# Comcast to Discontinue Support of Cable Cards?



## audioxcel (Dec 1, 2017)

I recently bought a Romio Basic. Today, a Comcast tech came out to install new service. He also brought a Multistream Cable Card. It took him two hours to get the card to work so we had plenty of time to chat.

He said that within the next two years Comcast is going to discontinue support of cable cards for Tivos. I asked what that would mean and he said that I would have to get all content through streaming. I asked how that would affect recorded programs that are saved on my Tivo. He said that I would no longer be able to access it.

This doesn't makes sense to me. It seems like what is on the hard drive should still be playable. Anyone know if content tat is recorded form Comcast depends on a functioning cable card for play back?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

First anything you have recorded on your TiVo will be fine. You can quit Comcast and still view it years latter. 

Second what he is talking about is Comcast switching from delivering cable TV via tech called QAM to tech called IPTV. That may happen if it does it is very unlikely that TiVo will continue to work with Comcast.


----------



## audioxcel (Dec 1, 2017)

atmuscarella said:


> First anything you have recorded on your TiVo will be fine. You can quit Comcast and still view it years latter.
> 
> Second what he is talking about is Comcast switching from delivering cable TV via tech called QAM to tech called IPTV. That may happen if it does it is very unlikely that TiVo will continue to work with Comcast.


Thanks. That sounds like what he was trying to say. He said that they don't even install basic set-top boxes in our area anymore and that DVRs are going away because they are using the cloud to store recordings now.

I thought he was wrong about the programs that were recorded on the Tivo but was worried that Comcast was somehow embedding a code in the programs that required an active cable card for playback like Directv does with their DVRs.

I guess I have a couple of years to figure out plan B for my Tivo. I have 3 Sony DHG-HDDs that pretty much became useless for recording when Rovi quit supporting TVGOS. Not only was the guide support gone but the clock signal was also gone


----------



## powrcow (Sep 27, 2010)

audioxcel said:


> I guess I have a couple of years to figure out plan B for my Tivo.


IPTV is being experimented with in some markets. But QAM devices are still the norm in many places so it will be some time before QAM delivery is turned off. In my market, it took at least 3 years of false starts to get Switched Digital Video working and many years to remove analog distribution - if it's even gone - so I expect a similar time line for the removal of QAM.

Until that point, use your TiVo and (hopefully) save some money.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

I’d say his 2 year date is optimistic, probably closer to 3-4.


----------



## humbb (Jan 27, 2014)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I'd say his 2 year date is optimistic, probably closer to 3-4.


So right around the time RiVo gets its act together and finally begins providing accurate and complete guide data?


----------



## kpeters59 (Jun 19, 2007)

Talk about optimistic!

-KP


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

I think the lack of recordable 4K content over coax will push most to internet streaming. This is a DVR killer and the real threat.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

is this like when cd's ended vinyl records?

they'll get my dvr when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chicagobrownblue said:


> I think the lack of recordable 4K content over coax will push most to internet streaming. This is a DVR killer and the real threat.


Yeah. Comcast has confirmed that 4K HDR content will only ever be transmitted by IPTV, never by bandwidth-constrained QAM TV. I suspect the same will be true of Verizon, Charter, etc. But those providers will allow 4K HDR stuff to be recorded using their own equipment and apps. DirecTV already allows that. But since TiVos likely won't be compatible with IPTV, they won't be able to access 4K channels, much less record them. So for those home theater enthusiast types who want the best TV experience, they won't be able to use TiVo. That will be a further blow to their retail cable DVRs.


----------



## rjrsouthwest (Feb 19, 2016)

Comcast uses cable cards in their own cable boxes and DVR's so I do not see them making all that equipment obsolete anytime soon.


----------



## stile99 (Feb 27, 2002)

rjrsouthwest said:


> Comcast uses cable cards in their own cable boxes and DVR's so I do not see them making all that equipment obsolete anytime soon.


I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the "eat your own dog food" aspect was eliminated a few years ago.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

stile99 said:


> I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the "eat your own dog food" aspect was eliminated a few years ago.


I have no idea what this means...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

rjrsouthwest said:


> Comcast uses cable cards in their own cable boxes and DVR's so I do not see them making all that equipment obsolete anytime soon.


They won't. The Comcast boxes can already view IPTV streams like from VOD. And they already store recordings in the cloud. Well at least in my area they do.

The next step will be to dump the hard drive from their cable boxes. But maybe they already have an X1 box without the hard drive? I just know the current ones can store the recordings in the cloud, so the hard drive is not needed for storage of recordings.


----------



## stile99 (Feb 27, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I have no idea what this means...


Cable companies are no longer required to use CC in their own boxes.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah IPTV is going to kill TiVo for most of us, eventually. But the pace at which cable companies move is pretty slow so we're probably 4-5 year away from even some of us getting cut off and probably a decade or more before all of us are cut off. Maybe at that point we'll have a more consumer friendly administration and the FCC will do something to allow TiVo to work with IPTV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah IPTV is going to kill TiVo for most of us, eventually. But the pace at which cable companies move is pretty slow so we're probably 4-5 year away from even some of us getting cut off and probably a decade or more before all of us are cut off. Maybe at that point we'll have a more consumer friendly administration and the FCC will do something to allow TiVo to work with IPTV.


Yeah, although, per the OP, it's plausible that Comcast will go all-IP and drop TiVo support by 2020. Other cable companies, probably not. As for a decade from now, who knows what pay TV will look like. The whole system may have shifted to OTT by then.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

About a year and a half ago, our association renewed the cable TV contract we have, which included a complete equipment refresh. When I asked why they forced equipment refreshes on us, they stated that they were trying to get everyone on the X1 platform (which does QAM and IPTV). Even for secondary boxes, they were removing the old gear to get everyone moved over to the new stuff. New installs were all being handled this way.

I have no idea how long these refreshes usually take, and they seem to be completely voluntary for existing customers (although they are pushing it very hard). I suspect once they hit a certain threshold, they will probably become mandatory (similar to when they did mandatory refreshes to support MPEG4 here this year) and we will be given cutoff dates. 2-3 years doesn't seem out of the question. I still own a Tivo, and when the refresh happened, I was told it would continue to work "for now" but that when my current hardware dies, I may want to consider using X1. At the time, I wrote that off as "of course you want me to use that, makes you more money" but now I am starting to wonder if they really did have my best interest in mind, if just this once.

I'll continue to use my existing Tivo hardware (Roamio Pro) but probably won't replace it when it dies unless this has been addressed by that time. (Or maybe I'll go X1 but keep an eye on Tivo developments)


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

by the time any migration happens, who knows what comcast's platform will be, or if x1 will be obsolete by then, too - the technology sometimes migrates faster than the planned network builds, and plans sometimes change as a result - this isn't specific to cable, either.


----------



## tommage1 (Nov 6, 2008)

I know nothing about IPTV other than a new provider in our area, Metronet, uses it. When I saw that (which means I could not use my Tivos), I ruled them out as an alternative provider (darn, ANYTHING to replace Comcast would be nice). I'm assuming it uses the internet? So if you are using the internet it will use up your internet allotment per month? Comcast gives you 1TB a month I think, ATT DSL only 150GB. If IPTV uses this I think you'd go way over the 150GB ATT DSL for sure, maybe over the 1TB Comcast. If they start doing 4K I have no idea, have many GB in a typical 1 hour 4K download? If IPTV makes Tivo obsolete I wonder if they will stay in business and support OTA on the boxes that have it. Or maybe come up with some new device? We have quite a few Tivos, two cable only, the Roamio Pluses.


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

When IPTV happens, why is this going to kill TiVo? Yes, the older units won't work, but I'm sure TiVo will come up with a newer unit.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

tommage1 said:


> I know nothing about IPTV other than a new provider in our area, Metronet, uses it. When I saw that (which means I could not use my Tivos), I ruled them out as an alternative provider (darn, ANYTHING to replace Comcast would be nice). I'm assuming it uses the internet? So if you are using the internet it will use up your internet allotment per month? Comcast gives you 1TB a month I think, ATT DSL only 150GB. If IPTV uses this I think you'd go way over the 150GB ATT DSL for sure, maybe over the 1TB Comcast.


I can't speak to your provider, but AT&T U-Verse is IPTV and was using Microsoft Mediaroom, which got sold off: Mediaroom is now part of Ericsson - Ericsson.

None of the U-Verse TV watching or recording counted against one's broadband bandwidth. My parents had it for several years until a few months ago. They switched to DirecTV for TV but still have U-verse for (slow) broadband.

From some quick Googling, Metronet may also use Mediaroom: Alcatel-Lucent Moves Down Market With IPTV, Cinergy MetroNet is Launch Customer


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

If I can record streaming stuff why can't I record IPTV? Seems contentment providers want to once again charge us more for the same thing. 4k, Blu-Ray, etc., are over hyped...


----------



## tommage1 (Nov 6, 2008)

cwerdna said:


> I can't speak to your provider, but AT&T U-Verse is IPTV and was using Microsoft Mediaroom, which got sold off: Mediaroom is now part of Ericsson - Ericsson.
> 
> None of the U-Verse TV watching or recording counted against one's broadband bandwidth. My parents had it for several years until a few months ago. They switched to DirecTV for TV but still have U-verse for (slow) broadband.


Interesting, did not know Uverse is IPTV. Not available in our area, for ATT just Directv and DSL internet. I saw Uverse supposedly worked with early model Tivos, maybe S3? Guided setup even showed Uverse as an option. Why would it work with an S3 but not any later models?

As for Comcast, if you have that X1 thing that can use some IPTV, the internet usage is included with the X1 package for TV viewing? Because we have ATT DSL and Comcast TV (not X1), we do not have Comcast internet. So you can get Comcast TV X1 which is partially IPTV and not have Comcast internet at all I guess, at least not part of the package you are paying for?


----------



## tommage1 (Nov 6, 2008)

If the ATT Time Warner purchase is not killed by Trump I wonder if ATT will offer Time Warner in our area. Or they may have some sort of agreement not to compete in Comcast only areas (does anyone know of anywhere that has a choice of Time Warner cable or Comcast?) Am not hopeful as Comcast probably owns the wiring. We can't get Uverse as the ATT wiring in our subdivision is not fiber optic (I could not use my Tivos anyway.) Metronet which just installed in our subdivision did put in fiber optic wiring but they probably won't allow ATT to use it or would charge them a mint to rent it. Bottom line for me, I like my Tivos because I own them and pretty much have control over my recordings. That is what I want, not something where I have to use/rent any sort of provider DVRs where I have no control of my recordings, if the DVR fails or I switch providers I lose everything. I hope this does not go away in the future, this IPTV/no Tivo thing is concerning.


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

I saw the new IP-based, 4K, Comcast boxes at CEDIA this past Sept. Very nice and compact. They have the ability to save recordings to the cloud as well as share content recorded on their DVR hard drives like TiVo can.


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

Sparky1234 said:


> If I can record streaming stuff why can't I record IPTV? Seems contentment providers want to once again charge us more for the same thing. 4k, Blu-Ray, etc., are over hyped...


The issue is encryption. The current CableCard system allows 3rd-party access to the encrypted cable streams using a universal standard so that they can be viewed and recorded. When CableCard goes away, the MSO's like Comcast move to their own method of encryption, for which there is no universal standard. The Tivo software could no doubt be modified to use IPTV, the problem is whether Tivo gets access to the encryption specs from Comcast, and every other MSO, which will probably all be different. Tivo's system goes from a straight-forward decryption via CableCard to a nightmare of competing encryption standards, many of which they will never be allowed to access.


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

tatergator1 said:


> The issue is encryption. The current CableCard system allows 3rd-party access to the encrypted cable streams using a universal standard so that they can be viewed and recorded. When CableCard goes away, the MSO's like Comcast move to their own method of encryption, for which there is no universal standard. The Tivo software could no doubt be modified to use IPTV, the problem is whether Tivo gets access to the encryption specs from Comcast, and every other MSO, which will probably all be different. Tivo's system goes from a straight-forward decryption via CableCard to a nightmare of competing encryption standards, many of which they will never be allowed to access.


How will OTA be affected? And can't the IPTV signal be hacked or will delivery be controlled by both hardware and software?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

so, with only 3 years of tivo left, i guess the value of new lifetime subscriptions is no longer so great?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Sparky1234 said:


> If I can record streaming stuff why can't I record IPTV? Seems contentment providers want to once again charge us more for the same thing. 4k, Blu-Ray, etc., are over hyped...


You can. The issue is that The cable provider would need to work with TiVo to provide a solution to allow the TiVo to record the IPTV stream. But there is no incentive for the cable provider to do that.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

NorthAlabama said:


> so, with only 3 years of tivo left, i guess the value of new lifetime subscriptions is no longer so great?


Lifetime now means 3 years?


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

Sparky1234 said:


> How will OTA be affected? And can't the IPTV signal be hacked or will delivery be controlled by both hardware and software?


OTA is unaffected by this issue.

I mean, you could try to reverse-engineer the cable decryption schemes, but as a publicly traded company, Tivo is not going to actively assist end-users in such a venture, nor attempt it themselves. For models made after the Series 3 Tivo, "hacking" has been essentially impossible. The switch to IPTV will kill Tivo for Cable, unless they can reach agreements with all MSO's, or the MSO's magically move towards a common IPTV standard (very unlikely). The writing's on the wall, but I honestly think EOL for CableCards for most users is at least 3 years away, probably 5 or more. I'm on the periphery of a major metro area served by Spectrum (Time Warner), and we still have about 50 ANALOG stations coming down the line. They've got to kill/phase out that before they realistically start thinking about moving towards clearing out all the old legacy CableCard set-tops and switch to IPTV.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

For Comcast customers, I sure hope they change the platform before they go all IPTV. The X1 is clunky. There are some nice features like scoreboards but standard navigation and usage is balky, cartoonish and lacking in control and information.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

There seems to be a lot of confusion about some simple stuff here. First of all, the IPTV does not count against the cap, it is internal network traffic, not internet traffic. Yes, that is nonsensical since they claim the congestion on the last mile, but that's the way it is done.

Comcast currently has live IPTV in some markets alongside their Xi5 box. I don't know if they will allow full live TV and DVR on an account without a QAM-based box, but a user over on the Comcast forum have observed the Xi5 working over Wi-Fi with the main QAM XG1 gateway completely disconnected. I don't know if this is all markets, or just a few test markets.

The transition will likely take place over some time, and involve cutting blocks of channels over, so if you have the everything package, you will be affected sooner than if you just have basic cable or a package with a handful of cable channels.

The Roamio will continue to work for at least 5 years on ATSC 1.0 for OTA viewing, probably quite a bit longer depending on how the transition to ATSC 3.0 goes, but that's a whole different story anyway.

In my view, Comcast is basically worthless at this point anyway, due in part to the general move away from pay TV and to streaming, but also because of the incredibly poor quality of their new MPEG-4 for cable TV channels that is basically unwatchable.



tatergator1 said:


> The issue is encryption. The current CableCard system allows 3rd-party access to the encrypted cable streams using a universal standard so that they can be viewed and recorded. When CableCard goes away, the MSO's like Comcast move to their own method of encryption, for which there is no universal standard. The Tivo software could no doubt be modified to use IPTV, the problem is whether Tivo gets access to the encryption specs from Comcast, and every other MSO, which will probably all be different. Tivo's system goes from a straight-forward decryption via CableCard to a nightmare of competing encryption standards, many of which they will never be allowed to access.


I had heard that Comcast was going to support TiVo on IPTV, but given the recent patent problems, the likelihood of that went from less than 50/50 to WAY less than 50/50 IMO.


----------



## tommage1 (Nov 6, 2008)

Bigg said:


> In my view, Comcast is basically worthless at this point anyway, due in part to the general move away from pay TV and to streaming, but also because of the incredibly poor quality of their new MPEG-4 for cable TV channels that is basically unwatchable.


That is true, since all cable channels (network channels ok for now) are compressed (1-2GB per hour of HD) I get a lot of tiling and audio dropout. Heck one show (Mr Robot) was so bad I decided to watch it "on demand". Guess what, the "on demand" had the tiling and audio dropout in the same places as the recording............... But worthless or not, they are the only cable option here sadly. I have gone mostly OTA, am not starting watching any new cable only shows, when the cable series I do watch end that will be it for Comcast. Will miss a lot of sports but with all the price increases, especially the new "fees" they keep raising and the poor quality compressed shows I just can't support them. RABBIT EARS!!


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

tommage1 said:


> If the ATT Time Warner purchase is not killed by Trump I wonder if ATT will offer Time Warner in our area. Or they may have some sort of agreement not to compete in Comcast only areas (does anyone know of anywhere that has a choice of Time Warner cable or Comcast?) Am not hopeful as Comcast probably owns the wiring. We can't get Uverse as the ATT wiring in our subdivision is not fiber optic (I could not use my Tivos anyway.) Metronet which just installed in our subdivision did put in fiber optic wiring but they probably won't allow ATT to use it or would charge them a mint to rent it. Bottom line for me, I like my Tivos because I own them and pretty much have control over my recordings. That is what I want, not something where I have to use/rent any sort of provider DVRs where I have no control of my recordings, if the DVR fails or I switch providers I lose everything. I hope this does not go away in the future, this IPTV/no Tivo thing is concerning.


ATT is not buying Time Warner Cable. Charter bought it a year or so ago. ATT is buying Time Warner the content company- i.e., HBO, CNN, TBS, etc.


----------



## tommage1 (Nov 6, 2008)

UCLABB said:


> ATT is not buying Time Warner Cable. Charter bought it a year or so ago. ATT is buying Time Warner the content company- i.e., HBO, CNN, TBS, etc.


Oh, heh, thanks for clearing that up. Then I don't care if the deal goes through, was hoping for a Comcast alternative here. Oh for the good old days of small local cable companies, $20-30 a month, Comcast and the other big companies bought them all up, that was the end of "fair pricing". When basic digital starter, no premium channels, no equipment other than a cable card gets to $90 a month or so it's just too much IMO.


----------



## Sgt Howl (Jan 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> ... In my view, Comcast is basically worthless at this point anyway ... because of the incredibly poor quality of their new MPEG-4 for cable TV channels that is basically unwatchable.


Couldn't agree with you more. I've invested a lot in my TV and projector and the Comcast picture is truly garbage. I have no reason to believe that picture quality will become a priority when Comcast switches to IPTV - do you?


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Sgt Howl said:


> Couldn't agree with you more. I've invested a lot in my TV and projector and the Comcast picture is truly garbage. I have no reason to believe that picture quality will become a priority when Comcast switches to IPTV - do you?


I recorded a movie from TNT the other night and couldn't believe how terrible it looked-really really bad. It seems like some channels get it worse.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I recorded a movie from TNT the other night and couldn't believe how terrible it looked-really really bad. It seems like some channels get it worse.


TNT is crap PQ to start with. Comcast can't be making it any better.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

tommage1 said:


> Interesting, did not know Uverse is IPTV. Not available in our area, for ATT just Directv and DSL internet. I saw Uverse supposedly worked with early model Tivos, maybe S3? Guided setup even showed Uverse as an option. Why would it work with an S3 but not any later models?


U-Verse is also not available in my area, although my area can have AT&T DSL.

Both of the above are available where my parents live.

Microsoft used to have a nice page showing all the cable/phone companies and areas where Mediaroom was available along w/their brands. You can see more references to U-verse being Mediaroom and IPTV by Googling for _iptv mediaroom u-verse_.

I can't speak for what you saw, but it'd make sense that it could work for Series 1 and 2 TiVos as those could control set top boxes via IR blaster or serial connection in order to change the channel on the box. IIRC, Series 3 and beyond can't do that. And, since U-Verse doesn't use CableCARD and doesn't have TV available over QAM over coax (IIRC), it can't work with those newer TiVos. For my parents' case, IIRC, it was just an HDMI connection from the STB to their TV.

Input to the main STB and DVR was via phone line. The installer said it was VDSL.


----------



## tommage1 (Nov 6, 2008)

cwerdna said:


> I can't speak for what you saw, but it'd make sense that it could work for Series 1 and 2 TiVos as those could control set top boxes via IR blaster or serial connection in order to change the channel on the box. IIRC, Series 3 and beyond can't do that. And, since U-Verse doesn't use CableCARD and doesn't have TV available over QAM over coax (IIRC), it can't work with those newer TiVos. For my parents' case, IIRC, it was just an HDMI connection from the STB to their TV.


I have no idea, never used it, I know it doesn't work with Premiere and up. But guided setup does show Uverse available on S3 (at least it used to). Moot point for me as Uverse not available in our subdivision, just Directv and DSL from ATT. May research it for fun though.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tommage1 said:


> That is true, since all cable channels (network channels ok for now) are compressed (1-2GB per hour of HD) I get a lot of tiling and audio dropout.


MPEG-4 should not cause tiling and audio dropout, but it does cause extremely poor picture quality, a loss of detail, loss of color depth, and a generally flat and blurry look.



> I have gone mostly OTA, am not starting watching any new cable only shows, when the cable series I do watch end that will be it for Comcast. Will miss a lot of sports but with all the price increases, especially the new "fees" they keep raising and the poor quality compressed shows I just can't support them. RABBIT EARS!!


Yeah, those are my thoughts. I need a bit more than rabbit ears, but the costs of cable just for sports, which are highly picture quality dependent make the whole thing a losing battle. Then you look at DirecTV, which actually has good picture quality, but their rates are significantly higher than even cable's. I couldn't justify $120/mo for something that even with having the best out there, I would still watch at least 75% of OTA, Netflix, and HBO.



tommage1 said:


> Oh for the good old days of small local cable companies, $20-30 a month, Comcast and the other big companies bought them all up, that was the end of "fair pricing". When basic digital starter, no premium channels, no equipment other than a cable card gets to $90 a month or so it's just too much IMO.


It's not so much the consolidation as the content providers just keep hiking rates and hiking rates and have created a totally unsustainable series of price increases. They cannot indefinitely hike the carriage costs that they are charging the cable and satellite companies at several times the rate of inflation forever, as eventually they would take over the whole economy. It's the same issue with healthcare- it cannot take over the entire economy.



Sgt Howl said:


> Couldn't agree with you more. I've invested a lot in my TV and projector and the Comcast picture is truly garbage. I have no reason to believe that picture quality will become a priority when Comcast switches to IPTV - do you?


I didn't think so. However, I have one report from the Comcast forum with someone who really seems to know what they're seeing, and they claimed the VQ was better on IPTV- with their XG1 unplugged, using only an Xi5. The only thing I can think is that Comcast is using HEVC for IPTV when possible, and they aren't bitstarving HEVC as much, as I cannot imagine Comcast making multiple MPEG-4 streams, since the whole point of this "HD Enhanced" BS is that they would have a single encode that would cover QAM, IPTV, and HD streaming.



tommage1 said:


> I have no idea, never used it, I know it doesn't work with Premiere and up. But guided setup does show Uverse available on S3 (at least it used to). Moot point for me as Uverse not available in our subdivision, just Directv and DSL from ATT. May research it for fun though.


That's a mistake. The guide data is there for Series 2 boxes that can IR blast a U-Verse box. Series 3 has no way of taking video output from another box and recording it like Series 2.


----------



## tommage1 (Nov 6, 2008)

Bigg said:


> MPEG-4 should not cause tiling and audio dropout, but it does cause extremely poor picture quality, a loss of detail, loss of color depth, and a generally flat and blurry look.


It is strange, been getting a lot more tiling and audio dropout lately. If not MPEG-4 I wonder what is causing it? My cable signal is very good, well over 90% on almost every channel (maybe TOO strong, most are actually 100%?) Have not noticed any unusual corrected/not corrected info when I check though not that often and certainly not every channel. It was strange that my recording of Mr. Robot had so much audio dropout and tiling, then when I decided to watch it "on demand" the dropout and tiling were there in the same places. I recorded the episode again at a later time, all good, nothing wrong with the places in the episode that were bad on the original recording and the on demand viewing. May have been something with USA network themselves with the original broadcast? Last episode of the season too, if everyone got the bad picture/audio I'll bet there were a lot of disappointed people. Unwatchable, mostly last 15 minutes, could not even hear the conversations. Hope it's not the drive in my Tivo starting to go, considered that since I get it sometimes on other shows but the recording AND the on demand having the same issue in the same places made me think not the Tivo/drive. Oh, my other Tivos using OTA only don't seem to have the audio/video problems. No compressed on OTA which made me think it may be the cable MPEG-4 but maybe not.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

MPEG4 in itself does not cause flatness or blurriness. Directv uses MPEG4 and while I cannot attest to PQ in the last year, they had the sharpest and best PQ after the conversion.


----------



## tommage1 (Nov 6, 2008)

Bigg said:


> It's not so much the consolidation as the content providers just keep hiking rates and hiking rates and have created a totally unsustainable series of price increases. They cannot indefinitely hike the carriage costs that they are charging the cable and satellite companies at several times the rate of inflation forever, as eventually they would take over the whole economy. It's the same issue with healthcare- it cannot take over the entire economy.


Ha, more companies to add to my "dislike" list, the content providers. Comcast was at the top of my list, still bad/expensive/poor quality picture but at least they aren't lying about the "fees" being used to cover the increases by the providers. Or at least some of the fees (oh the providers raised our costs $1 so we have to raise yours $2......) Just speculating on that. And does not justify the constant increases in rental fees, $10+ a month for a cable modem, $6 a month for a digital adapter etc etc.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tommage1 said:


> It is strange, been getting a lot more tiling and audio dropout lately. If not MPEG-4 I wonder what is causing it? .... No compressed on OTA which made me think it may be the cable MPEG-4 but maybe not.


That sounds like intermittent SNR or signal issues, not the compression.



TonyD79 said:


> MPEG4 in itself does not cause flatness or blurriness. Directv uses MPEG4 and while I cannot attest to PQ in the last year, they had the sharpest and best PQ after the conversion.


We should be more clear and say that we are talking about Comcast's implementation of MPEG-4. MPEG-4 is used on Blu-Rays, DirecTV, and tons of other places and it looks great, and yes, it's about 2x as efficient as MPEG-2.



tommage1 said:


> Ha, more companies to add to my "dislike" list, the content providers. Comcast was at the top of my list, still bad/expensive/poor quality picture but at least they aren't lying about the "fees" being used to cover the increases by the providers.


They all tack on extra fees, and it's dishonest. The regulators should really get a handle on the local and RSN fees, and maybe even equipment fees. The costs for TV are going way up because of the programmers, but the cable companies could at least be more transparent about it in the advertising and pricing plans, instead of burying the costs in the fees, the equipment rentals, and the costs of internet.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

geekmedic said:


> When IPTV happens, why is this going to kill TiVo? Yes, the older units won't work, but I'm sure TiVo will come up with a newer unit.


Same reason why Tivo can't be used with U-Verse TV - no industry standard for access and encryption. This is what the FCC should have done to replace cards but they caved to the MSOs.

So Tivo can't come up with a new unit, not that it's needed anyway. All they have to do is update software assuming an MSO lets them do it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Same reason why Tivo can't be used with U-Verse TV - no industry standard for access and encryption. This is what the FCC should have done to replace cards but they caved to the MSOs.


I agree in principle, but I think that by the time it matters, pay TV is going to even more of a zombie than it is now, so it won't really matter anyway. People will pay for something resembling TV, but I don't a majority of people will be subscribing to traditional cable or satellite packages in the future.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I agree in principle, but I think that by the time it matters, pay TV is going to even more of a zombie than it is now, so it won't really matter anyway. People will pay for something resembling TV, but I don't a majority of people will be subscribing to traditional cable or satellite packages in the future.


Yeah. Seems to me that the rationale for the CableCARD mandate was to allow consumers both the ability to own provider-agnostic retail devices for accessing and recording cable TV service and, to a lesser extent, to have choices in terms of the software UI for cable TV service. And the rule was justifiable because there's typically only one cable TV provider (i.e. traditional QAM-over-coaxial MSO) in a given area, so they have monopoly power.

But the market has evolved so that the mandate no longer makes sense, IMO. Not only does a consumer at a particular address have their local cable company, they also have the choice of satellite TV from DirecTV and Dish, and many also have the option of telco/fiber TV. And, of course, now there are a range of live streaming "cable TV" services, such as PS Vue, Hulu with Live TV, and DirecTV Now that work with a variety of retail devices. And then there are on-demand services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video which, for many consumers, now take the place of traditional cable TV. And each of those choices has their own UI, which is part of the particular UX they offer consumers.

At this point, updating the CableCARD mandate would seem like trying to create a 20th century fix for a rapidly changing 21st century video landscape. Granted, I understand that TiVo devotees would like to see it but I don't think there's any great clamoring among consumers for it.


----------



## stile99 (Feb 27, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> At this point, updating the CableCARD mandate would seem like trying to create a 20th century fix for a rapidly changing 21st century video landscape. Granted, I understand that TiVo devotees would like to see it but I don't think there's any great clamoring among consumers for it.


At the risk of oversimplifying the point, that's because there's not any great understanding among consumers regarding it. If you go pick 10 random people off the street and ask them what they think about cablecard, I'd be shocked if even one of them knew what you were talking about. You'd have to increase the sample size.

If, however, you phrase it differently and asked those ten people if they would like to be able to buy their own box (or not even that, just have it built into the TV) and have it work on ANY cable system, including satellite, including the telco/fiber options, and NOT have to pay your provider $2-$20/month in fees PER BOX/TV, and I'll happily wager all ten would say yes. Eight or nine of them have a Roku/Fire Stick/Chromecast already and would LOVE to use it as their 'cable box'.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

stile99 said:


> At the risk of oversimplifying the point, that's because there's not any great understanding among consumers regarding it. If you go pick 10 random people off the street and ask them what they think about cablecard, I'd be shocked if even one of them knew what you were talking about. You'd have to increase the sample size.
> 
> If, however, you phrase it differently and asked those ten people if they would like to be able to buy their own box (or not even that, just have it built into the TV) and have it work on ANY cable system, including satellite, including the telco/fiber options, and NOT have to pay your provider $2-$20/month in fees PER BOX/TV, and I'll happily wager all ten would say yes. Eight or nine of them have a Roku/Fire Stick/Chromecast already and would LOVE to use it as their 'cable box'.


OK, but how is that really any different than using your Roku/Fire TV/Chromecast with PS Vue/DirecTV Now/YouTube TV? If you want to use one of those simple devices as the means to access live cable TV with cloud DVR (it has to be cloud DVR since none of those devices has its own hard drive), with no per-box fee, well, multiple options for that now exist.

And even traditional TV providers are moving in that direction; Comcast now offers a small-bundle service that can accessed through their app with no box rental, although there is a "per-TV" charge. Some telcos, such as C-Spire, are completely ditching STBs and going to an app-based service that works with Roku, Apple TV, etc.

I do agree that most consumers don't really understand CableCARD, per se, but TiVo, the original DVR, was always pushing it, as well as a few other smaller companies. And it just never really caught on. Do consumers want to save money on their pay TV bill? Sure. Consumers always want to get what they want for less, and companies always want to sell their products for a bigger profit.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

I still believe there are enough folks that want full control of content to make an IPTV Tivo worthwhile. You do not get that control with cloud DVR or an app-only approach, they're going to make it hard for everyone to skip ads and transport control is nowhere near as good as with local content.

Yes, it's a niche but I think it's a 1 mil+ customer niche. Whether Rivo thinks it's still worth it is what's in doubt.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> I still believe there are enough folks that want full control of content to make an IPTV Tivo worthwhile. You do not get that control with cloud DVR or an app-only approach, they're going to make it hard for everyone to skip ads and transport control is nowhere near as good as with local content.
> 
> Yes, it's a niche but I think it's a 1 mil+ customer niche. Whether Rivo thinks it's still worth it is what's in doubt.


 It really isn't if it is worthwhile for TiVo, it is will any pay tv provider using IPTV let TiVo access and control their service, which I find very unlikely, unless they are forced to by some future FCC rule change. My guess is that TiVo could make all the Series 4 and above TiVos work with IPTV with a software update. If you read what the Arris commercial Media Gateway powered by TiVo does, it sounds like it can already operate on a mixed QAM, IPTV cable system.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

stile99 said:


> At the risk of oversimplifying the point, that's because there's not any great understanding among consumers regarding it. If you go pick 10 random people off the street and ask them what they think about cablecard, I'd be shocked if even one of them knew what you were talking about. You'd have to increase the sample size.
> 
> If, however, you phrase it differently and asked those ten people if they would like to be able to buy their own box (or not even that, just have it built into the TV) and have it work on ANY cable system, including satellite, including the telco/fiber options, and NOT have to pay your provider $2-$20/month in fees PER BOX/TV, and I'll happily wager all ten would say yes. Eight or nine of them have a Roku/Fire Stick/Chromecast already and would LOVE to use it as their 'cable box'.


But if you told them it would cost $200 for the box and $550 for service (or 15 bucks a month in perpetuity) all 10 would say no. That's why it never took off. No one came up with a product that was cheap enough with little upfront costs and simple to use.


----------



## kgus (Mar 14, 2016)

I can see how technology changes and how it’s going right now but How is the FCC Mandate for Cable Cards Going to be with The FCC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kgus (Mar 14, 2016)

The Cable companies hate TiVo anyway because they don’t make money 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But the market has evolved so that the mandate no longer makes sense, IMO. Not only does a consumer at a particular address have their local cable company, they also have the choice of satellite TV from DirecTV and Dish, and many also have the option of telco/fiber TV.


I totally disagree. The mandate would have made sense if done in a platform-agnostic way that would work with all available video providers, DBS, IPTV, or QAM. In most places, if you buy a TiVo, then you're stuck with the one QAM-based provider. It would be great to have what people in metro Boston (not Boston proper, Cambridge, or Brookline though) have where they have 3 TiVo compatible providers.

My point is that what would have made sense and been right is rapidly becoming irrelevant anyway because of cord cutting, and the pay tv market is shrinking and is going to collapse in on itself within a decade. People will still pay for tv in one form or another, but it's not going to look like the massive bundles that you see today.



atmuscarella said:


> It really isn't if it is worthwhile for TiVo, it is will any pay tv provider using IPTV let TiVo access and control their service, which I find very unlikely, unless they are forced to by some future FCC rule change. My guess is that TiVo could make all the Series 4 and above TiVos work with IPTV with a software update. If you read what the Arris commercial Media Gateway powered by TiVo does, it sounds like it can already operate on a mixed QAM, IPTV cable system.


Yeah, they might get consumer access to some small MSOs, but not really enough to scale up, and probably enough to make it even worth selling them on their own. At least CableCard has many, many years of life left on some MSOs like Verizon and Charter, even if it doesn't on Comcast.

EDIT: Combine posts


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> It really isn't if it is worthwhile for TiVo, it is will any pay tv provider using IPTV let TiVo access and control their service, which I find very unlikely, unless they are forced to by some future FCC rule change. My guess is that TiVo could make all the Series 4 and above TiVos work with IPTV with a software update. If you read what the Arris commercial Media Gateway powered by TiVo does, it sounds like it can already operate on a mixed QAM, IPTV cable system.


Well yeah my post was about some fantasy IPTV land where Tivo et al would have access to streams. I guess it probably won't happen and we'll be stuck with a hodgepodge of inferior solutions. Or just say F it and do without.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I totally disagree. The mandate would have made sense if done in a platform-agnostic way that would work with all available video providers, DBS, IPTV, or QAM. In most places, if you buy a TiVo, then you're stuck with the one QAM-based provider. It would be great to have what people in metro Boston (not Boston proper, Cambridge, or Brookline though) have where they have 3 TiVo compatible providers.
> 
> My point is that what would have made sense and been right is rapidly becoming irrelevant anyway because of cord cutting, and the pay tv market is shrinking and is going to collapse in on itself within a decade. People will still pay for tv in one form or another, but it's not going to look like the massive bundles that you see today.


Um, then you don't *totally* disagree with me. In your latter paragraph, you're agreeing with my point that the TV landscape is changing, due largely to OTT streaming, so that a mandate such as CableCARD (or the proposed "Unlock the Box" successor) is increasingly irrelevant. Where you seem to disagree with me is by saying that in the recent past (e.g. five years ago), before OTT and cord-cutting became major trends, a CableCARD successor that worked across all traditional (non-OTT) pay TV sources (QAM, DBS, managed IPTV) would have been justified. I agree that it would have been welcome from a consumer perspective but I'm skeptical about there having been a legitimate regulatory rationale for such an industry-wide requirement. But, at any rate, it's a moot point now.

EDIT: Typo correction


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Um, then you don't *totally* disagree with me. In your latter paragraph, you're agreeing with my point that the TV landscape is changing, due largely to OTT streaming, so that a mandate such as CableCARD (or the proposed "Unlock the Box" successor) is increasingly irrelevant. Where you seem to disagree with me is by saying that in the recent past (e.g. five years ago), before OTT and cord-cutting became major trends, a CableCARD successor that worked across all traditional (non-OTT) pay TV sources (QAM, DBS, managed IPTV) would have been justified. I agree that it would have been welcome from a consumer perspective but I'm skeptical about there having been a legitimate regulatory rationale for such an industry-wide requirement. But, at any rate, it's a moot point now.
> 
> EDIT: Typo correction


No. I totally disagree on the point that the mandate makes no sense for physical MVPDs. I think it makes perfect sense for all physical MVPDs to have a mandate that would be interoperable. I just think that from many consumers' perspectives, they are going to be cutting the cord anyway, so it will be less relevant as a consumer.

There is absolutely a legitimate regulatory rationale for an interoperable standard for customer owned PCs, DVRs, and boxes to be able to be connected to any physical MVPD, and it would help the pay tv industry as a whole to a certain extent, at least in terms of market penetration at the detriment of raw profit on box fees. However, I don't think that it would do a whole lot to slow the cord cutting trend in the long run.

If our government wasn't totally corrupted by lobbyists, the FCC would have implemented standards for a CableCARD successor, as it's not technically that hard to do, other than supposed technical "objection" nonsense thrown up by MVPDs who claim that it's "too hard" just because they don't want to give up control over VOD and guide interfaces to the box manufacturers.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> No. I totally disagree on the point that the mandate makes no sense for physical MVPDs. I think it makes perfect sense for all physical MVPDs to have a mandate that would be interoperable. I just think that from many consumers' perspectives, they are going to be cutting the cord anyway, so it will be less relevant as a consumer.
> 
> There is absolutely a legitimate regulatory rationale for an interoperable standard for customer owned PCs, DVRs, and boxes to be able to be connected to any physical MVPD, and it would help the pay tv industry as a whole to a certain extent, at least in terms of market penetration at the detriment of raw profit on box fees. However, I don't think that it would do a whole lot to slow the cord cutting trend in the long run.
> 
> If our government wasn't totally corrupted by lobbyists, the FCC would have implemented standards for a CableCARD successor, as it's not technically that hard to do, other than supposed technical "objection" nonsense thrown up by MVPDs who claim that it's "too hard" just because they don't want to give up control over VOD and guide interfaces to the box manufacturers.


OK, so you totally disagree on part of my argument. Got it.

So what exactly is the "legitimate regulatory rationale" that absolutely exists for an interoperable standard for customer-owned PCs (!), DVRs, and boxes connected to any physical (why only physical?) MVPDs? And what is the logical limiting principle on your rationale that would preclude it from also supporting total government regulation of MVPDs, including channel line-ups, features, and price points?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> OK, so you totally disagree on part of my argument. Got it.


Yup.



> So what exactly is the "legitimate regulatory rationale" that absolutely exists for an interoperable standard for customer-owned PCs (!), DVRs, and boxes connected to any physical (why only physical?) MVPDs? And what is the logical limiting principle on your rationale that would preclude it from also supporting total government regulation of MVPDs, including channel line-ups, features, and price points?


CableCard today works with Windows 7 and 8 PCs, so the precedent is there, even though MCE itself is dying.

As for why there should be regulation requiring an open system for connecting user-owned hardware:
1. There is limited competition in the market.
2. That limited competition is often used to tack on a lot of extra fees.
3. The lack of ability to take a box and move providers (as I have actually done since I had a cable overbuilder in the area I used to live) hurts competition in the space, as users have re-learn the interface, as well as delete all their DVR recordings.
4. Competition from user-owned boxes would encourage more innovation on the part of MVPDs.

As for why there shouldn't be price regulation:
1. Pay TV is not a necessary service beyond basic cable, which is rate regulated, and should be more rate regulated than it currently is.
2. Internet is a necessity, and should be rate regulated for basic broadband (which should be changed to 50/10) to $40/mo. Faster tiers should not be regulated, and availability of a regulated tier would naturally control prices on faster tiers.

As for why VMVPDs shouldn't be regulated the same way:
1. They are technologically different, not having a managed delivery path.
2. They are highly competitive, with many options on the market, and more to come.
3. They largely exist in the cloud, not with local DVRs like MVPDs.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Yup.
> 
> As for why there shouldn't be price regulation:
> 1. Pay TV is not a necessary service beyond basic cable, which is rate regulated, and should be more rate regulated than it currently is.


Basic Cable isn't really regulated anymore, no matter what you read. Since broadcasters can and do negotiate re-transmission fees, the effectiveness of any "local regulation" is moot. The cost of basic cable, which by FCC definition is the lowest tier you can buy before added any additional tiers or a-la-carte premium programming, has tripled in the past ten years. I used to pay $13.15 per month for "Basic Cable" which was all my in-market broadcast stations. Now I pay $23.89 + $8.50 (for the Broadcast TV surcharge) for the same 15 stations. If I could use an antenna, I would, but I would need some small yield nuclear devices to blow away the mountains which block my line-of-sight to the towers... or I'd need to install a 500 foot antenna...

The cost of "basic cable" should essentially be the cost to connect to the plant, effectively the cost the cable company can charge to have a home connected to the system. This should be for any type of service - be it video, internet, or phone... Then one should be able to add whatever service they want..

I still can't get over "re-transmission" fees... essentially forcing every cable home to pay for something they can allegedly receive for free with an antenna...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Yup.
> 
> CableCard today works with Windows 7 and 8 PCs, so the precedent is there, even though MCE itself is dying.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the detailed response. I don't personally find those arguments very persuasive but, as always, YMMV.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

So in other words, you think that Cablecard as a standard means nothing going forward, and it was perfectly ok to abandon any attempt at open access?

It's all well and good to say there's plenty of IPTV providers until you realize that they'll all count against data caps going forward. Even with the 1TB you get now, if you're streaming a lot of TV and other stuff I guarantee you'll be hitting it at some point. With open access to the IPTV that Comcast et al are providing there would be no cap hit.

It all ties together, you can't separate the limited ISP competition issue from pay TV. With the way things stand now we're all being held hostage one way or another, and the current FCC could care less.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dstoffa said:


> Basic Cable isn't really regulated anymore, no matter what you read.


I believe that some PUCs do regulate the price of basic cable.



> The cost of "basic cable" should essentially be the cost to connect to the plant, effectively the cost the cable company can charge to have a home connected to the system. This should be for any type of service - be it video, internet, or phone... Then one should be able to add whatever service they want..


That actually makes a lot of sense.



> I still can't get over "re-transmission" fees... essentially forcing every cable home to pay for something they can allegedly receive for free with an antenna...


Yeah, and the cable companies spend millions of dollars to re-transmit the signals so that the broadcasters can reach more eyeballs to sell ads to and then they have to pay AGAIN for the channels? It makes no sense. I wish that you could drop locals too and just use an antenna, but only DISH allows you to actually do that.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

Bigg said:


> I believe that some PUCs do regulate the price of basic cable.


As long as the "Broadcast TV Surcharge" is not regulated, the cost of "Basic Cable" isn't regulated.



> Yeah, and the cable companies spend millions of dollars to re-transmit the signals so that the broadcasters can reach more eyeballs to sell ads to and then they have to pay AGAIN for the channels? It makes no sense. I wish that you could drop locals too and just use an antenna, but only DISH allows you to actually do that.


One can only hope that the day comes when you can choose NOT to subscribe to Basic Cable in order to receive video service... But I am most certain that the broadcasters / networks will never give up that revenue stream...


----------



## keenanSR (Oct 13, 2004)

dstoffa said:


> As long as the "Broadcast TV Surcharge" is not regulated, the cost of "Basic Cable" isn't regulated.
> 
> One can only hope that the day comes when you can choose NOT to subscribe to Basic Cable in order to receive video service... But I am most certain that the broadcasters / networks will never give up that revenue stream...


That's one of the reasons why that BTV surcharge is a 'below-the line' or 'hidden' fee, so it doesn't increase the regulated basic cable TV charge. It's a BS charge, everyone knows it is, but just try and get someone in the current administration to do something about it, good luck.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dstoffa said:


> As long as the "Broadcast TV Surcharge" is not regulated, the cost of "Basic Cable" isn't regulated.


This is true. Those below the line hidden fees should be banned for all tiers, as they are dishonest an deceptive advertising. Comcast's $89/mo Triple Play turns into something like a $132/mo package for one TV before tax after all the equipment and below the line fees are added in.



> One can only hope that the day comes when you can choose NOT to subscribe to Basic Cable in order to receive video service... But I am most certain that the broadcasters / networks will never give up that revenue stream...


It works on DISH, but I don't think any cable companies do it. One more little thing out of many that pushes the prices of pay tv up, and more people towards cord cutting.


----------



## Nak (Aug 18, 2010)

Hopefully Comcast will either improve or go out of business. Don't wait for Comcast to go IPTV, switch now if you can. I switched from Comcast to Frontier, knocked over $100/month of of my bill, improved my picture quality tremendously and got better internet to boot. 

When i called Comcast to say I was switching, the rep literally laughed at me and told me I was bluffing; nobody leaves Comcast. Then when I persisted in my cancellation effort he warned me I was under contract and couldn't cancel. I asked how much the cancellation fee was and he informed me--in a very arrogant manner--it would be $120. I told him I'd save that much in the first month.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Nak said:


> Hopefully Comcast will either improve or go out of business. Don't wait for Comcast to go IPTV, switch now if you can. I switched from Comcast to Frontier, knocked over $100/month of of my bill, improved my picture quality tremendously and got better internet to boot.


Unfortunately they are a monopoly in many areas that they serve, so they won't be going out of business. Their business model now is that they don't really care about TV, because they've got you anyway, and will charge you over $90/mo for internet only if you don't subscribe to their TV.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Unfortunately they are a monopoly in many areas that they serve, so they won't be going out of business. Their business model now is that they don't really care about TV, because they've got you anyway, and will charge you over $90/mo for internet only if you don't subscribe to their TV.


No they won't be going out of business per se but it's possible they get out of the cable TV business altogether and just become a media company and ISP.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Imagine if the electric company required something analogous to a cable card for every electronic device to function or the alternative is to rent the electronic device from the electric company for a monthly fee. The entire concept of cable cards is middle finger worthy.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> Imagine if the electric company required something analogous to a cable card for every electronic device to function or the alternative is to rent the electronic device from the cable company for a monthly fee. The entire concept of cable cards is middle finger worthy.


Same thing with landline telephones or water hookups.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

shwru980r said:


> Imagine if the electric company required something analogous to a cable card for every electronic device to function or the alternative is to rent the electronic device from the electric company for a monthly fee. The entire concept of cable cards is middle finger worthy.


That seems like an imperfect analogy to me. Electricity is electricity (well, there are certain government-mandated standards that vary from country to country), but pay TV service can differ greatly in terms of how it's delivered, the feature set and how it works, etc. Fortunately, though, the internet is broadly standards-based, so there's no need for something like CableCARD. As TV (and all forms of entertainment/communication) migrates fully to the internet, it will allow more choices and innovation for consumers. We're already seeing this, of course, and the UX will only improve. I think the thing that TiVo devotees don't like is the idea that, with OTT or IPTV, they won't be able to separate TV service from the service provider's own UI. But the TiVo UI is just one UI among many and I don't see anything particularly special about it. If you don't like one provider's UI (or channel packages, or feature set, or pricing), then switch to a different one.

My concern is about the choices for ISPs -- more choices mean more competition and better pricing and policies for consumers. Things look to improve on that front too with the advent of 5G and low-earth-orbit satellite internet service. Decades from now, though, I imagine that internet service may be treated as a utility, much like our electric companies. There will be lots of competing commercial choices for services running over that connection (TV, voice, VR/gaming, etc.) but perhaps only one choice for internet and it will bathe the entire region through a mesh of wireless signals.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> That seems like an imperfect analogy to me. Electricity is electricity (well, there are certain government-mandated standards that vary from country to country), but pay TV service can differ greatly in terms of how it's delivered, the feature set and how it works, etc. Fortunately, though, the internet is broadly standards-based, so there's no need for something like CableCARD. As TV (and all forms of entertainment/communication) migrates fully to the internet, it will allow more choices and innovation for consumers. We're already seeing this, of course, and the UX will only improve. I think the thing that TiVo devotees don't like is the idea that, with OTT or IPTV, they won't be able to separate TV service from the service provider's own UI. But the TiVo UI is just one UI among many and I don't see anything particularly special about it. If you don't like one provider's UI (or channel packages, or feature set, or pricing), then switch to a different one.
> 
> My concern is about the choices for ISPs -- more choices mean more competition and better pricing and policies for consumers. Things look to improve on that front too with the advent of 5G and low-earth-orbit satellite internet service. Decades from now, though, I imagine that internet service may be treated as a utility, much like our electric companies. There will be lots of competing commercial choices for services running over that connection (TV, voice, VR/gaming, etc.) but perhaps only one choice for internet and it will bathe the entire region through a mesh of wireless signals.


I thought most cable TV was broadcast over QAM.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> That seems like an imperfect analogy to me. Electricity is electricity (well, there are certain government-mandated standards that vary from country to country), but pay TV service can differ greatly in terms of how it's delivered, the feature set and how it works, etc. Fortunately, though, the internet is broadly standards-based, so there's no need for something like CableCARD. As TV (and all forms of entertainment/communication) migrates fully to the internet, it will allow more choices and innovation for consumers. We're already seeing this, of course, and the UX will only improve. I think the thing that TiVo devotees don't like is the idea that, with OTT or IPTV, they won't be able to separate TV service from the service provider's own UI. But the TiVo UI is just one UI among many and I don't see anything particularly special about it. If you don't like one provider's UI (or channel packages, or feature set, or pricing), then switch to a different one.
> 
> My concern is about the choices for ISPs -- more choices mean more competition and better pricing and policies for consumers. Things look to improve on that front too with the advent of 5G and low-earth-orbit satellite internet service. Decades from now, though, I imagine that internet service may be treated as a utility, much like our electric companies. There will be lots of competing commercial choices for services running over that connection (TV, voice, VR/gaming, etc.) but perhaps only one choice for internet and it will bathe the entire region through a mesh of wireless signals.


I dont know about. If it was possible I would prioritize medical base line equipment first, then refrigerators, communication devices (landline, internet), finally lights/tv.
Billing certainly allocates medical baseline at the lowest rate followed by tiers which might represent the above.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> I thought most cable TV was broadcast over QAM.


It is today, people are talking about the future of cable being IPTV not QAM, I don't like idea of IPTV because it will be more work to tell when a new episode of say NCIS just came on, with my TiVo it just shows up in the my shows list (assuming I have a SP for NCIS set to new only). I find the problem with Netflix, I don't know, without some work, as to when the next season of say The Crown is coming on, and I have to remember that I have seen 2 seasons already so I am looking for season 3, not to hard to handle for one or two programs but 20 SPs would be not so easy. On TiVo I use trick play all the time, that not easy if the program is IPTV coming from the cloud. For me the TiVo system is the easy system to use, when I am ready to watch TV I just look at the My Show list in TiVo and can see what new that I want to watch.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

lessd said:


> It is today, people are talking about the future of cable being IPTV not QAM, I don't like idea of IPTV because it will be more work to tell when a new episode of say NCIS just came on, with my TiVo it just shows up in the my shows list (assuming I have a SP for NCIS set to new only). I find the problem with Netflix, I don't know, without some work, as to when the next season of say The Crown is coming on, and I have to remember that I have seen 2 seasons already so I am looking for season 3, not to hard to handle for one or two programs but 20 SPs would be not so easy. On TiVo I use trick play all the time, that not easy if the program is IPTV coming from the cloud. For me the TiVo system is the easy system to use, when I am ready to watch TV I just look at the My Show list in TiVo and can see what new that I want to watch.


You are actually confusing iptv and OTT. Nothing says iptv can't have full Dvr functionality. Uverse has had that since the beginning and they are all IPTV. Fios was going to have a full function Dvr for iptv but dropped their program. Comcast is supposed to migrate from QAM to iptv and if they do it right, should be minimal impact to their customers.

However, a third party device like tivo is highly unlikely to ever exist. The Dvr would be cable company provided and will probably be cloud based.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Nothing says OTT can't have full DVR functionality either. The future of all pay TV is to have all content in the network/cloud rather than on expensive local storage that's prone to wear out and break down. It's a mistake to look at OTT TV as it now exists and see shortcomings in how it operates vs. traditional pay TV (e.g. QAM cable w/ TiVo), and then assume things will always be that way. They won't. Improving the technology isn't a problem. The user experience is only going to get better and better to win the dollars of paying customers. 

That said, for the tiny niche of hobbyists who like to harvest terabytes of recorded video from their DVRs to create local personal libraries that they manage with Plex, Kodi or other software, well, sorry, the future doesn't look so bright.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> No they won't be going out of business per se but it's possible they get out of the cable TV business altogether and just become a media company and ISP.


Yes, they could be. I don't think they will be out of the pay tv business in the next 2-3 decades, but it could become more of an add-on, like home security or phone service, than their core business, which is, and will continue to be, broadband.



TonyD79 said:


> You are actually confusing iptv and OTT. Nothing says iptv can't have full Dvr functionality. ...
> 
> However, a third party device like tivo is highly unlikely to ever exist. The Dvr would be cable company provided and will probably be cloud based.


Correct. IPTV will likely have all the same functionality as QAM does today, with the exception of being forced to use an inferior interface and device.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

I was referring to what shwru980r said about cable TV not anything else.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Yes, they could be. I don't think they will be out of the pay tv business in the next 2-3 decades, but it could become more of an add-on, like home security or phone service, than their core business, which is, and will continue to be, broadband.
> 
> Correct. IPTV will likely have all the same functionality as QAM does today, with the exception of being forced to use an inferior interface and device.


Comcast leaving pay TV has been discussed in business circles if they continue to lose subs and it drags on their earnings. In the last discussion I saw about this I don't think it was as high a driver in their income and they would shed a ton of costs to dump it. We will see how 4Q 2017 numbers of subs looks.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Comcast leaving pay TV has been discussed in business circles if they continue to lose subs and it drags on their earnings. In the last discussion I saw about this I don't think it was as high a driver in their income and they would shed a ton of costs to dump it. We will see how 4Q 2017 numbers of subs looks.


So I think Comcast is going to do three major things to make pay TV profitable:

1. Get rid of cheap teaser bundles on TV. If people want TV, they pay for TV.
2. Switch everything over the next 5 years or so to IPTV. That way, if people are using it, it uses bandwidth. If they aren't, all that bandwidth is available for internet use.
3. Move everything to the cloud.

So 1. sheds a couple million unprofitable TV subscribers, while protecting the margins on the higher value customers who are willing to pay. 2. and 3. in combination will allow them to get rid of boxes like the XG1 with a tuner and a hard drive, and move everything to a XiD/Xi3/Xi5 types of device that's IP-only and much cheaper to deploy and maintain.

I don't think that they will dump pay TV entirely, as their Triple Play, and now Quad- and Quin-Play (yeah, I just made that up) customers are very lucrative for them, but I think the sub-$100 Double Play deals will disappear, and their teasers will be focused on internet, where they are profitable basically from day one, and their marginal costs are almost zero, versus TV, where virtually all of the monthly fees for the first year or two are going to carriage fees.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> So I think Comcast is going to do three major things to make pay TV profitable:
> 
> 1. Get rid of cheap teaser bundles on TV. If people want TV, they pay for TV.
> 2. Switch everything over the next 5 years or so to IPTV. That way, if people are using it, it uses bandwidth. If they aren't, all that bandwidth is available for internet use.
> ...


I don't doubt that 2 and 3 will happen but I'm not so sure about point 1. Getting rid of cheap teaser rates for TV and cheaper skinny bundles would mean that they're foregoing the opportunity to lock in price-sensitive (often younger) consumers, some of whom will eventually pony up for fatter TV packages with X1. If they don't compete on price on the low end, they're going to lose lots of potential subs to vMPVDs and cord-cutting. As long as those subscribers paying low rates for TV are overall revenue-neutral (i.e. not actually losing money for Comcast), I don't see why they would push them away.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I don't doubt that 2 and 3 will happen but I'm not so sure about point 1. Getting rid of cheap teaser rates for TV and cheaper skinny bundles would mean that they're foregoing the opportunity to lock in price-sensitive (often younger) consumers, some of whom will eventually pony up for fatter TV packages with X1. If they don't compete on price on the low end, they're going to lose lots of potential subs to vMPVDs and cord-cutting. As long as those subscribers paying low rates for TV are overall revenue-neutral (i.e. not actually losing money for Comcast), I don't see why they would push them away.


I guess that's the idea, but there has to be a huge amount of loss to Comcast from people who would otherwise sign up for TV at the full price, or close to it, as well as people who are either intermittently keeping pay tv service, or jumping from one promo to another. My sense is that Comcast has been boosting their subscriber numbers for Wall Street by doing all these teaser promos, but at some point, someone has to realize that they aren't profitable, and they should just go without them. Even if those subscribers are revenue neutral, then how many of those would be subscribing at the full rate and being much more profitable? Even if it's a small proportion, that's still money left on the table for Comcast.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I don't think that they will dump pay TV entirely, as their Triple Play, and now Quad- and Quin-Play (yeah, I just made that up) customers are very lucrative for them,


Let's see: (1) TV (2) Internet (3) Phone (4) Home Security (5) Xfinity Mobile. There is your Quin-play.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Even if those subscribers are revenue neutral, then how many of those would be subscribing at the full rate and being much more profitable? Even if it's a small proportion, that's still money left on the table for Comcast.


True. I guess it's a question of foregoing higher overall profits now for the opportunity of greater profits later.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

CharlesH said:


> Let's see: (1) TV (2) Internet (3) Phone (4) Home Security (5) Xfinity Mobile. There is your Quin-play.


Yeah, that's what I was referring to, I've just never heard anyone refer to anything higher than Quad-Play.



NashGuy said:


> True. I guess it's a question of foregoing higher overall profits now for the opportunity of greater profits later.


I guess they think that some of the teaser customers would "stick" who wouldn't otherwise have gotten service, but I really question the wisdom of that, especially in markets that have a lot of rental units or people moving around due to Military service.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

Regarding discussion of providers transitioning to IPTV, Verizon just abandoned their planned transition to TV over IP on their FIOS product. The plot thickens.


----------



## powrcow (Sep 27, 2010)

RoamioJeff said:


> Regarding discussion of providers transitioning to IPTV, Verizon just abandoned their planned transition to TV over IP on their FIOS product. The plot thickens.


In my mind, the "advantages" cable companies have over OTT IP streaming are that they own the pipes and could transmit a higher quality video and they could provide a DVR with local storage and responsive controls. The fact that they do none of this and WANT to reduce quality and move to cloud-centric DVRs means they're only in "how do we increase next quarter's profits" mode.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

RoamioJeff said:


> Regarding discussion of providers transitioning to IPTV, Verizon just abandoned their planned transition to TV over IP on their FIOS product. The plot thickens.


Yep. That was a project with roots stretching all the way back to Verizon's acquisition of Intel's abandoned OnCue IPTV platform. Not sure what ultimately led to the decision to scrap the new FiOS IPTV service. From online comments, it sounded like they never got the bugs squashed in the months-long beta.

I tend to think that Verizon realized last year that the new service they were working on would already be outdated by the time they brought it to market. A pay TV service built around bundles of linear channels, which only operates on your own network, and which requires the customer to use the provider's own STBs, with local in-home hard drives for DVR -- yeah, that doesn't look like where TV is going.

Meanwhile, Verizon was struggling to figure out a new OTT streaming TV service they could roll out everywhere (regardless of a customer's home internet provider) to compete with AT&T's DirecTV Now. Apparently they're making progress on such a service, because Verizon says it will be made available later this year to subscribers of their 5G fixed wireless home internet service in Sacramento and other cities. There are rumors that Verizon may be combining this OTT service with plans for a next-gen video service (capable of UHD HDR, I'm sure) for FiOS customers. That sounds right to me. It's essentially what AT&T is doing with the new unified video platform that will soon debut, ultimately powering not only DirecTV Now but also their higher-end traditional DirecTV service too.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

powrcow said:


> In my mind, the "advantages" cable companies have over OTT IP streaming are that they own the pipes and could transmit a higher quality video and they could provide a DVR with local storage and responsive controls. The fact that they do none of this and WANT to reduce quality and move to cloud-centric DVRs means they're only in "how do we increase next quarter's profits" mode.


I also used to think that playback controls were inherently more responsive on a local DVR versus OTT but that's not the case with my new Apple TV 4K. In apps such as Netflix, Hulu, Showtime Anytime, etc., the 10-second "instant replay" feature is instantaneous. Seems to work just as quickly as with a recording on my Roamio. Likewise with FF and rewind. Actually, with the ATV4K's touch remote, I can scrub through the thumbnail timeline of an OTT video and begin playing at a particular point even faster than using the FF and rewind controls on my Roamio.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

RoamioJeff said:


> Regarding discussion of providers transitioning to IPTV, Verizon just abandoned their planned transition to TV over IP on their FIOS product. The plot thickens.


Verizon has a lot less incentive. Their RF system has no internet, no phone, no VOD, no security, no nothing running on it, it's a pure one-way QAM system for TV only, so they have no incentive to free up bandwidth by migrating QAM to IP. Comcast has a HUGE incentive to move towards IP over time.


----------

