from HFC (hybrid fiber/coaxial) to FTTH. FTTH is the exception to the rule for Comcast. They mostly seem to be doing FTTH for new neighborhoods that they expand into.


This is true, but I would be more concerned if you have RFoG with TiVo today, as they could more easily switch RFoG over to EPON than an area where they don't have FTTH in place at all.



> Now, that said, Comcast _could_ choose to shut down QAM and go to IPTV on their HFC network too, and I predict that they _eventually_ will. But, so far, there are no reports of that having happened anywhere and no public statements from Comcast indicating that they definitely plan to do that. The worst thing I've read is that, in some areas where Comcast has made upgrades to their HFC network, the Xfinity OnDemand app for TiVo no longer works. But otherwise, TiVo functionality remains the same.


It makes sense that they would get rid of QAM VOD, as it's horrible inefficient. I think we will see new content added to IPTV before we see QAM channels go away. I believe there are already a few X1-only sports or international packages that have popped up.



> Eh, I don't know. Anecdotal reports are that AT&T has already been selling DirecTV Now to existing DBS subs who call in. Why wouldn't they do the same with the forthcoming "streaming DTV" service, which will reportedly be priced more than DTV Now but less than DBS, but with margins that are overall better than DBS? I get that a lot of the higher margins for the forthcoming service will be based on lower acquisition/install costs (cheaper STBs, no pro install needed). But if the new service has a lower ongoing regular monthly price than DBS, I can definitely see customers finding that out and calling up AT&T themselves and asking to switch. Yes, AT&T could just offer to price match DBS down to the level of the new streaming service to avoid switching out equipment but I tend to think that AT&T would just prefer to switch it out as it would expedite their long-term goal of moving all subs over to the same technology platform (OTT). We'll see...


Customers may end up moving on their own if DirecTV DBS remains a premium-priced product, but AT&T has at least some motivation to keep DirecTV DBS customers on DBS, as once it's installed, it costs virtually zero to keep them on DBS as long as they don't move or add more boxes, etc.

I think AT&T will continue to aggressively bundle their DBS service, especially in places with VDSL, since the OTT IP service has to go over IP as well, so the same problem exists that existed with U-Verse and lower speed VDSL connections. Outside of their footprint, however, I think they will just let people move over.

They can't move all of their customers to IP, since you've still got commercial and rural markets that are solidly on DirecTV. That being said, that's a very different market, so maybe they do want to phase out DBS and the installation infrastructure supporting it in urban/suburban residential markets, and only have the more expensive, more highly trained commercial installers in those areas, along with the installers who do the rural market. I wonder if they will go back to the model that they used to have where you had to pay an independent installer to install DirecTV up front, as opposed to DirecTV having their own installers and bundling the costs in so that they could compete with cable. If they're no longer looking to compete with cable, they could get that whole operation off of their books, and let the custom installers do high-end, commercial, and rural installations and then the people would just subscribe to DirecTV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> This is true, but I would be more concerned if you have RFoG with TiVo today, as they could more easily switch RFoG over to EPON than an area where they don't have FTTH in place at all.


Yeah, I had forgotten that Comcast is using RFoG in at least some of their FTTH installations. That was verified a couple months ago by a guy on another thread here. Wonder why they're using RFoG in some cases and EPON in others?



Bigg said:


> Customers may end up moving on their own if DirecTV DBS remains a premium-priced product, but AT&T has at least some motivation to keep DirecTV DBS customers on DBS, as once it's installed, it costs virtually zero to keep them on DBS as long as they don't move or add more boxes, etc.


True, although I wonder if existing DBS STBs will ever fully support their new Xander targeted ad platform (not to mention their upcoming Warner/HBO OTT service slated to launch a year from now) as fully as the upcoming thin-client OTT service presumably will. That could be another rationale for migrating existing DBS customers to OTT.



Bigg said:


> I think AT&T will continue to aggressively bundle their DBS service, especially in places with VDSL, since the OTT IP service has to go over IP as well, so the same problem exists that existed with U-Verse and lower speed VDSL connections. Outside of their footprint, however, I think they will just let people move over.


For any AT&T home internet customers with a connection fast enough to support Uverse TV (i.e. FTTN or FTTH), I would imagine that they'll move away from bundling DBS and toward bundling the new OTT service. For their customers still lagging behind with slow DSL though, yeah, better to keep them on DBS.



Bigg said:


> They can't move all of their customers to IP, since you've still got commercial and rural markets that are solidly on DirecTV. That being said, that's a very different market, so maybe they do want to phase out DBS and the installation infrastructure supporting it in urban/suburban residential markets, and only have the more expensive, more highly trained commercial installers in those areas, along with the installers who do the rural market. I wonder if they will go back to the model that they used to have where you had to pay an independent installer to install DirecTV up front, as opposed to DirecTV having their own installers and bundling the costs in so that they could compete with cable. If they're no longer looking to compete with cable, they could get that whole operation off of their books, and let the custom installers do high-end, commercial, and rural installations and then the people would just subscribe to DirecTV.


Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, I think. By late 2020, DBS could possibly be a semi-niche product line for AT&T, accounting for maybe 20% or less of new accounts (but a much larger slice of total active customers), with virtually all of those being rural residential or various commercial installations. At that point, it might make more sense to have the installation work done independently, with the full cost borne by the customer up-front.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I had forgotten that Comcast is using RFoG in at least some of their FTTH installations. That was verified a couple months ago by a guy on another thread here. Wonder why they're using RFoG in some cases and EPON in others?


RFoG came first, and didn't require IPTV or any changes to the headend, it was just tiny nodes. EPON is new. My guess is that they will eventually go back and switch the RFoG deployments to EPON, or at least switch them where there is a high enough density to justify doing so. One like my grandmother's place, which has 1000 units on RFoG, and is fed off of a nearby HFC system is probably too small to bother with, and they want to keep the headend equipment the same.



> True, although I wonder if existing DBS STBs will ever fully support their new Xander targeted ad platform (not to mention their upcoming Warner/HBO OTT service slated to launch a year from now) as fully as the upcoming thin-client OTT service presumably will. That could be another rationale for migrating existing DBS customers to OTT.


That's possible. Targeted ads on cable/satellite is a terrifying idea. I want generic ads so that I get exposed to things I might not otherwise see. I like sporting events, as they are super generic ads.



> For any AT&T home internet customers with a connection fast enough to support Uverse TV (i.e. FTTN or FTTH), I would imagine that they'll move away from bundling DBS and toward bundling the new OTT service. For their customers still lagging behind with slow DSL though, yeah, better to keep them on DBS.


The problem is, they have a lot of FTTN customers at 3-5kft, where they are getting 18-50mbps, so IPTV takes a big chunk out of that. That's why they migrated many of them from U-Verse to DirecTV in the first place.



> Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, I think. By late 2020, DBS could possibly be a semi-niche product line for AT&T, accounting for maybe 20% or less of new accounts (but a much larger slice of total active customers), with virtually all of those being rural residential or various commercial installations. At that point, it might make more sense to have the installation work done independently, with the full cost borne by the customer up-front.


The number of accounts could be much lower than that, but a single commercial account can have hundreds of boxes in the case of a hotel, or dozens in the case of a restaurant. Rural really has no choice, and businesses are looking more at cost over a year or more, so the up-front is probably already done on more of a case by case basis anyway. I'd be surprised if DBS was still even 20% of new accounts by then, but they'll keep milking it and using it combined with U-Verse and OTT to achieve scale on procuring programming, which was always the plan.


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

mschnebly said:


> This is exactly what they are telling us is coming for our area too. No real time frame though, just a heads up I guess.


Are they saying fiber will be offered as a choice, or are they saying that fiber will be the only option at some point?


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

Bigg said:


> The SD is MPEG-2, and if they drop those, they have to replace DTAs, although that's becoming less of an issue as they have most houses and boxes on X1.
> 
> When they go IP, they are going to go IP, and the QAM channels will be gone. I'm not entirely convinced that they are going to go IP for their core cable lineup, however, as they are only using up about 12 QAMs or 72mhz for their entire HD lineup. I think what will happen first is sports packages and secondary premium channels and stuff like that will get *added* to IPTV, and the existing channels will stay on QAM. I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see QAM VOD and some lesser watched QAM channels moved to IP in the next year or two, however.
> 
> They're at about 2GB/hour, and they've compressed about as much as they possible can... or at least that's what we think. We didn't think that they could compress anywhere close to the level that they've compressed to already. Their encoding technology is actually amazing, they're just bit starving it so badly that it looks like garbage. It's sad too, because with the tech that they have, they could get amazing picture quality out of a marginal amount of bandwidth, they just pushed it too far.


I thought HD and SD status had nothing to do with whether something is mpeg4 or mpeg2. I thought the over-the-air channels are all mpeg2 where the "cable" channels are all mpeg4 with Comcast.

If they go all IP, they risk losing a lot of customers who have either TiVos, legacy Comcast DVRs, or some other CableCARD device. That's assuming we customers switch out of spite.

I think it's around 1.66GB/HD-hour for mpeg4 channels. If you count all the unique channels that aren't local channels, Music Choice, FM, etc., you could probably figure out how much bandwidth would be necessary. A little more compressed while removing some of the less popular channels, and perhaps a QAM-only lineup could be created. Music Choice and FM channels probably require very little bandwidth. The bandwidth for local channels will vary by the broadcast and probably isn't allowed to be compressed.

There's also the problem of their cloud DVR. Skipping is a minor issue. But skipping 30 seconds becomes less of an issue with their Smart Resume. Plus, you can't play things from the cloud DVR when the cable is out. With a traditional DVR, you can watch what you recorded until it comes back online. With our X1, I think if the cable is out, I don't think any recordings work, which is unfortunate.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

TKnight206 said:


> Are they saying fiber will be offered as a choice, or are they saying that fiber will be the only option at some point?


They are laying fiber along the back of our property lines which butt up to the back of the the lots on the next street. When its all done they say fiber to the houses. this is not a new neighborhood either. My house was built in the '60s.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

TKnight206 said:


> If they go all IP, they risk losing a lot of customers who have either TiVos, legacy Comcast DVRs, or some other CableCARD device. That's assuming we customers switch out of spite


When I asked about this they told me that it was such a very small number of people that they will just have to move to the X1 for service and it wasn't a big concern.
One guy said that he has never seen a TiVo in his five years.


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

mschnebly said:


> When I asked about this they told me that it was such a very small number of people that they will just have to move to the X1 for service and it wasn't a big concern.


Did they explicitly tell you that you have no choice? What prompts them to lay the fiber in the first place?


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

TKnight206 said:


> Did they explicitly tell you that you have no choice? What prompts them to lay the fiber in the first place?


They said the only choice was the X1 and maybe some kind of app in the future. They are putting in the fiber to upgrade speeds and reliability along with hotspots for wifi.


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

mschnebly said:


> They said the only choice was the X1 and maybe some kind of app in the future. They are putting in the fiber to upgrade speeds and reliability along with hotspots for wifi.


By "they", do you mean a sales rep, technical support, or someone else? Have you considered calling up and escalating up a tier or two and asking them for more information to see if you can avoid fiber?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

TKnight206 said:


> ... to see if you can avoid fiber?


Priorities, people. I realize we're talking about the end of CableCard functionality, but... without fiber, the best speed you can get out of Comcast is 1000 down (yay), 35 up (boo). With fiber, I think you'll see symmetrical speeds. That's a pretty good trade-off.

To put it another way... As long as the TiVos keep working on QAM, there's a kind of inertia that results from that. Once Comcast kicks them off -- you're freed, in a way. You don't need to go with X1, because now, it's on an equal footing with all the OTT services. Keep Comcast as your ISP, but switch your TV service to YouTube TV, OTA + Netflix... whatever. Or change ISPs, because doing so no longer brings any added inconvenience in the TV department.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

TKnight206 said:


> By "they", do you mean a sales rep, technical support, or someone else? Have you considered calling up and escalating up a tier or two and asking them for more information to see if you can avoid fiber?


I received a letter and called the number included for more information/questions about it. As far as the fiber, I saw the little warning flags they put in my back yard warning about the fiber. I don't really care at this point since I only have Comcast internet now. My TiVo is on a shelf.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TKnight206 said:


> I thought HD and SD status had nothing to do with whether something is mpeg4 or mpeg2. I thought the over-the-air channels are all mpeg2 where the "cable" channels are all mpeg4 with Comcast.


In the first systems to be converted, most cable HD channels, but not ESPN and Weather Channel were converted to MPEG-4. After a while, everything went to MPEG-4. I'm not sure about ESPN and TWC on those early systems, I would assume they eventually went MPEG-4 as well.

Recently, some systems that already converted cable channels to MPEG-4 have begun to convert locals to MPEG-4 as well. I can't figure out why, however, as with many markets having channels sharing ATSC-8VSB transmitters, the bandwidth gains by re-compressing to MPEG-4 and then still having to deal with subchannels is very minimal at best for what amounts to a lot of effort.

AFAIK, all SD channels on all systems are still MPEG-2, but there could be some exception to that somewhere, as Comcast is a whole bunch of little fiefdoms that often have no clue what the others are doing.



> If they go all IP, they risk losing a lot of customers who have either TiVos, legacy Comcast DVRs, or some other CableCARD device. That's assuming we customers switch out of spite.


Switch to what? Only a tiny fraction of their customers have RCN or FiOS as an option, and most of those potential customers are already on RCN or FiOS.



> I think it's around 1.66GB/HD-hour for mpeg4 channels. If you count all the unique channels that aren't local channels, Music Choice, FM, etc., you could probably figure out how much bandwidth would be necessary. A little more compressed while removing some of the less popular channels, and perhaps a QAM-only lineup could be created. Music Choice and FM channels probably require very little bandwidth. The bandwidth for local channels will vary by the broadcast and probably isn't allowed to be compressed.


Last time I checked it was 1.7-1.9GB/hour or 3.8 to 4.1mbps. MC requires very little bandwidth, I'm wondering if those are already delivered packaged up into 1 or 2 QAMs from the MC provider.

They do re-compress locals in some markets, but it's very complicated and expensive to do it market by market for relatively small gains.



> There's also the problem of their cloud DVR. Skipping is a minor issue. But skipping 30 seconds becomes less of an issue with their Smart Resume. Plus, you can't play things from the cloud DVR when the cable is out.


All true, and I don't really think Comcast cares in the whole scheme of things. Also, with fiber, the chance of the "cable" being out is far less than with HFC, although occasionally some moron still runs into a telephone pole or digs where they shouldn't.



wmcbrine said:


> Priorities, people. I realize we're talking about the end of CableCard functionality, but... without fiber, the best speed you can get out of Comcast is 1000 down (yay), 35 up (boo). With fiber, I think you'll see symmetrical speeds. That's a pretty good trade-off.


That's true about the speed, but they could have gone with the EPON+QAM system that Cox did, and that does support CableCard (and TAs in Cox's case). Of course that was a very limited buildout, and the rest of Cox's system is HFC and hobbled by bandwidth caps, so there's that...

The bottom line is that Comcast is transitioning from a TV provider to a broadband provider. They realize that's their future, and that their cable customers are going to keep dropping. The challenge for them is that they are now becoming just an internet provider, so if Verizon 5G or something else comes along, they're pretty screwed. That might be why they are working so hard to get these exclusive deals in place. They are also hiding would-be cord cutters behind these bulk deals, which is why I think they should be illegal.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> The problem is, they have a lot of FTTN customers at 3-5kft, where they are getting 18-50mbps, so IPTV takes a big chunk out of that. That's why they migrated many of them from U-Verse to DirecTV in the first place.


Yeah, I'm one of those folks. I have AT&T FTTN and, with my house's distance from the node box up the street, my max available speed tier is 50 down / 10 up (which actually usually tests about 54/13. But the best quality 1080p60 streams available from DirecTV Now for Apple TV are reportedly only 8.5 Mbps. So a household with even 20 Mbps downstream service should be OK to watch on two screens simultaneously. Actually, even less than that would do, as DTVN would just serve up 720p if necessary. (Unlike Uverse's managed IPTV, DTVN scales the bitrate and resolution in real time based on network conditions.) AT&T recommends a minimum 12 Mbps connection for their DTVN customers.

BTW, AT&T is being pretty aggressive in upgrading their network in urban/suburban areas from DSL and FTTN to full-on FTTH. They finally ran fiber down my block about a month ago, although they've yet to light it up.



mschnebly said:


> They are laying fiber along the back of our property lines which butt up to the back of the the lots on the next street. When its all done they say fiber to the houses. this is not a new neighborhood either. My house was built in the '60s.


Beyond some anecdotal reports, such as yours, I've read nothing in the industry press about Comcast rolling out FTTH in any meaningful way. All I read about is their commitment to continue upgrading their HFC network (DOCSIS 3.1, N+0, RemotePHY/DAA, full duplex, etc.). I'm not at all doubting what you're saying about Comcast converting your neighborhood to FTTH, though. It really makes me wonder how widespread such efforts are on Comcast's part. Is your neighborhood, like others I've read about being converted, one where the neighborhood association has an overall deal with Comcast, with your service costs being covered through your association fees?



wmcbrine said:


> Priorities, people. I realize we're talking about the end of CableCard functionality, but... without fiber, the best speed you can get out of Comcast is 1000 down (yay), 35 up (boo). With fiber, I think you'll see symmetrical speeds. That's a pretty good trade-off.


Except that Comcast is on the record as saying that, now that they've completed upgrading their HFC network to DOCSIS 3.1, which supports gigabit downstream speeds, they're looking to upgrade their nodes to be able to handle full duplex DOCSIS (FDX) in the coming years, with the ability to support 10 Gbps speeds in both directions.

Comcast Testing FDX With MaxLinear, Other Vendors

CableLabs: DOCSIS Has Lots of Gas Left in the Tank | Light Reading

Given the potential that HFC/DOCSIS still offers, I don't get the sense that any of the major cable companies -- other than Altice/Optimum -- are looking to spend the money any time soon to completely convert their networks over to FTTH/PON.

Which makes these scattered reports of Comcast converting certain neighborhoods here and there over to FTTH so puzzling.


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

Bigg said:


> Switch to what? Only a tiny fraction of their customers have RCN or FiOS as an option, and most of those potential customers are already on RCN or FiOS.


I said: If they go all IP, they risk losing a lot of customers who have either TiVos, legacy Comcast DVRs, or some other CableCARD device. That's assuming we customers switch out of spite.

Let me make this clear. As a TiVo owner, there is a definitely possibility I'd switch to satellite to spite Comcast if my TiVos stopped working due to no longer supporting CableCARDs. Let's hope that doesn't happen.



mschnebly said:


> I received a letter and called the number included for more information/questions about it. As far as the fiber, I saw the little warning flags they put in my back yard warning about the fiber. I don't really care at this point since I only have Comcast internet now. My TiVo is on a shelf.


Like NashGuy, I too want to know if you're part of an HOA or something. Would you mind sharing that phone number with us, or is that too private to share? If you share it with us, do it in private.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> Beyond some anecdotal reports, such as yours, I've read nothing in the industry press about Comcast rolling out FTTH in any meaningful way. All I read about is their commitment to continue upgrading their HFC network (DOCSIS 3.1, N+0, RemotePHY/DAA, full duplex, etc.). I'm not at all doubting what you're saying about Comcast converting your neighborhood to FTTH, though. It really makes me wonder how widespread such efforts are on Comcast's part. Is your neighborhood, like others I've read about being converted, one where the neighborhood association has an overall deal with Comcast, with your service costs being covered through your association fees?


No association. My home was built in the '60s and it's a mature neighborhood. We are about 20 miles out of St Paul in a really fast growing little town. We do have a lot of upscale brand new neighborhoods that are 1-3 years old and they are building more now. The little flags went up early this summer and I've not heard a thing since. With winter coming on nothing will happen at least until spring. We are a 1 cable company town. Comcast only plus a few on satellite. This is becoming a preferred place to live for those working in the cities.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

TKnight206 said:


> Like NashGuy, I too want to know if you're part of an HOA or something. Would you mind sharing that phone number with us, or is that too private to share? If you share it with us, do it in private.


No HOA or anything. I got the letter in the spring and it's been long gone. I haven't really been all that interested in it since I hung up my TiVo and dropped Comcast TV. I'll check with my neighbor and see if he still has the letter. I don't really know anyone besides me that has ever had a TiVo in all the years I've lived here. All the folks I know close by are using X1 and really like it. Everyone just uses whatever Comcast gives them. Some folks around here switch back and forth between Dish/Direct TV and Comcast deal shopping. There is an Xfinity store about 5 miles away and they are super responsive to problems and always very eager to swap out to the X1. It's included in all the bundles around here, no additional charge. $10 more for an additional room. When I search wifi I see Xfinity hot spots everywhere.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> BTW, *AT&T is being pretty aggressive in upgrading their network in urban/suburban areas from DSL and FTTN to full-on FTTH*. They finally ran fiber down my block about a month ago, although they've yet to light it up.


LOL, the devil is in the details. I live in a very urban, suburban area with tech. companies all around, and have AT&T DSL service, and have been told by AT&T for over 10 years, now, that fiber is coming soon; this was reiterated to me by AT&T yet again two years ago, at which point a local AT&T guy told me that no, this time, they really mean it. This message was composed and sent over my DSL service.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Bigg said:


> AFAIK, all SD channels on all systems are still MPEG-2, but there could be some exception to that somewhere, as Comcast is a whole bunch of little fiefdoms that often have no clue what the others are doing.


I checked 3 of our cable SD channels (FX, HGTV and TNT) and they are all still MPEG2 here in VA.

Scott


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

Looks like I am going to be out of luck. Our community is setting up for a bulk-cable/internet FTTH deal with Comcast. I have confirmed that it will be EPON and that Comcast will be turning off the existing copper coax to our homes after the rollout is completed. So no more QAM.

I seem to remember that TiVo Ted said that Comcast confirmed that we would only lose VOD. I was hoping he had some more info.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

TKnight206 said:


> I said: If they go all IP, they risk losing a lot of customers who have either TiVos, legacy Comcast DVRs, or some other CableCARD device. That's assuming we customers switch out of spite.


So all ten of those customers would leave?  Seriously, after you realize Comcast would simply give everybody with an old DVR an X1, it's less than 1% of their customers. If I were Comcast, I'd say "don't let the door hit you on the way out." CableCard customers are more trouble than they're worth.

Plus, they know you need Internet, and they know you'll want their newer, faster, Internet service. So you're not going to drop them completely. They'll just hike the price on their Internet-only options and get your money that way.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> LOL, the devil is in the details. I live in a very urban, suburban area with tech. companies all around, and have AT&T DSL service, and have been told by AT&T for over 10 years, now, that fiber is coming soon; this was reiterated to me by AT&T yet again two years ago, at which point a local AT&T guy told me that no, this time, they really mean it. This message was composed and sent over my DSL service.


Didn't even realize that AT&T was talking about FTTH 10 years ago! At any rate, my comment about aggressive fiber rollout is based on official statements on their progress so far and projections for the next year or two, as well as conversations I've had with a few AT&T line workers here in Nashville about what's happening locally.

AT&T on track to reach 22M business and residential premises with fiber by July 2019 | FierceTelecom


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Didn't even realize that AT&T was talking about FTTH 10 years ago! At any rate, my comment about aggressive fiber rollout is based on official statements on their progress so far and projections for the next year or two, as well as conversations I've had with a few AT&T line workers here in Nashville about what's happening locally.
> 
> AT&T on track to reach 22M business and residential premises with fiber by July 2019 | FierceTelecom


Yep, I'm sure that AT&T believes that it is pushing fiber out aggressively. I'd just like to see it reach here.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I'm one of those folks. I have AT&T FTTN and, with my house's distance from the node box up the street, my max available speed tier is 50 down / 10 up (which actually usually tests about 54/13. But the best quality 1080p60 streams available from DirecTV Now for Apple TV are reportedly only 8.5 Mbps. So a household with even 20 Mbps downstream service should be OK to watch on two screens simultaneously.


Sure. But it's the same issue that they have with U-Verse. On some of the longer lines that are limited to 18 or 24mbps, video starts to really slow the internet down, or if it's totally unmanaged with no QoS, it becomes unreliable.



> BTW, AT&T is being pretty aggressive in upgrading their network in urban/suburban areas from DSL and FTTN to full-on FTTH. They finally ran fiber down my block about a month ago, although they've yet to light it up.


They have over 30 million homes passed with FTTN, and something like 8 million with fiber. It's going to be quite a while before they're anywhere close to converted to fiber.



> Which makes these scattered reports of Comcast converting certain neighborhoods here and there over to FTTH so puzzling.


I have a few theories:

1. It's an anti-competitive thing. If there are small, niche cable companies that only do HOAs and MDUs coming in, Comcast will do a 10-year deal, trash the coax, put fiber everywhere, and make it way harder/more expensive for a coax-based competitor to underbid them in 10 years.

2. It's maintenance. If they have 100% of the customers in a neighborhood, they can convert to fiber, and in the long run save money on maintenance.

3. It's avoiding upgrades. If they're planning big upgrades to the HFC system in the area, maybe it's cheaper to do large HOAs and MDUs with EPON instead of upgrading their HFC systems, since they are so dense and they can get 100% sub rate this way.

4. Selling fiber. Maybe they are using fiber and symmetrical speeds as a selling point to get HOAs to do an exclusive deal that otherwise seems anti-competitive or expensive.

5. It's a trial. Maybe they are considering moving larger areas over to fiber like Altice, and they want some test locations to see how it goes, what it costs to do, and what it costs to maintain.

6. It's about publicity. Maybe they need some places to drive up their FTTH numbers so that they can deliver fiber to the press release, and there are the cheapest/easiest places to do it.



TKnight206 said:


> I said: If they go all IP, they risk losing a lot of customers who have either TiVos, legacy Comcast DVRs, or some other CableCARD device. That's assuming we customers switch out of spite.


TiVo customers who are going to switch away are a teeny, tiny minority, and these are all HOAs anyway, where they do a bulk deal. These bulk deals are sketchy anyway, as it forces everyone living there to subscribe. If bulk deals were outlawed, you'd see even more people cut the cord.



DigitalDawn said:


> Looks like I am going to be out of luck. Our community is setting up for a bulk-cable/internet FTTH deal with Comcast. I have confirmed that it will be EPON and that Comcast will be turning off the existing copper coax to our homes after the rollout is completed. So no more QAM.


That's very interesting. This kind of came out of nowhere, as up until recently, all the fiber deployments were RFoG. It's too bad that they won't run RFoG on top of EPON like Cox does.



> I seem to remember that TiVo Ted said that Comcast confirmed that we would only lose VOD. I was hoping he had some more info.


He was probably basing that on the fiber installations to date, which are RFoG.



BobCamp1 said:


> So all ten of those customers would leave?  Seriously, after you realize Comcast would simply give everybody with an old DVR an X1, it's less than 1% of their customers.


Pretty much. Cord cutting is a much bigger threat to their cable TV "business" anyway, which currently seems to be aimed at propping up numbers for Wall Street investors who don't understand that they're not making much money off of it anyway. They make almost all of their money off of broadband at this point, as that's what they have a monopoly or duopoly on, and that's where the margins are, with a tiny cost basis.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

BobCamp1 said:


> So all ten of those customers would leave?  Seriously, after you realize Comcast would simply give everybody with an old DVR an X1, it's less than 1% of their customers. If I were Comcast, I'd say "don't let the door hit you on the way out." CableCard customers are more trouble than they're worth.
> 
> Plus, they know you need Internet, and they know you'll want their newer, faster, Internet service. So you're not going to drop them completely. They'll just hike the price on their Internet-only options and get your money that way.


Yeah. I did the math once. Took the reported number of active CableCARD devices (data from maybe the FCC or TiVo, can't recall). Then added up the approximate total number of TV subs nationwide on CableCARD compatible services (basically, cable TV + Verizon FiOS TV), then figured out what % of that total Comcast TV subs constituted. Then applied that % to the total number of active CableCARDs. Then divided that figure by the total number of Comcast TV subs. IIRC, it suggested somewhere around 1% (maybe 1.25%?) of Comcast TV subs were on CableCARD.

So, yeah, Comcast doesn't want to immediately lose 1% of their TV subs but it's also not an amount that they're going to bend over backwards for. And, of course, if Comcast dropped CableCARD, a good chunk of that 1% would switch from TiVo to X1. So I don't see Comcast really much worried about TiVo users.

Now, the far, far, far bigger deal for Comcast are all those TV subs using pre-X1 (non-IPTV-compatible / QAM-only) Comcast STBs. That's probably still about 1/3 of their user base, so it would be quite a lot of boxes to swap out if they were to pull the plug nationwide on QAM TV and go IPTV-only. As far as I know, Comcast is still giving out old-style pre-X1 QAM-only boxes to at least some customers on low-end packages. Once they completely stop giving out such boxes, then we'll know that a total switchover to IPTV _may_ be on the horizon.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Sure. But it's the same issue that they have with U-Verse. On some of the longer lines that are limited to 18 or 24mbps, video starts to really slow the internet down, or if it's totally unmanaged with no QoS, it becomes unreliable.


Here's the reality: the majority of internet traffic is video. What do you think those folks with 18 or 24 Mbps service from AT&T are doing online? They're going to be streaming video from *somewhere*, whether that's Netflix or YouTube or Hulu or wherever. If I'm AT&T, then I want our internet customers to use our pipe to consume our own video services, not others'. I can certainly imagine that AT&T would continue offering to bundle DBS with internet for those homes with slower speeds but I think they'll mainly push this new streaming DTV service for all but the slowest connections (those at, say, 12 Mbps and under).



Bigg said:


> They have over 30 million homes passed with FTTN, and something like 8 million with fiber. It's going to be quite a while before they're anywhere close to converted to fiber.


Well, as I posted above from a story from this past March, they're on track to have converted 22 million of those homes and business to FTTH by July of next year. That's quite a jump from 8 million. We'll see if they actually hit that target.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Here's the reality: the majority of internet traffic is video. What do you think those folks with 18 or 24 Mbps service from AT&T are doing online? They're going to be streaming video from *somewhere*, whether that's Netflix or YouTube or Hulu or wherever. If I'm AT&T, then I want our internet customers to use our pipe to consume our own video services, not others'. I can certainly imagine that AT&T would continue offering to bundle DBS with internet for those homes with slower speeds but I think they'll mainly push this new streaming DTV service for all but the slowest connections (those at, say, 12 Mbps and under).


Some of them, but a lot of them are probably using DirecTV a lot of the time, so that does free up some bandwidth. Over time, as streaming takes over more and more from linear pay tv, that will become more the case.



> Well, as I posted above from a story from this past March, they're on track to have converted 22 million of those homes and business to FTTH by July of next year. That's quite a jump from 8 million. We'll see if they actually hit that target.


That's a LOT. I suspect they'll still have some on FTTN, however. That being said, if they aggressively push OTT streaming to their fiber customers, that could still be a big push away from DBS over time.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

There's new info up on Comcast's website about the Arris X5001 and Fiber-only EPON networks.


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

BobCamp1 said:


> So all ten of those customers would leave?  Seriously, after you realize Comcast would simply give everybody with an old DVR an X1, it's less than 1% of their customers. If I were Comcast, I'd say "don't let the door hit you on the way out." CableCard customers are more trouble than they're worth.
> 
> Plus, they know you need Internet, and they know you'll want their newer, faster, Internet service. So you're not going to drop them completely. They'll just hike the price on their Internet-only options and get your money that way.


Have an X1 in addition to TiVos. I know what the X1 is like. I don't like the X1.

Why would CableCARD customers be more trouble than they're worth?

Some of us live in areas with DSL, so that's an option if I want satellite for television.


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. I did the math once. Took the reported number of active CableCARD devices (data from maybe the FCC or TiVo, can't recall). Then added up the approximate total number of TV subs nationwide on CableCARD compatible services (basically, cable TV + Verizon FiOS TV), then figured out what % of that total Comcast TV subs constituted. Then applied that % to the total number of active CableCARDs. Then divided that figure by the total number of Comcast TV subs. IIRC, it suggested somewhere around 1% (maybe 1.25%?) of Comcast TV subs were on CableCARD.
> 
> So, yeah, Comcast doesn't want to immediately lose 1% of their TV subs but it's also not an amount that they're going to bend over backwards for. And, of course, if Comcast dropped CableCARD, a good chunk of that 1% would switch from TiVo to X1. So I don't see Comcast really much worried about TiVo users.
> 
> Now, the far, far, far bigger deal for Comcast are all those TV subs using pre-X1 (non-IPTV-compatible / QAM-only) Comcast STBs. That's probably still about 1/3 of their user base, so it would be quite a lot of boxes to swap out if they were to pull the plug nationwide on QAM TV and go IPTV-only. As far as I know, Comcast is still giving out old-style pre-X1 QAM-only boxes to at least some customers on low-end packages. Once they completely stop giving out such boxes, then we'll know that a total switchover to IPTV _may_ be on the horizon.


I hope that one-third figure is right. I really liked the interface my legacy DVR had. But I bought a 3TB Roamio Pro during one of the sales. It was much better than paying nearly $20/month for a legacy DVR. Price had got me to switch. Up until that point, I was using a legacy DVR for a little over five years I think.

I'd hope there are enough people using legacy DVRs from Comcast that forcing them off would cost them subscribers. That is, enough people who love their legacy DVRs. Favorite recordings, having to rebuild the equivalent of TiVo's OnePasses, etc.


----------



## eherberg (Feb 17, 2011)

TKnight206 said:


> I'd hope there are enough people using legacy DVRs from Comcast that forcing them off would cost them subscribers. That is, enough people who love their legacy DVRs. Favorite recordings, having to rebuild the equivalent of TiVo's OnePasses, etc.


I would imagine that most people using legacy cable DVR's probably don't care that much. I know inside of the bubble of TCF -- where people get all kinds of bent-out-of-shape when considering whether a TV guide should be horizontally or vertically based -- it's tough to imagine that most people aren't that passionate about the interface. Forum users (including me) are simply not normal people. 

I would imagine for most of those legacy users - if Comcast said they needed to swap out their cable boxes (and offered a time period of equal price for it) - most users would simply swap it out and not think that much about it, the same as they have through the years on most cable box upgrades.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TKnight206 said:


> Why would CableCARD customers be more trouble than they're worth?


1. There's not many of them.

2. In most of those areas, Comcast is the monopoly broadband provider anyway, so if they leave Comcast's TV service and get something else, Comcast loses a lot of revenue, but loses little profit due to the costs of providing TV service.

3. Most of the CableCard customers who do have a robust competitor for broadband are already with that company, assuming they are QAM-based, like RCN, WOW!, Verizon FiOS, and Frontier (ex-Verizon FiOS).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

eherberg said:


> I would imagine that most people using legacy cable DVR's probably don't care that much..


Yeah, most legacy DVR users are probably barely using them as DVRs.


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

Bigg said:


> 1. There's not many of them.


If you count the legacy DVRs, which are using built-in CableCARDs, there is probably a sizable amount.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

TKnight206 said:


> If you count the legacy DVRs, which are using built-in CableCARDs, there is probably a sizable amount.


There are physically a lot of cards, but procedurally -- which is what matters -- all those cards were allowed to be pre-paired (a huge mistake by the FCC, since it negates the point of mandating them), so they weren't part of the CableCard _process_ that Tivo users (and the few other third-party CC users) had/have to go through.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

I think most people with legacy DVRs if told that they will have to change to the X1 due to incompatibility they will just say OK, where do I get it.


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

Is Comcast adding IP-only channels now? New channels. I'm hoping at the least old channels stick around on QAM.

Solved: Re: Newsmax TV channel - Xfinity Help and Support Forums - 3108696


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TKnight206 said:


> Is Comcast adding IP-only channels now? New channels. I'm hoping at the least old channels stick around on QAM.
> 
> Solved: Re: Newsmax TV channel - Xfinity Help and Support Forums - 3108696


That sure sounds like IPTV. The comments in that thread are hilarious. They should really start adding the additional HBO, Showtime, etc channels in HD on IPTV. I'm guessing that the existing channels stay on QAM for a while, and they keep doing stuff like this, where new channels, sports packages, and international stuff goes on IPTV, but who knows. Their system is entirely IP from their satellite downlink to the local headend, and IP between their boxes within the home, the only last part that's not IP is from the headend to the main XG1 box in each home.


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

Bigg said:


> That sure sounds like IPTV. The comments in that thread are hilarious. They should really start adding the additional HBO, Showtime, etc channels in HD on IPTV. I'm guessing that the existing channels stay on QAM for a while, and they keep doing stuff like this, where new channels, sports packages, and international stuff goes on IPTV, but who knows. Their system is entirely IP from their satellite downlink to the local headend, and IP between their boxes within the home, the only last part that's not IP is from the headend to the main XG1 box in each home.


With some areas moving to EPON, I'm hoping QAM will stick around in some form. If Comcast could go the RFoG route, that'd be better.

But in the meantime, I was hoping if they're going to add new channels, at least offer it on the linear QAM lineup on a overly-compressed SD channel. Maybe 0.75mbps for the bitrate. That'd be 0.33GB/hour. (I'm converting bits and bytes here. I believe my math is right.)


----------



## ashipkowski (Oct 8, 2008)

So, just to muddy the waters further, on my latest Comcast bill it states that due to changes in business costs, the price for a second CableCARD in the same device is going from $0.80 a month to free. (I am not in this situation, it was just in their pricing updates along with an increase in the hourly rate for service calls.) I wonder what would reduce the cost of a second CableCARD in a device? Reduced demand... or increased supply?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TKnight206 said:


> With some areas moving to EPON, I'm hoping QAM will stick around in some form. If Comcast could go the RFoG route, that'd be better.


I disagree. Sure, RFoG would allow for TiVos, but EPON offers symmetrical speeds, and broadband is the future, while pay tv is the past. Time to move forward. Comcast's pay TV is going to be utterly unimportant and not something they actively market if it still exists at all in 5-10 years.



ashipkowski said:


> So, just to muddy the waters further, on my latest Comcast bill it states that due to changes in business costs, the price for a second CableCARD in the same device is going from $0.80 a month to free. (I am not in this situation, it was just in their pricing updates along with an increase in the hourly rate for service calls.) I wonder what would reduce the cost of a second CableCARD in a device? Reduced demand... or increased supply?


Sounds like they're re-writing the billing system, and just want to simplify it because there are very, very few multi-CC devices left, a tiny fraction of the already relatively small number of CC devices to begin with.


----------



## dishrich (Jan 16, 2002)

TKnight206 said:


> Is Comcast adding IP-only channels now? New channels. I'm hoping at the least old channels stick around on QAM.


So far, the only IP-only channels have been a bunch of International Channels, (some in HD actually) as well as the Full *HD* lineup season packages for MLB Extra Innings, NBA Team Pass, NHL Center Ice (in trial this year), as well as ESPN 3. (the SD channels of the season packages are still on QAM) HOWEVER, they are still adding a (very) few new HD channels on QAM as well in some areas; we recently got EPIX (main ch only & ONLY in HD), CSPAN (.1 only), Universal Kids (previously was Sprout), & Oxygen. (of course the last 2 channels are owned by Comcast, so not too surprising on those additions  )

As far as Newsmax...considering they evidently are paying for carriage, I'll be VERY surprised if it's IP-only (nevermind the wording in your link from Comcast) & even MORE surprised if it's in HD...either way!


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

On Wednesday we are probably having the last board meeting before our community signs a cable/internet contract with Comcast. We are getting EPON and I want to lobby for RFoG, or at the very least EPON with the ability to pass QAM.

Some folks here mentioned that Cox allows QAM over EPON. Does anyone know anything about the technology behind this? I need this important info for the board meeting.

Thanks!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

DigitalDawn said:


> On Wednesday we are probably having the last board meeting before our community signs a cable/internet contract with Comcast. We are getting EPON and I want to lobby for RFoG, or at the very least EPON with the ability to pass QAM.
> 
> Some folks here mentioned that Cox allows QAM over EPON. Does anyone know anything about the technology behind this? I need this important info for the board meeting.
> 
> Thanks!


This guy claims that his Gigablast install was actually fiber in parallel to the HFC plant, with the HFC plant continuing to carry video:
{% if page.title %}{{ page.title }}{% else %}{{ site.title }}{% endif %}

I'm a bit skeptical, but if they pulled new Coax, they were probably intending to do *something* with it.

The Cox Gigablast I was thinking of uses RFoG for video, and passes the optical fiber through the mini-node to an ONT that uses Ethernet and some sort of EPON or GPON. This configuration is fundamentally different from Verizon FiOS, in that Verizon FiOS uses a one-way RF channel for video, whereas Cox's system retains DOCSIS for an eMTA for voice and for the X1 (Contour) communications via DSG or a TA for TiVo. Neither use much data, so they can probably run hundreds of homes per CMTS for DOCSIS, but it's still a fundamentally different architecture.

There are some pictures of at least the mini-node here:
Cox fiber, tuning adapter still required?

I have seen no indication that Comcast has ever, or will ever support this type of hybrid architecture.

It's a trade-off- an HOA deal for symmetrical gigabit versus losing the ability to use CableCard, which may happen on HFC eventually anyway. However, I think the bigger issue is that these HOA deals are basically corrupt and should be illegal, as they force people to use a certain provider, effectively lock any other providers out of the community. Frontier or AT&T or whoever your telco is could offer still service, but no one is going to subscribe to it when the HOA is forcing you to pay for Comcast, so they won't invest in anything, and you won't get better service from them. I would also be wary that Comcast is going to go scorched earth on their HFC system and all the coax drops in order to make it harder for an HFC-based overbuilder to come in later and do a future deal or offer competitive service.

Further, these deals are typically 10 years, at least that's what Comcast did in my grandmother's complex. This situation is a bit different, as it's a managed senior independent living facility not an HOA and I believe it uses RFoG as it's an overbuild of BHN/Charter territory just for their complex, but I still don't like the idea of forcing people into a certain provider. In her case, AT&T now has no incentive to install G.Fast for their TV/internet system, although some people in the complex do have slow DSL and AT&T phone service, since they're not heavy internet users. Looking at a 10 year contract, that's an eternity right now given the rate of change that we're seeing in the pay tv market with cord cutting, cord replacing with vMVPDs/CoIP, ATSC 3.0, OTT SVOD, etc, etc. Even 2 years for DirecTV seems like forever now given what has happened in the last 2 years. I would be staunchly opposed to any plan, RFoG, EPON, or otherwise that locks in pay tv services for the next 10 years given the current market and how much it is likely to change by then.


----------



## Phil_C (Oct 28, 2011)

TKnight206 said:


> With some areas moving to EPON, I'm hoping QAM will stick around in some form. If Comcast could go the RFoG route, that'd be better.


Our condo board tonight discussed the renewal of our Comcast multi-year contract. There was heavy competition from RCN and DirecTV. Comcast will upgrade us to an RFoG installation early next year and give us a package deal for Basic Cable + 150 mbps Internet for about $50 per month. This is in a high-rise with 400+ units.

That's about $60 per month less than I am paying now with 60 mbps.

As I understand it, this means I will be able to continue using my new Bolt 3TB with CableCARD. I'm not sure if this system works with my currently owned DOCSIS 3.0 modem.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Phil_C said:


> Our condo board tonight discussed the renewal of our Comcast multi-year contract. There was heavy competition from RCN and DirecTV. Comcast will upgrade us to an RFoG installation early next year and give us a package deal for Basic Cable + 150 mbps Internet for about $50 per month. This is in a high-rise with 400+ units.


Ugh. These deals are all so slimy. You'd be better off with no deal, and individual customers can just switch back and forth between RCN and Comcast (assuming both have plant in your building now) and get teaser deals or threaten to switch and keep a teaser deal on one provider.


----------



## Phil_C (Oct 28, 2011)

Bigg said:


> Ugh. These deals are all so slimy. You'd be better off with no deal, and individual customers can just switch back and forth between RCN and Comcast (assuming both have plant in your building now) and get teaser deals or threaten to switch and keep a teaser deal on one provider.


That may be true in some cases, but I am quite happy with this deal.

Previously, with the Basic bulk discount, I was paying $148/mo for Basic, Extended Basic, HBO, and 60 mbps Internet -- including taxes and fees. (I have a TiVo and my own modem.)

Now it will be $84 for the same, but with a new speed of 150 mbps.

And people who were previously renting a DVR and modem will no longer be charged a fee for the equipment, saving them even more.

Personally, I can't believe they made a deal that good for us. The service price maybe, but removing the equipment charge is surprising. I suggested that the Board go back to Comcast and make sure that is correct, although they were confident in the details.

The days of complaining individually to Comcast and coming away with a better price are long gone, at least around here. I have friends that used to go to their local Comcast office for a conversation every year or so, and walk out with some kind of better price deal. No more. Not for several years now.

I think a lot of people would be happy getting what I am getting for $84.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Phil_C said:


> Now it will be $84 for the same, but with a new speed of 150 mbps.


You're still losing the choice to switch providers if one provider offers something that another doesn't in the future.



> Personally, I can't believe they made a deal that good for us. The service price maybe, but removing the equipment charge is surprising. I suggested that the Board go back to Comcast and make sure that is correct, although they were confident in the details.


There are a couple of factors. The cost to provide service to MDUs and HOAs is much lower than SFUs, both because they get 100% penetration, but also because the density is higher. Combine those two, and there is a big cost savings for them.

Secondly, Comcast is playing a lot of numbers games for investors. They are propping up TV subscribers that they make no money off of only in order to provide good subscriber numbers for Wall Street. They've been at it for several years, and show no signs of stopping. I don't know why Wall Street cares about raw subscriber numbers over profitability, but they do. Part of the equation there is also that Comcast makes money by breaking even on TV service, because a part of the cost basis for content are NBCU-owned channels, which they own, and keeping a larger scale of video subscribers gives them additional leverage with other content providers.

This is why Comcast should never have been allowed to buy up NBCU, and the government should not allow MSOs to do bulk deals with HOAs or apartment buildings, and the government should ban Comcast from bundling anything with their internet service other than a modest discount for multiple services that can be justified to regulators based on shared physical plant costs.



> The days of complaining individually to Comcast and coming away with a better price are long gone, at least around here.


It depends on the area and the competition. If you actually have competition, they either have to respond, or you jump back and forth, and either way, you win.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Phil_C said:


> That may be true in some cases, but I am quite happy with this deal.
> 
> Previously, with the Basic bulk discount, I was paying $148/mo for Basic, Extended Basic, HBO, and 60 mbps Internet -- including taxes and fees. (I have a TiVo and my own modem.)
> 
> ...


They are making sure that no one in your building can ever jump ship. You get a deal and they get permanent customers without the threat of another provider undercutting them. Can you opt out of service if you don't want or need TV or internet?


----------



## Phil_C (Oct 28, 2011)

Bigg said:


> You're still losing the choice to switch providers if one provider offers something that another doesn't in the future.


I have no taste for continuous switching between providers, whether it is with cable, Internet, or cell phone service. There is something new every day and no one can keep up with it while maintaining sanity.

At some point in life, you do your research, make an educated decision and go with it. In this case, I am comfortable with the price and the time factor.



mschnebly said:


> They are making sure that no one in your building can ever jump ship. You get a deal and they get permanent customers without the threat of another provider undercutting them. Can you opt out of service if you don't want or need TV or internet?


Of course that is what Comcast gets on their end. Volume and time. Both sides are allowed to benefit from the arrangement. That's called doing business.

Because that is what they get, no individual can opt out. Rental high-rise buildings in this area do this all the time. The only way to opt out is to move out. If you don't like that deal, then you don't move in to start with.

In a condo building, the Board makes the final decision. But first there is a LOT of research and negotiation by committee members and the building management company. The latter has good perspective because they manage many similar buildings in the area and talk to others not under their purview.

In previous renewals, Comcast offers were not nearly as good, so some residents hesitated at being forced to pay for services they might not want. The Board listened and kept only the Basic Cable requirement, even though most residents ended up paying (in my opinion) too much for add-on services.

But the current offer was so good, even those residents agreed to go along with the deal. Everyone was going to pay the discounted Basic fee anyway. For $6 more, they all get 150 mbps Internet. AND their current equipment fees are removed.

Heck, I would want discounted HBO for everyone. But I understand that that is going too far for many people. So I pay the full price individually and that's fine.

I say forget constant switching of providers and the inconveniences of doing so. Do the research, make an intelligent decision to take advantage of a good deal if one presents itself, and move on.

Redo at the next renewal.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Phil_C said:


> I have no taste for continuous switching between providers, whether it is with cable, Internet, or cell phone service. There is something new every day and no one can keep up with it while maintaining sanity.
> 
> At some point in life, you do your research, make an educated decision and go with it. In this case, I am comfortable with the price and the time factor.
> 
> ...


That wouldn't be good for me but I see why you like it. You get a great price and don't have to worry about things. The good thing is that at least Comcast seems to be waking up and getting competitive. They have some really nice prices here now too.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Phil_C said:


> I have no taste for continuous switching between providers, whether it is with cable, Internet, or cell phone service. There is something new every day and no one can keep up with it while maintaining sanity.


I've been with AT&T for forever and a half, but in terms of home services, I like the freedom to choose what I want. I also have a New England mentality of not wanting an HOA type of organization meddling in my business.



> In a condo building, the Board makes the final decision. But first there is a LOT of research and negotiation by committee members and the building management company. The latter has good perspective because they manage many similar buildings in the area and talk to others not under their purview.


That's why the whole thing is so sketchy. An HOA or building management shouldn't be able to do any sort of a deal with a cable, phone, or internet provider, and conversely, the building shouldn't be able to block or extort any franchised provider who services the area from coming in and installing their wiring. It should be up to the individual residents what type of service they want.



> In previous renewals, Comcast offers were not nearly as good, so some residents hesitated at being forced to pay for services they might not want. The Board listened and kept only the Basic Cable requirement, even though most residents ended up paying (in my opinion) too much for add-on services.


The deals are absolutely ridiculous. At my grandmother's place, Comcast extended their plant about 11kft and wired about 1000 units with RFoG, and they bulk bought Digital Starter and I think 2 X1 boxes per unit, but her internet is like $30/mo or something crazy like that, for the remainder of the 10-year deal that they did about a year ago. Here, I'd pay $75/mo for the same thing.

I still hate the idea of provider lock-in. At least my grandmother can choose her own phone and internet from Comcast or AT&T. A lot of people in her complex have AT&T for those since they want a traditional landline. I'm not really sure why, since they have pull cords for emergencies, and the building security is there in like a minute no matter what, so I don't know what the point of a landline over CDV really is... Plus with xfinitywifi, they have coverage basically in the entire building, since probably more than half the units have Comcast internet. Many don't have internet, as they use the free Wi-Fi in the clubhouses. The fiber connections for the complex's business networks and Wi-Fi is probably thrown in the bulk deal too.



mschnebly said:


> That wouldn't be good for me but I see why you like it. You get a great price and don't have to worry about things. The good thing is that at least Comcast seems to be waking up and getting competitive. They have some really nice prices here now too.


We're entering into a new phase where it's not the haves and the have-nots in terms of broadband. Well it is to a certain extent, but now it's three or four tiers. The have nots (rural), the haves, the people who have competition, and then people in certain types of MDUs with either fierce competition for their business, or fierce competition for a bulk deal.


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

I have a legality question.

If the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is still in effect, then how can Comcast switch to IP delivery and simply say, sorry, no more cable cards. Are they not still bound by the law that requires them to allow consumers to use their own equipment? Wasn't that the intent of the cable-card law/requirement to begin with? With RFoG Comcast can still deliver QAM signals, and still be in compliance. With other IP technologies they are not.

So what's the deal here?


----------



## Anotherpyr (May 6, 2015)

DigitalDawn said:


> I have a legality question.
> 
> If the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is still in effect, then how can Comcast switch to IP delivery and simply say, sorry, no more cable cards. Are they not still bound by the law that requires them to allow consumers to use their own equipment? Wasn't that the intent of the cable-card law/requirement to begin with? With RFoG Comcast can still deliver QAM signals, and still be in compliance. With other IP technologies they are not.
> 
> So what's the deal here?


Probably the transmission format since it's transmitted over IP and not sent as a QAM signal. Unlike cable cards their is no requirement to force stream providers to support apps on all possible platforms a user might own.

This is different from switched video.

IPTV - Wikipedia
Switched video - Wikipedia


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

DigitalDawn said:


> I have a legality question.
> 
> If the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is still in effect, then how can Comcast switch to IP delivery and simply say, sorry, no more cable cards. Are they not still bound by the law that requires them to allow consumers to use their own equipment? Wasn't that the intent of the cable-card law/requirement to begin with? With RFoG Comcast can still deliver QAM signals, and still be in compliance. With other IP technologies they are not.
> 
> So what's the deal here?


https://www.jsitel.com/fcc-proposes-new-video-set-top-box-rules/ provides a good answer to your question, though it is a complex and ever changing subject


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Scooby Doo said:


> FCC Proposes New Video Set-Top Box Rules - JSI provides a good answer to your question, though it is a complex and ever changing subject


It reads to me like there will be some future software equivalent of a cable card requiring providers to let you bring your own box.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> It reads to me like there will be some future software equivalent of a cable card requiring providers to let you bring your own box.


I congratulate you on being able to make any sense whatsoever out of that government-tech-ease.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> It reads to me like there will be some future software equivalent of a cable card requiring providers to let you bring your own box.


That's the intent. I'll leave it to you to figure how the cable operators plan to stop that happening!


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Scooby Doo said:


> https://www.jsitel.com/fcc-proposes-new-video-set-top-box-rules/ provides a good answer to your question, though it is a complex and ever changing subject


This was a couple of years ago, before this new Admin, so I wonder what became of it?


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Scooby Doo said:


> That's the intent. I'll leave it to you to figure how the cable operators plan to stop that happening!


I'm sure they have hundreds of lawyers who can torture the language of such guidance so its interpreted in their favor.


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

I guess that answers that.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

When discussing IP delivery, a device such as a Roku, Fire TV or Apple TV would qualify as an user provided device. They supply an app, with their own proprietary authentication and access code, and they have fulfilled the legal requirements. Nowhere in any legislation is a guarantee that the user provided terminal must be able to support its own UI when displaying content.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> When discussing IP delivery, a device such as a Roku, Fire TV or Apple TV would qualify as an user provided device. They supply an app, with their own proprietary authentication and access code, and they have fulfilled the legal requirements. Nowhere in any legislation is a guarantee that the user provided terminal must be able to support its own UI when displaying content.


The current FCC commissioners would agree. They seem to have abandoned plans to mandate hardware competition and rely on the market. Myself, I'm skeptical. I don't for one minute believe the cable operators will stop trying to leverage their network monopoly to gain advantage in other markets. They have no interest in an "open internet": they are using IP for it's costs/capabilities, but will do whatever they can to make life hard for TiVo/Amazon/Roku/Apple or anyone else they see encroaching on their territory. And I don't expect the current FCC will do anything about it. Legislation without enforcement is worthless.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Cablecards were a big mistake for cable...it made them dumb pipe providers. The broadcaster controlled the content (except for the odd provider ad inserts) and the box provider controlled the presentation. The app-based model is much preferable to them since now the STB become the "dumb" device that just presents what the app gives it. I wouldn't be overly surprised if they made an app for TiVo as well...however, it will work just like any streaming app: the providers control the UI (and any embedded advertising) and content is available for viewing, but not recording.

The really interesting question for me is where this all ends up five or ten years down the road. ATSC 3.0 is really just IP over radio...what if the broadcasters get into the app game too? Imagine being able to get CBS, NBC, Fox, etc, via individual apps. Combine that with streaming services like Netflix and who needs anything more than broadband from the cable company? In the long run, converting to IP delivery probably won't save their TV business at all.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> The really interesting question for me is where this all ends up five or ten years down the road.


Depends which forces are most important: technical, commercial or regulatory. It's pretty clear where the technology is heading, but the commercial and regulatory forces are less predicable and likely more important. Large players are obviously making moves to control key industry pinch points (content, UI, physical infrastructure) and the current FCC doesn't seem inclined to stop them. Not sure where the consumer stands in all this.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

DigitalDawn said:


> I have a legality question.
> 
> If the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is still in effect, then how can Comcast switch to IP delivery and simply say, sorry, no more cable cards. Are they not still bound by the law that requires them to allow consumers to use their own equipment? Wasn't that the intent of the cable-card law/requirement to begin with? With RFoG Comcast can still deliver QAM signals, and still be in compliance. With other IP technologies they are not.
> 
> So what's the deal here?


IPTV isn't considered cable. AT&T U-Verse was not required to offer access for CableCard, even though it would have been relatively easy to go in software for TiVo. Therefore, when they go IPTV, user CableCard or anything equivalent doesn't work with the service. End of story.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

What's to stop content providers from buying cable companies ? Nothing. Comcast is both. Technology is a tool and it's the not rule. And let us not forget the people with more money than time ( the ones that don't squawk on the internet AKA the majority of society) that don't want to fiddle with a ton of apps. These people are prime candidates for..wait for it DVR's. Dumb pipes are a daydream there is no upside especially when the tax man rolls around. The future is the content owners will be the providers and will own the delivery methods.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

tenthplanet said:


> What's to stop content providers from buying cable companies ? Nothing. Comcast is both. Technology is a tool and it's the not rule. And let us not forget the people with more money than time ( the ones that don't squawk on the internet AKA the majority of society) that don't want to fiddle with a ton of apps. These people are prime candidates for..wait for it DVR's. Dumb pipes are a daydream there is no upside especially when the tax man rolls around. The future is the content owners will be the providers and will own the delivery methods.


Cell phones have taught people how to use apps. They have almost become second nature and the apps on these streamers are almost identical to the ones on phones. My wife is a tech dud for the most part but give her a phone and she's right at home. She can use our Roku like a boss! I know she really loves the variety they give her. After using Netflix, Amazon Prime, Vudu and the like, she doesn't even care about remembering channel numbers or anything. Just search and swipe/scroll.


----------



## stile99 (Feb 27, 2002)

Scooby Doo said:


> Depends which forces are most important: technical, commercial or regulatory. It's pretty clear where the technology is heading, but the commercial and regulatory forces are less predicable and likely more important. Large players are obviously making moves to control key industry pinch points (content, UI, physical infrastructure) and the current FCC doesn't seem inclined to stop them. Not sure where the consumer stands in all this.


Back of the line.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

mschnebly said:


> Cell phones have taught people how to use apps. They have almost become second nature and the apps on these streamers are almost identical to the ones on phones. My wife is a tech dud for the most part but give her a phone and she's right at home. She can use our Roku like a boss! I know she really loves the variety they give her. After using Netflix, Amazon Prime, Vudu and the like, she doesn't even care about remembering channel numbers or anything. Just search and swipe/scroll.


There are tons of people who can use apps, but don't like them.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

tenthplanet said:


> There are tons of people who can use apps, but don't like them.


And even more who can use apps and love them. They are most of the reasons smart phones are so popular and versatile.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

mschnebly said:


> And even more who can use apps and love them. They are most of the reasons smart phones are so popular and versatile.


The app model works great for smartphones; I'm not convinced it works so well for set top boxes. On a smartphone each app has its own distinct function whereas on a set top box all the apps provide video content.It makes sense to integrate across apps to provide a simple and consistent UI. There are several people trying to do this (Apple, Amazon, TiVo) but I'm not sure anyone has quite found the right formula.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Scooby Doo said:


> The app model works great for smartphones; I'm not convinced it works so well for set top boxes. On a smartphone each app has its own distinct function whereas on a set top box all the apps provide video content.It makes sense to integrate across apps to provide a simple and consistent UI. There are several people trying to do this (Apple, Amazon, TiVo) but I'm not sure anyone has quite found the right formula.


And part of that involves the app maker like Netflix allowing integration which so far they have been hesitant to in some instances.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Scooby Doo said:


> The app model works great for smartphones; I'm not convinced it works so well for set top boxes. On a smartphone each app has its own distinct function whereas on a set top box all the apps provide video content.It makes sense to integrate across apps to provide a simple and consistent UI. There are several people trying to do this (Apple, Amazon, TiVo) but I'm not sure anyone has quite found the right formula.


I'm not sure there will ever be the right formula as most content providers want to keep the control over the UI. Some will be integrated but others will never release control. This stuff is changing so fast now who knows... we can hope.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> The app model works great for smartphones; I'm not convinced it works so well for set top boxes. On a smartphone each app has its own distinct function whereas on a set top box all the apps provide video content.It makes sense to integrate across apps to provide a simple and consistent UI. There are several people trying to do this (Apple, Amazon, TiVo) but I'm not sure anyone has quite found the right formula.


To a certain extent, but people also love having options and being able to customize to the type of content they like. Integrating the various apps is definitely a sticking point, it's a somewhat unique challenge since they are more of content silos than totally different and original functionality like you see from most apps on a phone.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> And part of that involves the app maker like Netflix allowing integration which so far they have been hesitant to in some instances.


No, for video, the integration is at the metadata aggregator. Gracenote or Rovi are the major two.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

jcthorne said:


> No, for video, the integration is at the metadata aggregator. Gracenote or Rovi are the major two.


I'm referring to things like Netflix allowing their shows to be added to Up Next list on Apple TV, they've yet to do that. They can only be added if they're available on other streaming services now.

Edited: corrected Watch List to Up Next.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> WHOA! TKnight206 uncovered something really, really interesting. All of the fiber installations that I have heard of up until now were using RFoG, which effectively is HFC with smaller nodes, and has no effect on CableCard, QAM, or TiVo. However, this is something entirely new. Comcast's site says that they are deploying an "xFi Fiber Gateway" on EPON. Some more searching revealed a model number of Arris X5001 on this site.


Today I stumbled across a PowerPoint presentation from Comcast about their future network architecture plans. It's from back in 2016, so some things -- particularly target dates -- may have changed since then but I tend to think that the content is still generally valid in terms of where Comcast is going. I'm posting this as a response to your particular post about Comcast doing EPON FTTH installations but the stuff in this presentation speaks to a number of questions batted around by several of us on this forum thread.

Comcast's Network Architecture - ppt video online download

Here are some interesting take-aways:


Comcast's plans for the majority of its footprint is to upgrade their HFC network to DOCSIS 3.1 with gigabit speeds (which is by now done or nearly so), then symmetrical full-duplex D3.1 (symmetrical 1 GB/sec), with eventual symmetrical speeds up to 10 GB/sec. All this involves a deep-fiber approach with a node+0 topology. I read elsewhere that Comcast is structuring this in a way so that all those customers can eventually -- late 2020s? -- switch the last leg of those connections from coax to fiber, converting them to EPON FTTH. As pg. 36 of the presentation states, "Long-term transition to FTTH throughout the footprint."
All new construction -- whether single homes or MDUs (condos & apartments) -- has been getting connected by EPON FTTH since 2016.
Select existing neighborhoods/streets are being opportunistically ("success-based") converted from HFC to EPON FTTH. From what I've gleaned elsewhere, I think the determination is based on what's available from competitors (e.g. AT&T Fiber), costs involved, etc. Perhaps if a neighborhood has one or more customers paying to have the 2 GB/sec "Gigabit Pro" service installed -- which I think is EPON FTTH -- then that increases the chances of Comcast converting the whole street/neighborhood?
Existing MDUs are being served (under the "Comcast Advanced Communities Network" brand) with an EPON overlay for internet while TV continues to run over HFC.
I read elsewhere that Comcast was using RFoG (which uses QAM-based TV) for their FTTH installations up until some point in 2016, when they switched over to EPON, which is 100% IPTV-based, so does not support TiVo/CableCARD.
Comcast is reclaiming network spectrum (bandwidth) from QAM TV for general internet use as needed. They recently did that through converting digital TV to MPEG-4. The next step of the transition is to IPTV (pg. 4 of the presentation).
"Project Gram" is their name for their evolution to an all IP network, with IPTV.
In 2015, Comcast began offering all of their TV services -- linear channels, cloud DVR, VOD -- to any screen via unicast streams through their XFi Gateways (XB3 and XB6). This would also be the delivery mechanism that is used for their Xfinity Instant TV service that uses Rokus as STBs. Apparently Comcast has also tried out this delivery mechanism with "regular" Comcast cable TV subscribers using the small tuner-less Xi3 and XiD STBs.
In 2016, Comcast began (or was supposed to begin) delivering multicast IPTV to customers through the XB6 XFi Advanced Gateway (DOCSIS 3.1) paired with the Xi5 STB. This box has no tuners or hard drive. The XB6 takes the multicast stream and converts it to unicast for all devices on the home network, whether Comcast STBs (Xi5, etc.), Rokus, phones, etc. Elsewhere, I read that Rogers (Canadian cableco) has licensed the X1 platform to power their new IPTV product Ignite TV, which uses the XB6 and the Xi6 STB. The Xi6 is the 4K HDR-capable version of the Xi5.
As pg. 27 of the presentation explains, Comcast uses both multicast and unicast IPTV. And that was back in 2016!
Not sure what any of that means in terms of how close Comcast may be to shutting down QAM TV in any widespread area (beyond individual neighborhoods that are EPON FTTH). Given that they are already doing full-on IPTV with hybrid multicast/unicast linear, VOD and cloud DVR, they can obviously handle it. As I've long said, the sticking point is getting all those deployed STBs switched over to ones that are IPTV-capable (X1, Roku, etc.) and also, perhaps, getting enough multicast IPTV-capable gateways (e.g. XB6) deployed.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Today I stumbled across a PowerPoint presentation from Comcast about their future network architecture plans.


Fascinating! I need to watch this. Great post, but a few comments.



> All new construction -- whether single homes or MDUs (condos & apartments) -- has been getting connected by EPON FTTH since 2016.


I'm about 99% sure this is not entirely true. I think what they mean is that large new developments are getting EPON FTTH, or plant construction over a certain size are getting EPON FTTH instead of HFC, but I'm pretty sure I've seen new HFC go in since then, and their overbuild in New London, Waterford, and East Lyme, CT, which had been done within the last year is also HFC-based, and is all new plant. Overbuilds may be treated differently, since they are competing for customers already on ABB's HFC system, so switching from HFC to HFC is way easier and something techs are already trained to do versus installing EPON drops to each existing house.



> Select existing neighborhoods/streets are being opportunistically ("success-based") converted from HFC to EPON FTTH. From what I've gleaned elsewhere, I think the determination is based on what's available from competitors (e.g. AT&T Fiber), costs involved, etc. Perhaps if a neighborhood has one or more customers paying to have the 2 GB/sec "Gigabit Pro" service installed -- which I think is EPON FTTH -- then that increases the chances of Comcast converting the whole street/neighborhood?


This is true in the sense of converting neighborhoods. They also did a whole bunch of them with RFoG, including my grandmother's senior living complex, which was a BHN/Charter overbuild for that complex to grab about 1,000 subs through a bulk deal, and was done sometime in 2016. The "Gigabit Pro" service is generally Metro-E based, I don't think EPON can handle 2gbps symmetrical, but I could be wrong. I would think Gigabit Pro would still be Metro-E, even in RFoG or EPON markets, and likely not available to the same customers, as the RFoG and EPON installations are generally underground and in large complexes or HOAs, whereas Gigabit Pro is available for aerial customers within 1/3 of a mile of a node or other Metro-E fiber.



> Not sure what any of that means in terms of how close Comcast may be to shutting down QAM TV in any widespread area (beyond individual neighborhoods that are EPON FTTH). Given that they are already doing full-on IPTV with hybrid multicast/unicast linear, VOD and cloud DVR, they can obviously handle it. As I've long said, the sticking point is getting all those deployed STBs switched over to ones that are IPTV-capable (X1, Roku, etc.) and also, perhaps, getting enough multicast IPTV-capable gateways (e.g. XB6) deployed.


I'm not sure it's accurate to say that they can handle it at scale... yet. They have at least one IPTV-only linear channel plus IPTV VOD and Cloud DVR, but not a large scale implementation of linear channels delivered via IPTV. I would think that the bigger hangup would be moving towards IPTV-capable gateways and how to bill that. If a customer doesn't want to pay for Comcast's gateway, do they end up with an XB6 for TV that has internet locked down, and their own eMTA and modem for data?

The XB6 is the key to this all, as you need a huge block of bandwidth to make IPTV multicast actually work, and to connect boxes via MoCA and IP unicast that currently are doing IP unicast for VOD and Cloud DVR on 8x4 DSG modems, which just doesn't scale up to IP multicast. The XB6 solves all the missing pieces of the puzzle, like how to scale IP unicast out (they don't), and how to make IP multicast work (the XB6 can have a block of up to around 2.5-3gbps of aggregate bandwidth with 32 D3 channels and 2 D3.1 OFDM blocks post partial QAM shutdown).

I still believe that they are going to have to phase the transition, at least in 2-3 major blocks for each system to free up space for more DOCSIS channels and OFDM blocks prior to going entirely IPTV. Based on this architecture, they really could go entirely IP. I previously thought locals would stay QAM for a long time, but now I'm not so sure. From a bandwidth efficiency perspective, it would make sense to keep them on QAM, but that would assume that all boxes are going to have QAM tuners, which may not end up being the case.

However, from a business perspective, I still suspect that they have stalled the IPTV transition in order to watch the pay TV market. I don't think the entire pay TV market will be gone by the time they want to transition, but I think they waiting for a few million more subs to roll off to reduce conversion costs, and possibly waiting to drop more channels as some of the fringe stuff starts to go out of business so that the transition is a little bit easier. Once they move to IPTV, they don't have a technical reason to have to maintain a certain level of pay TV penetration, and they can ease slowly out of the pay TV business while having DOCSIS capacity available for all their services.

EDIT: Formatting


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I read through that slide deck, and it's pretty fascinating. I think the move to fiber deep/ small nodes/ N+0 is a big deal, and something that Comcast will be quite successful at. However, I am skeptical about their methodology of determining speed demands. No one needs gigabit now, they're certainly not going to need 10 gig or 100 gig in a few years. People can only consume so much content, and while more viewing will move to streaming, the compression is also getting way better, so at some point, the data consumption and peak speed demands could actually flatline or even drop.

I'm also a little bit skeptical of their plans for FTTH. I just don't see a majority of their footprint using FTTH anytime soon based on the profitability of HFC and how much of it is already installed in the field. Sure, some large MDUs have been set up with EPON, but I forsee HFC having a very, very, long life left in it. I also foresee gigabit not taking off in any significant numbers, as HFC networks just can't support a lot of gigabit customers who are actually using that kind of bandwidth, and as a result, MSOs aren't going to price it in an attractive manner, they just want to say that they have it, and have almost no one actually using it.

Further, a big driver of both overall bandwidth consumption and peak burst usage is the widespread deployment of wireless mesh networks, especially as they move to Wi-Fi 6 backhaul, so that more devices can get the entire 150mbps or 250mbps or whatever the MSO is offering, instead of today where many households are more limited on their Wi-Fi than on their cable connection.

I do think that they will move to all-IP or mostly IP at some point, as that just makes sense from a bandwidth perspective. Depending on the hardware they have available, it may make sense to keep those 20-40 most popular channels on QAM, and put the rest on IP unicast, although they need the IP multicast architecture for EPON anyway, so I guess why not bring it over to the HFC side and go all-IP as well? I really do think that they are waiting for pay TV to further implode, making the number of people left to transition much smaller, and returning a lot of video equipment that can be re-used.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I'm also a little bit skeptical of their plans for FTTH. I just don't see a majority of their footprint using FTTH anytime soon based on the profitability of HFC and how much of it is already installed in the field.


Well, the slide deck makes pretty clear that DOCSIS 3.1 on HFC is their main platform for the next several years. I'm sure HFC will continue to account for the great majority . FTTH is just for new "green field" construction and, where it makes sense, conversion of some existing "brown field" customers. I read that they are putting a max of 128 customers per node on HFC as they implement fiber deep/DAA. And then the eventual plan will be to transition all those customers from HFC to FTTH but, given the advances that are still being developed in DOCSIS, I can imagine that such a wide-scale transition might not happen for another decade. And until it does happen, I'd say a big majority of Comcast customers will still be on HFC.



Bigg said:


> I do think that they will move to all-IP or mostly IP at some point, as that just makes sense from a bandwidth perspective. Depending on the hardware they have available, it may make sense to keep those 20-40 most popular channels on QAM, and put the rest on IP unicast, although they need the IP multicast architecture for EPON anyway, so I guess why not bring it over to the HFC side and go all-IP as well? I really do think that they are waiting for pay TV to further implode, making the number of people left to transition much smaller, and returning a lot of video equipment that can be re-used.


Yeah, they're already doing multicast for the most popular linear channels for customers on EPON (who appear to exclusively use Xi5 and Xi6 STBs) and, it would appear, for some or all customers using their D3.1 gateway, the XB6 (per pg. 26 of the slide deck). The ability to tap into multicast streams and then convert them into unicast for consumption by any device on the home network -- which those gateways do -- is part of an industry standard called RDK-B. I think it's probably going to be implemented into all D3.1 modems/gateways and I imagine it's also in Comcast's fiber gateways. (For that matter, I would think AT&T would put such a capability in their fiber gateways too, to support multicasting in their OTT services like DirecTV Now.)

Once all their CPE in an area is multicast IPTV capable, there would obviously be no reason to keep anything on QAM there. Rather, any particular linear/live channel/stream would dynamically shift from unicast to multicast in a given area once more than X number of viewers tune in. However, if all the CPE being multicast IPTV capable means having everyone on D3.1 gateways, well, that's obviously a lot further off than just having everyone on X1 STBs. So yeah, maybe there's an interim stage where the most popular 20-40 channels stay on QAM (rather than multicast) and all the other channels shift to unicast IPTV. Obviously, everything that they're currently serving up to the Xfinity Stream app on Roku, iOS, Android and web browser is unicast (unless those clients are connected to the EPON fiber gateway or the XB6 D3.1 gateway).

Here's a thread over at DSL Reports about Comcast's EPON service:
EPON. Found this link for comcast today. - Comcast XFINITY | DSLReports Forums

Also found this page interesting, about the implementation of multicast video on D3.1:
Multicast ABR will rescue broken unicast for millions of sports fans - Rethink


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I'm not sure it's accurate to say that they can handle it at scale... yet. They have at least one IPTV-only linear channel plus IPTV VOD and Cloud DVR, but not a large scale implementation of linear channels delivered via IPTV.


I tend to think that any part of Comcast's footprint that has been upgraded to DOCSIS 3.1 can and does have multicast video running on it, at least when a certain number of multicast-capable-connected clients in the area (i.e. X1 and Xfinity Stream app devices connected to an XB6 gateway) are "tuned" into a particular channel. All of their linear channels are already being served up nationwide as IPTV, both unicast and multicast, from their central facility out in Colorado.



Bigg said:


> I would think that the bigger hangup would be moving towards IPTV-capable gateways and how to bill that. If a customer doesn't want to pay for Comcast's gateway, do they end up with an XB6 for TV that has internet locked down, and their own eMTA and modem for data?


Well, right now, I think Comcast would just serve that person IPTV exclusively through unicast streams. That's what happens if you're a broadband customer using your own modem and you subscribe to Xfinity Instant TV and watch through the Xfinity Stream app on Roku. All linear channels (and of course all VOD and cloud DVR) are unicast. But in the future if Comcast wanted to shut down QAM TV, would they require everyone to have a multicast-capable D3.1 modem? Or, more likely, just wait until a critical mass had them, so as to reduce the amount of unicast traffic?

And what about those who want TV service from Comcast but no internet service? I've read that standalone TV isn't even offered by Comcast in areas that are EPON FTTH. Assuming that they aren't required by any level of government to offer standalone TV to customers on their HFC network, then I would assume that by the time Comcast is ready to shut down QAM TV in any given area, they won't offer standalone TV service there either.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, the slide deck makes pretty clear that DOCSIS 3.1 on HFC is their main platform for the next several years. I'm sure HFC will continue to account for the great majority . FTTH is just for new "green field" construction and, where it makes sense, conversion of some existing "brown field" customers. I read that they are putting a max of 128 customers per node on HFC as they implement fiber deep/DAA. And then the eventual plan will be to transition all those customers from HFC to FTTH but, given the advances that are still being developed in DOCSIS, I can imagine that such a wide-scale transition might not happen for another decade. And until it does happen, I'd say a big majority of Comcast customers will still be on HFC.


Yeah, the interesting part is that Comcast is acting like <125 actives/node is some sort of newfangled technology, but at my old place, the local cable company had a network built in the 2000's that didn't have anything too special, it just had a lot of nodes, and they managed it to <125 actives/node. IIRC, Comcast had a lot more actives/node in that area. I think there are good technological reasons for what they are doing with new technologies, but there's absolutely nothing preventing Comcast from simply splitting nodes until they hit <125 actives/node using existing traditional HFC technology.

I could imagine FTTH being cheaper in the long run in lower-density areas, but the capital cost and installation cost has got to be killer in higher density environments with a lot of multifamilies and small apartments and such where HFC is really easy to run plant down the street and just run individual RG-6 drops out to customers. I wonder if they will eventually get to FTTT in areas like that?



> Yeah, they're already doing multicast for the most popular linear channels for customers on EPON (who appear to exclusively use Xi5 and Xi6 STBs) and, it would appear, for some or all customers using their D3.1 gateway, the XB6 (per pg. 26 of the slide deck). The ability to tap into multicast streams and then convert them into unicast for consumption by any device on the home network -- which those gateways do -- is part of an industry standard called RDK-B. I think it's probably going to be implemented into all D3.1 modems/gateways and I imagine it's also in Comcast's fiber gateways. (For that matter, I would think AT&T would put such a capability in their fiber gateways too, to support multicasting in their OTT services like DirecTV Now.)


AT&T U-Verse can do multicast already, but if they are going to phase that out, then they would want something like RDK-B. They must have other boxes, like the Xi3 available to EPON customers, as the Xi5 and Xi6 appear to be wireless, and wouldn't work in some installations where there are wireless reception issues, but coax already in place. AT&T could also go from multicast to unicast at the CO level, whereas Comcast has to do it in home to save bandwidth on the node.



> Once all their CPE in an area is multicast IPTV capable, there would obviously be no reason to keep anything on QAM there. Rather, any particular linear/live channel/stream would dynamically shift from unicast to multicast in a given area once more than X number of viewers tune in. However, if all the CPE being multicast IPTV capable means having everyone on D3.1 gateways, well, that's obviously a lot further off than just having everyone on X1 STBs. So yeah, maybe there's an interim stage where the most popular 20-40 channels stay on QAM (rather than multicast) and all the other channels shift to unicast IPTV. Obviously, everything that they're currently serving up to the Xfinity Stream app on Roku, iOS, Android and web browser is unicast (unless those clients are connected to the EPON fiber gateway or the XB6 D3.1 gateway).


Yes, there could be an interim step involved. By the time they are down to the last handful of channels on QAM, the pre-X1 boxes will probably be so dead that getting rid of them is no loss. I don't think getting XB6s out there is that big of a deal. They have ways of shipping out gateways to replace the XB3s. The bigger question is how the handle people who own their own equipment and don't want to rent it. I could foresee my parents getting a D3.1 data modem when the next round of speed upgrades comes, keeping the TM822G for CDV, and then having a locked down XB6 just to feed their XG1 and Xi3 all lined up in the basement. Not the end of the world, but not the prettiest solution either.



> Here's a thread over at DSL Reports about Comcast's EPON service:
> EPON. Found this link for comcast today. - Comcast XFINITY | DSLReports Forums


Fascinating. From that, they are using XiDs for wired connections on MoCA. There is no RF via cable, just MoCA. It's a weird implementation, but it's just re-using what they have for HFC. What's interesting is that they are deploying EPON in a bunch of places in Florida, meanwhile in Connecticut they are building hundreds upon hundreds of miles of traditional HFC plant in New London, Waterford, and East Lyme to overbuild ABB.



> Also found this page interesting, about the implementation of multicast video on D3.1:
> Multicast ABR will rescue broken unicast for millions of sports fans - Rethink


Getting providers to all implement that in an interoperable way will be interesting, to say the least. I'm laughing at the latency thing, as Comcast, DirecTV, and others all have crazy high latency in their systems. Even local channels, which don't get re-encoded to MPEG-4 or bounced around as much are way behind on cable compared to OTA.

EDIT: Fix quotes


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I tend to think that any part of Comcast's footprint that has been upgraded to DOCSIS 3.1 can and does have multicast video running on it, at least when a certain number of multicast-capable-connected clients in the area (i.e. X1 and Xfinity Stream app devices connected to an XB6 gateway) are "tuned" into a particular channel. All of their linear channels are already being served up nationwide as IPTV, both unicast and multicast, from their central facility out in Colorado.


It's possible, but most of the viewership of the live content is via QAM on a regular box. It is clear, however, that IPTV is the way they are headed, as it's currently IPTV from Denver to the headend, and IPTV again from the XG1 to the Xi3/XiD, with only a short hop on QAM in the middle.



> Well, right now, I think Comcast would just serve that person IPTV exclusively through unicast streams. That's what happens if you're a broadband customer using your own modem and you subscribe to Xfinity Instant TV and watch through the Xfinity Stream app on Roku. All linear channels (and of course all VOD and cloud DVR) are unicast. But in the future if Comcast wanted to shut down QAM TV, would they require everyone to have a multicast-capable D3.1 modem? Or, more likely, just wait until a critical mass had them, so as to reduce the amount of unicast traffic?


I would think they would require everyone to have one. They wouldn't want my parents watching NBC all day on a unicast stream through DSG on an 8x4 modem. I'm imagining a locked down XB6 that has Ethernet and Wi-Fi disabled just running D3.1 and MoCA, and then the user having their own modem. It seems silly, but in reality, that's probably the cheapest way to do it. And while they are using the customer's electricity, they could turn xfinitywifi on as well. I'm anticipating if they do that, we'll see some people making plans for brass screen cages for their XB6s.... I'd think most people would just pay the $13/mo to use the XB6 for everything, but I could easily set my parents up with a triple-modem setup if that's what Comcast really wants on their network to support Triple Play.



> And what about those who want TV service from Comcast but no internet service? I've read that standalone TV isn't even offered by Comcast in areas that are EPON FTTH. Assuming that they aren't required by any level of government to offer standalone TV to customers on their HFC network, then I would assume that by the time Comcast is ready to shut down QAM TV in any given area, they won't offer standalone TV service there either.


It would be trivial to set up an XB6 with a captive portal like an unactivated modem if they wanted to, that's just a billing system issue. It would be the same setup for someone like my parents who would have data service on their own modem versus someone who had a different provider for broadband. However, it may not be worth the trouble, as once they have EPON, there's really no case I could think of for having Comcast TV with another ISP, as even something like Google Fiber isn't really any better than Comcast if Comcast is offering symmetrical gigabit speeds. Maybe older folks who just want basic DSL and have a really cheap DSL package? My grandmother's place has a lot of people like that who either have Slow DSL or just use the Wi-Fi in the common areas, even though they're on RFoG, but she went with the full Triple Play, since they pay some ridiculously low price for internet, since the TV is a bulk deal for the whole complex.

Regardless, that's a business decision, not a technical issue. It's trivially easy to offer IPTV over a managed network and make the gateway's Ethernet and Wi-Fi only offer captive Comcast pages.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> It would be trivial to set up an XB6 with a captive portal like an unactivated modem if they wanted to, that's just a billing system issue. It would be the same setup for someone like my parents who would have data service on their own modem versus someone who had a different provider for broadband. However, it may not be worth the trouble, as once they have EPON, *there's really no case I could think of for having Comcast TV with another ISP, as even something like Google Fiber isn't really any better than Comcast if Comcast is offering symmetrical gigabit speeds.*


There are at least two potential advantages of Google Fiber over Comcast's gigabit service that occur to me: price and data cap.

The second of these is of lesser practical impact since I believe Comcast does not impose the 1TB cap uniformly at present and, even where it does, most users will probably not exceed it often enough (if at all) to incur the additional fees. (Note: I do have the cap and have yet to come close to it over the past eight months.)

Price is unquestionably a big differentiator inasmuch as Comcast charges twice as much as Google Fiber. GF provides symmetrical gigabit service with no data cap for $70 including the ONT and "Network Box" (read: gateway). Comcast charges $140 retail for their HFC asymmetrical gigabit service (1Gbps/35Mbps) with a data cap in most cases and not including the gateway ($13 rental or BYO). Now, there are often discounts available from Comcast (undoubtedly reflecting any competition they feel it necessary to counter in a given region from Google or other providers), but they are billed as promotions and have a term of no more than one or two years, requiring the user to keep track of the expiration dates and renegotiate each time based on the currently offered discounts. GF has an admirable, customer-friendly UPP with no gimmicks or games.

As an example, if I call Comcast in my region today and ask for the gigabit tier of internet service, I will be quoted the aforementioned price of $140. (Previously, there was a $30 promotional 12-month discount, but it does not appear to be currently on offer). However, you can subscribe to a lower tier of service and add on the speed increase to gigabit for an upcharge, and there are substantial discounts that can then be applied. Since June of 2018 I have subscribed to their Performance Internet (60Mbps) for $29.99 ($69.95 minus a promotional $39.96 discount) with a boost to Gigabit Internet for an additional $40 ($70 minus a promotional discount of $30). This month, the discount on Performance Internet expired and is no longer being offered; as a result, my internet service charge was due to increase from $69.99 to $109.99. It took quite a bit of persistence and several negotiations with various CSR's, but I finally was able to arrange a switch to Blast! Internet (150Mbps) for $49.99 ($89.99 with a 12-month promotional discount of $40) and a boost to gigabit for an additional $30 ($70 minus a 24-month discount of $40), for a total price of $79.99 or $10 more than I was previously paying. However, this arrangement is part of a double-play package that includes the Digital Preferred TV lineup and Starz, which is a slight improvement over the Digital Starter tier that I was receiving through my HOA's bulk services agreement. (Note: I am using my own modem and router, Netgear CM1000 and R7800, and so do not incur the gateway rental fee.) I also am currently getting free HBO from Comcast on a recurring 3-month promotion and have a 24-month contract for SHO and Cinemax for $1 each p.m.

Even though I am used to monitoring my services and negotiating for the best pricing, I would much prefer to sign up for GF and be rid of the hassles. Most people do not have the time or temperament to deal with the pricing games, and for them GF should represent a much more desirable prospect--even leaving aside the better technological aspects--assuming that it is available to them. Despite my advocacy, our benighted HOA has passed on a GF install, so it is sadly not an option for our 335 unit owners.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I would think they would require everyone to have one. They wouldn't want my parents watching NBC all day on a unicast stream through DSG on an 8x4 modem. I'm imagining a locked down XB6 that has Ethernet and Wi-Fi disabled just running D3.1 and MoCA, and then the user having their own modem. It seems silly, but in reality, that's probably the cheapest way to do it. And while they are using the customer's electricity, they could turn xfinitywifi on as well. I'm anticipating if they do that, we'll see some people making plans for brass screen cages for their XB6s.... I'd think most people would just pay the $13/mo to use the XB6 for everything, but I could easily set my parents up with a triple-modem setup if that's what Comcast really wants on their network to support Triple Play.


Keep in mind that there are recent model retail modems that have the RDK-B software stack included. Arris rolled the first such modem out in 2017. I guarantee you that any retail D3.1 modem that gets approved for use on the Comcast network, such as the Arris SB8200, includes RDK-B and therefore would be compatible with multicast IPTV service from Comcast in exactly the same way that Comcast's own XB6 modem is.

But yeah, for folks still using their own older pre-RDK-B retail modems for Comcast internet, I guess Comcast might issue them a locked-down XB6 (or a successor model) to be used only for TV service. Unless by that point there were few enough such persons that the additional unicast traffic that their Comcast TV viewing would generate (e.g. from watching NBC all day) wouldn't justify the cost of issuing them a Comcast modem just for TV. (Keep in mind, right now there's a small but significant amount of Comcast TV viewing happening in users' homes via the Xfinity Stream app and, unless those users happen to use certain Comcast multicast-capable gateways, then all of their viewing is unicast streams. And Comcast is OK with that. Xfinity Instant TV subscribers are free to use any D3.0 or D3.1 modem that works with Comcast internet service.)

As for folks who wanted TV service but not internet, yes, in the future when Comcast is IPTV-only, they would have to issue those customers a locked-down modem/gateway that only allowed IP traffic for Comcast's TV service. I'm pretty sure Comcast has been doing that exact same thing for awhile now for customers, like my aunt and uncle, who subscribe to Comcast (QAM) TV service and VOIP phone service, but not internet. Because they have phone service, they have a Comcast-issued gateway that can only be used for VOIP. Although I believe it does put out a wifi hotspot for any Comcast internet subscribers who might be visiting their home to log into. So technically, it would be trivial to serve standalone IPTV service. The question I have is whether Comcast would even offer standalone IPTV service if they aren't forced to since TV is a low-margin service and they now see broadband as their central service, with anything else (TV, home phone, mobile phone) just being an add-on. As I said before, my understanding is that in EPON FTTH areas, such as parts of FL, Comcast currently does NOT offer standalone TV service. One must subscribe to broadband and then add TV to that.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> They must have other boxes, like the Xi3 available to EPON customers, as the Xi5 and Xi6 appear to be wireless, and wouldn't work in some installations where there are wireless reception issues, but coax already in place.
> 
> Fascinating. From that, they are using XiDs for wired connections on MoCA. There is no RF via cable, just MoCA. It's a weird implementation, but it's just re-using what they have for HFC. What's interesting is that they are deploying EPON in a bunch of places in Florida, meanwhile in Connecticut they are building hundreds upon hundreds of miles of traditional HFC plant in New London, Waterford, and East Lyme to overbuild ABB.


Your quote above was in response to my earlier assertion that Comcast exclusively uses the Xi5 and Xi6 STBs in EPON residences. Sorry, that was based on my faulty recollection of a quote by a Comcast installer in this thread. He actually says: "No DOCSIS, MoCA is back fed from the FX3 to the existing coax in the home. XiD's Xi5 and Xi6." So, yes, you're right, they're also using XiD STBs which can access IPTV via MoCA (coax input), unlike the Xi5 and Xi6, which only have wifi and ethernet. But the XiD can't handle 4K HDR like the Xi6, so I guess customers wanting that level of service need to have their 4K TVs positioned where they have good wifi reception or near an ethernet jack.

I believe that Rogers in Canada, which is using a subset of the X1 platform for their new IPTV service, is exclusively using the XB6 D3.1 gateway and Xi6 STBs. Not even dealing with MoCA. I've also read that Altice's plans for customers after transitioning them from HFC to FTTH (which is already happening) is to abandon all that coax wiring in the home, as it's a common source of tech problems and truck rolls. Rather, the AlticeOne STBs that will be deployed at TVs will also be mesh wifi repeaters working in tandem with the fiber gateway.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Great posts by both of you guys!



chiguy50 said:


> There are at least two potential advantages of Google Fiber over Comcast's gigabit service that occur to me: price and data cap.


I was under the impression that there is no cap on Comcast's fiber, much like Cox does, since the pathetic excuse of "node congestion" doesn't apply to fiber, but maybe I made an ASSumption here and there is a cap? If there is, then that would be a HUGE reason to get Google Fiber. However, then I'd ask why anyone would want Comcast for TV, but that's a separate issue. My brain might also have skipped over the cap issue, since I've got it hardwired into my brain that Comcast doesn't have caps and Cox does, since that's the case in CT, but not necessarily in other markets.



> Price is unquestionably a big differentiator inasmuch as Comcast charges twice as much as Google Fiber. GF provides symmetrical gigabit service with no data cap for $70 including the ONT and "Network Box" (read: gateway). Comcast charges $140 retail for their HFC asymmetrical gigabit service (1Gbps/35Mbps) with a data cap in most cases and not including the gateway ($13 rental or BYO). Now, there are often discounts available from Comcast (undoubtedly reflecting any competition they feel it necessary to counter in a given region from Google or other providers), but they are billed as promotions and have a term of no more than one or two years, requiring the user to keep track of the expiration dates and renegotiate each time based on the currently offered discounts. GF has an admirable, customer-friendly UPP with no gimmicks or games.


I would argue on this point if we're talking about Comcast video-only service with Google Fiber, which is where this discussion came from, in that I would be shocked if Comcast video plus Google Fiber internet together would be less than a bundled package from Comcast. For standalone, absolutely, Google Fiber would be cheaper. Comcast's gigabit also varies a lot from region to region, a town over where Comcast is the MSO, HFC gigabit is $105/mo with no caps, here from Cox it costs $120/mo with caps, so it's really $170/mo to get Unlimited gigabit, which is just highway robbery.



> Even though I am used to monitoring my services and negotiating for the best pricing, I would much prefer to sign up for GF and be rid of the hassles. Most people do not have the time or temperament to deal with the pricing games, and for them GF should represent a much more desirable prospect--even leaving aside the better technological aspects--assuming that it is available to them. Despite my advocacy, our benighted HOA has passed on a GF install, so it is sadly not an option for our 335 unit owners.


Yeah, the promo crap is absolutely ridiculous. I used to live where there was a local cable company, and their everyday pricing fit on a single piece of paper and was about the same as Comcast's "promo" pricing. These companies are absolutely ridiculous and obviously suffer from a severe lack of competition. Unluckily/luckily we don't really have any independent providers around here, it's either an MSO or the ILEC, so if/when they eventually get to fiber, they will do it when and where they want to, without any HOAs or building owners getting a say in it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Keep in mind that there are recent model retail modems that have the RDK-B software stack included. Arris rolled the first such modem out in 2017. I guarantee you that any retail D3.1 modem that gets approved for use on the Comcast network, such as the Arris SB8200, includes RDK-B and therefore would be compatible with multicast IPTV service from Comcast in exactly the same way that Comcast's own XB6 modem is.


Does the router have to have support as well? I would assume so, since everything is behind NAT on the router, and also the X1 boxes would have to be MoCA bridged over to the customer's network.



> But yeah, for folks still using their own older pre-RDK-B retail modems for Comcast internet, I guess Comcast might issue them a locked-down XB6 (or a successor model) to be used only for TV service. Unless by that point there were few enough such persons that the additional unicast traffic that their Comcast TV viewing would generate (e.g. from watching NBC all day) wouldn't justify the cost of issuing them a Comcast modem just for TV. (Keep in mind, right now there's a small but significant amount of Comcast TV viewing happening in users' homes via the Xfinity Stream app and, unless those users happen to use certain Comcast multicast-capable gateways, then all of their viewing is unicast streams. And Comcast is OK with that. Xfinity Instant TV subscribers are free to use any D3.0 or D3.1 modem that works with Comcast internet service.)


I would think that they would want to be 100% multicast capable when they do it, and the cost of providing a gateway isn't really that significant. They also benefit from far larger channel groups, as the X1 boxes, at least the earlier ones, are 8x4 DSG, versus D3.1 gateways that have the OFDM block plus at least 24x4 D3.1 in most markets.



> I'm pretty sure Comcast has been doing that exact same thing for awhile now for customers, like my aunt and uncle, who subscribe to Comcast (QAM) TV service and VOIP phone service, but not internet. Because they have phone service, they have a Comcast-issued gateway that can only be used for VOIP. Although I believe it does put out a wifi hotspot for any Comcast internet subscribers who might be visiting their home to log into.


That's a really bizarre combo of services. What do they use for internet? I would think if they have Slow DSL, then they would get phone service through the phone company? And if they have fiber internet, they would get TV through that? Do they have to pay a fee for the gateway for just VoIP?



> So technically, it would be trivial to serve standalone IPTV service. The question I have is whether Comcast would even offer standalone IPTV service if they aren't forced to since TV is a low-margin service and they now see broadband as their central service, with anything else (TV, home phone, mobile phone) just being an add-on. As I said before, my understanding is that in EPON FTTH areas, such as parts of FL, Comcast currently does NOT offer standalone TV service. One must subscribe to broadband and then add TV to that.


I have to disagree with you about the margins. While Comcast's TV business is low-margin the way they bundle it with broadband, I would have to believe that they would price TV-only service so that it has better margins, and push back the other way to try and get people into bundles. It's ultimately a business decision, not a technical one based on how many subs want just TV. However, if they want to do bulk deals, they are going to have to have a standalone IPTV service, as many bulk deals are only for TV, not internet. At my grandmother's place, a lot of people use Slow DSL or the community Wi-Fi (which I assume is on a Comcast Metro-E line as part of the bulk deal), but they are on RFoG. I'd have to imagine a few people have figured out that if their kids/grandkids who live in a Comcast town make them an email account on their Comcast service, they can get free internet through xfinitywifi.



NashGuy said:


> Your quote above was in response to my earlier assertion that Comcast exclusively uses the Xi5 and Xi6 STBs in EPON residences. Sorry, that was based on my faulty recollection of a quote by a Comcast installer in this thread. He actually says: "No DOCSIS, MoCA is back fed from the FX3 to the existing coax in the home. XiD's Xi5 and Xi6." So, yes, you're right, they're also using XiD STBs which can access IPTV via MoCA (coax input), unlike the Xi5 and Xi6, which only have wifi and ethernet. But the XiD can't handle 4K HDR like the Xi6, so I guess customers wanting that level of service need to have their 4K TVs positioned where they have good wifi reception or near an ethernet jack.


Comcast has very little 4k right now, other than streaming apps that are on the boxes. I wonder if they could use a MoCA adapter to connect an Xi6 to the MoCA network?



> I believe that Rogers in Canada, which is using a subset of the X1 platform for their new IPTV service, is exclusively using the XB6 D3.1 gateway and Xi6 STBs. Not even dealing with MoCA. I've also read that Altice's plans for customers after transitioning them from HFC to FTTH (which is already happening) is to abandon all that coax wiring in the home, as it's a common source of tech problems and truck rolls. Rather, the AlticeOne STBs that will be deployed at TVs will also be mesh wifi repeaters working in tandem with the fiber gateway.


That's pretty wild. I would think that they are going to run into some problems in tough RF environments, either very dense housing, or old houses that are made out of weird materials. I think things are moving in a wireless direction, but I would think that MSOs would want to offer wireless only as a last resort option to keep up with DirecTV and AT&T/Frontier where a customer is disagreeable about running coax to a location.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> I was under the impression that there is no cap on Comcast's fiber, much like Cox does, since the pathetic excuse of "node congestion" doesn't apply to fiber, but maybe I made an ASSumption here and there is a cap? If there is, then that would be a HUGE reason to get Google Fiber. However, then I'd ask why anyone would want Comcast for TV, but that's a separate issue. My brain might also have skipped over the cap issue, since I've got it hardwired into my brain that Comcast doesn't have caps and Cox does, since that's the case in CT, but not necessarily in other markets.


Perhaps there is no data cap where Comcast provides EPON over HFC (and I don't wish to find out for myself, because that would mean that I would lose my TiVo functionality), but I believe that the 1TB cap is more the rule than otherwise throughout their system. Here's what my account currently shows:












Bigg said:


> I would argue on this point if we're talking about Comcast video-only service with Google Fiber, which is where this discussion came from, in that I would be shocked if Comcast video plus Google Fiber internet together would be less than a bundled package from Comcast. For standalone, absolutely, Google Fiber would be cheaper. Comcast's gigabit also varies a lot from region to region, a town over where Comcast is the MSO, HFC gigabit is $105/mo with no caps, here from Cox it costs $120/mo with caps, so it's really $170/mo to get Unlimited gigabit, which is just highway robbery.


I agree that, in most instances, a bundle deal with Comcast will be cheaper. But Google TV is very pricey as I recall (starting at $90 p.m.) and I am not sure just how married Google is to the idea of maintaining their TV service in the first place; I believe they are offering it only in order better to wean away MVPD customers for GF.

Also, bear in mind, as I have pointed out, that Comcast gigabit service can be had for as low as $70 p.m. where they feel the need to complete with GF; you just may have to dig to get that "promotional" pricing out of them.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Does the router have to have support as well? I would assume so, since everything is behind NAT on the router, and also the X1 boxes would have to be MoCA bridged over to the customer's network.


I don't know. I think I've only read about RDK-B being implemented into the software stack in modems, not routers. That said, the first retail device with RDK-B included (which I linked above) is a combined modem/router gateway. So maybe?



Bigg said:


> That's a really bizarre combo of services. What do they use for internet? I would think if they have Slow DSL, then they would get phone service through the phone company? And if they have fiber internet, they would get TV through that? Do they have to pay a fee for the gateway for just VoIP?


They don't have internet at all. They're in their 80s and just have no desire or need for it. I think they briefly had internet service and a PC years ago but just never used it.



Bigg said:


> I have to disagree with you about the margins. While Comcast's TV business is low-margin the way they bundle it with broadband, I would have to believe that they would price TV-only service so that it has better margins, and push back the other way to try and get people into bundles.


Yeah, I suppose if they price standalone TV high enough, then sure, they'd be happy to sign someone up for it. But looking into the future, the question of standalone TV service isn't really an issue. As older folks, like my aunt and uncle, pass away, there just won't be a significant number of people who want to sign up for MVPD TV service but not home broadband.



chiguy50 said:


> I agree that, in most instances, a bundle deal with Comcast will be cheaper. But Google TV is very pricey as I recall (starting at $90 p.m.) and I am not sure just how married Google is to the idea of maintaining their TV service in the first place; I believe they are offering it only in order better to wean away MVPD customers for GF.
> 
> Also, bear in mind, as I have pointed out, that Comcast gigabit service can be had for as low as $70 p.m. where they feel the need to complete with GF; you just may have to dig to get that "promotional" pricing out of them.


Yeah, in the last few cities where Google Fiber rolled out (including San Antonio & Louisville, I think), they've never offered their TV service. Instead, they just offered GF subscribers a free Nvidia Shield Android TV streaming box if they added YouTube TV to their account. At some point in the future -- maybe when it comes time to renegotiate network carriage deals -- I can see Google just shutting down the GF TV service completely because, eh, why bother, it's always been a red-headed stepchild. And they'll just offer all those folks a free 4K HDR Android TV box if they sign up for YouTube TV, which Google *clearly* cares about, unlike GF TV. I also expect that YouTube TV will eventually offer an optional upgrade tier of channels (including those from Discovery, Viacom, Hallmark, etc.) that will make it a full-fledged replacement for regular cable/satellite TV, for those customers (including GF subscribers) who want that.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, in the last few cities where Google Fiber rolled out (including San Antonio & Louisville, I think), they've never offered their TV service. Instead, they just offered GF subscribers a free Nvidia Shield Android TV streaming box if they added YouTube TV to their account. At some point in the future -- maybe when it comes time to renegotiate network carriage deals -- I can see Google just shutting down the GF TV service completely because, eh, why bother, it's always been a red-headed stepchild.


That tracks with my impressions from two years ago when I was negotiating our HOA's initial access agreement with the GF sales and installation reps. Even though the project never went anywhere, at no point did I expect our unit owners to show much interest in the TV service in any significant numbers and the reps did not push it or even seem particularly energized or knowledgeable about it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> Perhaps there is no data cap where Comcast provides EPON over HFC (and I don't wish to find out for myself, because that would mean that I would lose my TiVo functionality), but I believe that the 1TB cap is more the rule than otherwise throughout their system. Here's what my account currently shows:


Geographically, most of Comcast's territory has caps, in terms of numbers of customers, I don't know, as VA, MD, PA, NJ, CT, and MA are all quite dense, as well as a few surrounding states that also don't have caps but have far fewer subs like ME, VT, and NY.



> I agree that, in most instances, a bundle deal with Comcast will be cheaper. But Google TV is very pricey as I recall (starting at $90 p.m.) and I am not sure just how married Google is to the idea of maintaining their TV service in the first place; I believe they are offering it only in order better to wean away MVPD customers for GF.


If someone has access to GFTV, they'd be nuts not to go that way, as they don't re-compress, and thus have stunning VQ. That being said, by the time GFTV goes away, there will probably be even more vMVPDs, or the whole pay tv market will have imploded on itself.



NashGuy said:


> I don't know. I think I've only read about RDK-B being implemented into the software stack in modems, not routers. That said, the first retail device with RDK-B included (which I linked above) is a combined modem/router gateway. So maybe?


Yeah, it may only be owned gateways, not modems and routers. That would make more sense.



> They don't have internet at all. They're in their 80s and just have no desire or need for it. I think they briefly had internet service and a PC years ago but just never used it.


Yikes. I can't imagine how you'd do anything these days without internet. Pretty much all bills and services are online.... Then again my grandmother has Comcast RFoG, an XB3, two iPads and a bunch of Macs, and still calls many places on the phone out of old habits....



> Yeah, I suppose if they price standalone TV high enough, then sure, they'd be happy to sign someone up for it. But looking into the future, the question of standalone TV service isn't really an issue. As older folks, like my aunt and uncle, pass away, there just won't be a significant number of people who want to sign up for MVPD TV service but not home broadband.


Bulk deals. If they want to do bulk deals on EPON, then they have to do TV-only for them. My grandmother's place is on RFoG, but for new deals, they would run into similar situations, either with older folks happy with Slow DSL and their landline, or areas with other options like VDSL or fiber that some people may prefer. It's technologically trivial to offer, so it's just a matter of how they want to bill and market such a service.



> Yeah, in the last few cities where Google Fiber rolled out (including San Antonio & Louisville, I think), they've never offered their TV service. Instead, they just offered GF subscribers a free Nvidia Shield Android TV streaming box if they added YouTube TV to their account. At some point in the future -- maybe when it comes time to renegotiate network carriage deals -- I can see Google just shutting down the GF TV service completely because, eh, why bother, it's always been a red-headed stepchild. And they'll just offer all those folks a free 4K HDR Android TV box if they sign up for YouTube TV, which Google *clearly* cares about, unlike GF TV. I also expect that YouTube TV will eventually offer an optional upgrade tier of channels (including those from Discovery, Viacom, Hallmark, etc.) that will make it a full-fledged replacement for regular cable/satellite TV, for those customers (including GF subscribers) who want that.


Unfortunately that's likely to be the case even though GFTV is the most awesome TV service in the country.

GFTV YTTV might, but their current lineup is so well targeted. They got sports, The Olympics, and all the political/news channels all for $40, i.e. everything that makes Live TV desirable. Everyone else's lineup is a mess, where there are either channels missing, or they force you into giant bundles to follow sports or The Olympics, just like traditional cable.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Bulk deals. If they want to do bulk deals on EPON, then they have to do TV-only for them. My grandmother's place is on RFoG, but for new deals, they would run into similar situations, either with older folks happy with Slow DSL and their landline, or areas with other options like VDSL or fiber that some people may prefer. It's technologically trivial to offer, so it's just a matter of how they want to bill and market such a service.


OK, but you're thinking of the market as it exists now. As we move through the 2020s, internet connections like DSL that aren't fast enough to host a TV service (whether their own managed service or whatever OTT services you want) will disappear. Situations in which a person wants to subscribe to one company for gigabit (or faster) broadband but to Comcast for their own managed IPTV will be so rare as to not even be a market consideration. (If they really prefer Comcast TV, they'll just bundle it with Comcast broadband.)

That said, I really tend to think that all video will eventually just be OTT anyhow. I can imagine Comcast basically doing the same thing that it sounds like AT&T is going to do with a streaming version of DirecTV, which is to ship their own STB to anyone with a broadband connection. Comcast has said for quite some time that they don't think selling out-of-footprint TV (i.e. OTT video service) makes economic sense but lately their tune seems to be changing a bit after acquiring Sky TV, which operates OTT vMVPDs.

Some say that moving all pay TV to OTT can't be done because of the amount of unicast traffic it would generate, especially for popular live events, but if I understand what Broadpeak has developed with their multicast ABR solution (which is, I think, more or less what Cable Labs has implemented with RDK-B), then it should be feasible.



Bigg said:


> GFTV might, but their current lineup is so well targeted. They got sports, The Olympics, and all the political/news channels all for $40, i.e. everything that makes Live TV desirable. Everyone else's lineup is a mess, where there are either channels missing, or they force you into giant bundles to follow sports or The Olympics, just like traditional cable.


I agree that Google assembled the best possible package of channels and features that they could in order to launch at $35 (now $40). They understand that the main reasons to have linear channel TV are locals (big 4 affiliates), sports and news. So they made sure to cover those bases. That said, I read lots of folks saying that they combine YTTV with the $16 Philo service because YTTV is missing some very popular channels like HGTV, Food, Nick, Hallmark, Comedy Central, etc. The only overlap between those two services are the AMC channels (AMC, BBCA, IFC, We) and BBC World News. If Google offered the other 39 Philo channels for an extra $15-20, they'd get a lot of takers simply for the convenience of having all the channels together in the same app.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> GFTV might, but their current lineup is so well targeted. They got sports, The Olympics, and all the political/news channels all for $40, i.e. everything that makes Live TV desirable. Everyone else's lineup is a mess, where there are either channels missing, or they force you into giant bundles to follow sports or The Olympics, just like traditional cable.





NashGuy said:


> I agree that Google assembled the best possible package of channels and features that they could in order to launch at $35 (now $40). They understand that the main reasons to have linear channel TV are locals (big 4 affiliates), sports and news. So they made sure to cover those bases. That said, I read lots of folks saying that they combine YTTV with the $16 Philo service because YTTV is missing some very popular channels like HGTV, Food, Nick, Hallmark, Comedy Central, etc. The only overlap between those two services are the AMC channels (AMC, BBCA, IFC, We) and BBC World News. If Google offered the other 39 Philo channels for an extra $15-20, they'd get a lot of takers simply for the convenience of having all the channels together in the same app.


Where are you guys finding that $40 price? I haven't been tracking GF's offerings lately, but their website still shows the $90 I quoted earlier to add TV to their internet service (e.g., $50 + $90 = $140 or $70 + $90 = $160).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> Where are you guys finding that $40 price? I haven't been tracking GF's offerings lately, but their website still shows the $90 I quoted earlier to add TV to their internet service (e.g., $50 + $90 = $140 or $70 + $90 = $160).
> 
> View attachment 39324


I was talking about YouTube TV (YTTV), not Google Fiber TV (GFTV), in the last para of my post #185. No, GFTV costs way more than $40 and it has a much fuller channel package than YTTV. Here in Nashville, GFTV costs an additional $90 to add TV service to either speed tier of Google Fiber internet (100 Mbps for $50 or 1 Gbps for $70). First TV box is included, $10 for each additional one.

I see where the confusion lies. In the last para of his prior post (#184), Bigg does reference "GFTV" but based on the context, I assumed that was an error and he meant to type "YTTV". Because all the things he says there, including the $40 price point, are descriptive of YTTV, not GFTV. And he's comparing the strength of the YTTV channel line-up versus all the other streaming cable TV services (vMVPDs) such as DirecTV Now, PS Vue, etc.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Gotcha. Sorry for the mix-up.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> OK, but you're thinking of the market as it exists now. As we move through the 2020s, internet connections like DSL that aren't fast enough to host a TV service (whether their own managed service or whatever OTT services you want) will disappear. Situations in which a person wants to subscribe to one company for gigabit (or faster) broadband but to Comcast for their own managed IPTV will be so rare as to not even be a market consideration. (If they really prefer Comcast TV, they'll just bundle it with Comcast broadband.)


None of that is untrue, but at the same time, they are trying to sell bulk EPON now, and they need to offer video-only if they want to do bulk deals, which seem to often be video-only, which is strange, but that's how they are often done. DSL and VDSL have at least another decade or two of life left in them in some areas, especially for older folks who want to retain a landline.

Further, 5G could turn that all on it's head. There could be more people in bulk communities who want to bundle Verizon 5G with their cell phone and use the bulk provided TV service, or buy TV service on their own. It probably won't be a huge market, but it will be a market. I could also imagine some older folks today, like snowbirds, just using 4G on a smartphone for all their internet if they use the internet, but don't use it often/heavily.



> That said, I really tend to think that all video will eventually just be OTT anyhow.


I think we're heading that direction, but we need a massive cleanout of the channel lineup as channels get cut out of skinnier bundles and vMVPD services before we see a move en masse to OTT services. AT&T has rebuilt the cable package with DTVN, but it's just as expensive as at least some traditional MVPDs.



> I agree that Google assembled the best possible package of channels and features that they could in order to launch at $35 (now $40). They understand that the main reasons to have linear channel TV are locals (big 4 affiliates), sports and news. So they made sure to cover those bases. That said, I read lots of folks saying that they combine YTTV with the $16 Philo service because YTTV is missing some very popular channels like HGTV, Food, Nick, Hallmark, Comedy Central, etc. The only overlap between those two services are the AMC channels (AMC, BBCA, IFC, We) and BBC World News. If Google offered the other 39 Philo channels for an extra $15-20, they'd get a lot of takers simply for the convenience of having all the channels together in the same app.


It's true that they are missing those channels, but that's part of their strategy of only offering what really offers value in a live TV format, which is news and sports. YTTV hits the nail on the head in that regards. The more crap you let ooze back into the package, the more bloated it gets, and the more cruft comes along for the ride. YTTV has a small amount of Disney cruft in order to get the ESPNs, but other than that, it's a pretty clean package.



NashGuy said:


> I see where the confusion lies. In the last para of his prior post (#184), Bigg does reference "GFTV" but based on the context, I assumed that was an error and he meant to type "YTTV". Because all the things he says there, including the $40 price point, are descriptive of YTTV, not GFTV. And he's comparing the strength of the YTTV channel line-up versus all the other streaming cable TV services (vMVPDs) such as DirecTV Now, PS Vue, etc.


Sorry about that, you're 100% correct. I put a RED correction in my previous post. I was very tired and winding down last night when I wrote that.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> None of that is untrue, but at the same time, they are trying to sell bulk EPON now, and they need to offer video-only if they want to do bulk deals, which seem to often be video-only, which is strange, but that's how they are often done.


Yes, that is strange. Hard to imagine that a few years from now Comcast, Charter, Verizon, etc. will still be doing TV-only bulk deals for MDUs given that broadband is their main business line. (I know that Google Fiber -- which I believe counts MDUs as their majority of their business here -- won't wire up a building only to deliver TV service.) Why wire up a building with fiber only to offer cut-rate TV service over it? I have a couple friends locally in MDUs. Both buildings use DirecTV bulk TV service and both have broadband included (not sure if it's from AT&T), delivered via wifi to each unit through a router the tenant has no control over. There are a ton of SSIDs!



Bigg said:


> It's true that they are missing those channels, but that's part of their strategy of only offering what really offers value in a live TV format, which is news and sports. YTTV hits the nail on the head in that regards. The more crap you let ooze back into the package, the more bloated it gets, and the more cruft comes along for the ride. YTTV has a small amount of Disney cruft in order to get the ESPNs, but other than that, it's a pretty clean package.


I'm not arguing for those missing channels to be forced on consumers as part of a more expensive YTTV base package. I'm saying it would make sense for YTTV to continue offering exactly what it has now, at $40, but to also offer an enlarged package, at $55-60, with a lot of the other popular channels it's now missing. There are definitely folks who prefer the UI, feature set, and stability of YTTV over DTVN but choose the latter because it offers certain channels that they just can't get at any price on YTTV.

Now perhaps those missing channel providers -- Discovery, Viacom, etc. -- won't do business with YTTV at all unless at least some of their channels are included in the base package, because they don't want to set a precedent that their channels are "second-tier". Who knows. And if that's the case, well, too bad for them I guess.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, that is strange. Hard to imagine that a few years from now Comcast, Charter, Verizon, etc. will still be doing TV-only bulk deals for MDUs given that broadband is their main business line. (I know that Google Fiber -- which I believe counts MDUs as their majority of their business here -- won't wire up a building only to deliver TV service.) Why wire up a building with fiber only to offer cut-rate TV service over it? I have a couple friends locally in MDUs. Both buildings use DirecTV bulk TV service and both have broadband included (not sure if it's from AT&T), delivered via wifi to each unit through a router the tenant has no control over. There are a ton of SSIDs!
> 
> I'm not arguing for those missing channels to be forced on consumers as part of a more expensive YTTV base package. I'm saying it would make sense for YTTV to continue offering exactly what it has now, at $40, but to also offer an enlarged package, at $55-60, with a lot of the other popular channels it's now missing. There are definitely folks who prefer the UI, feature set, and stability of YTTV over DTVN but choose the latter because it offers certain channels that they just can't get at any price on YTTV.
> 
> Now perhaps those missing channel providers -- Discovery, Viacom, etc. -- won't do business with YTTV at all unless at least some of their channels are included in the base package, because they don't want to set a precedent that their channels are "second-tier". Who knows. And if that's the case, well, too bad for them I guess.


I really like the UI on YTTV but I went with DTVN because the PQ was quite a bit better for me. I also use an antenna for locals so both the streaming services had pretty much the same channels that we watch. It's really nice that we can be as picky as we want with streaming services instead of just being stuck with cable or stuck with a dish.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, that is strange. Hard to imagine that a few years from now Comcast, Charter, Verizon, etc. will still be doing TV-only bulk deals for MDUs given that broadband is their main business line. (I know that Google Fiber -- which I believe counts MDUs as their majority of their business here -- won't wire up a building only to deliver TV service.) Why wire up a building with fiber only to offer cut-rate TV service over it? I have a couple friends locally in MDUs. Both buildings use DirecTV bulk TV service and both have broadband included (not sure if it's from AT&T), delivered via wifi to each unit through a router the tenant has no control over. There are a ton of SSIDs!


All bulk deals are bad to me, so I guess I'm not a good one to judge the logic of TV-only versus a bundle. Maybe Comcast figures they have a broadband monopoly, but not a monopoly on TV. That sucks that they can't control their own router. Is there a router in each unit like a regular cable company? Some small companies deliver internet over DOCSIS with DirecTV for the TV side of things, but now AT&T is doing a similar setup with G.Fast, even outside of their 21-state territory.



> I'm not arguing for those missing channels to be forced on consumers as part of a more expensive YTTV base package. I'm saying it would make sense for YTTV to continue offering exactly what it has now, at $40, but to also offer an enlarged package, at $55-60, with a lot of the other popular channels it's now missing. There are definitely folks who prefer the UI, feature set, and stability of YTTV over DTVN but choose the latter because it offers certain channels that they just can't get at any price on YTTV.
> 
> Now perhaps those missing channel providers -- Discovery, Viacom, etc. -- won't do business with YTTV at all unless at least some of their channels are included in the base package, because they don't want to set a precedent that their channels are "second-tier". Who knows. And if that's the case, well, too bad for them I guess.


That's an interesting idea as long as the crap does't invade the $40 package. I think the target audience for YTTV though is people who don't want all the crap, but don't want to give up news and sports, and they've hit the nail on the head there.


----------



## jsherknus (Jan 2, 2009)

I have two Premier XLs with Comcast cablecards. I have lifetime service on both Tivos. For the privilege of watching cable TV Comcast charges me $70+ monthly on top of my internet service resulting in a bill over $100 a month. This past March, Comcast sent me a letter saying that my promotion was over and they were dropping me down to basic cable...no price reduction...just less channels!

Then I just got another letter saying Comcast is discontinuing VOD for Tivo in July. 

Well that was the last straw, last month I dumped my Tivos for 2 android TV boxes. I found an IPTV provider that charges me $5 a month for the same channels I got with Comcast and then some. Plus I can also set a timer to record programs (but only 1 at a time). I do miss the Tivo UI, multirecording and thumbs up/down auto recording, but with recording timers on android, I can even skip commercials by watch the recorded show. I can also pause live TV, but not rewind.

However, considering I am saving $65 a month, I can live with it. Right now, I am using the IPTV Extreme app. I also like XCIPTV and TiviMate! The android UIs keep getting better and better. The IPTV program guides online are not very accurate (and not as nice as Tivo). I miss that too, but it's tolerable on Android.

On Amazon Prime Day, I am going to be switching to Amazon 4k sticks on all TVs as their performance is pretty good.

I still have my Premiers just in case my setup didn't work, but now I an going to put them up on ebay, unless Tivo can get on the ball and allow IPTV ts streams as a source. It would be wonderful to have tivo read your IPTV xml channels file, then allow you to map your channels to their guides. Tivo would also record the incoming ts stream and allow you to pause and record. It should only be a matter of changing the source from cablecards or tuners to a ts stream URL. The rest could remain the same. To me it seems like a fairly simple coding revision. A team of developers could probably bang it out in a couple of months. But I don't think Tivo wants to become like Kodi. But if Tivo doesn't start embracing these new technologies, they are going to be out of business soon! I bet their sales are already WAY down!

That's my 2 cents!


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

jsherknus said:


> I found an IPTV provider that charges me $5 a month for the same channels I got with Comcast and then some.


Wow, that seems almost too good to be true, as if it couldn't possibly be a legitimate service (precluding any possible TiVo integration).


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Oh yeah, $5 a month for a cable replacement is TOTALLY legit .

Let me guess, hacked Fire sticks involved here...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

jsherknus said:


> I found an IPTV provider that charges me $5 a month for the same channels I got with Comcast and then some.


That's an illegal service that pirates the channels they're streaming to you. There have been a lot of these to pop up online. They'll get shut down.

https://gizmodo.com/amazon-and-netflix-are-suing-a-shady-streaming-service-1825466072


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

jsherknus said:


> I still have my Premiers just in case my setup didn't work, but now I an going to put them up on ebay, unless Tivo can get on the ball and allow IPTV ts streams as a source. It would be wonderful to have tivo read your IPTV xml channels file, then allow you to map your channels to their guides. Tivo would also record the incoming ts stream and allow you to pause and record. It should only be a matter of changing the source from cablecards or tuners to a ts stream URL. The rest could remain the same. To me it seems like a fairly simple coding revision. A team of developers could probably bang it out in a couple of months. But I don't think Tivo wants to become like Kodi. But if Tivo doesn't start embracing these new technologies, they are going to be out of business soon! I bet their sales are already WAY down!


TiVo won't, and can't, embrace a bunch of illegal pirated "TV" services. Pirating content is always an option, but it's not a great alternative to actual cable and streaming services, since of course everything will be cheaper and free when you pirate it. I'm not against people torrenting stuff, but the re-sellers of pirated live TV do piss me off a bit. Then again, the pay TV industry has screwed everyone over so badly with their absurd rates and a gazillion channels of nothing to watch that I don't really feel *too bad* for them either.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Bigg said:


> TiVo won't, and can't, embrace a bunch of illegal pirated "TV" services. Pirating content is always an option, but it's not a great alternative to actual cable and streaming services, since of course everything will be cheaper and free when you pirate it. I'm not against people torrenting stuff, but the re-sellers of pirated live TV do piss me off a bit. Then again, the pay TV industry has screwed everyone over so badly with their absurd rates and a gazillion channels of nothing to watch that I don't really feel *too bad* for them either.


Easy to sympathize about absurd rates and channels you don't value (but others do).
But if everyone just paid $5/month for their TV content, all that would be available would be free stuff on YouTube. Content with the high production values now considered normal costs a lot to produce. Your favorite channels are being subsidized by other viewers who value what you call the "channels with nothing to watch", and who think your favorites are "nothing to watch".

That said, Spectrum is a local monopoly for both broadband internet and TiVo-compatible cable TV here. And the lack of competition definitely results in higher cost and a PITA service/billing experience. Unfortunately the market here doesn't incentivize the start up and infrastructure investment costs for a competitor.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Easy to sympathize about absurd rates and channels you don't value (but others do).
> But if everyone just paid $5/month for their TV content, all that would be available would be free stuff on YouTube. Content with the high production values now considered normal costs a lot to produce. Your favorite channels are being subsidized by other viewers who value what you call the "channels with nothing to watch", and who think your favorites are "nothing to watch".


Most of cable TV is a wasteland, with a few channels of news and sports (some would argue the news is garbage too). No wonder so many people are cutting the cord. In fact, a big chunk of what I watch is YouTube content, and even though it's not equivalent to TV content, it certainly competes for my eyeball-hours, and it does a darn good job doing that, since it's specialized, interesting, and niche.

Sure, we can't all pay $5, especially since in that case, none of it is actually going back to the channels producing the content. However, the pay TV landscape is a business model that is stuck in the 1978 technology of analog traps, which necessitated bundles of channels. That all worked as long as some portion of people just used an antenna, and there were only a few dozen physical channels to populate with content. It all went off the rails when that business model was pulled forward into the digital world in the early 2000's, even though the technology would have allowed for purely a la carte channels. Channels had no incentive to actually produce good content, since they got paid whether people watched them or not, and many channels catered to ever smaller niche markets of people who would yell and scream if their favorite channel was dropped, allowing absurd price increases. Once those happened, other channels decided that they should have similar price increases, and we got to where we are today. The laws surrounding retransmission of local content haven't helped either. The whole system has become a tragedy of the commons, since it is absurdly bloated and as a result, because the channels are all acting in their own best interest financially, while simultaneously killing the market as a whole, the whole cord cutting process is going to be very painful. Once the MSOs decide to stop propping up pay TV, combined with more people cutting the cord, the whole thing will just implode. And good riddance to it.

People only have so many eyeball-hours to watch stuff, and only want to pay so much, so companies are going to have to compete a LOT harder for their dollars. Now that Netflix has produced a massive quantity of trash that's buried a lot of their really good content, I'm starting to hear people talking about cancelling Netflix. Every content provider is going to have to actually compete, and that's a good thing. And, yes, if the average person is paying $30/mo for TV, not $70/mo, there is going to have to a rationalization of what is today a massively bloated market.



> That said, Spectrum is a local monopoly for both broadband internet and TiVo-compatible cable TV here. And the lack of competition definitely results in higher cost and a PITA service/billing experience. Unfortunately the market here doesn't incentivize the start up and infrastructure investment costs for a competitor.


True, and that's a big deal for broadband. There is tons of competition for TV (albeit not TiVo compatible), so for TV it's really the content creators that are the issue.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

And yet, even in this digital ott age the market is seeing bundles, some skinny, some fat. The limited amount of ala carte is expensive. If you can get the content you want ala carte it can easily add up to the same cost as a fat bundle that would include your desired stuff plus the schlock (e.g., PSVue). What service is there that provides true ala carte at reasonable prices?

I agree it seems like ott should be able to provide true ala carte -- but where is it? Having to subscribe to umpteen distinct apps at $5 to $15 each is not an attractive solution, especially since you don't have a program guide that integrates them.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

It's funny but, from the outside (I'm an OTA guy), there seems to be lots of quality shows on cable. But that's the handful of shows that people discuss here, that get nominated for awards, etc.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Most quality shows are either on cable or streaming. OTA is a sad shadow of that because it has to appeal to a broader market (mostly talking about the legacy networks here).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Most quality shows *are on streaming*. OTA is a sad shadow of that because it has to appeal to a broader market (mostly talking about the legacy networks here).


FTFY 10char


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

Anyone losing QAM channels to IP-only on Comcast yet? Even if it's just one channel, speak up.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TKnight206 said:


> Anyone losing QAM channels to IP-only on Comcast yet? Even if it's just one channel, speak up.


I've read that some new niche channels like NewsMax and QVC3 have been added as IP-only channels on Comcast but I don't think I've heard of any existing channels switching from QAM to IP-only, yet anyway. Well, maybe they've done that with some of the specialty sports or PPV channels, like MLB Extra Innings? But I don't think I've heard about any regular cable channels switching over. But then I don't have Comcast TV, I'm just passing along what I've read.


----------



## dishrich (Jan 16, 2002)

TKnight206 said:


> Anyone losing QAM channels to IP-only on Comcast yet? Even if it's just one channel, speak up.


Nothing at least on our system has changed from this last post I made; the ONLY channels that are IP-only, are ones that were NOT previously carried by Comcast:
X1 vs Bolt Picture quality

HOWEVER, over on DSLR, someone posted this Comcast notice, about some actual, new HD channels coming on their system. If you read the wording carefully, it appears that these new HD channels, will be IP-only:
July bill notes (Central New Jersey) - Comcast XFINITY TV | DSLReports Forums
Interestingly though, one of those new channels, Fox Sports Deportes, has been in HD-QAM, on *our* & other midwest systems for several months now.
Now that Comcast IS now allowing X1 boxes on commercial accounts, (bars, restaurants, etc.) maybe they're now possibly going to start beefing up their skimpy HD lineups, via IP.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I've read that some new niche channels like NewsMax and QVC3 have been added as IP-only channels on Comcast but I don't think I've heard of any existing channels switching from QAM to IP-only, yet anyway. Well, maybe they've done that with some of the specialty sports or PPV channels, like MLB Extra Innings? But I don't think I've heard about any regular cable channels switching over. But then I don't have Comcast TV, I'm just passing along what I've read.


Yes. Extra Innings on Comcast is IPTV except for one HD channel. They count as "new" though because Comcast never had a full EI roster like fios and directv.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Bigg said:


> FTFY 10char


Uh, no. Tons of good shows on cable channels. And yes I know you can stream them, but they're still cable.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Uh, no. Tons of good shows on cable channels. And yes I know you can stream them, but they're still cable.


*Most* are on streaming, be it HBO, Netflix, Amazon, etc. In fact, *most* of the shows that people are talking about are on Netflix.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> *Most* are on streaming, be it HBO, Netflix, Amazon, etc. In fact, *most* of the shows that people are talking about are on Netflix.


Yes. The exceptions I would say are FX and, to a lesser extent these days, AMC as islands of quality content on the basic cable dial. And then there's the odd series here or there on BBC America (Killing Eve, Orphan Black), USA (Mr. Robot), Sundance (Deutschland 83/86), TNT (The Alienist), and TBS (Search Party). But if you're patient, new seasons of those shows typically show up on Hulu, Netflix or Prime Video within a year (sometimes much sooner) of debuting on cable.


----------



## oscarfish (Mar 2, 2009)

TKnight206 said:


> Anyone losing QAM channels to IP-only on Comcast yet? Even if it's just one channel, speak up.


My July bill has this at the bottom. I assume this is not a new channel.



> Beginning July 11, 2019, PAC-12 Washington (ch. 1330) will be available in HDIP. Only customers with compatible equipment will be able to view this channel.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

"HDIP", that's a new one.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Bigg said:


> *Most* are on streaming, be it HBO, Netflix, Amazon, etc. In fact, *most* of the shows that people are talking about are on Netflix.


AMC, HBO, FX, BBCA etc. are all cable channels with quality content that just happens to be streamable, eventually. My statement above was about cable/streaming vs. OTA, of which there's no contest really.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

slowbiscuit said:


> AMC, HBO, FX, BBCA etc. are all cable channels with quality content that just happens to be streamable, eventually. My statement above was about cable/streaming vs. OTA, of which there's no contest really.


I'm not sure what cable vs. OTA means if the contest is quality. What's the bit rate today on WGCL? Or, if easier, what the size of one hour of programming? I'm hoping that streaming lets a channel get for whatever the market will support. If I could get CBS at 18Mbps someplace, I would consider a pay per view or subscription.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

JoeKustra said:


> I'm not sure what cable vs. OTA means if the contest is quality. What's the bit rate today on WGCL? Or, if easier, what the size of one hour of programming? I'm hoping that streaming lets a channel get for whatever the market will support. If I could get CBS at 18Mbps someplace, I would consider a pay per view or subscription.


Uh, I think the discussion above was about the quality of the *content* on cable TV, not the picture quality.

That said, have you tried a free trial of CBS All Access? I haven't myself, since it doesn't really interest me, but if they use the same streaming video quality as their sibling Showtime, it'll probably look better than your local CBS OTA station. (And I say that as someone whose local CBS OTA station actually looks quite good: 1080i at reported bitrates ranging from 9.2 to 15.6 Mbps per RabbitEars.info.)


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

NashGuy said:


> Uh, I think the discussion above was about the quality of the *content* on cable TV, not the picture quality.
> That said, have you tried a free trial of CBS All Access? I haven't myself, since it doesn't really interest me, but if they use the same streaming video quality as their sibling Showtime, it'll probably look better than your local CBS OTA station. (And I say that as someone whose local CBS OTA station actually looks quite good: 1080i at reported bitrates ranging from 9.2 to 15.6 Mbps per RabbitEars.info.)


Got it. My last check of Showtime was 9.1Mbps, and last check on CBS (with four subs) is about 7Mbps.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

JoeKustra said:


> Got it. My last check of Showtime was 9.1Mbps, and last check on CBS (with four subs) is about 7Mbps.


I assume that figure for Showtime is via QAM cable, in 1080i MPEG-4 H.264? While the CBS figure is via OTA, in 1080i MPEG-2?

I don't know what bitrates I used to get on Showtime when I had it on DirecTV, I just know it looks better via their streaming app than it did on satellite.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

NashGuy said:


> I assume that figure for Showtime is via QAM cable, in 1080i MPEG-4 H.264? While the CBS figure is via OTA, in 1080i MPEG-2?
> I don't know what bitrates I used to get on Showtime when I had it on DirecTV, I just know it looks better via their streaming app than it did on satellite.


My cable feed doesn't compress any more now than it did 10 years ago. But now my CBS channel has four subs when it used to have zero. I'm hoping for better video quality with IPTV. All my content is MPEG-2 and DD 5.1 for the HD channels when they have it. The future ain't what it used to be.


----------



## Mr Tony (Dec 20, 2012)

JoeKustra said:


> My cable feed doesn't compress any more now than it did 10 years ago. But now my CBS channel has four subs when it used to have zero. I'm hoping for better video quality with IPTV. All my content is MPEG-2 and DD 5.1 for the HD channels when they have it. The future ain't what it used to be.


Does your cable company get a direct feed or do they get it over the air?
When I had Mediacom they got KEYC (Mankato) over the air and they didnt compress it because my Tivo had the same space used if I recorded it OTA or from cable. Because of that the FOX subchannel looked like crap because the OTA feed is bitstarved. Also I knew it was OTA because when they signed off nightly (yes they still do) I got a V53 error from Mediacom. Minneapolis stations were direct feed because there were times the OTA signal went kaputski yet the cable feed was fine. 
Consolidated (and Spectrum) on the other hand gets a direct fibre feed because when they sign off on OTA cable and satellite get weather maps and WX audio


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

unclehonkey said:


> Does your cable company get a direct feed or do they get it over the air?


It's possible that a few locals are OTA, but I think there's a better chance it's fiber. Last time I was at my office I saw the big dish farm, but no towers with antenna.


----------



## Mr Tony (Dec 20, 2012)

JoeKustra said:


> It's possible that a few locals are OTA, but I think there's a better chance it's fiber. Last time I was at my office I saw the big dish farm, but no towers with antenna.


Then the feed that cable gets is probably better than OTA...what they do after that is on them 

I know a few years ago when I had Comcast the local ABC (KSTP) was _better_ on Comcast than OTA because Comcast got a fibre feed whereas the OTA feed at the time had 1 HD + 1 SD + almost half their bandwidth was used for Mobile TV.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

unclehonkey said:


> Then the feed that cable gets is probably better than OTA...what they do after that is on them
> I know a few years ago when I had Comcast the local ABC (KSTP) was _better_ on Comcast than OTA because Comcast got a fibre feed whereas the OTA feed at the time had 1 HD + 1 SD + almost half their bandwidth was used for Mobile TV.


It makes me wonder if TiVo will change the capacity for "HD" in hours based on current bit rates. I've always wondered what they defined as SD and HD when it came to their marketing department. What was a 75 hour drive is now a 125 hour drive. No extra charge.  It has been posted that TE4 no longer displays MB used by a program.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JoeKustra said:


> It makes me wonder if TiVo will change the capacity for "HD" in hours based on current bit rates. I've always wondered what they defined as SD and HD when it came to their marketing department. What was a 75 hour drive is now a 125 hour drive. No extra charge.  It has been posted that TE4 no longer displays MB used by a program.


Doing it in hours when they don't control the cable system is risky because, as an extreme example, here in CT, there is one area that has one cable company with HD channels at about 4mbps and another with a bunch of sports channels at 17mbps. Switch cable companies and WHOA your drive is going to go fast.


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

JoeKustra said:


> It makes me wonder if TiVo will change the capacity for "HD" in hours based on current bit rates. I've always wondered what they defined as SD and HD when it came to their marketing department. What was a 75 hour drive is now a 125 hour drive. No extra charge.  It has been posted that TE4 no longer displays MB used by a program.


I've been under the assumption that one HD hour is 6GB and one SD hour is 1GB, but that doesn't seem to work out in practice when I look at some of my SD recordings. As for Enhanced Def. (480p), I'm not sure if I still have any mpeg-2 channels coming in at 480p anymore. My legacy Comcast DVR would tell me on the front display, which I don't have anymore.

I like being able to check how much space a recording takes, especially if I need to clear space. Just another reason to avoid Hydra.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TKnight206 said:


> I've been under the assumption that one HD hour is 6GB and one SD hour is 1GB,


But it obviously depends on the bitrate. Comcast went from having a few channels pushing 17mbps to everything at ~4mbps with MPEG-4. Some cable companies still have channels that are upwards of 17mbps, while others are 9mbps. With stat muxing, it can change from show to show on the same channel depending on what's in the show and what's on the other channels in the mux.


----------



## WorldBandRadio (Dec 20, 2010)

WorldBandRadio said:


> I saw an interesting comment on the Comcast TV forum of the DSL Reports message board about TiVo's [lack of?] support for IPTV:
> 
> Instead Comcast needs to move more quickly to IPTV. Better quality for all (of course tivo owners will be screwed until/unless tivo decides to pay the license, but it is in tivo control (tivo customers need to ask every day when tivo will be supporting IPTV)). Actually, thinking about it, tivo owners with lifetime should probably sell soon before the market drops out with the flood of lifetime tivos from Comcast subs on ebay.​
> That raised my curiosity regarding TiVo's planned support for IPTV. Will my Roamio Pro become obsolete when Comcast goes all-IPTV?


This topic has been raised again over in the DSLReports forum: All IP service - Comcast XFINITY | DSLReports Forums

"...All IP video service is coming to Freedom Region (NJ PA DE) in October. Training for the frontline is happening in September...."

Any word when (if?) TiVo will be supporting this type of service from Comcast?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

WorldBandRadio said:


> This topic has been raised again over in the DSLReports forum: All IP service - Comcast XFINITY | DSLReports Forums
> 
> "...All IP video service is coming to Freedom Region (NJ PA DE) in October. Training for the frontline is happening in September...."
> 
> Any word when (if?) TiVo will be supporting this type of service from Comcast?


This thing they're talking about happening soon in the Freedom Region was implemented in the Central Division (or at least various parts of it) back in March. New customers -- unless they specifically request QAM-capable equipment during sign-up via phone or in person -- are given IPTV-only equipment. They get little X1 streaming boxes (the Xi5 or Xi6) that contain no QAM tuners and no hard drives.

Comcast is getting serious about moving to IPTV. You don't start putting serious numbers of customers on all-IPTV -- which necessarily eats up some more of your internet bandwidth -- unless you soon plan to eliminate some of those channels on QAM, in order to take the bandwidth that they're using and convert it over for internet/streaming/IPTV use.

So the questions now are:

When will we see Comcast begin to shut down channels on QAM?
Which channels will get shut down? (Obviously the least popular ones will go first, but which ones and how many?)
Will they be more aggressive in shutting down HD versions of channels (720p in MPEG-4) since they take up about twice the bandwidth that their SD channels take up (480i in MPEG-2)?
There's been no indication in the last few years from either TiVo or Comcast that TiVo boxes will be compatible with IPTV channels from Comcast. In fact, there's every reason to believe the opposite: that the only retail devices that will be able to access Comcast's IPTV channels (and VOD and cloud DVR) will be devices running Comcast's own Xfinity Stream app. Right now that includes Roku plus certain Samsung and LG smart TVs, along with mobile devices.


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

Keep in mind that Comcast may not be rolling out EPON (non-cable card compatible) in your area but rather RFoG fiber which is compatible with cablecards.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Will they be more aggressive in shutting down HD versions of channels (720p in MPEG-4) since they take up about twice the bandwidth that their SD channels take up (480i in MPEG-2)?


Please stop pushing this terrible idea.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Agreed. Tons of speculation, little evidence that anything serious with QAM is happening anytime soon.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

slowbiscuit said:


> Tons of speculation, little evidence that anything serious with QAM is happening anytime soon.


For some unknown reason virtually every topic on this forum has transformed into an endless guessing game of what will happen without any actual facts or knowledge. Makes it almost impossible to find any relevant posts about the topics at hand.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Charles R said:


> For some unknown reason virtually every topic on this forum has transformed into an endless guessing game of what will happen without any actual facts or knowledge. Makes it almost impossible to find any relevant posts about the topics at hand.


Here are the relevant facts, with no speculation. (This is simply a statement of what I posted yesterday in post #227 above.)

New Xfinity TV customers in Comcast's Central Division (or at least parts of it, including Chicago, Nashville and Chattanooga) are now being given IPTV-only equipment, unless they specifically request QAM-capable equipment during sign-up via phone or in person. CableCARDs are definitely still available. The default equipment that is being distributed are little X1 streaming boxes (the Xi5 or Xi6) that contain no QAM tuners and no hard drives. 100% of the linear channels that these boxes receive are IPTV. 100% of the Xfinity on-demand content that these boxes receive is IPTV. 100% of the cloud DVR that these boxes access is IPTV. They also have various OTT streaming apps for services like Netflix, Prime Video, YouTube, etc.

Someone on DSLReports.com posted yesterday that "all-IP video service" is coming to Comcast's Freedom Region (PA/DE/NJ) in October. It's highly likely that they're simply going to implement that same new practices there that they've been doing in the Central Division since March.

There's no word yet whether Comcast's push toward IPTV will be spreading to other regions within their Northeast Division this fall. (The Freedom Region is part of the larger Northeast Division.) Also no word on whether this will be coming to the Western Division (CA, etc.) any time soon either.

Make of all that what you will for the future viability of TiVo DVRs with Xfinity TV service.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wmcbrine said:


> Please stop pushing this terrible idea.


Rest assured that whatever I post on this forum has exactly ZERO influence on Comcast's future plans. I'm simply looking at the facts available and applying logic:


Comcast has begun, in a serious way, pushing 100% IPTV service. First in the Central Division starting March 2019, now reportedly spreading to the Freedom Region in Oct. 2019.
As the number of Xfinity TV customers who exclusively rely on IPTV (with no access to QAM) increase, that will put some additional amount of strain on Comcast's IP network (i.e. greater bandwidth demands).
For a company like Comcast that never adopted bandwidth-saving switched digital video (SDV) on QAM, there's no logical reason I can think of to begin implementing 100% IPTV service UNLESS they intend to phase out some or all QAM channels at some point in the future. And until that phase-out begins, their overall bandwidth demands will increase due to a growing number of IPTV-only TV subscribers. This incentivizes Comcast to make this switchover period from QAM to IPTV shorter. Of course, there are, I'm sure, opposing forces incentivizing a longer switchover period (mainly delaying/spreading out the costs for upgrading all their deployed CPE hardware to be fully IPTV-compatible).
HD channels take up more bandwidth on Comcast's QAM TV system than do SD channels. From what I can gather (someone please correct these figures if they're off), their average HD QAM non-local channel (which is encoded at 720p in MPEG-4) has a bitrate of about 3.85 Mbps. (That's lower than I had remembered but I'm basing that off 2-3 different independent reports from viewers who posted on this forum and elsewhere.) I do not honestly know the average bitrate that Comcast uses for their SD channels. I know that they're 480i and AFAIK they are still encoded in MPEG-2 (I guess because there are still some ancient SD-only STBs and digital adapters in use that only support MPEG-2). Looking at the data available on RabbitEars.info for my local OTA stations (which broadcast both 16:9 and 4:3 SD at 480i in MPEG-2), I see SD bitrates of about 2.0 Mbps. They vary, of course, with some going lower and some going higher. Without any better data to rely upon, I would assume that Comcast devotes *about* twice as much QAM bandwidth to their 720p MPEG-4 HD channels than they do to their 480i MPEG-2 SD channels.
If that calculation is correct, it means that Comcast would get twice as much bandwidth benefit from eliminating an HD channel on QAM as from eliminating an SD channel. Also keep in mind that some basic cable subscribers cannot tell the difference between widescreen SD and HD (especially given Comcast's low HD bitrates). And some of those subscribers have never gotten HD channels anyway, because it required paying a separate $10 HD Technology Fee. When you take all those facts into consideration, it would seem to make HD channels a more attractive target for elimination from Comcast's QAM system than SD channels.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Rest assured that whatever I post on this forum has exactly ZERO influence on Comcast's future plans. I'm simply looking at the facts available and applying logic:
> 
> 
> Comcast has begun, in a serious way, pushing 100% IPTV service. First in the Central Division starting March 2019, now reportedly spreading to the Freedom Region in Oct. 2019.
> ...


There's tremendous difference in "LOGIC' and 'WAG" - There's sufficient info mentioned most often that hints 'WAG' over 'LOGIC'!!!! Regardless the provider a user needs to familiarize themselves with what's happening in their municipality


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

WVZR1 said:


> There's tremendous difference in "LOGIC' and 'WAG" - There's sufficient info mentioned most often that hints 'WAG' over 'LOGIC'!!!! Regardless the provider a user needs to familiarize themselves with what's happening in their municipality


I'd love for you or anyone else to point out anything in those 5 points that constitute a "wild-ass guess". Also, please point out any misstatements of fact or any flaws in my logic. I'm serious. I'm not trying to be contentious. You'd be doing me and other readers of this forum a favor. Thank you.

P.S. If anyone has recently recorded SD content from Comcast cable channels and can tell us about what bitrate they're using, I would appreciate it. If you don't want to do the calculation yourself, please simply post the file size for the recording (e.g. 1.2 GB) along with the length of the recording in minutes. Thanks.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Rest assured that whatever I post on this forum has exactly ZERO influence on Comcast's future plans. I'm simply looking at the facts available and applying logic:
> 
> 
> Comcast has begun, in a serious way, pushing 100% IPTV service. First in the Central Division starting March 2019, now reportedly spreading to the Freedom Region in Oct. 2019.
> ...


More apt to remove channels from QAM that are low viewership and move to IP. Such as international channels or things like League Pass.


----------



## ggieseke (May 30, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> I'd love for you or anyone else to point out anything in those 5 points that constitute a "wild-ass guess". Also, please point out any misstatements of fact or any flaws in my logic. I'm serious. I'm not trying to be contentious. You'd be doing me and other readers of this forum a favor. Thank you.
> 
> P.S. If anyone has recently recorded SD content from Comcast cable channels and can tell us about what bitrate they're using, I would appreciate it. If you don't want to do the calculation yourself, please simply post the file size for the recording (e.g. 1.2 GB) along with the length of the recording in minutes. Thanks.


Your bandwidth numbers are fine, but if Comcast ever starts dropping HD channels in favor of SD versions they would lose 99% of their subscribers (including me).

If anyone wants my 36" Sony Wega (probably the best SD television ever built) for free, please let me know. I can't seem to give it away even though it only weighs 226 pounds.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

WVZR1 said:


> There's tremendous difference in "LOGIC' and 'WAG" - There's sufficient info mentioned most often that hints 'WAG' over 'LOGIC'!!!! Regardless the provider a user needs to familiarize themselves with what's happening in their municipality


It is 100% crystal clear that Comcast is moving towards eliminating QAM and using only IPTV. How long it takes and what path they use to get there is anyone's guess at this point. I disagree with NashGuy on a lot of the details, but the direction is extremely clear to everyone... QAM is the past, IPTV is the future. I think they will chip away at QAM for a while and then either convert everyone to IPTV, or the pay TV market will have collapsed on itself anyway.

Comcast has a long track record of saying things and then mostly or totally not following through with them. The market could also change as cord cutting accelerates, and that could either push them to a point of totally killing QAM due to fewer people using it, or the total opposite if a good chunk of cable channels disappear and make the bandwidth savings lower. This is a fast moving space and a very slow moving MSO.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ggieseke said:


> Your bandwidth numbers are fine, but if Comcast ever starts dropping HD channels in favor of SD versions they would lose 99% of their subscribers (including me).


READ. The discussion is about dropping them *from QAM*. They would be transmitted via IP in the future, just as a couple of channels are today.


----------



## kpeters59 (Jun 19, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I'd love for you or anyone else to point out anything in those 5 points that constitute a "wild-ass guess". Also, please point out any misstatements of fact or any flaws in my logic. I'm serious. I'm not trying to be contentious. You'd be doing me and other readers of this forum a favor. Thank you.
> 
> P.S. If anyone has recently recorded SD content from Comcast cable channels and can tell us about what bitrate they're using, I would appreciate it. If you don't want to do the calculation yourself, please simply post the file size for the recording (e.g. 1.2 GB) along with the length of the recording in minutes. Thanks.


I don't really have any SD recordings, but I think your HD estimates are a bit low...

Comcast Houston:










-KP


----------



## randyb359 (Jan 3, 2009)

ggieseke said:


> Your bandwidth numbers are fine, but if Comcast ever starts dropping HD channels in favor of SD versions they would lose 99% of their subscribers (including me).
> 
> If anyone wants my 36" Sony Wega (probably the best SD television ever built) for free, please let me know. I can't seem to give it away even though it only weighs 226 pounds.


I worked at hhgregg and sold this man a 47" tv. I asked if he wanted it delivered and the old one take away for $79.99. He told me that was ridiculous he would take it with him and get rid of the old one. About an hour later he called and told me he couldn't move the old TV and would pay the $79.99 to have the old one removed. That was a problem because we could only pick up a TV if we delivered something. So the manager had a set of banana plugs delivered and discounted the price off. Smallest delivery order we ever did.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

kpeters59 said:


> I don't really have any SD recordings, but I think your HD estimates are a bit low...
> 
> Comcast Houston:
> 
> ...


Nice! Thank you for posting. Other numbers I had seen posted for national cable nets were in the range of about 3.65 to 4.00 Mbps and I got the sense that 3.85 Mbps was a good mean. But, yes, your figures for NBCSN and AMC indicate an average of about 4.12 Mbps. (All your other recordings are from local affiliates of the big broadcast nets, which are in some cases still encoded by Comcast in MPEG-2 rather than MPEG-4 and left in 1080i, so I'm ignoring those.)

The total bandwidth, or bitrate, of each 6 MHz-wide 256-QAM carrier is about 38 Mbps. One poster on DSL Reports claims that Comcast is putting 8-9 720p HD channels in each QAM carrier. If we divide 38 by 8.5, that gives us an average of 4.47 Mbps per HD channel. If we divide by 9, that gives us an average of 4.22 Mbps. That's getting quite close to the mean I calculate from your readings. Let's assume that Comcast is in fact stuffing 9 720p HD channels into each QAM.

OK, now let's get into some further nitty-gritty. I counted the total number of SD and HD channels that Comcast reports are included here locally in their Digital Starter package. (I'm ignoring those Music Choice channels, though. I think I read this week that Comcast is about to ditch them in favor of a free music app on X1?) Including locals, I came up with 110 SD channels and 72 HD channels.

Let's assume that I'm correct that Comcast plans to eliminate all QAM channels in the coming months except those that are part of Digital Starter (and Limited Basic, which is a small subset of Digital Starter), plus those channels that are part of a la carte premium services which, per my updated rate card, are still available as add-ons to Limited Basic. How many QAM carriers would they require to accommodate all those remaining QAM channels?

The 110 SD channels in Digital Starter could probably fit into 7 QAMs, with 15-16 channels stuffed into each QAM. Some markets, such as LA, have a greater number of locals (more independent stations, particularly in foreign languages), so they might require 8 QAMs with up to 18 SD channels each.

The 72 HD channels (including locals) in Digital Starter would neatly fit into 8 QAMs with 9 channels in each IF Comcast transcoded all HD locals into 720 MPEG-4 the same way that they've been doing national cable channels for years now. I believe that they have already begun doing that with at least some locals in some markets. We'll assume that they do that with all of them everywhere. Let's circle back to this category in a moment.

For premiums -- HBO, Showtime, Starz, Starz Encore, Epix, Playboy -- I count a total of about 33 SD channels and 15 HD channels. I'm going to exclude Cinemax because my hunch (could be totally wrong, we'll see) is that Cinemax will cease to exist as an ongoing service once the new HBO Max streaming service launches next spring. I believe (per info from the _WSJ_ and elsewhere) that all past and current Cinemax originals will be exclusively available as part of HBO Max. OK, so the 33 SD premiums could fit in 2 QAMs (16 in one, 17 in the other). If I was making the decision for Comcast, I would simply use one QAM for the HD premium channels and I would only include the main HD channel from each service, in 1080i. So that would be 6 HD channels sharing one QAM, getting an average bitrate of 6.33 Mbps in MPEG-4 each. Not bad. For subscribers still using QAM-only boxes/adapters, they should see the picture quality of the main channel on each premium (e.g. HBO) improve but all the additional channels on that service (e.g. HBO 2, HBO Latino, HBO Family, HBO Zone, etc.) would only be available in SD. So it would be a trade-off.

OK, so the total number of QAM containers we're talking about needing to retain is 9 or 10 for SD channels and 9 for HD channels. So 18 or 19 QAMs total.

*Does anyone know how many total QAMs Comcast typically uses now for their entire TV system, across all HD and SD channels?* (Bigg, I know that you know this because you're you.) I'd like to know so that we can get a sense of how much bandwidth they would be saving by eliminating upper-tier channels from QAM and only preserving those in Digital Starter, as discussed above.

Now let's circle back to how many HD channels from the Digital Starter package that might actually be retained on QAM. Would all 72 of them remain? Maybe. Or maybe Comcast wants to only keep a few of the most-watched ones so that they can reclaim more bandwidth from the QAM system and repurpose it for additional IP bandwidth. What if only 2 QAM containers were kept for those HD channels? That could accommodate 18 HD channels. Which 18 channels might those be? Local affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, The CW, PBS, Telemundo, Univision or My Network TV (if there's no local Univision in HD), plus the following cable channels that are the most likely to at least occasionally draw large numbers of live viewers: ESPN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, local/regional sports channel 1, local/regional sports channel 2, NBCSN, FS1, ESPN 2, and USA. (USA gets the last spot because, well, it's owned by Comcast and it's their most popular basic cable entertainment channel.) In some markets, such as Nashville (where I live), there's not a local HD affiliate of either Telemundo or Univision. So that Telemundo spot could go to another national cable network such as TBS (which does feature some live sports). Comcast would, of course, look at their actual viewership data to come up with the actual line-up but I imagine it would look pretty similar to what I've listed here. (And hey, it's also possible that they could decide to retain not 2 but 3 QAM carriers for HD channels in Digital Starter. Or, as I say, retain 8 QAM carriers in order to keep all 72 HD channels on QAM!)

Keep in mind that the vast majority of X1 boxes that Comcast has deployed so far are capable of tuning in both QAM *and* IPTV channels. Whatever channels, either HD or SD, that are left on QAM would, in fact, continue to be accessed via QAM for all devices capable of accessing them, including the vast majority of X1 boxes. By keeping those 18 HD channels on QAM, it would free Comcast from the need of offering any of them via multicast IPTV. (Yes, there will be a growing number of IPTV-only devices accessing their service and eventually there will be enough of them to necessitate multicast versions of the most popular channels, but that will take awhile -- at least a couple more years, I'd imagine -- to happen. And by that point, perhaps Comcast will be ready to completely ditch QAM TV except for the channels in Limited Basic.)

So if Comcast only kept the SD channels discussed above, plus the 18 HD channels listed from Digital Starter, plus the main HD premiums on QAM, then we're talking about retaining a total of only 12 or 13 QAM carriers (9-10 for SD plus 3 for HD). Such a configuration would let Comcast convert 6 additional 6 MHz-wide blocks of spectrum over to general IP use than would be the case if they kept all 72 HD channels in the Digital Starter package available on QAM.


----------



## kpeters59 (Jun 19, 2007)

Holy Moly!

I only wrote 17 words!

-KP


----------



## ggieseke (May 30, 2008)

kpeters59 said:


> I don't really have any SD recordings, but I think your HD estimates are a bit low...
> 
> Comcast Houston:


Sorry, I forgot about the antenna channels because I record them on a basic Roamio set up for OTA. Comcast doesn't seem to recode the locals here in Houston. All the "cable" channels that I record on a Roamio Pro seem to run about 3.75 to 4 Mbps fairly consistently.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

ggieseke said:


> Sorry, I forgot about the antenna channels because I record them on a basic Roamio set up for OTA. Comcast doesn't seem to recode the locals here in Houston. All the "cable" channels that I record on a Roamio Pro seem to run about 3.75 to 4 Mbps fairly consistently.


Yeah, so I've seen reports in that 3.75-4.0 Mbps range but then, as kpeters59 posted above, also figures in the low 4.0+ range.

Comcast is likely statmuxing any given group of channels that reside on the same QAM carrier, so that each channel's bitrate will fluctuate from moment to moment depending on the complexity of the visual information presented by each channel at that moment. More complex visuals will get a higher momentary bitrate while less complex will get a lower one. But in every moment, the aggregate bitrate across all the channels on the QAM will add up to about 38 Mbps, which is the total bandwidth of the QAM.

So given statmuxing, it's difficult to look at recordings of just one type of show, or just from a certain channel, and get a good overall average bitrate. Why? Because sports and other fast-moving content is more visually complex and will tend to get higher bitrates in a statmux while talking heads on a news channel, where very little information changes from frame to frame, will get lower bitrates.

Anyhoo, bitrates in the 3.75-4.00 Mbps range are suggestive of 10 HD channels sharing the same 38 Mbps QAM carrier, since 38 divided by 10 equals 3.8 Mbps. Bitrates a little higher than 4.0 Mbps are suggestive of 9 HD channels in one QAM, since 38 divided by 9 equals 4.22 Mbps. Perhaps on some QAMs, Comcast is stuffing 10 HD channels and then on other QAMs, only 9.

None of this really impacts what I wrote in my long post above (#242), other than if Comcast were to retain 2 QAM carriers for HD channels in Digital Starter, that might allow them to preserve 20, rather than just 18, HD channels.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

kpeters59 said:


> I don't really have any SD recordings, but I think your HD estimates are a bit low...


Those numbers are right. HD is typically 3.8-4.2mbps per channel. They are compressed nationally in Denver as a CBR encode so that they can be "slotted" locally for different regional markets. They are transmitted via IP fiber from Denver to each local headend, where they are put on QAM.



NashGuy said:


> The 110 SD channels in Digital Starter could probably fit into 7 QAMs, with 15-16 channels stuffed into each QAM. Some markets, such as LA, have a greater number of locals (more independent stations, particularly in foreign languages), so they might require 8 QAMs with up to 18 SD channels each.
> 
> The 72 HD channels (including locals) in Digital Starter would neatly fit into 8 QAMs with 9 channels in each IF Comcast transcoded all HD locals into 720 MPEG-4 the same way that they've been doing national cable channels for years now. I believe that they have already begun doing that with at least some locals in some markets. We'll assume that they do that with all of them everywhere. Let's circle back to this category in a moment.


Keep in mind that locals don't count, at least not yet in most markets. In most markets, they are transmitted in HD with subchannels intact. I guess they do have to scale them down for SD as well, but the HD versions are just stuffed two ATSC-8VSB channels per QAM. They strip out a few hundred kbps of something so that the two 19.3mbps channels fit into a single 38mbps QAM. Nowadays, that could include 4 or more locals plus subchannels, since many ATSC-8VSB channels are broadcasting 2 or more HD channels from a single transmitter.



> If I was making the decision for Comcast, I would simply use one QAM for the HD premium channels and I would only include the main HD channel from each service, in 1080i. So that would be 6 HD channels sharing one QAM, getting an average bitrate of 6.33 Mbps in MPEG-4 each. Not bad.


That's not how they encode. They encode CBR and slot locally in each market. It's a very bandwidth efficient way to operate, but also very lazy, as they don't get the advantages of a stat mux.

*



Does anyone know how many total QAMs Comcast typically uses now for their entire TV system, across all HD and SD channels?

Click to expand...

*


> (Bigg, I know that you know this because you're you.)


Good question. The problem is, it depends. Different systems are different, and have slightly different lineups. It's not as bad as the days when a 625mhz system had far fewer channels than an 860mhz system, and I believe all of the 650mhz and lower systems have been upgraded to 860mhz (probably 1ghz with nothing actually using the upper 140mhz), but then someone will find a system that's still running at 650mhz. There is even an RF system in New Jersey that's literally not HFC, it's all coax from the headend. There's a couple of systems that still don't have gigabit internet, a few without phone, and rumor has it, an analog system in southwestern VA that they're too lazy to get fiber to, so it still uses a local C-band Rx station.

They have about 260 SD channels and 120HD channels on a typical system, but I don't know how that's broken down between Starter and Preferred, and how many of the sports packages are IPTV-only. AFAIK, there are only 3 regular channels in Preferred as of right now that are IPTV-only.

There may also be a few obscure channels in there, so figure if they have 110 non-local HDs today, and they drop to 60, they are dropping from 12 to 7 QAMs, saving a whole 5 QAMs. Drop from 260 SDs to 110 SDs, dropping from 17 to 7 QAMs, saving a whole 10 QAMs.

My sense is that a move like that is more about phasing out QAM than it is about saving bandwidth, and that they are looking to totally eliminate the QAM architecture more than just freeing up bandwidth. They could easily have more QAM channels than they do today plus more internet capacity and 100mbps uploads if they rebuilt systems universally to 5-85 1002mhz with fiber deep, but I sense that they want out of QAM entirely, as the whole system and architecture must cost a fortune to maintain, drives up the cost of CPE, and consumes power, space, and cooling tonnage in the headends.

This is why I don't think they're going to keep QAM for Digital Starter, but rather phase out groups of a dozen or two channels at a time from QAM until there are none left. There is also a larger benefit to going IP with fiber deep, since fiber deep means small nodes, and thus most channels won't be in use on most nodes most of the time, freeing up even more bandwidth for internet traffic.

They need a better plan for data caps though, as they have put a huge barrier up to using more data. If they were both smart and evil, they would do something like offer a 2TB cap on the 400mbps plan, and a 4TB cap on the gigabit plan or something to incentivize people to upgrade their speeds and get on D3.1 modems.



> Keep in mind that the vast majority of X1 boxes that Comcast has deployed so far are capable of tuning in both QAM *and* IPTV channels. Whatever channels, either HD or SD, that are left on QAM would, in fact, continue to be accessed via QAM for all devices capable of accessing them, including the vast majority of X1 boxes. By keeping those 18 HD channels on QAM, it would free Comcast from the need of offering any of them via multicast IPTV. (Yes, there will be a growing number of IPTV-only devices accessing their service and eventually there will be enough of them to necessitate multicast versions of the most popular channels, but that will take awhile -- at least a couple more years, I'd imagine -- to happen. And by that point, perhaps Comcast will be ready to completely ditch QAM TV except for the channels in Limited Basic.)


If they don't do IP multicast, my sense is 30-50 HDs spread across Preferred and Starter stay on QAM.

I think their IPTV-only equipment would require the XB6, no? If that's the case, then those all share IP multicast, everyone else shares QAM. Redundant, sure, but it doesn't require 100 copies of the Superbowl to be streamed out, only one streamed and one via QAM.

I still wonder if they are just going to wait for pay TV to crash out and the number of channels and subscribers to drop even more before fully converting to IPTV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Keep in mind that locals don't count, at least not yet in most markets. In most markets, they are transmitted in HD with subchannels intact. I guess they do have to scale them down for SD as well, but the HD versions are just stuffed two ATSC-8VSB channels per QAM. They strip out a few hundred kbps of something so that the two 19.3mbps channels fit into a single 38mbps QAM. Nowadays, that could include 4 or more locals plus subchannels, since many ATSC-8VSB channels are broadcasting 2 or more HD channels from a single transmitter.


In Chicago -- which in various ways has proven to be the bleeding edge of where Comcast is going, whether with broadband (D3.1) or TV -- Comcast now has all of the local HDs in 720p MPEG-4. I believe they'll do that nationwide soon. And when they do, there'll be no need to think about local vs. non-local HD channels any differently from a network perspective.



Bigg said:


> That's not how they encode. They encode CBR and slot locally in each market. It's a very bandwidth efficient way to operate, but also very lazy, as they don't get the advantages of a stat mux.


Ah, OK. Well, even doing CBR, I'm sure that they mix and match channels that need higher bitrates (sports) and those that can get by with lower bitrates (news) together on the same QAM so that they balance each other out, with average-bitrate channels (entertainment) filling out the middle. It achieves pretty much the same ends as stat muxing, but less optimally and elegantly.



Bigg said:


> Good question. The problem is, it depends. Different systems are different, and have slightly different lineups. It's not as bad as the days when a 625mhz system had far fewer channels than an 860mhz system, and I believe all of the 650mhz and lower systems have been upgraded to 860mhz (probably 1ghz with nothing actually using the upper 140mhz), but then someone will find a system that's still running at 650mhz. There is even an RF system in New Jersey that's literally not HFC, it's all coax from the headend. There's a couple of systems that still don't have gigabit internet, a few without phone, and rumor has it, an analog system in southwestern VA that they're too lazy to get fiber to, so it still uses a local C-band Rx station.
> 
> They have about 260 SD channels and 120HD channels on a typical system, but I don't know how that's broken down between Starter and Preferred, and how many of the sports packages are IPTV-only. AFAIK, there are only 3 regular channels in Preferred as of right now that are IPTV-only.
> 
> There may also be a few obscure channels in there, so figure if they have 110 non-local HDs today, and they drop to 60, they are dropping from 12 to 7 QAMs, saving a whole 5 QAMs. Drop from 260 SDs to 110 SDs, dropping from 17 to 7 QAMs, saving a whole 10 QAMs.


OK, so even if they went with the maximal approach that I outlined above -- keeping all the SDs from Digital Starter and the Premiums, plus all the HDs from Digital Starter and the most flagship HD channels from the Premiums -- it sounds like they'd go from a current total of 29 QAMs (your estimate, yes?) down to 18-19 QAMs. So that would allow them to reclaim from 34% to 38% of the bandwidth currently devoted to QAM and convert it over to IP. And since ALL of the most popular channels would remain on QAM, there would be no need to deploy any of them via multicast for IPTV-only devices for a good while -- I think it will take at least another couple of years for that class of device *getting served through a multicast-capable gateway (e.g. XB6)* to be numerous enough within a significant number of nodes to justify multicast deployment.

But let's look at the minimal approach I outlined -- same set of SD channels remain on QAM but only 2 QAMs' worth (18-20 channels) of the most popular HD channels (locals, sports and news channels) would remain. In this scenario, the total number of QAMs devoted to TV decreases from 29 to only 12-13. That would let Comcast convert 55% to 59% of the current QAM TV bandwidth over to IP. And still, because nearly all of the HD channels that attract big spikes in simultaneous live viewers remain on QAM (available to the vast majority of current X1 users), there would be fairly little need for multicast deployment over the next couple of years, until the number of IPTV-only + XB6 homes increased significantly.



Bigg said:


> My sense is that a move like that is more about phasing out QAM than it is about saving bandwidth, and that they are looking to totally eliminate the QAM architecture more than just freeing up bandwidth. They could easily have more QAM channels than they do today plus more internet capacity and 100mbps uploads if they rebuilt systems universally to 5-85 1002mhz with fiber deep, but I sense that they want out of QAM entirely, as the whole system and architecture must cost a fortune to maintain, drives up the cost of CPE, and consumes power, space, and cooling tonnage in the headends.


Yes, I think Comcast does want to get rid of QAM TV completely eventually. But the cost of replacing a decent amount of CPE (and the backlash that might create among consumers) will demand that the phase-out be gradual.



Bigg said:


> This is why I don't think they're going to keep QAM for Digital Starter, but rather phase out groups of a dozen or two channels at a time from QAM until there are none left. There is also a larger benefit to going IP with fiber deep, since fiber deep means small nodes, and thus most channels won't be in use on most nodes most of the time, freeing up even more bandwidth for internet traffic.


Yep. Here's another scenario that lies between the maximal and minimal scenarios I sketched out above:

In early 2020, Comcast begins by implementing the maximal scenario I envision. So ALL the SD and HD channels on Digital Starter (plus Premiums) remain on QAM. But then about every 3 months, one QAM of HD channels (so 8-9 HD channels) from Digital Starter gets dropped. So they'd start off with all ~72 Digital Starter HD channels, then gradually eliminate them from least to most popular, so that after 2 years, they'd be down to 0 HD channels, not even locals. Only HD channels left on QAM would be the HD premiums.

That seems pretty plausible to me. A few months before the start of the transition process, Comcast would send notices to all customers NOT on X1 and let them know that, unless they upgrade their equipment, their only choices for base packages will be Limited Basic and Digital Starter, with the option of also adding premiums. They'll also let them know that their selection of HD channels will gradually disappear over the next couple of years. Toward the end of the transition period, they'd stop charging the $10 HD Technology Fee since there wouldn't be enough HD channels left to justify it. Also, as the transition period progresses, they'll need to deploy multicast on a more widespread basis since more and more HD QAM channels will disappear.

So by mid-2022, all that's left on QAM might be SD versions of the channels on Digital Starter plus Premiums. Comcast might then decide that they're ready to completely wipe out QAM TV, requiring those remaining TV subs with QAM-only adapters and boxes to swap them out for a combo of a locked-down multicast gateway plus small IPTV streamers. Or, OTOH, maybe they decide to wait it out another year or two by further winnowing down their QAM TV system to only include SD versions of the channels on Limited Basic. (I wonder what % of their TV customer base is on Limited Basic?) This would let that group of TV subs retain their basic digital adapters. Given the very small amount of network bandwidth that would be required to maintain such a minimal QAM TV system, perhaps they would run it indefinitely if such a move served as some sort of fig leaf with local franchise authorities and FCC regulators?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> They need a better plan for data caps though, as they have put a huge barrier up to using more data. If they were both smart and evil, they would do something like offer a 2TB cap on the 400mbps plan, and a 4TB cap on the gigabit plan or something to incentivize people to upgrade their speeds and get on D3.1 modems.


As more and more folks figure out that they don't really need nearly as much speed as they're paying for to do that kind of stuff that their household does, I do think that we may see broadband pricing move to a system where you're paying more money for higher caps (and maybe higher speeds too), as you suggest. Starter at 100 Mbps with a 300 GB cap, Performance at 500 Mbps with a 700 GB cap, and Gigabit at 1000 Mbps with a 2 TB cap. Something like that. Honestly, very, very few homes make use of more than 100 Mbps download speeds.



Bigg said:


> If they don't do IP multicast, my sense is 30-50 HDs spread across Preferred and Starter stay on QAM.


I don't think anything from Digital Preferred is staying on QAM, given that they've now grandfathered that package but they're still selling Digital Starter to standalone TV subscribers.



Bigg said:


> I think their IPTV-only equipment would require the XB6, no? If that's the case, then those all share IP multicast, everyone else shares QAM. Redundant, sure, but it doesn't require 100 copies of the Superbowl to be streamed out, only one streamed and one via QAM.


It doesn't appear that way from the sign-up process. I tried it over and over with various combos of TV packages and broadband speeds, whether taking their X1 (Xi5) boxes or relying on just the Xfinity Stream app (i.e. using a Roku), and it always allowed me to indicate that I would be using my own modem and router rather than taking one from Comcast. So no, I don't think you need a multicast-capable gateway in order to have 100% IPTV service from Comcast.



Bigg said:


> I still wonder if they are just going to wait for pay TV to crash out and the number of channels and subscribers to drop even more before fully converting to IPTV.


I don't think so. I believe that crash out is going to take a lot longer than you think and it looks to me like Comcast is very much on the verge of a systemwide push toward IPTV and then the start of their QAM TV phase-out. I think we're going to hear more about where this is going in October...


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> As more and more folks figure out that they don't really need nearly as much speed as they're paying for to do that kind of stuff that their household does, I do think that we may see broadband pricing move to a system where you're paying more money for higher caps (and maybe higher speeds too), as you suggest. Starter at 100 Mbps with a 300 GB cap, Performance at 500 Mbps with a 700 GB cap, and Gigabit at 1000 Mbps with a 2 TB cap. Something like that. Honestly, very, very few homes make use of more than 100 Mbps download speeds.


Mediacom does that already. 60Mbps gets 500Gb, 100Mbps gets 1TB and 200Mbps gets 2TB. And I know they have 500 and 1Gb speeds with higher caps too.

I'm on 200Mbps to get the 2TB cap. I haven't hit 2TB yet but I watch enough 4K streams to go over 1TB and it is cheaper to do it this way than pay their overage fees.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Bigg said:


> READ. The discussion is about dropping them *from QAM*. They would be transmitted via IP in the future, just as a couple of channels are today.


And this is where the WAG comes in - sure they're rolling out IPTV, but who the hell knows when they're going to start dropping QAM channels.

Comcast has repeatedly shown that logical conclusions have nothing to do with how they run their multiple fiefdoms.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

slowbiscuit said:


> And this is where the WAG comes in - sure they're rolling out IPTV, but who the hell knows when they're going to start dropping QAM channels.
> 
> Comcast has repeatedly shown that logical conclusions have nothing to do with how they run their multiple fiefdoms.


You're correct that we don't know _when_ they're going to start dropping QAM channels. And I haven't said that I DO know. But as I stated before, what we DO know is that the course that Comcast has now set themselves on -- growing a user-base of TV subscribers without access to QAM channels and who must be 100% served via IPTV -- can only increase bandwidth demands on their network. This will incentivize Comcast to begin removing QAM TV channels _at some point_ so that they can convert that bandwidth over for IP use.

How long will that take? I don't know. Maybe they'll start removing QAM channels at the beginning of 2020. Maybe not until the start of 2021. Maybe even later. And the process will probably start in some areas sooner than others.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> In Chicago -- which in various ways has proven to be the bleeding edge of where Comcast is going, whether with broadband (D3.1) or TV -- Comcast now has all of the local HDs in 720p MPEG-4. I believe they'll do that nationwide soon. And when they do, there'll be no need to think about local vs. non-local HD channels any differently from a network perspective.


I'm wondering if they stopped moving to MPEG-4, since with the repack and station sharing, the amount of bandwidth saved is miniscule due to the level of stat muxing that the stations are doing themselves to share channels now.



> Ah, OK. Well, even doing CBR, I'm sure that they mix and match channels that need higher bitrates (sports) and those that can get by with lower bitrates (news) together on the same QAM so that they balance each other out, with average-bitrate channels (entertainment) filling out the middle. It achieves pretty much the same ends as stat muxing, but less optimally and elegantly.


Nope. Whether they balance QAMs out or have QAMs with 7 or 8 channels and QAMs with 10 channels, I'm not sure, but either way, CBR is far less efficient than a stat mux, it's just a easy/lazy way to do it, and it's a large part of why their video quality is so horrendous.



> And since ALL of the most popular channels would remain on QAM, there would be no need to deploy any of them via multicast for IPTV-only devices for a good while -- I think it will take at least another couple of years for that class of device *getting served through a multicast-capable gateway (e.g. XB6)* to be numerous enough within a significant number of nodes to justify multicast deployment.


There are a couple of really popular sports channels that sell Digital Preferred. I'd suspect that if anything, they keep most of Digital Starter on QAM, move a handful of those that are less watched to IPTV, and keep a handful of Digital Preferred channels on QAM.



> That would let Comcast convert 55% to 59% of the current QAM TV bandwidth over to IP. And still, because nearly all of the HD channels that attract big spikes in simultaneous live viewers remain on QAM (available to the vast majority of current X1 users), there would be fairly little need for multicast deployment over the next couple of years, until the number of IPTV-only + XB6 homes increased significantly.


Your numbers sound impressive, but you're looking at reclaiming 10 or 15 QAMs out of 135 QAMs on an 860mhz system. When they go to fiber deep, they will either use FDX, which will go up to at least 1ghz, or if not, 5-85 1002, which has 152 downstream QAMs. Meanwhile, we're talking about fiber deep, meaning small nodes, so that bandwidth is shared by far fewer households than in the current system.



> Yes, I think Comcast does want to get rid of QAM TV completely eventually. But the cost of replacing a decent amount of CPE (and the backlash that might create among consumers) will demand that the phase-out be gradual.


I think they'll mostly just wait a few years for the TV ecosystem to implode further and then pull the plug on QAM, or else phase it through groups of channels that cut over like they did with analog and MPEG-2 as those technologies were phased out. I don't think they care about backlash, TV isn't their core business anymore, and I think the architecture/equipment is more important than reclaiming a small amount of bandwidth on their system.



> Yep. Here's another scenario that lies between the maximal and minimal scenarios I sketched out above:


I think that's more plausible, with a few starts and stops and stalls in there too, since it's Comcast. They wouldn't keep the premiums though, since those aren't watched very much AFAICT, since it's mostly app and On Demand access. They would also kill off QAM-based On Demand though too, which I believe has already been done in a few markets based on posts in this forum. They did MPEG-4 in two blocks, analog was done much more gradually, so I don't know what that means for IP. If they get rid of HD on QAM, SD is going too, as they are not going to maintain the QAM infrastructure for a tiny minority of relatively unprofitable customers.



> Also, as the transition period progresses, they'll need to deploy multicast on a more widespread basis since more and more HD QAM channels will disappear.


That's key, since a lot of X1 users don't have XB6s.



> Given the very small amount of network bandwidth that would be required to maintain such a minimal QAM TV system, perhaps they would run it indefinitely if such a move served as some sort of fig leaf with local franchise authorities and FCC regulators?


WAY before that has happened they will have reached a point where the bandwidth/spectrum requirements are minuscule and not really an issue, and it becomes an issue of maintaining the QAM architecture and equipment, housing that equipment, maintaining that equipment, powering that equipment, etc. I believe rPHY can handle QAM video, but my sense is that they want to move to a pure-IP system as they eventually move to rPHY/N+0 and maybe FDX if it ends up working.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> As more and more folks figure out that they don't really need nearly as much speed as they're paying for to do that kind of stuff that their household does, I do think that we may see broadband pricing move to a system where you're paying more money for higher caps (and maybe higher speeds too), as you suggest. Starter at 100 Mbps with a 300 GB cap, Performance at 500 Mbps with a 700 GB cap, and Gigabit at 1000 Mbps with a 2 TB cap. Something like that. Honestly, very, very few homes make use of more than 100 Mbps download speeds.


Yeah, it's inevitable, unless they just want to keep a 1TB cap and not improve the network at all, leaving monetization options on the table, since most people won't pay the $50/mo for unlimited data to use the speed that they already paid for. I think the caps would be higher than that, but would have high prices to match, as they want to monetize the heavier users. Cox used to do this and then went to a blanket 1TB cap. Why would anyone get gig when there is a 1TB cap? It's insane. Then they can use the bundled cap increases as a justification to increase the price for a "better value". Oy vey. It will be interesting to see how they respond to competition in areas that have it, another town in CO is building their own network.



> I don't think anything from Digital Preferred is staying on QAM, given that they've now grandfathered that package but they're still selling Digital Starter to standalone TV subscribers.


There are a couple of heavily watched sports channels in there.



> It doesn't appear that way from the sign-up process. I tried it over and over with various combos of TV packages and broadband speeds, whether taking their X1 (Xi5) boxes or relying on just the Xfinity Stream app (i.e. using a Roku), and it always allowed me to indicate that I would be using my own modem and router rather than taking one from Comcast. So no, I don't think you need a multicast-capable gateway in order to have 100% IPTV service from Comcast.


That's weird.



> I don't think so. I believe that crash out is going to take a lot longer than you think and it looks to me like Comcast is very much on the verge of a systemwide push toward IPTV and then the start of their QAM TV phase-out. I think we're going to hear more about where this is going in October...


So ironically, Comcast is holding that back. If they stopped doing bulk TV and aggressive TV bundles, they could easily drop the pay TV numbers down quite a bit. Unfortunately, because of NBCU, they have a disincentive to do what the market would otherwise suggest that they do in shedding TV customers. If they didn't own NBCU, they wouldn't offer discounts, and would only offer the full-freight, high-end Double- and Triple-Play bundles (other than Limited Basic as required by law) for the customers willing to pay for it, and wouldn't be dabbling in skinny bundles and this sort of crap. They could probably drop 3-5M TV customers on their own.

Why October?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I'm wondering if they stopped moving to MPEG-4, since with the repack and station sharing, the amount of bandwidth saved is miniscule due to the level of stat muxing that the stations are doing themselves to share channels now.


I don't think so. Looks like the full switchover of HD locals to MPEG-4 just happened this month in Chicago:
[Video] Chicago HD locals now 100% MPEG4 - Comcast XFINITY TV | DSLReports Forums

And Chicago seems to be the canary in the Comcast coal mine when it comes to future systemwide changes.



Bigg said:


> There are a couple of really popular sports channels that sell Digital Preferred. I'd suspect that if anything, they keep most of Digital Starter on QAM, move a handful of those that are less watched to IPTV, and keep a handful of Digital Preferred channels on QAM.


What would those Digital Preferred channels be? Only things that are semi-noteworthy that I can see in DP but not in DS are the channels operated by the big 4 pro sports leagues: MLB Network, NBA TV, NFL Network and NHL Network. But those channels aren't very popular -- don't they just carry out-of-market games and/or simulcast games carried on other channels? For instance, you can watch Thursday Night Football on Fox or on NFL Network (or on Prime Video).

I don't see anything else that jumps out at me comparing the sports channel lists between DS and DP here:

Digital Preferred Channel Lineup and XF Packages | CableTV.com

Meanwhile, DS contains ESPN, ESPN 2, FS1, NBCSN, Golf, Altitude, local RSNs (Fox Sports TN and Fox Sports South here), and a local college sports channel (SEC Network here).



Bigg said:


> Your numbers sound impressive, but you're looking at reclaiming 10 or 15 QAMs out of 135 QAMs on an 860mhz system. When they go to fiber deep, they will either use FDX, which will go up to at least 1ghz, or if not, 5-85 1002, which has 152 downstream QAMs. Meanwhile, we're talking about fiber deep, meaning small nodes, so that bandwidth is shared by far fewer households than in the current system.


Not saying that there won't be dramatically more bandwidth to be added to the IP system in other ways, although that will require expensive upgrades done over the next several years. If Comcast went all the way from the current status quo (29 QAMs of TV) down to the minimal scenario (12-13 QAMs of TV) in 2020, that would free up a nice little chunk of immediate IP bandwidth well before Comcast will get the next major network upgrade, DOCSIS 4.0, implemented. (It's now looking like D3.1 isn't going to be a thing; instead, its key features, like FDX symmetrical speeds, is getting folded into the new D4.0 announced this year by CableLabs, which will also support low-latency and multi-gig speeds on HFC.) In the meantime, incremental network upgrades will continue to happen. I've read that they've been aggressively implementing Node+0 in the Atlanta metro this year.

And, of course, as you point out, phasing out QAM TV isn't JUST about the bandwidth. There are other efficiencies, network advancements, and cost-savings to be had. I do suspect that by the time Comcast gets D4.0 implemented (or at least key aspects of it), it could mean an all-IP network with zero QAM TV left. But that might also not be until 2022-23. So my hypothesis is that Comcast will begin seriously deprecating their QAM TV system in 2020 and then have it nearly or fully wiped out by that future point in time to coincide with the next major phase in the evolution of their IP network.



Bigg said:


> I think that's more plausible, with a few starts and stops and stalls in there too, since it's Comcast. They wouldn't keep the premiums though, since those aren't watched very much AFAICT, since it's mostly app and On Demand access. They would also kill off QAM-based On Demand though too, which I believe has already been done in a few markets based on posts in this forum.


Yeah, VOD is gone from QAM, I believe. Hence the fact that the Xfinity OnDemand app for TiVo no longer works.

As for the premiums, no, I see no reason why Comcast would remove those from QAM during the phase-out period, given that they offer a nice profit margin (unlike base packages). Among that 30% of their TV base who's still on QAM-only hardware, I'll bet a significant number subscribe to HBO or Showtime or Starz. It's probably worth keeping 3 QAMs running for another couple years to accommodate those premiums so that they can keep that income rolling in. (Remember too that the folks still on QAM-only hardware likely skew older and less likely to have or use broadband, so these premiums are not competing with Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, Disney+, etc. for these viewers' dollars.)

And, amidst all this speculation, let's go back to the most recent piece of *real* info that we have from Comcast: their just-updated rate cards for the Central Division (where the new channel package system was rolled out earlier this year). What does it say? That the only old-style packages still for sale are Digital Starter and Limited Basic. That premium services are available as add-ons to either. That the $10 HD Technology Fee still applies to the old-style packages but not the new ones. And that the old-style packages no longer qualify for any kind of discount, including bundling discounts. In fact, as I just realized in a closer reading of the footnotes, while Limited Basic *can* be combined with other Comcast services (but without any discount), Digital Starter explicitly *cannot* be combined with any other services: not internet, not phone, not other TV services. I would assume that only applies for new customers and existing customers looking to switch to Digital Starter; surely existing customers who have Digital Starter (or any of the now-deprecated packages like Digital Preferred) will be able to keep their current TV package alongside other Comcast services, although keeping any old-style package other than Digital Starter or Limited Basic would require using an IPTV-capable device.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I don't think anything from Digital Preferred is staying on QAM, given that they've now grandfathered that package but they're still selling Digital Starter to standalone TV subscribers.


Our latest rate chart (July 25, 2019) still lists Digital Preferred Tier under Xfinity TV Services with the only note next to it that you have to have Digital Starter to add it.










Scott


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HerronScott said:


> Our latest rate chart (July 25, 2019) still lists Digital Preferred Tier under Xfinity TV Services with the only note next to it that you have to have Digital Starter to add it.
> 
> View attachment 43031
> 
> ...


Yes. Staunton, VA (where you live, per your ID block) is not part of Comcast's Big South Region. Only the southwestern-most part of VA is. TN, where I live, is completely in the Big South Region. The Big South Region, along with the Chicagoland Region (and other regions?), make up the Central Division.

The Central Division is where the new channel package system (Basic, Extra, Preferred) debuted earlier this year. Those new packages are listed on my July 2019 rate card but they're not on yours. You can see the entire PDF of my rate card attached here.

Aside from Central, I think Comcast only has two other major divisions: Northeastern and Western. Staunton, VA must be part of the Northeastern Division, although I don't know the name of your region within that division. It's definitely not Greater Boston or Western New England, which I've read are other regions in that division.

I did read just yesterday that the Freedom Region, a part of the Northeastern Division covering some or all of NJ, DE and PA, will roll out 100% IPTV service to customers starting in October. I don't know if that will happen soon in other parts of the Northeastern Division too, such as yours, or not. We'll see.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Why October?


Well, it looks like October is when they're targeting some other changes, including the rollout of 100% IPTV service (and, I would guess, the new channel package system) in at least one region in their big Northeast Division.

I think I also read that October is when they've said Starz will disappear from the old Digital Premier package, following in the footsteps of Cinemax (which was at least swapped out for Comcast's own Hitz, a sad on-demand movie library). Significantly de-contenting a package (without lowering the price) is the kind of thing you do when you're trying to incentivize subs to drop a grandfathered package and switch over to a new system. Perhaps angry customers will contact Comcast to complain and be told that they can get all the channels they want if they switch over to the new system, e.g. the Preferred package plus whatever a la carte premiums they want to add. (The new system gives a discount if you get 3 or more premiums, charging you $30 for 3, $40 for 5, $50 for 5 or $60 for 6. Epix is not included.) I do not believe, though, that the new channel packages will be available to QAM-only hardware, including CableCARDs.

I think it's seriously possible before long that the only choices for owners of CableCARD TiVos on Comcast cable TV may be to go with either the Digital Starter or Limited Basic package at its full regular price, or to give up using their TiVo and switch to one of the new channel packages. But I would definitely expect Comcast to announce that ultimatum awhile before they actually implement it.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Yes. Staunton, VA (where you live, per your ID block) is not part of Comcast's Big South Region. Only the southwestern-most part of VA is. TN, where I live, is completely in the Big South Region. The Big South Region, along with the Chicagoland Region (and other regions?), make up the Central Division.
> 
> The Central Division is where the new channel package system (Basic, Extra, Preferred) debuted earlier this year. Those new packages are listed on my July 2019 rate card but they're not on yours. You can see the entire PDF of my rate card attached here.


Right, I thought you were indicating that Comcast had grandfathered Digital Preferred everywhere and not just the Central region.

Scott


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HerronScott said:


> Right, I thought you were indicating that Comcast had grandfathered Digital Preferred everywhere and not just the Central region.


No, just here in the Central Division for now, as far as I know. And I haven't heard anything at all from any Comcast customers here or anywhere else on Digital Preferred or the other old-style Digital packages that have been told by Comcast that they're going to need to change packages, or swap out hardware, and/or lose any current discounts. Just want to make that clear.

So far, the only indication we have that those Digital packages have been grandfathered is the info contained on the new July 2019 rate card which I posted above. But I suspect that a general announcement and/or direct communication to affected subscribers in the Central Division is coming before long to tell them that their channel package has been grandfathered, IF there are any implications of that development for the grandfathered subscribers.

Maybe I'm completely wrong and there won't be ANY implications, other than if you ever drop your grandfathered package, you can't get it back.

But I believe that subscribers on the grandfathered packages may be told that if they wish to stay on the package, they'll need to switch to IPTV-capable hardware because some of the channels in that package will soon become IPTV-only. And if they don't want to do that, they'll be downgraded to Digital Starter (plus whichever premiums they want). Or heck, maybe the only option for keeping their current non-IPTV-capable hardware will be to stay on their existing package (e.g. Digital Preferred) and pay the regular rate for it but without access to the upper-tier channels that become IPTV-only. Which would suck.

The footnote in my rate card states the following (emphasis mine):

_Digital Starter does not qualify for Multi Product discount or Autopay and Paperless Billing discount. *Cannot be combined with other Xfinity TV services, Xfinity Internet, Xfinity Voice or Xfinity Home service.* HD Technology Fee required for HD programming._​
A guy over on DSL Reports (dishrich), who apparently sets up TV service for clients and deals with Comcast a lot, also lives in the Central Region, up in IL, and his rate card is the same as mine. He says an agent there told him that they could NOT put new customers on Digital Starter if they were taking other Comcast services, which lines up with the footnote above. If they're taking internet, the only choices are the new Basic, Extra and Preferred packages.

What I don't know is whether or not _existing_ customers who subscribe to both TV and internet would be able to switch from, say, Digital Preferred to Digital Starter and keep their internet. If so, then they'd lose those upper-tier channels but at least they wouldn't be paying for them. But if they weren't allow to do that, and their only option was to stay frozen in their current bundle of internet plus grandfathered Digital TV package if they wanted to keep using their TiVo (or other non-IPTV device), that would really turn the screws on them.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I don't think so. Looks like the full switchover of HD locals to MPEG-4 just happened this month in Chicago:


It's quite possible they want to move entirely to MPEG-4. They would need to get direct fiber feeds that come from before the station's own compressors though, since compression is much more efficient if it has a higher quality source. Just so that Comcast can efficiently make it look like garbage, of course.



> What would those Digital Preferred channels be?


Opening up the handy dandy Branford, CT lineup that they email to me every year, I see ESPNews, FS2, Olympic Channel, ESPNU, and CBS Sports Network, all of which have large spikes of viewership occasionally. Some of these are regional, like ESPNews, FS2, ESPNU, and CBS Sports Network carry basketball here in CT. For example, SEC Network would be a popular channel in those parts of the country, not so much here.



> Not saying that there won't be dramatically more bandwidth to be added to the IP system in other ways, although that will require expensive upgrades done over the next several years.


There will be, but I believe they are still limited more by the upstream, so they have to split nodes and/or go to mid-split, high-split or FDX.



> (It's now looking like D3.1 isn't going to be a thing; instead, its key features, like FDX symmetrical speeds, is getting folded into the new D4.0 announced this year by CableLabs, which will also support low-latency and multi-gig speeds on HFC.)


You mean D3.1 FDX? They use D3.1 extensively today. Today's technology can offer 1000/500 speeds with no data caps, they just haven't implemented fiber-deep and high-split together. European cable operators have, and they are offering fiber-like near-symmetrical service over cable. The one big thing that DOCSIS 4.0 appears to offer is low latency, as that's still an advantage of fiber, even when D3.1 is fully utilized.



> In the meantime, incremental network upgrades will continue to happen. I've read that they've been aggressively implementing Node+0 in the Atlanta metro this year.


N+0 is interesting. I still don't think it will work in New England due to the mix of urban, suburban, and exurban development.



> And, of course, as you point out, phasing out QAM TV isn't JUST about the bandwidth. There are other efficiencies, network advancements, and cost-savings to be had. I do suspect that by the time Comcast gets D4.0 implemented (or at least key aspects of it), it could mean an all-IP network with zero QAM TV left. But that might also not be until 2022-23. So my hypothesis is that Comcast will begin seriously deprecating their QAM TV system in 2020 and then have it nearly or fully wiped out by that future point in time to coincide with the next major phase in the evolution of their IP network.


My sense is once they start moving away from QAM, it's just part of a process to not have to upgrade everyone to IPTV-capable equipment at once. There's little benefit in doing a partial conversion by tiers or packages unless they are going to go all-in on IPTV. If they just wanted to save bandwidth, they'd pull most of Digital Preferred and some of Digital Starter off to IPTV and leave it that way, with the popular channels in each staying on QAM, and not forcing anyone to upgrade equipment unless they want the channels that were converted.



> As for the premiums, no, I see no reason why Comcast would remove those from QAM during the phase-out period, given that they offer a nice profit margin (unlike base packages).


I would think that they would be among the first to go, since the live channels are sort of useless at that point. HBO and others have moved to an on-demand model, whether you get that through XoD or through HBO Go, HBO Now, or Amazon Channels.



NashGuy said:


> I don't know if that will happen soon in other parts of the Northeastern Division too, such as yours, or not. We'll see.


CT might get them in 5 years. We're always way behind most of the rest of the country on Comcast, but as long as they keep CT lumped in with MA, they can't put data caps on service here so that's good.



NashGuy said:


> I do not believe, though, that the new channel packages will be available to QAM-only hardware, including CableCARDs.


It's still weird to me that they're mixing technology and packages. Historically, cable TV has never grandfathered packages, they just change them and people have to go with whatever the new package and price are or cancel their service.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> I think it's seriously possible before long that the only choices for owners of CableCARD TiVos on Comcast cable TV may be to go with either the Digital Starter or Limited Basic package at its full regular price, or to give up using their TiVo and switch to one of the new channel packages. But I would definitely expect Comcast to announce that ultimatum awhile before they actually implement it.


 Yeah, we'll see. Your predictions on this topic have been poor so far.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It's quite possible they want to move entirely to MPEG-4. They would need to get direct fiber feeds that come from before the station's own compressors though, since compression is much more efficient if it has a higher quality source. Just so that Comcast can efficiently make it look like garbage, of course.


Ha. True.



Bigg said:


> Opening up the handy dandy Branford, CT lineup that they email to me every year, I see ESPNews, FS2, Olympic Channel, ESPNU, and CBS Sports Network, all of which have large spikes of viewership occasionally. Some of these are regional, like ESPNews, FS2, ESPNU, and CBS Sports Network carry basketball here in CT. For example, SEC Network would be a popular channel in those parts of the country, not so much here.


I just don't think that ESPNews or FS2 get big enough, often enough spikes in simultaneous viewers to worry about needing to either keep them on QAM or implement them via multicast. FS2 has stuff like practice trials for NASCAR and ESPNews is, uh, highlight clips, right? I'd say the same about ESPNU -- the biggest football games they carry are available on a more popular network in the areas where large viewers care about the teams playing. That may not be true with basketball, IDK. CBS Sports Network is just fishing, bull riding, and small college sports. It didn't even carry any March Madness games this year; that was all on CBS, TBS, TNT and TruTV. All of those are part of Digital Starter. And Olympic Channels? C'mon. No one watches that. It's not even necessary when watching the *actual* Olympics live every two years.



Bigg said:


> You mean D3.1 FDX? They use D3.1 extensively today.


Oops, yes. I meant D3.1 FDX. Yeah, Comcast first rolled out D3.1 in Chicago, Atlanta and here in Nashville before taking it nationwide. As I say, they seem to debut things here in the Central Division.



Bigg said:


> My sense is once they start moving away from QAM, it's just part of a process to not have to upgrade everyone to IPTV-capable equipment at once.


Yes, I agree. Too expensive right now to switch out all those digital adapters and non-X1 boxes and CableCARDs for a multicast gateway + Xi5s. Also, the more change you force and the greater the number of subscribers you force it on, the more TV subscribers you're going to completely lose. So better to phase the changes in gradually over the next 2-3 years.



Bigg said:


> There's little benefit in doing a partial conversion by tiers or packages unless they are going to go all-in on IPTV. If they just wanted to save bandwidth, they'd pull most of Digital Preferred and some of Digital Starter off to IPTV and leave it that way, with the popular channels in each staying on QAM, and not forcing anyone to upgrade equipment unless they want the channels that were converted.


Look, Comcast can't sell a given channel package to consumers and then NOT include some of the channels that are supposed to be in that package. Let's think through this step by step.

For the next couple years, Comcast will only provision IPTV service to customers who take BOTH Comcast TV AND internet service. At some point in the future, that will no longer be true and they'll just issue a multicast gateway plus IPTV boxes to standalone TV customers but we're not there yet. (BTW, once we get to that point in time, I expect that broadband+TV customers will also be required to rent a multicast-capable gateway, e.g. XB6, from Comcast too. Maybe they'll throw it in "free" as part of the bundle pricing. No more using your own modem and router unless you're doing standalone internet.)

Comcast will, however, continue to offer TV as a standalone service in the immediate future. Therefore, whatever packages that Comcast offers to those customers, all the included channels must necessarily be available via QAM in at least SD. Because if a channel isn't in QAM, the standalone TV customer isn't getting it.

As their new Central Division markets rate cards reveal, there are exactly 2 packages that Comcast will sell to standalone TV customers: Limited Basic (which actually *can* be combined with internet if desired) and Digital Starter (which *cannot* be combined with internet at all, at least for new sign-ups). Higher tier packages, such as Digital Preferred and Digital Premier, simply cannot be signed up for by anyone any more.

Beyond that, subscribers to both Limited Basic and Digital Starter will have the option to add any of the following: HBO, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax, The Movie Channel (ha!), Playboy and Epix. All but Epix can be accessed in SD-only via a simple digital adapter. Epix requires that you use an actual set-top box and also pay the $10 HD Technology Fee. (A STB is included with Digital Starter but is an optional up-charge on Limited Basic.)

Do you see why this augurs so strongly toward the likelihood that all channels in Digital Starter, plus all premiums, will remain on QAM while OTHER channels outside those categories will NOT remain on QAM?

OK, I'll concede that it's possible that a few but not all upper-tier channels beyond Digital Starter will remain on QAM but Comcast won't continue to sell Digital Preferred to standalone TV subs since not ALL of the channels in that package would be available to them. If that proves to be the case, then yeah, there might be a few sports channels like ESPNU or whatever that would still be on QAM for awhile, just to avoid having to serve so many unicast IPTV streams for them. But I really remain skeptical that there's anything popular enough outside of Digital Starter to justify staying on QAM for the sake of optimizing network traffic. I mean, really, when you consider that streaming video at this point is as popular as cable TV, Comcast is at any given time serving up a TON of unicast streams anyhow. What's a few more for live viewers of ESPNews, Nicktoons and Paramount Network?



Bigg said:


> I would think that they would be among the first to go, since the live channels are sort of useless at that point. HBO and others have moved to an on-demand model, whether you get that through XoD or through HBO Go, HBO Now, or Amazon Channels.


Remember, if you're a standalone TV customer without internet, you can't use HBO Now, or HBO Go, nor can you any longer even use XoD. Those live linear premium channels delivered through their cable TV service are those folks' only options for ad-free entertainment (other than watching DVDs).

Semi-related thought: I wonder if Comcast will still rent physical DVRs to standalone TV subs on Limited Basic and Digital Starter so that they can create their own on-demand libraries from linear channels? Does Comcast have enough inventory of working non-X1 DVRs left to bother continuing to recycle them out to new subs? Is it worth it for that $10/mo account-wide DVR service fee? Or do you simply allow existing deployed non-X1 DVRs continue to be used until they die but tell new sign-ups that if they want DVR, they'll either need to also take internet service or they can have a CableCARD to use in their own TiVo? In pondering this question, remember that Comcast doesn't *really* want to offer standalone TV service anyhow but they must as part of their franchise agreements, right?



Bigg said:


> It's still weird to me that they're mixing technology and packages. Historically, cable TV has never grandfathered packages, they just change them and people have to go with whatever the new package and price are or cancel their service.


The line between QAM and IPTV-only channels has to be drawn somewhere. Makes sense to me to draw it at the edges of a particular channel package. It's easier to communicate to customers too: "If you sign up for TV and broadband, you must take one of the new IPTV-available packages: Basic, Extra or Preferred. If you take only TV, you must take an old QAM-only package: Limited Basic or Digital Starter. If you're an existing customer using QAM-only hardware, you must either be content with one of the two old QAM-only packages or you must switch out your hardware to something that is IPTV-capable."


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

slowbiscuit said:


> Yeah, we'll see. Your predictions on this topic have been poor so far.


How so? I've been predicting that it's coming for a long time now. If you look back over the past few years, I've mostly predicted that the QAM channel shutdown would take place, or begin, in 2019 or 2020. That's been the timeframe when my research suggested there would be a big enough base of IPTV-capable X1 boxes in use in order to allow Comcast to begin eliminating QAM channels without a big upheaval and big equipment replacement expense all at once.

In the past year, I've come around more to Bigg's argument that the shutdown will happen in two or more phases, starting with the less popular channels before hitting the more popular ones.

What have I predicted on this topic that has been proven false so far? Just because something has yet to come true doesn't mean it won't.

But I'll go ahead and draw a line in the sand time-wise by predicting that at least some existing QAM channels will disappear from at least some Comcast systems by the end of 2020, becoming available solely via IPTV.


----------



## compnurd (Oct 6, 2011)

slowbiscuit said:


> Yeah, we'll see. Your predictions on this topic have been poor so far.


Yup but if there was an award for 2000 word essays on speculation related to ATT or Comcast 1-45 years from now tv plans he would win


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

compnurd said:


> Yup but if there was an award for 2000 word essays on speculation related to ATT or Comcast 1-45 years from now tv plans he would win


I'll be sure to remind you when my predictions prove true. (No, actually I won't, because I'll have completely forgotten anything you posted...)


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

slowbiscuit said:


> Yeah, we'll see. Your predictions on this topic have been poor so far.


LOL Spoken like a true FanBoy!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I just don't think that ESPNews or FS2 get big enough, often enough spikes in simultaneous viewers to worry about needing to either keep them on QAM or implement them via multicast.


The thing is it's different in every market. In CT, they see as large of a spike as anything in that package would, due to carrying NCAA basketball, our state sport. Other places, probably not so much. It depends on node size. If they have small enough nodes, maybe they can tolerate massive unicast bandwidth drains a few times a year, or if DSG can support a rudimentary form of IP multicast for a couple of channels, get all of the X1 boxes locked onto the same 8 QAMs and do it that way. There is some logic to say that if you've got half the node watching ESPNews or CBSSN, they're not watching Netflix or Amazon or Hulu, so maybe that bandwidth drain isn't so bad.



> Look, Comcast can't sell a given channel package to consumers and then NOT include some of the channels that are supposed to be in that package. Let's think through this step by step.


They do today. There are 3 IP-only channels in either Starter or Preferred, I can't remember which. If you don't have X1, you don't get them.



> At some point in the future, that will no longer be true and they'll just issue a multicast gateway plus IPTV boxes to standalone TV customers but we're not there yet. (BTW, once we get to that point in time, I expect that broadband+TV customers will also be required to rent a multicast-capable gateway, e.g. XB6, from Comcast too. Maybe they'll throw it in "free" as part of the bundle pricing. No more using your own modem and router unless you're doing standalone internet.)


This seems like a violation of something, although I guess they could force you to rent their gateway for TV, and then allow you to have a separate modem and/or eMTA for those services.



> Do you see why this augurs so strongly toward the likelihood that all channels in Digital Starter, plus all premiums, will remain on QAM while OTHER channels outside those categories will NOT remain on QAM?


Sort of, but it's odd that they're allowing premiums to be added on to non-IP boxes when the VOD is all-IP, and those premiums are primarily a VOD play anyway.



> But I really remain skeptical that there's anything popular enough outside of Digital Starter to justify staying on QAM for the sake of optimizing network traffic. I mean, really, when you consider that streaming video at this point is as popular as cable TV, Comcast is at any given time serving up a TON of unicast streams anyhow. What's a few more for live viewers of ESPNews, Nicktoons and Paramount Network?


They could just leave the 4 or 5 that carry college sports on QAM to avoid those spikes when that area's team is playing.



> Remember, if you're a standalone TV customer without internet, you can't use HBO Now, or HBO Go, nor can you any longer even use XoD. Those live linear premium channels delivered through their cable TV service are those folks' only options for ad-free entertainment (other than watching DVDs).


Why couldn't they use HBO Go? You seem to be assuming that they have no internet at all. They might have wireless internet in their apartment building, they might have DSL or VDSL, or they might be sharing with neighbors or using someone else's xfinitywifi password. There are various other ways to get internet out there. They don't usually make a lot of economic sense, but it's certainly possible.



> The line between QAM and IPTV-only channels has to be drawn somewhere. Makes sense to me to draw it at the edges of a particular channel package. It's easier to communicate to customers too: "If you sign up for TV and broadband, you must take one of the new IPTV-available packages: Basic, Extra or Preferred.


It makes more sense to draw the lines based on a bandwidth perspective. And they did roll off lesser watched channels in the analog days in groups of a few channels at a time to convert to digital and DOCSIS, so it's not without precedent that it's been done. They rolled off group after group for several years before finally going all-digital. The idiotic part is that for a long time they didn't have digital simulcasts of the analog channels, so the DVRs would pull them off of analog, where they looked like crap, and then encode them to digital for storage.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> The thing is it's different in every market. In CT, they see as large of a spike as anything in that package would, due to carrying NCAA basketball, our state sport. Other places, probably not so much. It depends on node size. If they have small enough nodes, maybe they can tolerate massive unicast bandwidth drains a few times a year, or if DSG can support a rudimentary form of IP multicast for a couple of channels, get all of the X1 boxes locked onto the same 8 QAMs and do it that way.


Hmm. I honestly had no idea that ESPNews actually carried _live games_, but if you say so.



Bigg said:


> There is some logic to say that if you've got half the node watching ESPNews or CBSSN, they're not watching Netflix or Amazon or Hulu, so maybe that bandwidth drain isn't so bad.


Right. That's why I think we might be putting a bit too much emphasis on their supposed need for multicast or linear QAM channels. Sure, they need them _to an extent_, as they do help keep IP traffic down but OTOH Comcast is already dealing with a customer base that spends an increasing percentage of their video viewing hours accessing other companies' unicast streams on Comcast's IP network anyhow, whether that's Netflix or Hulu or YouTube TV. And at least if a customer is accessing Comcast IPTV's own unicast streams, they're probably not accessing a third-party unicast stream at the same time. So in that sense, it's an even trade-out.



Bigg said:


> They do today. There are 3 IP-only channels in either Starter or Preferred, I can't remember which. If you don't have X1, you don't get them.


One of them is a shopping channel (QVC 3?). Another is a NewsMax, I believe (a niche right-wing opinion/news channel). Both of those stream for free online. So it's not like they're anything of real value to most subs. I wonder if Comcast even lists/advertises those channels as included in the package to which they belong (Digital Preferred, I think). My hunch is that Comcast added those as their first IPTV-only channels as a sort of technology experiment, to get the implementation right with stuff that doesn't matter before they shift *actual* existing channels folks care about over from QAM to IPTV-only.

But my larger point remains. IF Comcast planned to retain all of the channels in Digital Preferred on QAM, then why wouldn't they monetize that bandwidth as fully as possible by allowing standalone QAM-only TV customers to buy that package, along with Digital Starter and Limited Basic? Why not offer those customers the option to pay MORE per month for TV if their system can easily deliver all the channels in the Digital Preferred package? The most logical conclusion is that Comcast is ceasing to sell Digital Preferred and higher last-gen packages to new standalone QAM-only TV subs because many (if not all) of the incremental channels in Digital Preferred will no longer be on QAM.



Bigg said:


> This seems like a violation of something, although I guess they could force you to rent their gateway for TV, and then allow you to have a separate modem and/or eMTA for those services.


Why? AT&T Internet requires you to always take their gateway. You can use your own router if you like by putting their gateway into passthrough mode. Why would the rules be difference for an HFC operator vs. a fiber operator? I see no reason why Comcast couldn't require their internet+TV subs to take an XB6 gateway as part of their package. (For that matter, I'm not sure why they couldn't require ALL their internet customers to take their gateways if they wanted that. But I doubt that they would.)



Bigg said:


> Sort of, but it's odd that they're allowing premiums to be added on to non-IP boxes when the VOD is all-IP, and those premiums are primarily a VOD play anyway.


Well, folks like you and me think of HBO, Showtime, etc. as primarily on-demand services now but that's not true of everyone. Some viewers (especially older ones, I'd guess) still exclusively think of the premiums as "cable channels". And, as I've said before, Comcast's standalone QAM-only TV subs now have no way to watch that premium content on-demand anyhow. XoD has vacated QAM and gone all-IP. And if you're on standalone TV without internet, you can't use HBO Go, Showtime Anytime, etc. Nor can you buy those services directly via streaming. So if Comcast's standalone TV customers want premium ad-free services, they've probably only got ONE way to get them: their cable box. Just like in the old days.



Bigg said:


> They could just leave the 4 or 5 that carry college sports on QAM to avoid those spikes when that area's team is playing.


True. As I've conceded already, it's possible that a small number of sports channels outside of Digital Starter be left on QAM for the benefit of IP-video traffic management (which, I suspect, is not as big a challenge for Comcast as you tend to think). For my area, I see no channels outside of the DS package (except for premiums) that would need to be left on QAM. But perhaps in some areas like yours, due to differences in which teams get carried on which channels, it would be necessary.



Bigg said:


> Why couldn't they use HBO Go? You seem to be assuming that they have no internet at all. They might have wireless internet in their apartment building, they might have DSL or VDSL, or they might be sharing with neighbors or using someone else's xfinitywifi password. There are various other ways to get internet out there. They don't usually make a lot of economic sense, but it's certainly possible.


Sure, it's possible but it's not likely. My larger point stands that it probably makes economic sense for Comcast to still leave 3 or so QAMs for premium channels because it would be worth the incremental revenue those channels would bring in from standalone TV subs (and, as a bonus, if the main HD channel from each premium service stayed on QAM, that would ease a bit of IP traffic system-wide on weekend nights when new original episodes and theatrical films debut).



Bigg said:


> It makes more sense to draw the lines based on a bandwidth perspective.


Well, it should be based on bandwidth but must also conform to the contours of existing channel packages. If Comcast still wants/needs to offer standalone cable TV service -- and they do -- then they need to have one or more all-QAM-channel packages to sell them (since serving customers via IPTV requires having Comcast internet service). Now, sure, they could decide which channels to retain on QAM solely based on bandwidth needs (i.e. what are the channels that tend to draw the most simultaneous viewers?) and then offer ONLY those channels to standalone TV subscribers. All other channels would become IPTV-only and therefore only available to TV subs who also take internet service.

The problem, though, is that that group of QAM channels wouldn't match up with any existing channel package grouping. It would heavily tend toward locals, sports and news channels and contain relatively few entertainment channels. Comcast would have to re-negotiate carriage contracts with all of the channels involved to get permission to sell just those channels together in a newly created QAM-only channel package just for standalone TV subs (which, keep in mind, constitute a modest percentage of their overall TV customer base). One of the most contentious aspects of those carriage contract negotiations is which package/tier a given channel will go in. Do you see how that concept is just a non-starter for Comcast? No, it just makes a lot more sense to take an existing channel package which is covered by existing carriage contracts -- Digital Starter -- and make those channels the ones you retain on QAM (plus *maybe* a few outside of it, like ESPNews, if necessary for bandwidth considerations too).

Of course, there's nothing that would require Comcast to continue offering the $10 HD Technology Fee upgrade alongside Digital Starter. At any point, they could decide to stop offering that feature, enabling them to eliminate from QAM the HD versions of whichever channels they don't need to retain from a bandwidth perspective. And as more and more homes gain multicast-capable gateways, fewer and fewer HD channels would need to be kept on QAM for bandwidth reasons. This is why I can imagine the full set of Digital Starter SD channels remaining on QAM for the length of the QAM phase-out (maybe 2-3 years), while the HD channels in that package gradually disappear, with perhaps some of the less popular ones immediately missing as soon as Comcast begins deprecating QAM TV. I guess paying that HD Tech Fee doesn't guarantee that you'll get a certain minimum number of channels in your package in HD. I suppose Comcast might still charge it to those QAM-only standalone TV customers even if all the offered in HD were your major locals plus a dozen sports and news cable channels. Maybe they'd be generous and knock it down from $10 to $5 at that point, heh.


----------



## dishrich (Jan 16, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> And, as I've said before, Comcast's standalone QAM-only TV subs now have no way to watch that premium content on-demand anyhow. XoD has vacated QAM and gone all-IP.


1st question I've GOT to ask...do you even have Comcast services YOURSELF? Maybe it might be prudent for you to at least take a cursory check at some of the statements you are reporting as "facts", that really are not. (or if you don't have it, maybe go check it out at someone's house that has the service...just saying...)

2nd...where IN the world ARE you coming up with this FUD??? I (& several others) have *non-IP* (legacy) Moto boxes, that very much STILL gets ALL the OND premiums just fine, thank you: (attached are just a few screen shot examples *from today* - & YES, they DO actually show OND programming...)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Hmm. I honestly had no idea that ESPNews actually carried _live games_, but if you say so.


ESPNews generally isn't scheduled for live games, but during the tournaments (highest viewership all season), there are a few congested slots where they carry full games, and throughout the season they often carry parts of games when other stuff is running over on the channel is was supposed to be on (say ESPN2), and then they cut back to news programming. I ran into this several times on my previous local provider that didn't have ESPNews in digital, and my Premiere XL4 didn't have an analog tuner, so I had the cable split out to the TV to tune ESPNews in analog until it switched over to ESPN2 or ESPNU, which were in HD and SD digital QAM respectively (ESPN2 was at a nice 16.98mbps).



> Right. That's why I think we might be putting a bit too much emphasis on their supposed need for multicast or linear QAM channels. Sure, they need them _to an extent_, as they do help keep IP traffic down but OTOH Comcast is already dealing with a customer base that spends an increasing percentage of their video viewing hours accessing other companies' unicast streams on Comcast's IP network anyhow, whether that's Netflix or Hulu or YouTube TV. And at least if a customer is accessing Comcast IPTV's own unicast streams, they're probably not accessing a third-party unicast stream at the same time. So in that sense, it's an even trade-out.


True, I guess we'll see.



> One of them is a shopping channel (QVC 3?). Another is a NewsMax, I believe (a niche right-wing opinion/news channel).


QVC3 is in Limited Basic, NewsMax is in Expanded Basic, and i24 is in Preferred, all of which are IP-only and listed on the lineup.



> My hunch is that Comcast added those as their first IPTV-only channels as a sort of technology experiment, to get the implementation right with stuff that doesn't matter before they shift *actual* existing channels folks care about over from QAM to IPTV-only.


I would agree, and also to shut up the right-wingnuts with NewsMax so they don't claim some conspiracy about Comcast and MSNBC without having to actually use up QAM bandwidth.



> The most logical conclusion is that Comcast is ceasing to sell Digital Preferred and higher last-gen packages to new standalone QAM-only TV subs because many (if not all) of the incremental channels in Digital Preferred will no longer be on QAM.


Could be. I guess we'll see.



> Why? AT&T Internet requires you to always take their gateway. You can use your own router if you like by putting their gateway into passthrough mode.


I thought there was a law requiring MSOs to allow use of user-owned modems? I'm preparing myself for wiring my parents up with an eMTA, a faster data modem and an XB6 all lined up next to each other. 



> And, as I've said before, Comcast's standalone QAM-only TV subs now have no way to watch that premium content on-demand anyhow.


Why not HBO Go? I don't think they block it for TV-only subscribers who have alternate internet access. For the very few people who have TV and no internet at all, well then they wouldn't have access to the app. I'm guessing their TV-only subscribers are an ever shrinking group, however, as economically it makes MUCH more sense to go with YouTube TV or Sling TV or some other provider if you have a different internet provider that doesn't offer TV service, like a Google Fiber, WebPass, etc. At my grandmother's complex, some of the folks go down to the common area and use community Wi-Fi (and I'm betting some are using other people's xfinitywifi logins), but they all have X1 anyway, as their building was installed as all-RFoG, all-X1. It's just so odd to keep premiums on QAM when they are primarily a VOD offering today.



> But perhaps in some areas like yours, due to differences in which teams get carried on which channels, it would be necessary.


We're so far behind on everything, there won't be traditional pay TV by the time they get to us with upgrades. 



> All other channels would become IPTV-only and therefore only available to TV subs who also take internet service.


The thing is, they don't have to require internet for IPTV. It's not rocket science to roll out XB6 gateways that are locked down, and they crank up the xfinitywifi count while they're at it.



> The problem, though, is that that group of QAM channels wouldn't match up with any existing channel package grouping. It would heavily tend toward locals, sports and news channels and contain relatively few entertainment channels. Comcast would have to re-negotiate carriage contracts with all of the channels involved to get permission to sell just those channels together in a newly created QAM-only channel package just for standalone TV subs (which, keep in mind, constitute a modest percentage of their overall TV customer base). One of the most contentious aspects of those carriage contract negotiations is which package/tier a given channel will go in. Do you see how that concept is just a non-starter for Comcast?


No. You're way over-complicating it. They can keep the existing packages, and move blocks of lesser-watched channels over to IPTV. If people want to keep those channels, then they need to swap obsolete equipment out for IPTV-capable (X1) equipment. They did it with analog, they did it with MPEG-4. They can do it with IPTV. I think they have to offer 60 or 90 days of written notice per franchise regulations, but again, they've been there, done that.

I think their bottom line is that they are taking the slow path in order to minimize the cost of new IP-capable boxes, and minimize support costs of switching out every grandma out there who can't plug a box into the cable jack, and requires a truck roll.

I feel like this is some sort of half-assed compromise between the business and network engineering folks. The business folks don't want to do anything because it costs money, while the network engineering folks want to go 100% IPTV in one fell swoop with forced migration of all TV subs to XB6 gateways and IP multicast. I can just about guarantee that whatever they do, it will be completed in one market (maybe Chicago) at least 5 years before it's completed in Connecticut, Northern California, and a few other also-ran markets.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dishrich said:


> 1st question I've GOT to ask...do you even have Comcast YOURSELF?
> 
> 2nd...where IN the world ARE you coming up with this FUD??? I (& several others) have *non-IP* (legacy) Moto boxes, that very much STILL gets ALL the OND premiums just fine, thank you: (attached are just a few screen shot examples *from today* - & YES, they DO actually show OND programming...)


I have Comcast broadband but haven't had their TV service for years. But that's beside the point. My own experience would simply be one data point -- one specific combination of equipment, services, and location -- out of millions of Comcast customers spread across multiple regions.

Just because on-demand is working for you on a QAM-only box doesn't mean it does for everyone. I've searched for the relevant posts from several months back but can't find them now. At any rate, before Comcast announced the discontinuation of their XoD app for TiVo earlier this spring, some TiVo users posted that "fiber upgrades" being done in their area had resulted in them no longer being able to access on-demand. This was a prior, separate development from the XoD app shutdown in June. Based on the info that had been given from a Comcast tech, it sounded as though on-demand was being removed from QAM (or somehow made in compatible with it), but only in those specific areas.

And then in June, Comcast pulled the plug completely on their XoD app for TiVo, which obviously has no IP-access to Comcast's TV services.

Combine those developments with the fact that X1 boxes rely on IP, not QAM, for access of on-demand content and it looks like QAM-based on-demand may be on its way out soon. I thought it already was eliminated in some areas but maybe not.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dishrich said:


> 1st question I've GOT to ask...do you even have Comcast services YOURSELF? Maybe it might be prudent for you to at least take a cursory check at some of the statements you are reporting as "facts", that really are not. (or if you don't have it, maybe go check it out at someone's house that has the service...just saying...)


It's all market by market, so there are probably some that have QAM VOD and some that don't. It may also depend on the systems, with the lower frequency systems seeing the end of QAM VOD sooner than higher frequency ones. I know IP VOD was standard for XB3s here more than 2 years ago, but they were still using QAM VOD for XG1s. I believe that all X1 boxes now use IP VOD.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> ESPNews generally isn't scheduled for live games, but during the tournaments (highest viewership all season), there are a few congested slots where they carry full games, and throughout the season they often carry parts of games when other stuff is running over on the channel is was supposed to be on (say ESPN2), and then they cut back to news programming.


So, as I suspected, ESPNews isn't very important in the grand scheme of live viewership numbers.



Bigg said:


> The thing is, they don't have to require internet for IPTV. It's not rocket science to roll out XB6 gateways that are locked down, and they crank up the xfinitywifi count while they're at it.


Not about rocket science. It's about equipment costs and spreading them out over a long transition period. By the end of the transition period, yes, they'll have distributed a lot of those XB6s or similar multicast-capable gateways.



Bigg said:


> No. You're way over-complicating it. They can keep the existing packages, and move blocks of lesser-watched channels over to IPTV. If people want to keep those channels, then they need to swap obsolete equipment out for IPTV-capable (X1) equipment. They did it with analog, they did it with MPEG-4. They can do it with IPTV. I think they have to offer 60 or 90 days of written notice per franchise regulations, but again, they've been there, done that.


Nope. You're still not thinking clearly. It's not just about swapping out QAM-only equipment for IPTV-capable equipment. It's also about having *internet service* since that's a necessary pre-condition for IPTV access.

They can't sign up a standalone TV subscriber (to whom they are NOT giving a locked-down XB6 gateway) for Digital Preferred if all of the channels exclusive to Digital Preferred are IPTV-only (or will be shortly after signing up the new customer). Here's how that conversation would go:

"Hey, yesterday I signed up for standalone TV service, the Digital Preferred package. But today I noticed that a bunch of my upper channels disappeared. What gives?"

"Yes, we switched those channels to a new technology that's not compatible with your set-top box. If you'd like to get those channels back (which you're paying for as part of your TV service), then you'll need to not only switch out your box but you'll also need to subscribe to Comcast internet."

See how that doesn't work?

Now, when it comes to *existing* Comcast cable TV customers that are already on Digital Preferred, if they also have Comcast internet service but they're still using QAM-only STBs and/or CableCARDs, I suspect Comcast will say, "Hey, we're no longer selling your Digital Preferred package but we'll grandfather it on your account and you can keep it as long as you want. But to do that, we're gonna need you to switch to an IPTV-capable device. If you want to stick with your current QAM-only device, you can do that too, but we'll have to downgrade you to the Digital Starter or Limited Basic package."


----------



## dishrich (Jan 16, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> And then in June, Comcast pulled the plug completely on their XoD app for TiVo, which obviously has no IP-access to Comcast's TV services.


But that had *NOTHING* to do with (supposed) imminent shutdown of QAM-based XoD...it had *everything* to do with those particular servers running on an older operating system that's EOL - which Comcast obviously decided to NOT upgrade/fix. I still do not get where you are seeing that (very) particular circumstance, & conflate that into Comcast imminently AND widely, shutting down ALL non-IP XoD content - & I (still) do NOT see that even happening sometime next year. But when it does, I assure you I'll notice it fairly soon...since I'm using my Moto box for the XoD I lost from the Tivo.



> some TiVo users posted that "fiber upgrades" being done in their area had resulted in them no longer being able to access on-demand. This was a prior, separate development from the XoD app shutdown in June. Based on the info that had been given from a Comcast tech, it sounded as though on-demand was being removed from QAM (or somehow made in compatible with it), but only in those specific areas.


It was ONLY in those *very few* areas, where Comcast was "trying out" using EPON, instead of RFoG for all-fiber delivery within certain complexes (apartments/condos/master community, etc.)...& even those (few) areas were being used *within* a larger legacy fiber/coax network system. And from other posts I've seen, it ALSO appears that Comcast has decided to NO longer do EPON, & go with RFoG now...so now that will be a moot point going forward.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> So, as I suspected, ESPNews isn't very important in the grand scheme of live viewership numbers.


Except that it creates massive spikes in certain markets. And that may be true for other sports-related channels in other markets. If they can handle that as IP unicast for a while, then maybe they do it that way, but it's still very important in a handful of places.



> Not about rocket science. It's about equipment costs and spreading them out over a long transition period. By the end of the transition period, yes, they'll have distributed a lot of those XB6s or similar multicast-capable gateways.


Sure, they're cheap. But the point is, it can be done. It's not a technology problem.



> Nope. You're still not thinking clearly. It's not just about swapping out QAM-only equipment for IPTV-capable equipment. It's also about having *internet service* since that's a necessary pre-condition for IPTV access.


Two issues here.

1. If the lesser-watched channels are IP unicast, then they would be fine with an X1 box alone with no internet plan from Comcast, since the X1 boxes have built-in DSG DOCSIS 3.0 modems.

2. If they move to IP-multicast, then Comcast would have to provision them with a locked down XB6 gateway. It's all just filtering on the network, so they could choose to enable no connectivity except for their own cable boxes, just offer xfinitywifi to other users, or offer a captive walled garden system that only works for NBCU-owned websites (i.e. they could read the news on MSNBC.com, watch streaming video on tv.xfinity.com or manage their Comcast account on Comcast.com) and redirects users to buy Comcast internet service if they try to go outside of the walled garden.



> See how that doesn't work?


Except that it works just fine if they provision them with a locked-down XB6 gateway. People may not be happy with a pile of routers and crap, but then they have to decide if they want to switch their internet over to a bundle with Comcast, or keep whatever piles of electronics and wires they have to use a different ISP.

And for the occasional grandma who doesn't have internet access at all, they'll send a truck out, convert her to IPTV, and she'll never know the difference, or need to know/care what the XB6 does.



dishrich said:


> But that had *NOTHING* to do with (supposed) imminent shutdown of QAM-based XoD


You're correct in that QAM-based VOD can continue on without TiVos having access to it, but it also could exist on some systems and not others.

EDIT: Fixed quotes


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Bigg said:


> It's quite possible they want to move entirely to MPEG-4. They would need to get direct fiber feeds that come from before the station's own compressors though, since compression is much more efficient if it has a higher quality source. Just so that Comcast can efficiently make it look like garbage, of course.


Indeed. When I watch sports on Comcast (mostly Diamond League and F1) long shots do not resolve details, aliasing and occasional spider-webs abound, and the general picture tends to look like jaggy SD on in-motion objects. You can see the jaggies appear and disappear on each step a runner takes. Balls aren't much more than points when in motion. Close-ups look waxy and DNRed.

Is it the same for X1 boxes? I could see Comcast incentivizing its overpriced DVR in that way.

At least sports is native 720p, so as bad as they are they don't get an additional downrez step to degrade things like broadcast series do.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

randian said:


> Is it the same for X1 boxes? I could see Comcast incentivizing its overpriced DVR in that way.


It's the video compression, not the box. The X1 boxes may have some picture settings and video processing to hide the artifacts, but the lack of detail and color is inherrent to cramming what is nominally a 9mbps feed that can be compressed down to an average of around 5mbps with a stat mux into a CBR 3.8mbps channel that looks fine as long as nothing moves or has a dark scene, in which case, there's just not enough bandwidth, and everything goes to hell.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

randian said:


> Indeed. When I watch sports on Comcast (mostly Diamond League and F1) long shots do not resolve details, aliasing and occasional spider-webs abound, and the general picture tends to look like jaggy SD on in-motion objects. You can see the jaggies appear and disappear on each step a runner takes. Balls aren't much more than points when in motion. Close-ups look waxy and DNRed.
> 
> Is it the same for X1 boxes? I could see Comcast incentivizing its overpriced DVR in that way.
> 
> At least sports is native 720p, so as bad as they are they don't get an additional downrez step to degrade things like broadcast series do.


CBS and NBC broadcast in 1080i so that's what you still get on Comcast for their NFL games until they downrez them too.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

mschnebly said:


> LOL Spoken like a true FanBoy!


*shrug* Show me the QAM channels that have been moved to IP on Comcast, then we can talk about hiding in the sand.

But right now the story is about folks crying wolf for the last 2-3 years.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> ESPNews generally isn't scheduled for live games, but during the tournaments (highest viewership all season), there are a few congested slots where they carry full games, and throughout the season they often carry parts of games when other stuff is running over on the channel is was supposed to be on (say ESPN2), and then they cut back to news programming.


Yeah they moved F1 qualifying this weekend to ESPNews and screwed those of us who don't have ESPNnews.  And what's on ESPN2 instead? Sportscenter at 9am. And what's on ESPN. 2 hr College Football pre-game show. They did it a few months back too. And do they let you watch it on the app? No. You get rejected there too for not having ESPNnews even though ESPN2 is where the event is usually. Eventually ( the next day just before the actual race) they rerun the qualifying on ESPN2. sorry a little 1st-world bitterness about that inconvenience.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah they moved F1 qualifying this weekend to ESPNews and screwed those of us who don't have ESPNnews.


I'm quite sure FP3 and Qualifying for the rest of the year is 'scheduled' for ESPNews in a few instances (3 maybe)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah they moved F1 qualifying this weekend to ESPNews and screwed those of us who don't have ESPNnews.  And what's on ESPN2 instead? Sportscenter at 9am. And what's on ESPN. 2 hr College Football pre-game show. They did it a few months back too. And do they let you watch it on the app? No. You get rejected there too for not having ESPNnews even though ESPN2 is where the event is usually. Eventually ( the next day just before the actual race) they rerun the qualifying on ESPN2. sorry a little 1st-world bitterness about that inconvenience.


It's definitely a bit of a power move to push people into bigger bundles that have ALL of the various ESPNs. Or in the case of my old local cable company, tune in via analog.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dishrich said:


> It was ONLY in those *very few* areas, where Comcast was "trying out" using EPON, instead of RFoG for all-fiber delivery within certain complexes (apartments/condos/master community, etc.)...& even those (few) areas were being used *within* a larger legacy fiber/coax network system. And from other posts I've seen, it ALSO appears that Comcast has decided to NO longer do EPON, & go with RFoG now...so now that will be a moot point going forward.


Nope, I'm aware of the situation you're talking about and it wasn't that. It was in single-family home neighborhoods. In the upper midwest, IIRC. Maybe mschnebly posted about it months ago in his neighborhood?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Two issues here.
> 
> 1. If the lesser-watched channels are IP unicast, then they would be fine with an X1 box alone with no internet plan from Comcast, since the X1 boxes have built-in DSG DOCSIS 3.0 modems.


Yeah, that might work but it doesn't look Comcast is going that route. My guess is that Comcast just doesn't want to provision expensive hardware to their standalone TV subs. They don't want to give them locked-down XB6 multicast gateways nor do they want to give them old-style X1 boxes with modems inside. My guess is that that kind of X1 box is being deprecated, with no more new ones being ordered from by manufacturer by Comcast. Going forward, it'll be all Xi5s and Xi6s. For new internet+TV customers who request an X1 box with built-in DVR hard-drive (e.g. XG1v4), they'll still offer them. But eventually all those old-style X1 boxes with modems inside will wear out and be retired.

I'm curious whether new standalone TV subs can even get physical DVRs around here now. (I'm sure they'll continue letting existing ones use their pre-X1 DVRs and pay the ongoing $10/mo DVR service fee.)

Once Comcast DOES spend the money to provision more expensive CPE to standalone TV subs in a couple years, it'll be a locked-down XB6 plus Xi5/Xi6, which is the logical endpoint for their IPTV system. (Note that this is the only CPE model that's even been deployed to subs on the two Canadian IPTV systems that use X1 hardware, Rogers and Videotron.)



Bigg said:


> 2. If they move to IP-multicast, then Comcast would have to provision them with a locked down XB6 gateway. It's all just filtering on the network, so they could choose to enable no connectivity except for their own cable boxes, just offer xfinitywifi to other users, or offer a captive walled garden system that only works for NBCU-owned websites (i.e. they could read the news on MSNBC.com, watch streaming video on tv.xfinity.com or manage their Comcast account on Comcast.com) and redirects users to buy Comcast internet service if they try to go outside of the walled garden.


Yep, I understand how it works. Except by keeping certain HD channels on QAM (e.g. at least those ~20 channels I named) -- and therefore accessible to the vast majority of currently deployed X1 boxes -- they don't have to worry about getting everyone multicast-ready right away. I suspect that during the next 2-3 years, as more and more of their user-base shifts to IPTV-only hardware, but also as more and more of their user-base becomes multicast-ready (with XB6s), then we'll see Comcast shut down more and more HD channels on QAM and replace them with multicast versions that can be dynamically enabled as necessary based on the local number of live viewers.

I'm not predicting this is what will happen but I think this is one _plausible hypothetical_ timeline for the Central Division, where these changes are a bit further along.

Oct. 2019: Comcast announces that new subs for their new Basic, Extra and Preferred packages must use IP-capable hardware. Those packages cannot work with QAM-only hardware, such as CableCARDs and pre-X1 boxes/adapters. They also tell existing subs on Digital Economy, Digital Preferred, Digital Preferred Plus, and Digital Premier that if they wish to retain their current package in grandfathered status, they must access it via IP-capable hardware. By the end of the year, the only packages that will still work with QAM-only hardware will be Digital Starter and Limited Basic, along with a la carte premium services. Also, throughout 2020-21, HD versions of channels in the Digital Starter package will gradually disappear for customers accessing that package via QAM-only hardware.

Jan. 1, 2020: Only the SD and HD channels in Digital Starter and the various premium services remain on QAM and therefore accessible to TiVo users.

2020-21: HD versions of channels in Digital Starter gradually disappear, starting with the least popular ones.

Jan. 1, 2022: SD versions of all the channels in Digital Starter and the premiums remain on QAM. But the only channels still in HD on QAM, if any, are major locals, the most popular sports and news cable channels, and flagship premium channels.


----------



## dishrich (Jan 16, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I'm curious whether new standalone TV subs can even get physical DVRs around here now. (I'm sure they'll continue letting existing ones use their pre-X1 DVRs and pay the ongoing $10/mo DVR service fee.)


Sorry to disappoint you, but they very much ARE allowing people to get them here. I just helped 2 clients switch from AT&T to Comcast; one got a single DVR & the other got TWO DVR's (& 6 non-DVR boxes). Both are getting their $10 DVR fees waived for TWO years on a new promo Comcast is running here (EVEN with getting physical DVR's) & even the physical DVR boxes are now ONLY priced at $5/month each like any other box...the store sales rep actually is the one that freely suggested the one client to get 2 DVR's under the new pricing plans, as they had 5 on DirecTV.

And again while we were in the store, I saw several people leave with X1 DVR boxes...so they sure don't seem to have a problem giving them out here locally.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, that might work but it doesn't look Comcast is going that route. My guess is that Comcast just doesn't want to provision expensive hardware to their standalone TV subs.


If it were profitable, they would do it. The issue is that they aren't making much money off of TV, so they want to use their power to force people who want TV from them into getting their internet from them as well, which is insanely profitable. It may also be a support issue in that it would be an oddball configuration.



> Yep, I understand how it works. Except by keeping certain HD channels on QAM (e.g. at least those ~20 channels I named) -- and therefore accessible to the vast majority of currently deployed X1 boxes -- they don't have to worry about getting everyone multicast-ready right away. I suspect that during the next 2-3 years, as more and more of their user-base shifts to IPTV-only hardware, but also as more and more of their user-base becomes multicast-ready (with XB6s), then we'll see Comcast shut down more and more HD channels on QAM and replace them with multicast versions that can be dynamically enabled as necessary based on the local number of live viewers.


Could be. They eventually want to go 100% IPTV, which will mean that 100% of IPTV customers will have to have multicast-capable gateways one way or another.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dishrich said:


> View attachment 43107
> 
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you, but they very much ARE allowing people to get them here. I just helped 2 clients switch from AT&T to Comcast; one got a single DVR & the other got TWO DVR's (& 6 non-DVR boxes). Both are getting their $10 DVR fees waived for TWO years on a new promo Comcast is running here (EVEN with getting physical DVR's) & even the physical DVR boxes are now ONLY priced at $5/month each like any other box...the store sales rep actually is the one that freely suggested the one client to get 2 DVR's under the new pricing plans, as they had 5 on DirecTV.
> ...


Doesn't disappoint me one way or another. Just asked a question. Someone who seemed pretty familiar with Comcast practices over at DSL Reports posted awhile back that the company doesn't seem to be giving out many non-X1 (QAM-only) boxes any more, so I was curious whether they had many of those old-style non-X1 DVRs to give to folks who take just standalone TV service. Or do they seem to be giving X1 DVRs now to standalone TV customers? My understanding was that X1 had always been given only to those who bundle TV+Internet and I assumed that was still true.

And yes, that deal you're talking about is available here too and advertised on TV. I expect it's available throughout the Central Division. And, yes, I was aware that the new regular pricing scheme in Central is that you pay $5 per box, regardless of what kind of box (whether or not it includes QAM tuners and/or hard drive), and you pay $10 per account for DVR service*, whether that's cloud or physical DVR. Obviously, if you take only one box and it's a physical DVR, that adds $15 to your bill. (*20 hours of cloud DVR service included as part of the Extra and Preferred packages do not incur the $10 service fee.)


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> If it were profitable, they would do it. The issue is that they aren't making much money off of TV, so they want to use their power to force people who want TV from them into getting their internet from them as well, which is insanely profitable. It may also be a support issue in that it would be an oddball configuration.


Yeah, it's sticks and carrots. Make TV service with all the bells and whistles available only to those who also take internet. That's why X1 boxes have always (AFAIK) only been given to TV+Internet customers, never to standalone TV subs. So it's not hard to imagine Comcast whittling away HD channels, VOD and even DVR service from their standalone TV service too. Make standalone TV service so sad that no one really wants it.

Again, look at Cox's Starter TV service. It's just locals, not even sure if it includes HD channels. No DVR available with it, no VOD. Comes with a digital adapter or a CableCARD. That's it. If you want anything better than that, you have to go with their Contour packages, which come with X1 hardware (or a CableCARD).

It's easy to imagine that Comcast will turn their QAM system into something very much like what Cox has, except for now anyhow, Comcast is offering a tier above just locals, Digital Starter. But 2-3 years from now, they might only offer Limited Basic in all-SD on QAM with just digital adapters and CableCARDs, like Cox. Or maybe just wipe out QAM TV completely at that point.



Bigg said:


> Could be. They eventually want to go 100% IPTV, which will mean that 100% of IPTV customers will have to have multicast-capable gateways one way or another.


Well, Comcast would want the great majority of them to have multicast-capable gateways. I'm not sure if it will ever be necessary to have 100% of them using them. Remember, as more and more of our viewing shifts away from linear channels anyway, multicast becomes somewhat less important. The bottom line is that their IP network has to keep expanding capacity to stay ahead of all that unicast streaming demand.


----------



## dishrich (Jan 16, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Or do they seem to be giving X1 DVRs now to standalone TV customers? My understanding was that X1 had always been given only to those who bundle TV+Internet and I assumed that was still true.


Well I'm not 100% sure on that, because I haven't come across but 1 person that had TV-only from Comcast. However, I DID ask a rep in our local office if a TV-only sub can have X1, & they told me yes. (I realize 1 rep doesn't say much...but our reps in the local office seem better than the average reps, just sayin'...)
Also what I CAN tell you - if you recall, they were NOT putting any X1 boxes in commercial/business establishments...that changed early this year & I can also tell you that a couple of our local restaurants, that had standalone non-X1 boxes, recently got switched over to X1's.
Comcast Makes X1 Available To Businesses Nationwide
Comcast Brings X1 Video to SMBs | Light Reading

Since it's NOT a given that every commercial establishment would have Comcast internet, it's pretty safe to say they are NOT requiring internet service to have X1 TV equipment.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dishrich said:


> Well I'm not 100% sure on that, because I haven't come across but 1 person that had TV-only from Comcast. However, I DID ask a rep in our local office if a TV-only sub can have X1, & they told me yes. (I realize 1 rep doesn't say much...but our reps in the local office seem better than the average reps, just sayin'...)
> Also what I CAN tell you - if you recall, they were NOT putting any X1 boxes in commercial/business establishments...that changed early this year & I can also tell you that a couple of our local restaurants, that had standalone non-X1 boxes, recently got switched over to X1's.
> Comcast Makes X1 Available To Businesses Nationwide
> Comcast Brings X1 Video to SMBs | Light Reading
> ...


Yes, I had already seen those articles about the push to expand X1 into commercial establishments. But the policies surrounding those accounts is different than residential accounts, so it doesn't tell us much IMO.

Perhaps, though, Comcast is simply running out of those non-X1 QAM-only boxes to give to standalone TV customers. So some standalone TV subs get lucky and are sent an old recycled X1 box (or will get one if they request it), for no difference in price. As we've established, it's now $5/mo per box, regardless of what kind of box you have. And if any of your boxes are physical DVRs, or if you add the 60-hour cloud DVR upgrade to your account, you pay $10/mo for DVR service across the entire account.

One other thing I just saw in re-reading our new rate card: it affirms that Digital Starter -- which, among new Comcast subs, is only available to those who take standalone TV service -- does include access to VOD and PPV via the included box. Actual wording:

_*Digital Starter *Includes Limited Basic, additional digital channels, TV Box and remote for primary outlet, access to Pay-Per-View and On Demand programming and Music Choice_​
So that would argue in favor of VOD staying on QAM, at least in the Nashville market. That doesn't help TiVo users, though, since the Xfinity OnDemand app for TiVo has been retired. But it would be a small point contrary to my hypothesis of impending QAM deprecation. I still very much believe that channels outside of Digital Starter will become IPTV-only but it looks like, for now anyhow, VOD will stay on QAM around here.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dishrich said:


> View attachment 43107


BTW, I have a friend I'm advising today about what to do next with her TV service now that her promo period has expired with Comcast. She'll have to stick with them for broadband but pricing comes out better for what she wants TV-wise to go with any of the major streaming cable TV services (Hulu Live, AT&T TV Now, or PS Vue) combined with regular standalone Comcast broadband pricing.

Think there's any chance that Comcast will give this current TV+internet deal to existing subs? I know it says for new subs only but I've heard that some folks have good luck getting deals as walk-ins to Comcast stores.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Bigg said:


> If it were profitable, they would do it. The issue is that they aren't making much money off of TV, so they want to use their power to force people who want TV from them into getting their internet from them as well, which is insanely profitable.


I think Comcast's profit is a matter of how revenue is allocated, not actual dollars. Comcast wants to raise Internet prices high enough that they don't care whether you buy TV from them or from a streaming service. Assuming customers are somewhat price sensitive, that necessitates making cable TV less expensive to compensate. Cord cutting doesn't save much money anymore, and may even be more expensive, especially with the increasing Balkanization of streaming services.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

randian said:


> I think Comcast's profit is a matter of how revenue is allocated, not actual dollars. Comcast wants to raise Internet prices high enough that they don't care whether you buy TV from them or from a streaming service. Assuming customers are somewhat price sensitive, that necessitates making cable TV less expensive to compensate. Cord cutting doesn't save much money anymore, and may even be more expensive, especially with the increasing Balkanization of streaming services.


Oh, cord-cutting still saves a significant amount. But it really comes down to what you want/need. Just today, I helped a friend figure out her options of staying with Comcast internet plus TV vs. standalone Comcast internet plus streaming cable TV services (e.g. AT&T TV Now, PS Vue, etc.). She's a longtime Comcast customer but unless she's able to score a new promo package deal, she'll save $18-28 per month for service on 1 HD TV by going the streaming cable TV route versus sticking with Comcast for everything. (I calculated final prices before taxes, so I was sure to include equipment fees, broadcast TV fee and RSN fee.) The savings go up the more TVs you have.

Now, if you're someone who doesn't need live cable TV channels (which is to say, you're not a sports or cable news junkie), then you can save WAY more by cord-cutting. Comcast's Extra package, with all fees added on (but without any TV box rental fees), costs an additional $68/mo beyond standalone internet. Instead of spending that $68 on live cable channels from Comcast, you could:


get whatever live local channels you can get OTA with an antenna for $0
get Netflix (HD) for $13
get Hulu (HD/4K, with ads) & Disney+ (HD/4K, ad-free) & ESPN+ (HD, with ads) for $13
get HBO Now for $15
get CBS All Access (with ads) & Showtime for $15
get the PBS app (ad-free) for $0
get The CW app (with ads) for $0
get the Pluto TV, Tubi, Vudu, Roku Channel, & NewsOn (local TV news) apps (all with ads) for $0

That comes to a total of $56, which is $12 less than Comcast's Extra channel package. And it's a ton of live and on-demand content, more than lots of households would feel the need to pay for. If you insisted on removing the ads from Hulu and CBS All Access, the total would come to $66, still $2 less than Comcast's Extra (which itself only comes with 20 hours of cloud DVR storage).


----------



## dishrich (Jan 16, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Think there's any chance that Comcast will give this current TV+internet deal to existing subs? I know it says for new subs only but I've heard that some folks have good luck getting deals as walk-ins to Comcast stores.


I think she will, especially since Comcast would REALLY like to get more people off of any grandfathered pkgs. (I would recommend going to the local store, if possible...just so much easier getting to talk to a live body...) Matter of fact, I have had a couple situations where people were still under a contract, but the CSR allowed them to switch to another pkg, as long as they agreed to another 2-year contract for that particular pkg.
I & several others have been getting repeat new sub pricing on our bundles for years now; personally I've NEVER paid regular pricing on my Preferred Triple Play for almost a decade. Matter of fact Comcast is the one that called ME & offered to put me back on the exact new customer pricing at the end of this past year...so I didn't even have to drive to the store to do that.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Yep, I've posted plenty of times that I get the same new customer promo every 2 years on Digital Preferred + Blast HSI after a simple retention phone call. It goes up about $10/mo. every time, right now it's $130/mo. all-in with taxes and junk fees.

No Comcast equipment other than a card of course.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dishrich said:


> I think she will, especially since Comcast would REALLY like to get more people off of any grandfathered pkgs. (I would recommend going to the local store, if possible...just so much easier getting to talk to a live body...) Matter of fact, I have had a couple situations where people were still under a contract, but the CSR allowed them to switch to another pkg, as long as they agreed to another 2-year contract for that particular pkg.
> I & several others have been getting repeat new sub pricing on our bundles for years now; personally I've NEVER paid regular pricing on my Preferred Triple Play for almost a decade. Matter of fact Comcast is the one that called ME & offered to put me back on the exact new customer pricing at the end of this past year...so I didn't even have to drive to the store to do that.


Thanks, that's good to hear. Although she did say that after getting her bill that had gone up $60/mo, she called in and was on the phone with Comcast over an hour and got nowhere with them! I did tell her, though, that she'd likely have better luck walking into a store. I relayed the info about the current big sale that ends today, don't know if she's going to try for that or just chuck the cable box and go to streaming like I and lots of our other friends do...


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

My Dad pays north of $200 to Comcast. And that's after he called and got his bill reduced and they added in HBO for free. I think he said $220 after his "deal." 

He has phone, internet and cable. Never had a premium movie channel. Comcast better send him an xmas card.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

trip1eX said:


> My Dad pays north of $200 to Comcast. And that's after he called and got his bill reduced and they added in HBO for free. I think he said $220 after his "deal."
> 
> He has phone, internet and cable. Never had a premium movie channel. Comcast better send him an xmas card.


Your Father/family use what for cell/mobile?

Much depends I believe on how you *'USE'* Comcast/Xfinity - if you can get all of your 'services' for a reasonable fee it can work! If you can get your 'Mobile/Cell', TV, Internet and phone in a package that you 'can' control it can work well.

I had 250/12 Internet (Xfinity) $90, L3TV $100 (1TB local storage/outstanding PQ) and a ATT Cell $30 (to provision a 30 year + exchange that Xfinity/Verizon couldn't in WV) I needed the ATT to TEXT (I don't speak) All of my medical contacts use that exchange. Same Internet, CableCard, XG1V4 box, phone with (TEXT option on PC), using my own hardware modem/router etc w/no premiums but all sports etc (Preferred I think) for $143 taxes & fees included for 2 years. Xfinity Mobile on my iPhone $3 I believe.

What happens 2 years? NONE OF US KNOW!!!

@NashGuy Speculations I doubt will ever effect all of the Xfinity/Comcast world. @Bigg rants regarding PQ are pretty much BS also. My Xfinity on a 64" 1080P Plasma are equal to friends who have DirecTV and Dish.

You need to be the 'USER' if you're working with Xfinity/Comcast.

A most interesting post by @NashGuy from some time ago I thought interesting!



NashGuy said:


> Fair enough, although as you may know, I simply enjoy hypothetical speculation based on whatever the latest rumor happens to be.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

WVZR1 said:


> Your Father/family use what for cell/mobile?
> 
> Much depends I believe on how you *'USE'* Comcast/Xfinity - if you can get all of your 'services' for a reasonable fee it can work! If you can get your 'Mobile/Cell', TV, Internet and phone in a package that you 'can' control it can work well.
> 
> ...


Oh, I certainly enjoy speculation. But when it comes to the future of Comcast TV, and the viability of TiVo as a platform for accessing it, I'm not relying on "the latest rumor". No, there have been lots of sources inside Comcast indicating for a long time now that the long-range plan for the company is to convert from QAM to 100% IPTV.

I'll direct you back to just one post I made on this very thread earlier this year, post #169 of 2/19/19.

In that post, I link to an internal Comcast presentation from 2016 that had leaked online. Key take-aways include:

Comcast is reclaiming network spectrum (bandwidth) from QAM TV for general internet use as needed. They recently did that through converting digital TV to MPEG-4. The next step of the transition is to IPTV (pg. 4 of the presentation).
"Project Gram" is their name for their evolution to an all IP network, with IPTV.
In 2015, Comcast began offering all of their TV services -- linear channels, cloud DVR, VOD -- to any screen via unicast streams through their XFi Gateways (XB3 and XB6). This would also be the delivery mechanism that is used for their Xfinity Instant TV service that uses Rokus as STBs. Apparently Comcast has also tried out this delivery mechanism with "regular" Comcast cable TV subscribers using the small tuner-less Xi3 and XiD STBs.
In 2016, Comcast began (or was supposed to begin) delivering multicast IPTV to customers through the XB6 XFi Advanced Gateway (DOCSIS 3.1) paired with the Xi5 STB. This box has no tuners or hard drive. The XB6 takes the multicast stream and converts it to unicast for all devices on the home network, whether Comcast STBs (Xi5, etc.), Rokus, phones, etc. Elsewhere, I read that Rogers (Canadian cableco) has licensed the X1 platform to power their new IPTV product Ignite TV, which uses the XB6 and the Xi6 STB. The Xi6 is the 4K HDR-capable version of the Xi5.
As pg. 27 of the presentation explains, Comcast uses both multicast and unicast IPTV. And that was back in 2016!
Now, if you'd like to talk about rumors, there was a juicy one reported by Light Reading, a leading industry news source, back in March 2017. The rumor they reported was that Comcast would deliver IP-only video service to all new customers by the end of 2017. That obviously didn't happen. You can read that article here:

Comcast May Go All IP by End of Year - Rumor | Light Reading

But it's further confirmation that Comcast has been headed in that direction.

And the latest speculation in which I've engaged isn't based on rumors at all. It's based on the updated July 2019 official Comcast service rate cards for markets in their Central Division. As I've said before, Comcast now only offers two channel packages to customers who do NOT also take internet service: Limited Basic and Digital Starter. So it's reasonable to assume that most or all of the channels that fall outside of those packages will soon be removed from QAM and become IPTV-only (requiring both a Comcast internet connection and an IPTV-capable device/app). Because if that wasn't the case, and all of Comcast's cable channels were staying on QAM, then why wouldn't the company continue to offer standalone TV subscribers the full range of channel packages?


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

slowbiscuit said:


> Yep, I've posted plenty of times that I get the same new customer promo every 2 years on Digital Preferred + Blast HSI after a simple retention phone call. It goes up about $10/mo. every time, right now it's $130/mo. all-in with taxes and junk fees.
> 
> No Comcast equipment other than a card of course.


Just to provide another data point regarding Comcast pricing:

As you know, you and I are in the same region (maybe even neighboring zip codes) and have virtually identical setups (COE only except for one Comcast CableCARD).

I also have the Blast + Preferred Double Play bundle (including STARZ) but have recently also started paying $15 for add-on HBO, which I used to get either for free or $1 p.m. for many years. The only major difference between us is that my basic TV service (Digital Starter) is on my HOA's bulk services account. The rest is an upgrade on my individual subscriber account.

Our total monthly cost (less the HBO fee for comparison purposes) is $85.91 including all taxes and fees on both ends. That breaks down to $37.25 per-unit for the BSA and $48.66 (give or take a few pennies depending on variances in the "Taxes, Surcharges and Fees") on my account.

What you are paying is roughly what I have previously estimated a retail customer should expect to have to shell out for that tier of services. But if we can assume that Comcast is realizing a healthy profit on our $86, then they are doing quite nicely with your $130 for the same product, thank you very much.

And here's another data point:

I am currently helping my sister transition from Dish to Comcast. She is in the California region and has a completely different set of offers from what is available here (as NashGuy points out, no more bundling for us in Big South region).

I advised her that the most economical package for her needs seems to be the X1 Premier Pro Triple Play w/HBO. That package, guaranteed for 24 months w/contract, includes gigabit HSI, Premier TV channels (w/HBO/SHO/STARZ/TMC/Hitz), XG1 DVR (500GB HDD) for 150hrs/SD or 75hrs/HD storage, HD Tech Fee, unlimited domestic VoIP, free installation, and $12/mo discount if she transfers her current Verizon cell phone service to Xfinity Mobile.

Total cost without additional equipment (she will be using a third-party modem/router) but including all taxes and fees should be around $180 (also factoring in the taxes and fees for XM using the basic "By the Gig" plan) for what equates to a quadruple play plan. Compared to what she is paying now (Dish for TV in addition to stand-alone HBO Now, Sonic for 50Mbps HSI+VoIP, Verizon for cell service) she will save money and get significantly expanded services.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Oh, I certainly enjoy speculation. But when it comes to the future of Comcast TV, and the viability of TiVo as a platform for accessing it, I'm not relying on "the latest rumor". No, there have been lots of sources inside Comcast indicating for a long time now that the long-range plan for the company is to convert from QAM to 100% IPTV.
> 
> I'll direct you back to just one post I made on this very thread earlier this year, post #169 of 2/19/19.
> 
> ...


AND YOU CAN POINT 'DIRECTLY' TO WHAT I MENTIONED? Tell me when? And exactly how! A few hundred word 'oration' for a less than 10 word mostly I believe to be correct comment!!!



WVZR1 said:


> *What happens 2 years? NONE OF US KNOW!!!*


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Again, look at Cox's Starter TV service. It's just locals, not even sure if it includes HD channels. No DVR available with it, no VOD. Comes with a digital adapter or a CableCARD. That's it. If you want anything better than that, you have to go with their Contour packages, which come with X1 hardware (or a CableCARD).


That's just marketing. Cox is all-in on QAM, they have 1ghz plants with SDV. I'm sure every MSO will eventually go to IPTV, but Cox is no rush to get there like Comcast is. I think I saw somewhere that they are running 48 downstream DOCSIS QAMs PLUS a DOCSIS 3.1 OFDM block today. It's too bad that they kneecap the whole thing with data caps so that no one can really USE most of that bandwidth.



> Well, Comcast would want the great majority of them to have multicast-capable gateways. I'm not sure if it will ever be necessary to have 100% of them using them. Remember, as more and more of our viewing shifts away from linear channels anyway, multicast becomes somewhat less important. The bottom line is that their IP network has to keep expanding capacity to stay ahead of all that unicast streaming demand.


You don't want a lot of IP unicast for something like the Superbowl. That's true for OTT vMVPDs and OTT SVOD though.



randian said:


> I think Comcast's profit is a matter of how revenue is allocated, not actual dollars. Comcast wants to raise Internet prices high enough that they don't care whether you buy TV from them or from a streaming service. Assuming customers are somewhat price sensitive, that necessitates making cable TV less expensive to compensate. Cord cutting doesn't save much money anymore, and may even be more expensive, especially with the increasing Balkanization of streaming services.


They're already done that. If it weren't for owning NBCU, they would have virtually zero margin on the TV side of their bundles today. Maybe they scrape out some profit on boxes and PPV and premiums, but the core package is basically at cost.

That's complete nonsense. Actual cord cutting saves a LOT of money, since most of those services are services that cord stackers have as well, like Netflix, or are basically free like Amazon Prime and YouTube. Even if you are a cord replacer, and get something like YTTV or DTVN, it's still cheaper than traditional cable, although not by nearly as much.



NashGuy said:


> Now, if you'd like to talk about rumors, there was a juicy one reported by Light Reading, a leading industry news source, back in March 2017. The rumor they reported was that Comcast would deliver IP-only video service to all new customers by the end of 2017. That obviously didn't happen. You can read that article here:


Comcast has never done anything on time. But IPTV on Comcast WILL happen. Many other MSOs may never deploy managed IPTV, as the TV ecosystem may collapse entirely before they get to doing it. Cox, Altice, and other smaller MSOs may just exit the business entirely in the mid-2020's and bundle something like YTTV or DTVN, or Comcast's upcoming service. Charter is 5+ years behind Comcast from a technology perspective, so I don't know what they are doing to do. We've debated if they will even be an MVPD at all in the future. The technology side of it might support your theory that they will exit the business entirely as well. Verizon, while not an MSO, is a QAM-based MVPD, and it looks like they will exit the market entirely rather than migrate to managed IPTV. I think your predictions for AT&T abandoning U-Verse IPTV are looking more and more likely.

The one I'm sticking to is DBS. There is a place in the market for DBS in some form, due to rural, commercial, and hospitality customers.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

WVZR1 said:


> AND YOU CAN POINT 'DIRECTLY' TO WHAT I MENTIONED? Tell me when? And exactly how! A few hundred word 'oration' for a less than 10 word mostly I believe to be correct comment!!!


OMG. Tell you when and how? Dude, I've posted voluminously on the topic on this thread and others. I can certainly understand if you're not interested enough to read through all those posts (few would be, ha) but to say that I haven't written at length about the how and when of Comcast's conversion to IPTV is simply not true. It's all there. Read it.

Here are a couple of plausible future scenarios I wrote on my "Years and Years" thread about Comcast.

3Q2020: Xfinity Cable TV Goes OTT Nationwide
Years and Years (of Pay TV Industry Predictions)

1Q2021: Comcast Announces Deprecation of their QAM TV System
Years and Years (of Pay TV Industry Predictions)


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> OMG. Tell you when and how? Dude, I've posted voluminously on the topic on this thread and others. I can certainly understand if you're not interested enough to read through all those posts (few would be, ha) but to say that I haven't written at length about the how and when of Comcast's conversion to IPTV is simply not true. It's all there. Read it.
> 
> Here are a couple of plausible future scenarios I wrote on my "Years and Years" thread about Comcast.
> 
> ...


*KEEP AT IT - SOONER OR LATER YOU'RE BOUND TO BE 'MAYBE' CLOSER TO CORRECT!!!*

It took you and several others a 'FEW' days to actually determine Comcast regions and then again how they were organized further! Might be some of ya'll still scratchin' the head!

You're correct when you mention 'VOLUMES' - there ain't no doubt!!! 'plausible - future -scenarios'? Those are again your thoughts, WAG or Speculation!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> That's just marketing. Cox is all-in on QAM, they have 1ghz plants with SDV. I'm sure every MSO will eventually go to IPTV, but Cox is no rush to get there like Comcast is. I think I saw somewhere that they are running 48 downstream DOCSIS QAMs PLUS a DOCSIS 3.1 OFDM block today. It's too bad that they kneecap the whole thing with data caps so that no one can really USE most of that bandwidth.


Oh, yes, I realize Cox's Starter TV is just a marketing designation and not a matter of QAM vs. IPTV. I'm just saying that I can possibly foresee Comcast doing something similar, except Starter TV (or "Limited Basic" in Comcast lingo) would be the only thing left on QAM. Just depends. Maybe around the start of 2022, Comcast is ready to fully shut down QAM TV, in which case they go from what I believe will be the situation for 2020-21 (Limited Basic, Digital Starter and premiums being on QAM, with all of their channels in SD, a few of them in HD) at the end of '21 to *nothing* on QAM at the start of '22.

But, OTOH, Comcast might take another transitional step by shutting down Digital Starter and leaving only Limited Basic (and maybe premiums) on QAM, and only in SD, and only accessible by simple digital adapters and whatever working CableCARDs are still lying around. That might be the situation for 2022-23, with QAM TV then shutting down entirely at the end of '23 to coincide with the implementation of an all-IP network ("Project Gram") running on DOCSIS 4.0.



Bigg said:


> You don't want a lot of IP unicast for something like the Superbowl. That's true for OTT vMVPDs and OTT SVOD though.


No, of course not. Although folks watching the Superbowl through any live TV service other than the one operated by the IP network owners *will* be watching via unicast, not multicast. This is one reason why I see broadband operators partnering up with nationwide OTT vMVPDs as preferred TV partners (as Verizon is doing with YouTube TV). As subscribers to the preferred service grow on their network, we'll probably see Google deep-link their CDN into Verizon's network (actually, they probably already have to some extent), with dynamic multicasting enabled on the network and on FiOS gateways (which will convert the multicast stream to unicast for distribution to clients throughout the home).



Bigg said:


> Comcast has never done anything on time. But IPTV on Comcast WILL happen.


Exactly. If they begin taking the steps I predict this fall (and perhaps only in the Central Division, at that), that puts them about 2 years behind schedule based on what was being talked about internally back in 2016. (The rumor article in Light Reading said all-IP for all new customers starting fall 2017.) Two years late sounds about right. Really, though, looking at how quickly things are moving now with AT&T TV, the partnership of Verizon and YTTV, and other developments in video, along with the degree of X1 and/or Stream app penetration among Comcast TV subs (~75% now), the time is ripe to begin the deprecation of QAM TV and a serious push toward all-IPTV.



Bigg said:


> Many other MSOs may never deploy managed IPTV, as the TV ecosystem may collapse entirely before they get to doing it. Cox, Altice, and other smaller MSOs may just exit the business entirely in the mid-2020's and bundle something like YTTV or DTVN, or Comcast's upcoming service. Charter is 5+ years behind Comcast from a technology perspective, so I don't know what they are doing to do. We've debated if they will even be an MVPD at all in the future. The technology side of it might support your theory that they will exit the business entirely as well. Verizon, while not an MSO, is a QAM-based MVPD, and it looks like they will exit the market entirely rather than migrate to managed IPTV. I think your predictions for AT&T abandoning U-Verse IPTV are looking more and more likely.


Yep. All the other broadband operators will end up scaling back their QAM TV systems too, to reclaim bandwidth for IP, and then just partner up with one or more OTT vMVPD. If Comcast does roll out their own OTT vMVPD as I predict, Charter would seem like a natural taker for it given their history of already cooperating on mobile phone service, plus Charter's stated openness of possibly using X1.



Bigg said:


> The one I'm sticking to is DBS. There is a place in the market for DBS in some form, due to rural, commercial, and hospitality customers.


Yep, it'll be around for several more years but will wither away. Will be interesting to see if DirecTV and DISH ever merge or somehow work out a shared operating agreement to reduce costs as their subscriber bases drop and margins become thinner.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

WVZR1 said:


> *KEEP AT IT - SOONER OR LATER YOU'RE BOUND TO BE 'MAYBE' CLOSER TO CORRECT!!!*
> 
> It took you and several others a 'FEW' days to actually determine Comcast regions and then again how they were organized further! Might be some of ya'll still scratchin' the head!
> 
> You're correct when you mention 'VOLUMES' - there ain't no doubt!!! 'plausible - future -scenarios'? Those are again your thoughts, WAG or Speculation!


What's your point? You seem to have nothing interesting to bring to this discussion. If there are specific facts or opinions I raised that you wish to dispute by advancing your own arguments, feel free. Instead, you seem like a bitter bystander who was nothing useful to say so you keep nattering on about "WAG!!!" and "Speculation!!!"

If you're a TiVo owner on Comcast cable TV and you don't like what's eventually coming down the pike, then don't read this thread and don't think about it.

If you have some insights, based on observations, internal leaks, credible industry media sources, etc. that suggest that Comcast is NOT going to transition away from QAM TV (and therefore CableCARD and therefore TiVo) over to IPTV, please share that info with us.

I'll be waiting.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

WVZR1 said:


> Those are again your thoughts, WAG or Speculation!


The Forum's Ignore feature makes most threads usable. Add a few and you are good to go. Other wise every thread becomes the same...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I'm not sure what constitutes a "usable" thread in the TiVo Coffee House part of this forum. By nature, it's not supposed to be technical support. All it CAN be is a rehashing of whatever bits of news relevant to TiVo that have emerged in the media/on the internet, followed by our collective discussion and analysis of that info, along with, of course, speculation as to what that info could mean for the future. Seriously, that's ALL these threads are. If that sort of thing doesn't interest you, that's fine but if that's the case, why would anyone come here?!


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> OMG. Tell you when and how? Dude, I've posted voluminously on the topic on this thread and others. I can certainly understand if you're not interested enough to read through all those posts (few would be, ha) but to say that I haven't written at length about the how and when of Comcast's conversion to IPTV is simply not true. It's all there. Read it.
> 
> Here are a couple of plausible future scenarios I wrote on my "Years and Years" thread about Comcast.
> 
> ...


Some folks are going to yell that it ain't happening right up until the day before it happens. A year of so ago when I was saying that they were laying fiber behind my house I was called nuts and practically a liar. Now every neighbor I've talked to has told me that they turned in their old DVRs and were given the new Xfinity ones with cloud DVR and free Stream app (Don't know what model #). Apparently I wasn't dreaming it all. We're moving to AZ this next week so I'll probably be a Cox guy for internet. I'll still be keeping my YTTV as I really like it. "Smooth as budda" on my APTV 4k.


----------



## compnurd (Oct 6, 2011)

Charles R said:


> The Forum's Ignore feature makes most threads usable. Add a few and you are good to go. Other wise every thread becomes the same...


Agreed. I ignored him here and on several forums The speculation crap is nuts. It is like reading the physic hotlines Throw enough crap at the wall and eventually something will stick


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Charles R said:


> The Forum's Ignore feature makes most threads usable. Add a few and you are good to go. Other wise every thread becomes the same...


You could also just look at the title of a thread and if it's about something that hasn't been released yet you could skip right by it for the troubleshooting MOCA or I hate Hydra threads. Those are really interesting.


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> What's your point? You seem to have nothing interesting to bring to this discussion.


Wow, the pot calling the kettle black. You have never had an original contribution here or on DSLR, parroting others previous statements, without demonstrating any engineering chops, or background, to understand the facts on the ground that make those statement specific to that particular individual.

I rarely use it, but for you, I will make an exception. "Plonk".


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> As I've said before, Comcast now only offers two channel packages to customers who do NOT also take internet service: Limited Basic and Digital Starter. So it's reasonable to assume that most or all of the channels that fall outside of those packages will soon be removed from QAM and become IPTV-only (requiring both a Comcast internet connection and an IPTV-capable device/app).


No, it's not.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

slowbiscuit said:


> No, it's not.


Yes, it is. Maybe not where you are but it is.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Oh, yes, I realize Cox's Starter TV is just a marketing designation and not a matter of QAM vs. IPTV. I'm just saying that I can possibly foresee Comcast doing something similar, except Starter TV (or "Limited Basic" in Comcast lingo) would be the only thing left on QAM. Just depends. Maybe around the start of 2022, Comcast is ready to fully shut down QAM TV, in which case they go from what I believe will be the situation for 2020-21 (Limited Basic, Digital Starter and premiums being on QAM, with all of their channels in SD, a few of them in HD) at the end of '21 to *nothing* on QAM at the start of '22.
> 
> But, OTOH, Comcast might take another transitional step by shutting down Digital Starter and leaving only Limited Basic (and maybe premiums) on QAM, and only in SD, and only accessible by simple digital adapters and whatever working CableCARDs are still lying around. That might be the situation for 2022-23, with QAM TV then shutting down entirely at the end of '23 to coincide with the implementation of an all-IP network ("Project Gram") running on DOCSIS 4.0.


There's a lot of possibilities. There's also the old analog 70 channel Expanded Basic, which could be kept as SD QAM. Who knows. There's no way they convert CT by the end of '22. Maybe Chicago. We're at least 3-5 years behind Chicago on virtually everything Comcast.

I've been driving around a lot lately, and I've noticed that Cox, Comcast, and Verizon are all running fiber like crazy for their various "nodes", that being 5G for Verizon.



> No, of course not. Although folks watching the Superbowl through any live TV service other than the one operated by the IP network owners *will* be watching via unicast, not multicast. This is one reason why I see broadband operators partnering up with nationwide OTT vMVPDs as preferred TV partners (as Verizon is doing with YouTube TV). As subscribers to the preferred service grow on their network, we'll probably see Google deep-link their CDN into Verizon's network (actually, they probably already have to some extent), with dynamic multicasting enabled on the network and on FiOS gateways (which will convert the multicast stream to unicast for distribution to clients throughout the home).


That would be interesting. I believe the FAANG companies already have direct CDN ties to all the major ISPs, in addition to the major CDN providers like Cloudflare, Akami, Cachefly, Limelight, etc, and a few others like Microsoft.



> Exactly. If they begin taking the steps I predict this fall (and perhaps only in the Central Division, at that), that puts them about 2 years behind schedule based on what was being talked about internally back in 2016. (The rumor article in Light Reading said all-IP for all new customers starting fall 2017.) Two years late sounds about right. Really, though, looking at how quickly things are moving now with AT&T TV, the partnership of Verizon and YTTV, and other developments in video, along with the degree of X1 and/or Stream app penetration among Comcast TV subs (~75% now), the time is ripe to begin the deprecation of QAM TV and a serious push toward all-IPTV.


I'm not sure what bearing the OTT providers have on Comcast making their own service IPTV, but the technology path that they chose (wrongly IMO) has forced them into at least partial IPTV to deal with increasing bandwidth demands on the broadband side. I think they made a HUGE mistake by not doing what Cox did with 1ghz SDV, as 1ghz SDV combined with fiber deep can carry a huge HD channel tonnage without MPEG-4 and with plenty of room for broadband. Comcast has gone through MPEG-4 and is now going to do IPTV when Cox is cruising along with raw brute force bandwidth combined with SDV switching MPEG-2 CBR encodes around.



> Yep. All the other broadband operators will end up scaling back their QAM TV systems too, to reclaim bandwidth for IP, and then just partner up with one or more OTT vMVPD. If Comcast does roll out their own OTT vMVPD as I predict, Charter would seem like a natural taker for it given their history of already cooperating on mobile phone service, plus Charter's stated openness of possibly using X1.


Cox doesn't need the bandwidth back from QAM, it's just a matter of the business model of being a smallish-sized MVPD doesn't make any sense now, and it's not going to get better anytime soon. I wonder if legally they could get IP-ready, and just turn the keys over to Comcast for video since their boxes are already running X1? That would be weird.



> Yep, it'll be around for several more years but will wither away. Will be interesting to see if DirecTV and DISH ever merge or somehow work out a shared operating agreement to reduce costs as their subscriber bases drop and margins become thinner.


I suppose a merger is possible, but they really are in two different markets. DBS can survive just on commercial/rural, even if that's 1M customers nationwide each. DBS is a remarkably cheap and efficient delivery system. They would likely scale way back on satellites though, as in a future with fewer channels, they won't need as much bandwidth. I don't foresee DBS becoming obsolete in the next decade or two at least.



compnurd said:


> Agreed. I ignored him here and on several forums The speculation crap is nuts. It is like reading the physic hotlines Throw enough crap at the wall and eventually something will stick


This isn't speculation. It is analysis. There is a BIG difference. Clearly, I disagree with NashGuy on some details here and there, but no one can honestly say that NashGuy isn't doing a careful and well thought out analysis of the market and various forces in it. In fact, one of his predictions (CBS/Viacom) already came true.

The fact that Comcast is moving towards IPTV is not up for debate. They have publicly discussed the fact that they want to go 100% IPTV. The timing of that transition, what path they take to get there, and whether linear pay TV exists at all outside of a few rural and commercial DBS customers by the time they finish converting all content in all regions (like CT) is up for debate, but it's obvious where they are headed.


----------



## compnurd (Oct 6, 2011)

Bigg said:


> There's a lot of possibilities. There's also the old analog 70 channel Expanded Basic, which could be kept as SD QAM. Who knows. There's no way they convert CT by the end of '22. Maybe Chicago. We're at least 3-5 years behind Chicago on virtually everything Comcast.
> 
> I've been driving around a lot lately, and I've noticed that Cox, Comcast, and Verizon are all running fiber like crazy for their various "nodes", that being 5G for Verizon.
> 
> ...


It is speculation. When everything he is speculating comes to fruition in the next 40 years We can analyze his predictions


----------



## Phil T (Oct 29, 2003)

compnurd said:


> It is speculation. When everything he is speculating comes to fruition in the next 40 years We can analyze his predictions


In 40 years I will be 107 and really don't think I'll care!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

compnurd said:


> It is speculation. When everything he is speculating comes to fruition in the next 40 years We can analyze his predictions


Speculation != analysis. Nashguy clearly isn't speculating here, he's analyzing and predicting.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Speculation != analysis. Nashguy clearly isn't speculating here, he's analyzing and predicting.


I, for one, enjoy wading through* NashGuy*'s lengthy disquisitions; I find them thoughtful, informative and--dare I say it--even entertaining. I think he's been reasonably clear in distinguishing between factual discussion, analysis, and personal opinion.

And I appreciate the time and effort he puts into his posts, all the more so given the sloppy, ungrammatical, incoherent mess that one often finds dashed off on open on-line fora.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

chiguy50 said:


> I, for one, enjoy wading through* NashGuy*'s lengthy disquisitions; I find them thoughtful, informative and--dare I say it--even entertaining. I think he's been reasonably clear in distinguishing between factual discussion, analysis, and personal opinion.
> 
> And I appreciate the time and effort he puts into his posts, all the more so given the sloppy, ungrammatical, incoherent mess that one often finds dashed off on open on-line fora.


#MeToo Oh wait that's something different.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Speculation != analysis. Nashguy clearly isn't speculating here, he's analyzing and predicting.


It is a logical assumption to say that IPTV growth means QAM channel reduction, but we have no evidence that it is happening anytime soon. What folks assume Comcast's many fiefdoms will do is often wrong.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

slowbiscuit said:


> It is a logical assumption to say that IPTV growth means QAM channel reduction, but we have no evidence that it is happening anytime soon. What folks assume Comcast's many fiefdoms will do is often wrong.


And it's often right. When you look on Comcast's site here for service and ALL they show is IPTV service I'd say they are trying to quickly move that direction. Why would they make the only way to get the old service and boxes by calling and arguing or driving down to their store? I would take all this as "it's happening soon". Now soon to me and soon to you might be 2 different things. I see within a couple of years as being very soon.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

slowbiscuit said:


> It is a logical assumption to say that IPTV growth means QAM channel reduction, but we have no evidence that it is happening anytime soon. What folks assume Comcast's many fiefdoms will do is often wrong.


I have no particular insight into Comcast's corporate business planning, but it appears to me that the "fiefdom" scenario is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Their organization into a hierarchical regional structure reporting to just three geographical divisions (Northeast, Central, and West) indicates to me an effort to impose standardization on the disparate entities they have absorbed and to unify formerly chaotic standards.

This is a gradual process that has been ongoing for several years, but I imagine that two to three years from now (seconding* mschnebly*'s post above) all of Comcast's residential customers will be subject to the same set of billing and programming standards (with the possible exception of certain outlier areas due to local peculiarities). At the very least, I strongly suspect that that is the strategic vision at play.


----------



## compnurd (Oct 6, 2011)

mschnebly said:


> And it's often right. When you look on Comcast's site here for service and ALL they show is IPTV service I'd say they are trying to quickly move that direction. Why would they make the only way to get the old service and boxes by calling and arguing or driving down to their store? I would take all this as "it's happening soon". Now soon to me and soon to you might be 2 different things. I see within a couple of years as being very soon.


Not in the Pittsburgh area. Signing up defaults you to a X1 installation with there MG1 box

There are still Comcast markets that can't push 150mbps. While some larger markets may go all
IPTV in the next 1-2 years they are well beyond that for a lot of there smaller markets


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

If you're in a Comcast/Xfinity service area you need to have all of your conversations 'in person' preferably in a 'RETAIL STORE' but that 'RETAIL STORE' likely isn't in your Service/Billing area either.

16 or so months ago I had an issue with Xfinity. Service that I had for better than 24 months I was told would increase by $70 primarily because the VOICE (w/TEXT option) would be $60 of that. All Xfinity Voice doesn't include PC TEXT but *offers generally do. I need the TEXT because I don't speak well. I moved that voice to ATT to retain TEXT, returned CableCARD and kept Internet only. At an Xfinity Service Center (a 12 X 20 facility maybe) in zip code 25401 I asked regarding DATA LIMITS, one person told me 1TB and the associate next to her said not to be concerned because they'll likely waive a couple months of excess (I OF COURSE KNEW BETTER BEFORE WALKING IN THE DOOR) There ain't no DATA CAP in my vicinity! I returned CableCard and decided to try L3TV streaming because there is 1TB (internal storage) and I was interested in comparing PQ. My 13 months of L3TV/T-Vision was an 'experience'. I needed to either sell off all TiVo hardware & rely on 100% streaming with either T-Vision or others.

Out of curiosity I inquired 'ON LINE' using CHAT regarding TV, phone & Internet mentioning CableCard. I was presented with an interesting package. Not wanting to deal with the 12 X 20 Service Center and having a previous good experience I drove to a 'RETAIL STORE' (40 miles each way). The person I had dealt with previously wasn't in so I just took what I was dealt! I showed him the 'package' that had been offered in the CHAT and he mentioned "I can do better I believe"!

At this same time it had been mentioned here VOD was going away - I have Roku (ULTRA w/optical audio) so VOD wasn't going to be an issue. A package I was offered 'in store' w/voice, XG1V4, CableCard and same Internet was a few $$ less than the CHAT offer.

Every Comcast/Xfinity 'RATE CHART' is different with mine having 40 'foot notes' - there's no combination on my 'RATE CHART' that exactly matches my 2 year agreement.

What will change and 'WHEN' - Who the HE!! knows .........

WORD COUNT ain't quite that of @NashGuy but that's 'my story'!

@NashGuy said a friend spent an 'hour' on the phone. Being as knowledgeable a guy as he claims I'd have thought he might have offered better advice before even asking here.

If I were looking for Xfinity offers I might try using an Internet Connection of someone else (NOT Xfinity) and using a 'known address w/no Xfinity service now' and inquire offers. That could be interesting! Got a friend with a dish and DSL?

I understand changes! In 24 months (I doubt sooner) I may well be 'shopping' again. Long term QAM - I hope it's around for a 'long while'. An Xfinity distribution guy here that's been here even before Adelphia mentions that all 'local' hardware appears to be able to support QAM for a long while. Will it? Rural WV - I hope so!!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mschnebly said:


> And it's often right. When you look on Comcast's site here for service and ALL they show is IPTV service I'd say they are trying to quickly move that direction. Why would they make the only way to get the old service and boxes by calling and arguing or driving down to their store? I would take all this as "it's happening soon". Now soon to me and soon to you might be 2 different things. I see within a couple of years as being very soon.


Exactly. "Soon" in Comcast parlance could be full IPTV conversion of some markets in the early- to mid- 2020s. It's Comcast. IPTV *WILL* happen, and anyone who thinks it won't is in denial. How many years it takes to get there who knows. We could even see a scenario where the Chicago market is phased, and later markets are more of a hard cut-over like they did for MPEG-4.



compnurd said:


> There are still Comcast markets that can't push 150mbps. While some larger markets may go all
> IPTV in the next 1-2 years they are well beyond that for a lot of there smaller markets


This is probably the truth. They haven't uniformly upgraded to 1ghz plants (860mhz rebuilds from the past decade are, AFAIK, all 1ghz equipment that hasn't been tuned/tested/sloped/balanced/whatever above 860mhz).

Their national video delivery network today is all IP fiber, with the C-band downlinks happening in Denver. Channels are slotted onto QAM at each headend, so the technology is there at a national level to operate markets differently with the same national IP feed. They will have to eventually switch the reception from C-band to fiber as well as 5G will take over the C-band, and they might even become the or one of the fiber carriers that replaces the C-band system to provide other MVPDs with channels nationwide.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

WVZR1 said:


> 16 or so months ago I had an issue with Xfinity. Service that I had for better than 24 months I was told would increase by $70 primarily because the VOICE (w/TEXT option) would be $60 of that. All Xfinity Voice doesn't include PC TEXT but *offers generally do. I need the TEXT because I don't speak well.


1. That's completely bizarre and a prime example of Comcast's discoordination.
2. If you need text, you could just use your mobile phone for that.



> Every Comcast/Xfinity 'RATE CHART' is different with mine having 40 'foot notes' - there's no combination on my 'RATE CHART' that exactly matches my 2 year agreement.


Their rate card is completely NUTS. This is what a rate card SHOULD look like (they have overbuilt the majority of Comcast- Groton):

Bundles and Pricing | Thames Valley Communications

Note the 16 position chart that shows TV and internet bundles. Add phone for $20 to ANY bundle. None of this crap that Comcast does where you can get this with this bundle but not that one, and this bundle includes this but not that and you end up with a bunch of extra crap bundled in. Also of note is how they still offer around 70 analog channels plus gigabit internet on a 1ghz fiber-deep system that predated the term "fiber deep" by a decade or so.



> Long term QAM - I hope it's around for a 'long while'. An Xfinity distribution guy here that's been here even before Adelphia mentions that all 'local' hardware appears to be able to support QAM for a long while. Will it? Rural WV - I hope so!!


Analog on Comcast was around for a long time. Until it wasn't.


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

WVZR1 said:


> Long term QAM - I hope it's around for a 'long while'. An Xfinity distribution guy here that's been here even before Adelphia mentions that all 'local' hardware appears to be able to support QAM for a long while. Will it?


Just because the hardware is capable says nothing about what will be, or the when it will be it. While the transcoders can output MPEG2 transport streams (used with QAM), any recent device can also be set to output in any of the IPTV formats such as HLS/HDS/DASH, etc. with a simple config file change (sometimes with a firmware or license upgrade depending on vendor). And for that matter, while a new transcoder is not exactly cheap for someone like me (or likely you), it is pocket change for someone like Comcast should they wish to transition.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

Bigg said:


> 1. That's completely bizarre and a prime example of Comcast's discoordination.
> 2. If you need text, you could just use your mobile phone for that.


TEXT from a PC has tremendous advantages used in my situation!. The package that adds TEXT after an *offer has many more inclusions that I just didn't need.

My 13 months of L3TV/T-Vision prepared me for the challenges of streaming. My package from T-Vision with 1TB HDD storage, TVE and all of the other incidentals wasn't terribly priced. Cheaper than either of the Dish services. * NO CONTRACT and PQ better than either. No PCM/Dolby audio issues either. The maybe most irritating Xfinty nuisance is the 'local' ads they insert and the damn BROADCAST ALERTS.

Everything's around until it AIN'T!!! Me and you included!


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Exactly. "Soon" in Comcast parlance could be full IPTV conversion of some markets in the early- to mid- 2020s. It's Comcast. IPTV *WILL* happen, and anyone who thinks it won't is in denial. How many years it takes to get there who knows. We could even see a scenario where the Chicago market is phased, and later markets are more of a hard cut-over like they did for MPEG-4.


Well yeah, but the vibe you get from some here is that QAM is going away in the next couple of years, and all you and I are saying is who the hell knows. It's Comcast, you can't predict when. All you can do is WAG it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

gary.buhrmaster said:


> Just because the hardware is capable says nothing about what will be, or the when it will be it. While the transcoders can output MPEG2 transport streams (used with QAM), any recent device can also be set to output in any of the IPTV formats such as HLS/HDS/DASH, etc. with a simple config file change (sometimes with a firmware or license upgrade depending on vendor).


What the heck are you talking about? Comcast's whole network already *IS* IPTV except for the last few miles from the headend to the main XG1/XG2 in the house, where they go back to IPTV if they are watched on another TV with an Xi3 or similar devices. Those exact same streams that are already encoded can be transmitted via IPTV all the way to the consuming device.



WVZR1 said:


> TEXT from a PC has tremendous advantages used in my situation!. The package that adds TEXT after an *offer has many more inclusions that I just didn't need.


That's irrelevant. Why do you go through Comcast? Android, iOS, and Google Voice all have that functionality, it's not like Comcast has anything unique here.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

Bigg said:


> That's irrelevant. Why do you go through Comcast? Android, iOS, and Google Voice all have that functionality, it's not like Comcast has anything unique here.


My choice and regardless of your 'thoughts' with the area code and exchange that I've had for 35+ years won't go everywhere! You don't have to understand - IT'S CHOICE!

BTW - I did check the TVC 'rate card' all of it! No where do they mention CableCARD so I'd say my 'in person conversation' is a reasonable approach regardless. I don't believe I overlooked it but if I did I'm quite sure you'll point that out!!!

Haven't seen you 'rant' PQ recently!!!!


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

Bigg said:


> What the heck are you talking about?


I was responding to the individual stating that their local engineer was stating that their local franchise encoders do TS for eventual conversion to QAM, and I was pointing out that it can do more than that. Pay attention to the thread.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

When the time comes, I'll survive IPTV transition I'd think!

I've had C-Band, then very early Dish(EchoStar), to get very early HD I had a 'broker' in Canada and did 'Bell ExpressVu'. I had HD here in rural WV before Adelphia even offered it. It was also 'inexpensive' in comparison. The $$$ exchange worked. Bell did an offer to upgrade to more recent receivers and I couldn't meet 'residency' qualification requirements so I needed to transition back to domestic US stuff. Being rural Internet was very interesting also, DialUp, DirecPC, ADSL and 'THEN' Adelphia cable ......

There's very likely much to change .. I did 13 months of L3TV and the option to return is certainly a consideration. Xfinity/TiVo w/CableCARD until.................?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

WVZR1 said:


> My choice and regardless of your 'thoughts' with the area code and exchange that I've had for 35+ years won't go everywhere! You don't have to understand - IT'S CHOICE!


It's just a bizarre and illogical "choice" if text is what you need- that's what cell phones are for. You could also port your number to Google Voice or a cell phone.



> BTW - I did check the TVC 'rate card' all of it! No where do they mention CableCARD so I'd say my 'in person conversation' is a reasonable approach regardless. I don't believe I overlooked it but if I did I'm quite sure you'll point that out!!!


They're $5/mo. I don't know if they're on the website anymore, because they probably only have a handful of them. I had a CableCard when I was with them, it's a bit of a bizarre experience because with a Premiere XL4 or newer, you lose a few analog channels that aren't available in digital or HD. A TiVo Premiere would be able to grab everything. When I had the Premiere XL4 on their service, I had a splitter to get analog through my TV for when games would move to ESPNews.

Right now I don't have an MVPD or vMVPD, but I think I'll get YouTube TV for the 2020 supercycle plus Connecticut is moving into the New Big East, so I'm kind of excited about that!



> Haven't seen you 'rant' PQ recently!!!!


It's still trash. Hasn't changed much. They can only do so much no matter how much raw HP they throw at a 3.8mbps MPEG-4 HD channel.



gary.buhrmaster said:


> I was responding to the individual stating that their local engineer was stating that their local franchise encoders do TS for eventual conversion to QAM, and I was pointing out that it can do more than that. Pay attention to the thread.


That doesn't even make sense since Comcast doesn't encode anything except maybe local access on each system. National channels are encoded in Denver and sent out via IP-fiber, local channels (except for Chicago) are encoded by the stations, and the entire stat-muxed packaged is sent to Comcast in MPEG-2, regional sports channels may either be done regionally (i.e. Chelmsford for New England) or in Denver, so the only thing encoded on an individual system would be local access.

All the local systems do is dump the already encoded MPEG-4 stream from IP-fiber into QAM "slots" with 9 or 10 "slots" per physical QAM channel.



WVZR1 said:


> There's very likely much to change .. I did 13 months of L3TV and the option to return is certainly a consideration. Xfinity/TiVo w/CableCARD until.................?


Other than Comcast's horrible VQ, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I certainly wouldn't buy a new TiVo FOR cable, but as long as your existing one works you can use it. They'll tell you when you need to upgrade to IPTV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

gary.buhrmaster said:


> Wow, the pot calling the kettle black. You have never had an original contribution here or on DSLR, parroting others previous statements, without demonstrating any engineering chops, or background, to understand the facts on the ground that make those statement specific to that particular individual.
> 
> I rarely use it, but for you, I will make an exception. "Plonk".


Please point out which intelligent posts you've made here. Go away, troll.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> There's a lot of possibilities. There's also the old analog 70 channel Expanded Basic, which could be kept as SD QAM. Who knows. There's no way they convert CT by the end of '22. Maybe Chicago. We're at least 3-5 years behind Chicago on virtually everything Comcast.


Is Comcast still offering analog cable TV service there in CT? I thought they'd gone all-digital MPEG-4 (with MPEG-2 locals) pretty much systemwide by now.

At any rate, none of the hypothetical timelines I've talked about necessarily meant that those changes would happen across the *entire* Comcast footprint at those times. I'm talking about when those changes might be introduced on a widespread basis, almost certainly in the Central Division first. Chicago, Nashville, Atlanta, etc. are the markets to keep an eye on.



Bigg said:


> Cox doesn't need the bandwidth back from QAM, it's just a matter of the business model of being a smallish-sized MVPD doesn't make any sense now, and it's not going to get better anytime soon. I wonder if legally they could get IP-ready, and just turn the keys over to Comcast for video since their boxes are already running X1? That would be weird.


Yeah, for Cox it's not mainly about the bandwidth, thanks to SDV. In a few years, it'll be about getting out of running their own TV service and turning it over to a partner vMVPD (which could run on the Cox IP network as managed IPTV). But at that point, of course, it won't make any sense to devote any (or much) bandwidth for QAM TV, other than perhaps Starter TV. (I don't expect any vMVPD to offer locals-only packages for all those markets across the nation, so QAM-only Starter TV might be the only option for Cox customers who only want local channels.)

As for Cox turning the keys over to Comcast -- let's say that Comcast does launch a nationwide vMVPD. Why couldn't they strike a deal with Cox for Cox to sell that service under the existing Contour TV brand? The vMVPD packages would just become the new set of Contour TV packages. It could be linked into Cox's IP network as "managed IPTV" with support for multicasting for customers with the right CPE. Since it wouldn't be OTT, the data could be zero-rated against broadband. Cox could still make the service exclusive to those who bundle it with broadband. For standalone TV subs, they could still offer Starter TV, with those few locals (plus C-SPAN and shopping channels) being the only stuff left on QAM.



Bigg said:


> This isn't speculation. It is analysis. There is a BIG difference. Clearly, I disagree with NashGuy on some details here and there, but no one can honestly say that NashGuy isn't doing a careful and well thought out analysis of the market and various forces in it. In fact, one of his predictions (CBS/Viacom) already came true.


Gracias.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I'm not sure what bearing the OTT providers have on Comcast making their own service IPTV


Well, I'd just say that IPTV (whether it's OTT or managed) offers flexibilities that traditional TV (QAM, DBS) does not. For the operator, there's the ability to integrate more lucrative targeted ads into the live linear channel stream. Hulu with Live TV and AT&T TV can do this already (and, I think, do). They can do the same with IP-based cloud DVR and VOD too. So as Comcast's competitors move into that world, it's an incentive for them to follow and not be left behind.

What flexibilities does IPTV offer for consumers? Well, a live linear channel can change on-the-fly from HD SDR to 4K HDR to match the native format of the show you're watching. That'll be a nice feature for live sports. And IPTV also offers the potential for interactivity that traditional TV doesn't. Yes, some of that can still be done by using an IP-overlay or side-banner with an underlying QAM video stream, but I imagine that the capabilities are greater when the whole thing is IP-based. For instance, the content provider could embed metadata within their IP video stream. Click on an actor to learn more about him. Or click on an item in the frame to see an ad for it and learn where to buy it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Is Comcast still offering analog cable TV service there in CT? I thought they'd gone all-digital MPEG-4 (with MPEG-2 locals) pretty much systemwide by now.


No, analog has been gone for ~6 years. AFAIK, the last analog system running in CT is TVC in Groton, and my guess is they will run analog until they exit the TV business. I was referring to Comcast's analog lineup of 70 channels. That lineup could be used for QAM, and all the other crap moved to IPTV.



> Yeah, for Cox it's not mainly about the bandwidth, thanks to SDV. In a few years, it'll be about getting out of running their own TV service and turning it over to a partner vMVPD (which could run on the Cox IP network as managed IPTV). But at that point, of course, it won't make any sense to devote any (or much) bandwidth for QAM TV, other than perhaps Starter TV. (I don't expect any vMVPD to offer locals-only packages for all those markets across the nation, so QAM-only Starter TV might be the only option for Cox customers who only want local channels.)


My guess is that they get out of the business entirely. If Comcast is running their IPTV system, it would be easy to cook up a locals-only IPTV package to meet franchise requirements.



> As for Cox turning the keys over to Comcast -- let's say that Comcast does launch a nationwide vMVPD. Why couldn't they strike a deal with Cox for Cox to sell that service under the existing Contour TV brand? The vMVPD packages would just become the new set of Contour TV packages. It could be linked into Cox's IP network as "managed IPTV" with support for multicasting for customers with the right CPE.


Yeah, that would be logical, since their CPE already runs X1 and has roughly the same capabilities as native Comcast CPE.



NashGuy said:


> They can do the same with IP-based cloud DVR and VOD too. So as Comcast's competitors move into that world, it's an incentive for them to follow and not be left behind.


I would think that if they could get the timing to sync up properly, they could do local IP ad injection over QAM today. The boxes would download ads ahead of time for a certain customer so that they didn't all try to stream at the same time.



> Yes, some of that can still be done by using an IP-overlay or side-banner with an underlying QAM video stream, but I imagine that the capabilities are greater when the whole thing is IP-based. For instance, the content provider could embed metadata within their IP video stream. Click on an actor to learn more about him. Or click on an item in the frame to see an ad for it and learn where to buy it.


That type of stuff should be able to be done today as an overlay on top of QAM, but in general, yes, you can do more with IPTV when everything is just bits and bytes.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> My guess is that they get out of the business entirely. If Comcast is running their IPTV system, it would be easy to cook up a locals-only IPTV package to meet franchise requirements.


Just comes down to business/contractual considerations. If Comcast has a nationwide vMVPD in which the packages are negotiated as nationwide standard sets of channels (including locals), and there's no locals-only package on the platform (keep in mind that Disney doesn't like the idea of a package without ESPN and Fox doesn't like a package without Fox News, etc.), then does Comcast bother with going back and creating locals-only packages for their white-label MSO redistribution partners like Cox in this hypothetical scenario? I kinda don't think so. If I'm Comcast, I want to keep things as simple and streamlined as possible. "Here are our channel packages. Here are the prices. Here's how much we'll give you for every subscriber you bring to us. You're welcome to sweeten the deal for your customers with a bundling discount or special perks (like a free Xi6 custom streaming box). We're willing to hook into your IP network so that you can offer our vMVPD as managed IPTV. That's the deal, take it or leave it."

Same way I can't see YouTube TV negotiating a locals-only package for Verizon to distribute to their FiOS customers in the NYC area. Wouldn't Google just say, "Uh, if you want/need to still offer that kind of channel package, you'll need to do it on your own FiOS TV platform. That's just not part of what we do at YouTube TV."



Bigg said:


> I would think that if they could get the timing to sync up properly, they could do local IP ad injection over QAM today. The boxes would download ads ahead of time for a certain customer so that they didn't all try to stream at the same time.


That sounds like a big ol' mess. DirecTV does that kind of thing, to an extent, on DVR recordings, but not on live TV. Just way easier to do all that ad-injection server-side when everything is IP. The ads could even be placed via real-time data-enabled auction platforms.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I kinda don't think so. If I'm Comcast, I want to keep things as simple and streamlined as possible. "Here are our channel packages. Here are the prices. Here's how much we'll give you for every subscriber you bring to us. You're welcome to sweeten the deal for your customers with a bundling discount or special perks (like a free Xi6 custom streaming box). We're willing to hook into your IP network so that you can offer our vMVPD as managed IPTV. That's the deal, take it or leave it."


That sounds like Apple, not Comcast. I'd think Comcast would just do it, since they'd have the locals anyway, and they have doing skinny bundles in their own MSO footprint. I'm a little biased by my market, as I can literally walk to the Comcast/Cox dividing line, but even in markets where they don't have an MSO presence, I would think this would make sense.



> Same way I can't see YouTube TV negotiating a locals-only package for Verizon to distribute to their FiOS customers in the NYC area. Wouldn't Google just say, "Uh, if you want/need to still offer that kind of channel package, you'll need to do it on your own FiOS TV platform. That's just not part of what we do at YouTube TV."


I would think that Verizon would just not offer such a thing, as YTTV is OTT. If Comcast's system legally was regulated as OTT on Cox, they'd probably do the same, although the MSOs may have franchise agreements requiring a local tier, versus FiOS that has different franchise agreements.



> That sounds like a big ol' mess. DirecTV does that kind of thing, to an extent, on DVR recordings, but not on live TV. Just way easier to do all that ad-injection server-side when everything is IP. The ads could even be placed via real-time data-enabled auction platforms.


True, it would be a bit of a mess. Just saying that they could start doing it if they wanted to.


----------



## jsherknus (Jan 2, 2009)

Many of the cable providers are moving to IPTV technology anyway. This is why we are seeing all these android apps pop up, like Discovery Go, History Channel, HBO Now. Providers like PSVue, Sling, YouTube TV are 100% IP based.

Some channels need you to use your cable providers login to access the channel, but others just require you to register (your email address for direct marketing is worth the price of free access to their service).

Tivo is getting on the bandwagon by making some of those same android apps available, but not in Tivo central, but as a separate apps folder. But this is not ideal. Those channels need to be incorporated into the guide.

Like it or not, the OTT TV, IPTV model is the future. Oh, and by the way, streaming live TV is not illegal in the US, since Trump rolled back net neutrality. Cable companies are no longer required to monitor or report DRM violations anymore.

Unfortunately, Cable companies are forced to purchase channels that are dogs, and sell them with a handful of good channels. This is because the content providers require it contractually to pay for channels that lose them money or break even. Until that practice stops, we won't get a true ala carte TV package where you pay by the channel...say 25 to 99 cents a channel.

Oh, and OTA is dead. The HD antenna transition killed that beast. I know some people will say it's great in urban areas, but still, you don't get any premium channels or other cable networks like Discovery, History, Nick or Disney Channel. You get less than basic cable. Plus $300-500 for an OTA Roamio? That's nuts $500 to watch Crackle on a Tivo when I can do the same thing on a $40 Amazon Firestick. It's insane. If Tivo does not embrace IPTV like Kodi did, they will be done. Their stock is trading at 1999 prices! They have been hemorrhaging money quarterly for years. Or maybe Tivo needs to start their own TV service like Sling to save themselves from bankruptcy.


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

jsherknus said:


> Many of the cable providers are moving to IPTV technology anyway. This is why we are seeing all these android apps pop up, like Discovery Go, History Channel, HBO Now. Providers like PSVue, Sling, YouTube TV are 100% IP based.
> 
> Some channels need you to use your cable providers login to access the channel, but others just require you to register (your email address for direct marketing is worth the price of free access to their service).
> 
> ...


TiVo's demise has been predicted since 1999. LOL.


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

jsherknus said:


> Oh, and OTA is dead. The HD antenna transition killed that beast. I know some people will say it's great in urban areas, but still, you don't get any premium channels or other cable networks like Discovery, History, Nick or Disney Channel. You get less than basic cable.


A few of the changes regarding ATSC 3.0 was that it would offer the capacity for additional sub-channels, and to be able offer subscription based content capabilities to the broadcasters (so, for example, one of the sub-channels could be an encrypted HBO stream, and you would have to pay $x/mo to decode it in your residence), revitalizing the OTA market space for those that do not want, or can not get, cable TV services. Given the changing desires of the consumers, there are also views that ATSC 3.0 is too little, too late, to keep some broadcasters profitable and relevant. I think the only thing most people agree on is that change is happening, and something will occur.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

jsherknus said:


> Many of the cable providers are moving to IPTV technology anyway. This is why we are seeing all these android apps pop up, like Discovery Go, History Channel, HBO Now. Providers like PSVue, Sling, YouTube TV are 100% IP based.
> 
> Some channels need you to use your cable providers login to access the channel, but others just require you to register (your email address for direct marketing is worth the price of free access to their service).
> 
> ...


I think you need to realize that most OTA folks are NOT using TiVo so your expensive opinion about OTA is wrong. Most OTA watchers don't record at all. It's far from dead.


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

mschnebly said:


> I think you need to realize that most OTA folks are NOT using TiVo so your expensive opinion about OTA is wrong. Most OTA watchers don't record at all. It's far from dead.


I would record OTA shows if the process was easier and integrated with my current TiVo lineup.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Sparky1234 said:


> I would record OTA shows if the process was easier and integrated with my current TiVo lineup.


I record OTA. I use Channels DVR TV Everywhere to get my integrated guide.


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

mschnebly said:


> I record OTA. I use Channels DVR TV Everywhere to get my integrated guide.


I'll look into it. Do you have HomeRun?


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Sparky1234 said:


> I'll look into it. Do you have HomeRun?


I've got SD Quattros, over time I've gotten 2 now (got refurbs cheap) for 8 tuners but the extra 4 are rarely used. I have streaming YTTV and OTA. The guide blends them together.


----------



## Pokemon_Dad (Jan 19, 2008)

Sparky1234 said:


> I'll look into it. Do you have HomeRun?


One *H*D Quatro here too.  Like @mschnebly I watch and record using Channels DVR. It's a very clean interface and there are apps for web, Fire TV, Apple TV, Android, etc.

I currently combine OTA with Xfinity Stream (TV Everywhere) in Channels as a test TiVo replacement, with a plan to replace Xfinity with Live TV from YouTube or Hulu for the cable content we'd miss most. For us streaming has mostly replaced Preferred and Premium cable channels anyway.

One point to consider though is that OTA and streaming have surround sound like cable, but IPTV like TV Everywhere and YouTube are stereo only at this time. We've been discussing this stuff over on the TiVo Alternatives thread.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Pokemon_Dad said:


> One point to consider though is that OTA and streaming have surround sound like cable, but IPTV like TV Everywhere and YouTube are stereo only at this time. We've been discussing this stuff over on the TiVo Alternatives thread.


I'm pretty sure that most (all?) channels that offer DD5.1 audio are now available in that format through AT&T TV Now (what used to be called DirecTV Now). Although I don't think that would help you in your situation, where you're using Channels, which I think just logs into each cable network's website to fetch streams, not into the website of the vMVPD (e.g. YTTV, AT&T TV Now, etc.).


----------



## Pokemon_Dad (Jan 19, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> I'm pretty sure that most (all?) channels that offer DD5.1 audio are now available in that format through AT&T TV Now (what used to be called DirecTV Now). Although I don't think that would help you in your situation, where you're using Channels, which I think just logs into each cable network's website to fetch streams, not into the website of the vMVPD (e.g. YTTV, AT&T TV Now, etc.).


Yes I think that's the problem: Channels accesses those streams via the web. Thanks for the reminder. Not a big problem now, as we're only truly concerned with losing national news channels if we go entirely to OTA and streaming, and stereo is good enough for those. But I do hope someone finds a better way, as the streaming services' cloud DVRs seem quite limited.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Pokemon_Dad said:


> Yes I think that's the problem: Channels accesses those streams via the web. Thanks for the reminder. Not a big problem now, as we're only truly concerned with losing national news channels if we go entirely to OTA and streaming, and stereo is good enough for those. But I do hope someone finds a better way, as the streaming services' cloud DVRs seem quite limited.


We'll have to wait and see what AT&T TV (the "premium" flagship counterpart to AT&T TV Now) looks like when it rolls out nationwide in the coming weeks/months. At least in its current incarnation in the pilot test markets, it offers a 500-hour cloud DVR with a 90-day auto-expiration period. But AT&T has said that they intend to incorporate feedback from the pilot deployment, so who knows what the final thing will look like, or how much it will cost (although the CEO keeps saying that it will be less than their legacy DirecTV satellite service).


----------



## Pokemon_Dad (Jan 19, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> We'll have to wait and see what AT&T TV (the "premium" flagship counterpart to AT&T TV Now) looks like when it rolls out nationwide in the coming weeks/months. At least in its current incarnation in the pilot test markets, it offers a 500-hour cloud DVR with a 90-day auto-expiration period. But AT&T has said that they intend to incorporate feedback from the pilot deployment, so who knows what the final thing will look like, or how much it will cost (although the CEO keeps saying that it will be less than their legacy DirecTV satellite service).


Some of those cloud DVRs swap in VOD for shows you've recorded, which makes it difficult to skip commercials, which makes it not at all a TiVo replacement. Looking forward to a report on AT&T TV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Pokemon_Dad said:


> Some of those cloud DVRs swap in VOD for shows you've recorded, which makes it difficult to skip commercials, which makes it not at all a TiVo replacement. Looking forward to a report on AT&T TV.


From what I can gather, DirecTV Now/AT&T TV Now has never done that with their cloud DVR. (And I can confirm that I never saw recordings replaced with VOD when I was a beta tester of their cloud DVR in early 2018.) I'll be a little surprised if they start doing that, especially on the higher-end AT&T TV, given that they want to position it as a replacement for both Uverse TV and DirecTV. (They plan to immediately stop selling Uverse TV as soon as AT&T TV rolls out, and have already done so in the AT&T TV test markets like St. Louis.)


----------

