# Is TiVo in trouble?



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

Happy anniversary to TiVo's 'strategic review,' which still hasn't found a strategy


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Wow, that was a little painful to read.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

File under (fill in company) has (fill in the trouble) that freaks out analysts. In other words Tivo is no worse than it's than it's been in awhile, feel free to return to your Hydra complaints now.


----------



## stile99 (Feb 27, 2002)

tenthplanet said:


> File under (fill in company) has (fill in the trouble) that freaks out analysts. In other words Tivo is no worse than it's than it's been in awhile, feel free to return to your Hydra complaints now.


This is a valid point. Rovi not knowing what they want from TiVo other than the name and the patents is nothing new.


----------



## dave13077 (Jan 11, 2009)

Short answer is yes, they are in trouble. But they have been (at least speculated by others) for 20 years. If I would have listened to the naysayers and not bought Lifetime Service (All In) I would still be paying monthly for the last 10 years. If Tivo went away tomorrow I would still be way ahead, even more if I rented a Cable Co box.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Sparky1234 said:


> Happy anniversary to TiVo's 'strategic review,' which still hasn't found a strategy


Is more than 2 months really all that long to come out with a strategic plan, which may be a company life-changing event? What would more concern me is, a 21% drop in the fourth quarter of 2018.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

I think those who think this just "normal" are just hoping for the best.

"except a 21% drop in fourth-quarter revenue, among other worrisome financial results - and shares of TiVo TIVO, -11.05% tumbled more than 10% in after-hours trading."

This little tidbit is bad news no matter how anyone tries to spin it. The future does not look so bright when more and more cable companies are moving away from tech that TiVo works with. I think if Roku or another buys them it would be the best.


----------



## stile99 (Feb 27, 2002)

Stocks are insanely fluid...almost by definition. You posted half an hour ago that it was down 11.05%...looking at that link now it says 10.33%. When I looked earlier it was green, plus 0.09%.

That number in and of itself does not tell any kind of story. Don't get me wrong, I am most certainly not being Pollyanna here. But I just checked again and now it's 10.29%. By the time I press 'post reply' it will be something different and by the time you read this something different still.


----------



## Qnapfan (Feb 13, 2019)

mschnebly said:


> I think those who think this just "normal" are just hoping for the best.
> 
> "except a 21% drop in fourth-quarter revenue, among other worrisome financial results - and shares of TiVo TIVO, -11.05% tumbled more than 10% in after-hours trading."
> 
> This little tidbit is bad news no matter how anyone tries to spin it. The future does not look so bright when more and more cable companies are moving away from tech that TiVo works with. _*I think if Roku or another buys them it would be the best.*_




... In thinking on it, I would second the buy out buffer. If an entity like Roku bought them out in order to integrate their positive assets, I think the customer would come out ahead ... given their iconic strengths, the merging company could significantly augment or negate their known weakenesses.

Question in my mind though ... would would the baby look like (notably the remote).


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

If only TiVo had the money to produce original content like Netflix and Hulu exclusive on TiVo boxes.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

They have been in trouble for awhile. First it was cable dvrs. But that just regulated them to a niche mainly.

Next it was the rise of OTT services like Netflix. This is the deathknell. A service like Netflix not only offers a lot of what cable tv offers but it performs all the functions of a DVR and you just need a ~$100 streaming box that is the size of a hockey puck and not a $1000 Tivo with lifetime. And more and more you don't even need the ~$100 streaming box to watch something (like) Netflix. It's built into your tv.

Now obviously this transition doesn't happen overnight. But ...the way I see it, it can only to go to zero. The number of customers that are going to shell out $1000 for the next Tivo with lifetime is going to be dramatically smaller. Eventually small enough that Tivo can't make money on them.


----------



## Qnapfan (Feb 13, 2019)

trip1eX said:


> They have been in trouble for awhile. First it was cable dvrs. But that just regulated them to a niche mainly.
> 
> Next it was the rise of OTT services like Netflix. This is the deathknell. A service like Netflix not only offers a lot of what cable tv offers but it performs all the functions of a DVR and you just need a ~$100 streaming box that is the size of a hockey puck and not a $1000 Tivo with lifetime. And more and more you don't even need the ~$100 streaming box to watch something Netflix. It's built into your tv.
> 
> Now obviously this transition doesn't happen overnight. But ...the way I see it can only to go to zero. The number of customers that are going to shell out $1000 for the next Tivo with lifetime is going to be dramatically smaller. Eventually small enough that Tivo can't make money on them.


I see it similarly ... so when the dust settles, what does it leave as a market niche? HD OTA? Could Tivo reinvent itself as a truly practical 'cord cutter' appliance ... aka the Bolt that can do everything? IMHO, I think TIVO missed a consolidation opportunity ... they should have taken the Bolt Concept and widened it to encompass the entire product line, in additon, they should have emphasized practical modularity and inclusiveness in their 'Tivo Bolt Unity' model. OTA, Cable, IPTV, Intenet (and maybe even phone) ...

Now in terms of cost ... the modularity would help in stratifying the purchase tiers ... You could start out modest and add modules as you desire by sending back the (sealed) chassis for product upgrade (or downgrade - depending on term charges).


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> They have been in trouble for awhile.


I guess that I have heard that about TiVo for 10+ years. (Perhaps better said, has there ever been a time when people have said that TiVo_ hasn't_ been in trouble?)


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Mikeguy said:


> I guess that I have heard that about TiVo for 10+ years. (Perhaps better said, has there ever been a time when people have said that TiVo_ hasn't_ been in trouble?)


1 Feb 2016, which was after the last profitable quarter.


----------



## mjthor1 (May 31, 2006)

This raises some questions in my mind. I've actually pondered this for years now. 

Those of you (like me) who haven't cut the cord yet and still subscribe to cable: What path would you take if TiVo went away tomorrow? Would you still subscribe to cable? Just use the cable company's DVR? Cut the cord? Go strictly streaming? Curious to hear what people would turn to.


----------



## Qnapfan (Feb 13, 2019)

mjthor1 said:


> This raises some questions in my mind. I've actually pondered this for years now.
> 
> Those of you (like me) who haven't cut the cord yet and still subscribe to cable: What path would you take if TiVo went away tomorrow? Would you still subscribe to cable? Just use the cable company's DVR? Cut the cord? Go strictly streaming? Curious to hear what people would turn to.


I've been on the fence for this issue for a good number of years ... and my present best guess would be tied to either a barebones internet package from cable or maybe tie connectivity to a super unlimited phone plan (preferably with a next gen equivalent of 5Gx).

As I see it, with internet, I could get 85% of the content I want ... with the remaining 15% consisting of local broadcast content. This, I am thinking would save me from integrated package bloat and cost. So for me, a Shield Pro/Roku Ultra ... Roamio OTA (or upgraded equivalent) ... or if good enough, the apps on a new UHD flatscreen in place of the Roku Ultra ... tie the Shield to a decent NAS ...

In short, until cell bandwidth increases to the point of practical usage coverage/replacement ... reduce the 'amp draw on the cord', while prioritizing financial resources for maximum generic bandwidth.


----------



## 304573 (Dec 12, 2015)

I perused the TiVoCommunity archives. 15 years ago (2004), the concern was that the announced break-up with DirectTV might be trouble for TiVo.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

MrModerate said:


> I perused the TiVoCommunity archives. 15 years ago (2004), the concern was that the announced break-up with DirectTV might be trouble for TiVo.


I'm sure that was trouble. Everyone seems to always be looking for the one big knock-out blow that finally kills TiVo, but it looks like the demise of TiVo will be more like a gradual death by a thousand cuts.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

mjthor1 said:


> Those of you (like me) who haven't cut the cord yet and still subscribe to cable: What path would you take if TiVo went away tomorrow? Would you still subscribe to cable? Just use the cable company's DVR? Cut the cord? Go strictly streaming? Curious to hear what people would turn to.


Been down this road once with the Sony DHG. I went Magnavox but then my feed encrypted everything. Plus my viewing habits were very different. Now I would get my cable company's box until something better came along. By next year I expect they will have converted to the Arris/TiVo with TE4. It's being used at one office now. I don't have a selection except a dish. But my feed just spent a lot of money on 1G internet, so if they went IPTV I will have even fewer choices. Probable DirecTV will win.

My feed is in this thread: Hydra coming to local cable company


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

mjthor1 said:


> This raises some questions in my mind. I've actually pondered this for years now.
> 
> Those of you (like me) who haven't cut the cord yet and still subscribe to cable: What path would you take if TiVo went away tomorrow? Would you still subscribe to cable? Just use the cable company's DVR? Cut the cord? Go strictly streaming? Curious to hear what people would turn to.


I would simply cut the cord and go OTA with a TiVo OTA model and supplement with streaming as necessary. My parents, however, I'm sure I would have to go down to the Charter store and get them some traditional cable boxes/DVRs to replace the TiVos I set up for them. They are in their 70s and I can't see them not having traditional cable.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo is in trouble for two reasons...

1) Most/All their patents are expired or about to expire.

2) There is no successor to CableCARD so they can continue to provide a retail cable DVR after cable companies switch to IPTV. (coming soon)

They might be able to survive in some capacity as a supplier for MSO branded boxes and/or as an OTA only DVR, but the market for both of those things is significantly smaller than their previous market as a standalone cable DVR. CableCARD isn't going to disappear overnight, but once Comcast goes IPTV, which is rumored to be happening soon, they're going to lose a huge chunk of the retail market. And if the other big MSOs follow suit (Charter and COX) then there will be almost no market left for CableCARD devices.

I think their only hope to stay in the retail market long term is to find a way to offer their own skinny bundle package that integrates seamlessly into the DVR. If they can offer their own "cable" package that is tied to their DVR then it might breath new life into the company. If they can't they're going to be relegated to a very niche market with several other competitors who already have a stronghold there. (i.e. both OTA DVR and MSO supplier)


----------



## Willy92 (Oct 12, 2018)

We're closer to our 70's than 60, and I bought my Tivo Bolt VOX with that (what if no cable)in mind. When it comes to that time, I'm switching over to OTA and Roku other stuff. Got my DVD player with lot's of DVD's. Starting to stock up on 4k's now.


----------



## tommiet (Oct 28, 2005)

I can see a couple of folks @ TiVo that posted this article on the wall in the office while searching INDEED for a job.


----------



## mjthor1 (May 31, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I would simply cut the cord and go OTA with a TiVo OTA model and supplement with streaming as necessary. My parents, however, I'm sure I would have to go down to the Charter store and get them some traditional cable boxes/DVRs to replace the TiVos I set up for them. They are in their 70s and I can't see them not having traditional cable.


I am in a similar situation. My parents have had TiVos for the past 10 years or so. They have relied on me for hooking them up and keeping them working. Before that they used Cable Company's boxes. I'm sure they would go back to that. I myself would look at the OTA option/ streaming services.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> I guess that I have heard that about TiVo for 10+ years. (Perhaps better said, has there ever been a time when people have said that TiVo_ hasn't_ been in trouble?)


WEll they've been going downhill for awhile so I would be surprised if you haven't (heard) of major troubles for 10 years.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

MrModerate said:


> I perused the TiVoCommunity archives. 15 years ago (2004), the concern was that the announced break-up with DirectTV might be trouble for TiVo.


well series 2 era was probably peak Tivo.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

mjthor1 said:


> This raises some questions in my mind. I've actually pondered this for years now.
> 
> Those of you (like me) who haven't cut the cord yet and still subscribe to cable: What path would you take if TiVo went away tomorrow? Would you still subscribe to cable? Just use the cable company's DVR? Cut the cord? Go strictly streaming? Curious to hear what people would turn to.


I did without cable for a year except basic cable (OTA via cable essentially) and HBO plus Netflix. I really only missed sports and really that's the only reason I got cable again - that and the fact I still had my Roamio Plus and the cable company gave me a deal I couldn't refuse. 

If i had to pay full price and pay monthly fees for a cable dvr on top of it and for 3 tvs then I probably would drop cable. Watch sports via OTA or streaming maybe to get my sports fix or just watch highlights on the internet.

And then just carry a few streaming services like Netflix or HBO or Showtime etc. And probably rotate them every 6 months.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> WEll they've been going downhill for awhile so I would be surprised if you haven't of major troubles for 10 years.


I guess my point was, people seem to always be saying that TiVo is in trouble. And then 10 years later, it's still around . . . .


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> I guess my point was, people seem to always be saying that TiVo is in trouble. And then 10 years later, it's still around . . . .


Yeah Sears is still around too. Been in trouble for 10+ years.

Doesn't mean they are thriving. 

Doesn't mean they don't have real troubles and are closer than ever to not existing. Doesn't mean they aren't a shell of their former selves.

Nevermind people say all kinds of things. The real thing to pay attention to is the actual trouble and how much or little it threatens Tivo and its business.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah Sears is still around too. Been in trouble for 10+ years.
> 
> Doesn't mean they are thriving.


My original point stands. In this period of time, we've had series after series of TiVo boxes and numerous advances and new features. Do I know what will happen tomorrow? Nope. But my point again being, if the naysayers predicting doom originally had been right and believed, TiVo probably never would have gotten beyond its Series 2 boxes and architecture.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

IMO Tivo has been in trouble for 15 years. It's not competence that has kept Tivo afloat. It's luck that nothing catastrophic has happened because the industry moves even slower than they do. They have coasted along completely headless, no vision, retail subs have only slowly gone down. Their business was sustained only by patent wins and uninspired hardware cycles for the converts. Slow and painful deaths are still deaths. The leadership's only strategy was an exit strategy to make it somebody else's problem before the patents expired.

In any event, the cablecard issue is a brick wall that's going to terminate the endless coasting. They'll either FINALLY pave a new path, or go away.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

mjthor1 said:


> This raises some questions in my mind. I've actually pondered this for years now.
> 
> Those of you (like me) who haven't cut the cord yet and still subscribe to cable: What path would you take if TiVo went away tomorrow? Would you still subscribe to cable? Just use the cable company's DVR? Cut the cord? Go strictly streaming? Curious to hear what people would turn to.


First, TiVo isn't going away tomorrow. Second, tech changes (ATSC 3.0 and OTT) are going to require hardware refreshes anyway, and third TiVo is pretty inexpensive now.

I would absolutely switch to OTA right now. If nothing else, you have a chance to negotiate a better deal with your provider when you ask them to vacate the premises. Get an antenna (PM me if you want help with that) and enough coax to run from the spot where you think you would install an antenna to the nearest DIGITAL television. See what happens. For <$200, you can figure out how OTA will work for you. Get your antenna at Walmart or Home Depot and you can recoup most of your investment if things do not work out.

Back to your original question. If TiVo were not an option, I would definitely start with an antenna if reception was not an issue. It's free. 100% free. If I were buying televisions at the time, I would strongly consider the TCL Roku televisions as they are very good OTA televisions. If I needed to go with a DVR, you need to decide if you are going to have internet access regardless. If you are, then I like the Tablo TV DVRs and Amazon's Recast. If not, you need to look at the Mediasonic and Iview products. If you are going to be paying for high speed internet, you have a lot of options -- including streaming.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> My original point stands. In this period of time, we've had series after series of TiVo boxes and numerous advances and new features. Do I know what will happen tomorrow? Nope. But my point again being, if the naysayers predicting doom originally had been right and believed, TiVo probably never would have gotten beyond its Series 2 boxes and architecture.


People have been predicting doom for Sears for a long time now but doesn't mean they didn't have 0 innovations during that time or no advancement in their products and stores and that people didn't shop there. Eventually the doomsayers were right and Sears filed for bankruptcy.

IT's the same thing for Tivo. You can see they are slowing heading to Oblivion. You just don't know when exactly except, being a public company, you can look at their financials and see if they have enough money to pay their bills. I haven't look at Tivo's financials in awhile. I do know the big settlements on patent litigation obviously gave them money to live off of for awhile.

Tivo also got into the MSO business mostly overseas. From what I recall, a few years ago, that gave Tivo some life that it hadn't had in awhile in the form of boosting subscriber numbers that they hadn't seen in many years. I haven't looked in a few years though.

Last I think you have to talk about the actual competitive issues facing Tivo today and not the naysayers. Afaik the naysayers aren't incorporated or anything. They don't have a CEO. They are just random people on the internets with wildly different levels of how informed their opinions are or are not.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Again, I don't know what will happen tomorrow, and life is full of lots of serendipity. It's a fact of life that things change, especially now with the speed of it all. But I do know that the doom-and-gloomers have been predicting the demise of TiVo for many years--since TiVo first came about?--and it still hasn't come about. But I'm sure, if it does, that the doom-and-gloomers will come out and say that they were right, when predicting this 10 or 15 years ago. 

In the meanwhile, I've gotten 13+ years of TiVo DVR enjoyment, cost-effectively (a Lifetime sort here). The time that I've saved through the use of QuickMode alone probably justifies the expense. 


trip1eX said:


> IT's the same thing for Tivo. *You can see they are going to go under.*


I guess that you are just more prescient than me. 

And almost 3 years ago when Rovi bought TiVo, the doom-and-gloomers were saying the same thing, predicting the imminent demise and dismantling of the company (the original TiVo). In the meanwhile, someone who had purchased Lifetime at that time will be making back the investment, financially, shortly (compared to a monthly subscription), and has gotten almost 3 years of DVR enjoyment, and counting. (Admittedly, though, hindsight always is 20-20.) Just like people who bought Craftsman tools and Levi's jeans at Sears over the past few years likewise have gotten the utility of their purchases.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> TiVo is in trouble for two reasons...
> 
> 1) Most/All their patents are expired or about to expire.
> 
> ...


Yes, well stated. I agree with your points 1 and 2, in terms of the danger they pose to TiVo's future.

And yes, there are only limited opportunities for them as a partner to small-to-midsize MSOs and/or a provider of retail OTA DVRs. Among MSO customers, TiVo is also competing against Comcast (who has licensed their X1 platform to Cox, the #3 cable TV MSO in the US, plus a few Canadian MSOs of various sizes), plus MOBITV (who offers an outsourced end-to-end branded streaming cable TV platform), plus the option that MSOs may simply cease selling their own branded TV service completely and instead resell third-party OTT vMPVD services such as DirecTV Now, YouTube TV and Hulu with Live TV.

As for the retail OTA DVR market, yes, TiVo is a competitor but how well they will fare there going forward against Tablo, Amazon and SiliconDust (plus any future entrants, such as Roku, Apple or Google), I'm not sure. If TiVo is to succeed there, I think they must become an extension of the major streaming platforms (Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV, Android TV) rather than try to continue on as their own isolated platform. TiVo must essentially just become an app on other companies' devices.

The thought of TiVo offering their own OTT vMVPD streaming cable TV service is certainly compelling for TiVo fans and maybe that's something that could happen inside of a TiVo app. But I'm not sure I could ever see such a service launching, much less succeeding, if it was exclusively tied to TiVo hardware. Maybe it could be available in the TiVo app for all platforms and TiVo would also offer their own customized Android TV box featuring the TiVo UI on the home screen, like Sling TV has done with their AirTV Player. But given how competitive the OTT vMVPD market is, such a service from TiVo that *required* the purchase of a pricey TiVo box before even signing up, well, I have to think such a concept would be DOA.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> Last I think you have to talk about the actual competitive issues facing Tivo today and not the naysayers. Afaik the naysayers aren't incorporated or anything. They don't have a CEO. They are just random people on the internets with wildly different levels of how informed their opinions are or are not.


(You added the above to your post while I was responding to the original.)

I agree: one has to look at TiVo's competitive issues today--which are perhaps the greatest that it's had in its life, once up-and-running. And I can see the pressures being too great--a creative and talented exec. would be helpful. I just like to mention the doom-and-gloom crowd, including those here, because I enjoy how there has been a lot of sunshine for the consumers regardless of the predictions.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Willy92 said:


> We're closer to our 70's than 60, and I bought my Tivo Bolt VOX with that (what if no cable)in mind.....


What? Short "Lifetime Service"  That did not sound so good. I hope you live long, and prespire 



Willy92 said:


> When it comes to that time, I'm switching over to OTA and....


So in Heaven you are switching to "Over The Air" [/QUOTE]


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

It depends on where you live. Comcast is most likely to switch to IPTV soon. They have a lot of equipment already in the field that supports it and they've actively been working on upgrading their backend to support it as well. If you live in a Comcast area there is a good chance your TiVo could stop functioning with CableCARD in the next year or two. If you live in another MSOs service area it's probably a bit further into the future but still could be in the next 5-7 years.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> It depends on where you live. Comcast is most likely to switch to IPTV soon. They have a lot of equipment already in the field that supports it and they've actively been working on upgrading their backend to support it as well. If you live in a Comcast area there is a good chance your TiVo could stop functioning with CableCARD in the next year or two. If you live in another MSOs service area it's probably a bit further into the future but still could be in the next 5-7 years.


I'm the guy who wants his electronics to live forever. (Good luck with that one, lol.) But one's TiVo being around, functioning, for even at 5-7 years--Apple tries to get people to replace their iPhones every other year, right?


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Mikeguy said:


> I guess that I have heard that about TiVo for 10+ years. (Perhaps better said, has there ever been a time when people have said that TiVo_ hasn't_ been in trouble?)


So do you believe that they are not in trouble? What do you think their future looks like?


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah Sears is still around too. Been in trouble for 10+ years.
> 
> Doesn't mean they are thriving.
> 
> ...


Speaking of Sears... I just bought a nice 42 piece socket set of allen and torx on a 25% off sale. I just received a plastic bag with 42 loose sockets all just thrown in together. No other packaging or paperwork other than the little box it was shipped in. LOL Not like the old Sears.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Mikeguy said:


> Again, I don't know what will happen tomorrow, and life is full of lots of serendipity. It's a fact of life that things change, especially now with the speed of it all. But I do know that the doom-and-gloomers have been predicting the demise of TiVo for many years--since TiVo first came about?--and it still hasn't come about. But I'm sure, if it does, that the doom-and-gloomers will come out and say that they were right, when predicting this 10 or 15 years ago.
> 
> In the meanwhile, I've gotten 13+ years of TiVo DVR enjoyment, cost-effectively (a Lifetime sort here). The time that I've saved through the use of QuickMode alone probably justifies the expense.
> 
> ...


I don't think the "doom-and-gloomers" are trying to say it will happen next week. I guess if TiVo ends up as a 10 man company in a garage protecting a few patents you could always say "See, I told you they would survive" but in reality they seem to be heading for a slow walk towards the door.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, well stated. I agree with your points 1 and 2, in terms of the danger they pose to TiVo's future.
> 
> And yes, there are only limited opportunities for them as a partner to small-to-midsize MSOs and/or a provider of retail OTA DVRs. Among MSO customers, TiVo is also competing against Comcast (who has licensed their X1 platform to Cox, the #3 cable TV MSO in the US, plus a few Canadian MSOs of various sizes), plus MOBITV (who offers an outsourced end-to-end branded streaming cable TV platform), plus the option that MSOs may simply cease selling their own branded TV service completely and instead resell third-party OTT vMPVD services such as DirecTV Now, YouTube TV and Hulu with Live TV.
> 
> ...


One thing I'm seeing in the folks I know switching to OTT and streaming TV services is a move towards what I call Cheapskates. LOL Getting what they want to watch for as little $$ as possible seems to now be a badge of courage. Being able to seamlessly switch from one service to another for sports or a limited series is exciting to them. It's not as convenient as cable and DVR but having 200 cable channels that you never ever watch just feels wrong for some reason. A good TiVo UI with their program search across all services seems like it would be a very good fit but it cant cost much or it will be shunned.


----------



## stile99 (Feb 27, 2002)

I think there might be two discussions going on in the same thread, and they're similar so it's a bit difficult to follow.

To answer the title of the thread, is TiVo in trouble? Hell yes. As has been noted, they've been in trouble for years. Is TiVo a dead company walking? Depending who you ask, it has been for 20 years. We've already hashed most of this out in other threads, and the answer hasn't changed. Due to several outside forces, the current track TiVo is on will end eventually. The question is can they change tracks?

Well the answer to this is in the history books. They changed tracks when TV switched to digital. They changed tracks when Cablecards were introduced (boy, did they ever...it could be argued they created THAT track). Is the switch to IPTV the death blow for TiVo? That's for TiVo to answer. Will your current TiVo work? Nope. But neither does your S1.

Personal opinion time, TiVo needs to get back to the one box theme. One box that records or streams, and for the most part the user shouldn't care where the content comes from. If Discovery is on CBS Access, then I should set a one pass, put in my account info, and then Discovery plays when I tell it to. Without loading an app that changes the UI and what the buttons on the remote do, just PLAY the damn thing. And when a new one drops, have it in the Now Playing list. If Supergirl is on CW, just record it. Unless I don't have cable/OTA, in which case play it via the CW app, but again, don't go changing things, just PLAY it. Where they messed up the last time was seamless integration. Make the box smart so the user can be dumb, when Joe sits down to watch Survivor, just play Survivor. It's not that simple, so make it that simple.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

mschnebly said:


> One thing I'm seeing in the folks I know switching to OTT and streaming TV services is a move towards what I call Cheapskates. LOL *Getting what they want to watch for as little $$ as possible seems to now be a badge of courage*. Being able to seamlessly switch from one service to another for sports or a limited series is exciting to them. It's not as convenient as cable and DVR but having 200 cable channels that you never ever watch just feels wrong for some reason.


Not sure I'd consider this a badge or courageous, but Quality/Cost=Value and everyone has a sweet spot. 


mschnebly said:


> A good TiVo UI with their program search across all services seems like it would be a very good fit but it cant cost much or it will be shunned.


And there's yours!

TiVo's troubles are not about customers and hardware. They are about loss of revenue from settlements and licenses coupled with increased competition and an increasingly price sensitive marketplace. Some people just want to watch television.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> Again, I don't know what will happen tomorrow, and life is full of lots of serendipity. It's a fact of life that things change, especially now with the speed of it all. But I do know that the doom-and-gloomers have been predicting the demise of TiVo for many years--since TiVo first came about?--and it still hasn't come about. But I'm sure, if it does, that the doom-and-gloomers will come out and say that they were right, when predicting this 10 or 15 years ago.
> 
> In the meanwhile, I've gotten 13+ years of TiVo DVR enjoyment, cost-effectively (a Lifetime sort here). The time that I've saved through the use of QuickMode alone probably justifies the expense.
> 
> ...


You're talking about 2 different things. One can enjoy Tivo like I do myself and see the prospects for the business today are not good and they haven't been good for a few years now and are only getting worse.

I shopped at Kmart and Sears at least once in the past 5 years. I bought a 60" Samsung Plasma tv from Sears about 5 years ago. It doesn't mean I didn't talk with my wife about how that business was fading away and losing ground every year to the competition.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

mschnebly said:


> I don't think the "doom-and-gloomers" are trying to say it will happen next week. I guess if TiVo ends up as a 10 man company in a garage protecting a few patents you could always say "See, I told you they would survive" but in reality they seem to be heading for a slow walk towards the door.





mschnebly said:


> So do you believe that they are not in trouble? What do you think their future looks like?


As mentioned before, I think that these are challenging times for TiVo. (I'm really not a Pollyanna.) First, there are all the issues that TiVo always has faced, compounded by the old TiVo having been purchased by Rovi--the result of that still seems less-than-certain, and too many wonderful tech. companies have withered after being gobbled up. But second, it now faces the change of technology. Evolution seems to be required here, lest TiVo end up as that 10-man company, if that.

The only reason I mentioned the doom-and-gloomers is that this really has been such a constant refrain. And yes, some vociferously had predicted imminent doom upon the Rovi purchase. I'm not saying that dire issues are wrong here. Just that, no conclusions are certain.


trip1eX said:


> You're talking about 2 different things. One can enjoy Tivo like I do myself and see the prospects for the business today are not good and they haven't been good for a few years now and are only getting worse.
> 
> I shopped at Kmart and Sears at least once in the past 5 years. I bought a 60" Samsung Plasma tv from Sears about 5 years ago. It doesn't mean I didn't talk with my wife about how that business was fading away and losing ground every year to the competition.


Yep. But, it seems to me, both aspects bear mention (especially where the discussion can affect consumer decisions)--there's imminent failure which can lead to more severe financial disappointment and harm to customers, and there's a company's operations being disrupted over time with a lesser immediate harm.

And call me an optimist but, TiVo has been able to weather matters for 20 years now. Having said that, I'm actually a pessimistic optimist, and recognize the issues mentioned above--as I said, a talented and creative chief could be of great value right now.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

stile99 said:


> I think there might be two discussions going on in the same thread, and they're similar so it's a bit difficult to follow.
> 
> To answer the title of the thread, is TiVo in trouble? Hell yes. As has been noted, they've been in trouble for years. Is TiVo a dead company walking? Depending who you ask, it has been for 20 years. We've already hashed most of this out in other threads, and the answer hasn't changed. Due to several outside forces, the current track TiVo is on will end eventually. The question is can they change tracks?
> 
> ...


No way for that to happen. TiVo doesn't have the clout to make every app look the same. They are too small. Heck even the bigger guys can't do it.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Seriously, there is a lot of value in TiVo silicon valley has lost its mind recently and out of ideas.

For example: Why wont Apple licence TiVo tech or just buy them, Armstrong the entertainment industry and provide a Streaming DVR powered by TiVO with a modular upgradable OTA tuner? How bout Roku? Anyone?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

mschnebly said:


> One thing I'm seeing in the folks I know switching to OTT and streaming TV services is a move towards what I call Cheapskates. LOL Getting what they want to watch for as little $$ as possible seems to now be a badge of courage. Being able to seamlessly switch from one service to another for sports or a limited series is exciting to them. It's not as convenient as cable and DVR but having 200 cable channels that you never ever watch just feels wrong for some reason. A good TiVo UI with their program search across all services seems like it would be a very good fit but it cant cost much or it will be shunned.


Being cheaper is just a benefit. I switched to watching most of my broadcast content from streaming, only because the video quality from FiOS(Comcast is even worse) and OTA(DC area) are so terrible now. Streaming services provide much better quality than FiOS and OTA in DC. And as a bonus, I also pay less per month.

But if the video quality was not this bad, I would have never switched to using the streaming services to watch my broadcast content. But now that I have, it's very unlikely I will go back. But I guess it's possible.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

foghorn2 said:


> Seriously, there is a lot of value in TiVo silicon valley has lost its mind recently and out of ideas.
> 
> For example: Why wont Apple licence TiVo tech or just buy them, Armstrong the entertainment industry and provide a Streaming DVR powered by TiVO with a modular upgradable OTA tuner? How bout Roku? Anyone?


Because they want to make money. And as history shows, the price point needs to be rather high to actually make a decent amount of money from a DVR.

Besides, the hardware for what you describe is not cheap. Just making a device modular would probably greatly increase the cost. From both hardware and research.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> Yep. But, it seems to me, both aspects bear mention (especially where the discussion can affect consumer decisions)--there's imminent failure which can lead to more severe financial disappointment and harm to customers, and there's a company's operations being disrupted over time with a lesser immediate harm.
> 
> And call me an optimist but, TiVo has been able to weather matters for 20 years now. Having said that, I'm actually a pessimistic optimist, and recognize the issues mentioned above--as I said, a talented and creative chief could be of great value right now.


There's bear mention and then there's arguing that your love of Tivo is a reason they will survive.  You can enjoy your Tivo all you want just like I do but it's neither here nor there when talking about Tivo's business prospects. Just like it's neither here nor there that you read comments on the internets 15 years ago about Tivo failing.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> There's bear mention and then there's arguing that your love of Tivo is a reason they will survive.  You can enjoy your Tivo all you want just like I do but it's neither here nor there when talking about Tivo's business prospects. Just like it's neither here nor there that you read comments on the internets 15 years ago about Tivo failing.


(1) I guess you've missed the constant references I've made as to who knows what will happen to TiVo tomorrow, and the issues it faces.  (2) Of course the continual doom-saying motif (15 years ago, 2-3 years ago) bears comment upon, esp. when it hasn't proven to be the case. I guess that TiVo has been able to weather those predictions.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Well, just because naysayers have been proven wrong before doesn't mean they aren't right this time around. "Past performance is no guarantee . . . "

I'm happy with their product right now, but I don't have a lot of confidence in their future product lineup. Their management appears rudderless and lacking in a clear direction in either product roadmap or general business strategy.

They've taken 2 years to perform a strategic review of the company and have nothing to show for it aside from "maybe we'll split, maybe we'll sell, gosh I hope that Comcast license happens" along with an earnings miss. They're hanging their hat on getting that sweet Comcast license, but Comcast has no intention of caving.

I'm just a customer, but if I was an investor, I'd have no confidence in upper management.

TiVo needs competent leadership to survive and I don't think they have that right now.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> (1) I guess you've missed the constant references I've made as to who knows what will happen to TiVo tomorrow, and the issues it faces.  (2) Of course the continual doom-saying motif (15 years ago, 2-3 years ago) bears comment upon, esp. when it hasn't proven to be the case. I guess that TiVo has been able to weather those predictions.


I knew before you posted that you don't know what is going to happen to Tivo tomorrow. That's how prescient I am. 

But it doesn't mean you weren't arguing that your love of Tivo and your ability to save money by buying a Tivo is a reason they will survive. IF you weren't then you fooled me. I don't know how else to take it.

I guess I could take it as you're just preaching to the choir because I too bought my Tivo because I enjoy the Tivo dvr experience and it saves me cable dvr fees over the long run. But that's a different discussion to the one I was thought I was participating in.

It's neither here nor there that you read something from someone somewhere on the internets 15 years ago. It doesn't bear any mention. It actually has no bearing at all.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

I'm reading up on this latest Tivo 10-k and investor's call.

Tivo is already developing an IPTV platform for their customers.

And they plan on transitioning from a subscription based model to a transactional based model. And I thought about it for a minute what it means and I think it means a "clickbait" model. Maybe that's too harsh a term, but it means every time you click on something on the Tivo UI they get paid.

Pause your show and an ad displays and they get paid. Fast forward through a show and an ad pops up and they get paid. Click a recommendation they get paid. And that sort of thing. And they get paid for providing anonymous info as well I'm sure if they don't already.

They gave an example of an ad (recommendation) they put on what I assume was on the current Tivo UI in conjunction with CBS and it resulted in a 142% increase in tune-in to that show from the users that saw the ad.

Ok some of this is probably old news as I think they've recommendations on the Tivo for awhile and probably talked IPTV before etc.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Also interesting is they still have a lot of litigation pending against Comcast which if they prevail could result in substantial monetary damages (monetary award for Tivo.) They stated the government shutdown delayed the results of the trial which started in October of 2018. And they expect to know the results in Q2 or Q3 and the monetary damages in Q4.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> It also doesn't mean you haven't been arguing that your love of Tivo and your ability to save money by buying a Tivo is a reason they will survive. IF you weren't then you fooled me. I don't know how else to take it.


I guess there's a misunderstanding, then, as I never said or intended that. (As much as I might will it otherwise, my enjoyment of a product has never seemed to guarantee the product's survival--witness the original SanDisk Sansa Clip audio players, before SanDisk farmed the line out, and the myriad of my favorite Trader Joe's products that no longer exist.  ) What I did say was that even if TiVo did go under at some point, one has the enjoyment and benefit of one's TiVo DVR in the meanwhile, and that this even still could justify a TiVo Lifetime subscription as cost-effective.


> It's neither here nor there that you read something from someone somewhere on the internets 15 years ago. It doesn't bear any mention. It actually has no bearing at all.


Again, with all due respect, it does. (And, again, it's not just 15 years ago--there was another major "bump" in this pessimism 2-3 years ago, with Rovi's purchase of TiVo. Read the diatribes here.) It shows that TiVo has weathered such doom-saying in the past. As well as the prevalence of the doom-saying. Of course, none of that is a guarantee as to the future.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> Pause your show and an ad displays and they get paid. Fast forward through a show and an ad pops up and they get paid. Click a recommendation they get paid. And that sort of thing. And they get paid for providing anonymous info as well I'm sure if they don't already.


Note (without knowing the internal financial angles, but assuming) that much of this already exists with TiVo or has existed previously, but is not consistently applied. Coincidentally, I just received last evening a TiVo pause banner ad (it's been awhile since I've seen those--it surprised me). And TiVo used to have, many years ago, a ~vibrant Showcase section of, essentially, ads/infomercials. Query whether this can make a meaningful difference.

Rumor has it, some forum members here even may have participated in a TiVo pause or fast-forward ad focus group many years ago . . . .


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> I guess there's a misunderstanding, then, as I never said or intended that. (As much as I might will it otherwise, my enjoyment of a product has never seemed to guarantee the product's survival--witness the original SanDisk Sansa Clip audio players, before SanDisk farmed the line out, and the myriad of my favorite Trader Joe's products that no longer exist.  ) What I did say was that even if TiVo did go under at some point, one has the enjoyment and benefit of one's TiVo DVR in the meanwhile, and that this even still could justify a TiVo Lifetime subscription as cost-effective.
> 
> Again, with all due respect, it does. (And, again, it's not just 15 years ago--there was another major "bump" in this pessimism 2-3 years ago, with Rovi's purchase of TiVo. Read the diatribes here.) It shows that TiVo has weathered such doom-saying in the past. As well as the prevalence of the doom-saying. Of course, none of that is a guarantee as to the future.


It doesn't matter one iota. Just like anything you read touting how well Tivo was going to do 15 years ago matters not 1 iota today either. There's no correlation.

And yes one still has the enjoyment and benefit of one's Tivo DVR in the meanwhile even if they go out of business next week and yes Tivo with lifetime could still prove cost-effective today. But that's a strawman argument. Who was saying otherwise?


----------



## JohnnyO (Nov 3, 2002)

THIS! This is why I still pay for TiVo. Most everything we watch can be had via other means, but there are separate apps and separate hoops to leap through. It is sad that getting to YouTube videos or Netflix, etc. are already a separate app launch away (and the YouTube app, at least what I see on my current Roamio, is horrid). It sure would be nice if they were integrated into my Season Passes and TiVo Central.

It seems like another example of stuff just getting worse over time, but it happens slowly, and most never seem to care.

But, silly me, I just bought the refurb Bolt. If I can get a few years of service, I'll be OK with that.

John



stile99 said:


> Personal opinion time, TiVo needs to get back to the one box theme. One box that records or streams, and for the most part the user shouldn't care where the content comes from. If Discovery is on CBS Access, then I should set a one pass, put in my account info, and then Discovery plays when I tell it to. Without loading an app that changes the UI and what the buttons on the remote do, just PLAY the damn thing. And when a new one drops, have it in the Now Playing list. If Supergirl is on CW, just record it. Unless I don't have cable/OTA, in which case play it via the CW app, but again, don't go changing things, just PLAY it.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

stile99 said:


> Personal opinion time, TiVo needs to get back to the one box theme. One box that records or streams, and for the most part the user shouldn't care where the content comes from. If Discovery is on CBS Access, then I should set a one pass, put in my account info, and then Discovery plays when I tell it to.


100% agree--this was the vision behind OnePasses when the Roamio first came out, but it has all but fizzled out. They could still do something in this space before Roku/Amazon/Apple get there 100%, but the others are already moving at a decent pace in that direction. TiVo has precious little time.


----------



## jcondon (Jul 9, 2003)

JohnnyO said:


> But, silly me, I just bought the refurb Bolt. If I can get a few years of service, I'll be OK with that.


I just did the same and will hooking it up tonight. As you said if I get two years out of it that would be fine with me. More would be better obviously. I just recently switched back to cable and have 2 year price guarantee. After that maybe we will be ready to switch to streaming only. Which is more likely if Tivo isn't around or cablecards go away by them.

I don't think either Fios or Cablevision/Optimum will be switching to IPTV before then in my area. So as long as I can get guide data I will be fine.

I paid around $250 for both my Premieres and have gotten 5 and 7 years of service out of both. So I feel I did really well with them not having to having to pay Fios and Cablevision for the displeasure of using their crappy DVRs (I have had a couple different ones from both in the past).


----------



## Qnapfan (Feb 13, 2019)

JohnnyO said:


> THIS! This is why I still pay for TiVo. Most everything we watch can be had via other means, but there are separate apps and separate hoops to leap through. It is sad that getting to YouTube videos or Netflix, etc. are already a separate app launch away (and the YouTube app, at least what I see on my current Roamio, is horrid). It sure would be nice if they were integrated into my Season Passes and TiVo Central.
> 
> It seems like another example of stuff just getting worse over time, but it happens slowly, and most never seem to care.
> 
> ...


Likewise, I think that Stile99 hit it on the head ... given the 'ala carte' progression of the streaming industry, I think Tivo or another company can capitalize on this development in a postive way. Now if Tivo could reinvent itself (or stretch functionality) to include an a user interface 'buffer' that would translate and standardize on the fly ... the user interface governing the app service ... similar in intent behind the motivation of running "Classic Windows 7 Shell" to provide the feel of 7 Pro while using 10.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Reading some more of the conference call. Tivo says 2 major new product launches coming this year. Is that new news? 

And what's the Tivo Experience 4 the CEO talks about? Is that Hydra or some post-hydra Tivo experience? They want to get it out to every customer ASAP so they can monetize their customers more. They talk about it being setup for multiple ad points as well as more content discovery etc. 

Also funny because I had the same question that the first analyst asked which is basically why this elaborate 5 pillar plan (which they talked about on the call) for growth while also looking to sell off parts of the business especially after you just merged with Tivo and incurred debt to merge with Tivo. I guess the answer was something like it's not as simple as there's Tivo and there's Rovi because the IP side of Rovi used a lot of Tivo IP to enhance it's portfolio while the Tivo product side particularly the IPTV experience gave some synergies to other Rovi services. The separation they are talking about is Product and IP. So it sounds like they are going to sell off either the IP or the Product business and focus only on one. What business are they going to sell off you think?


----------



## stile99 (Feb 27, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> And what's the Tivo Experience 4 the CEO talks about? Is that Hydra or some post-hydra Tivo experience? *They want to get it out to every customer ASAP* so they can monetize their customers more. They talk about it being setup for multiple ad points as well as more content discovery etc.


At the risk of incurring the beating a dead horse gif, if they are serious I can name two things they can address that will get 90% of the holdouts to install it by this time tomorrow. Yes, TE4 is Hydra.

As for what business they sell off, I can tell you what one they will keep. Given the quality of the guide data, and the constant complaint from customers of other companies using Rovi guide data, they're going to keep that one since they get fistfuls of money and don't actually spend any on the product.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

stile99 said:


> At the risk of incurring the beating a dead horse gif, if they are serious I can name two things they can address that will get 90% of the holdouts to install it by this time tomorrow. Yes, TE4 is Hydra.
> 
> As for what business they sell off, I can tell you what one they will keep. Given the quality of the guide data, and the constant complaint from customers of other companies using Rovi guide data, they're going to keep that one since they get fistfuls of money and don't actually spend any on the product.


yeah I figure that too. They'll keep the IP half and sell off the product half. They filed for over 100 patents in 2018. I just imagine half of Rovi files patents and the other half looks for companies with products that violate them.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

stile99 said:


> Yes, TE4 is Hydra.


It is also Mira.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Reading some more of the conference call. Tivo says 2 major new product launches coming this year. Is that new news?


It's news to me. Wonder what they've got up their sleeves?



trip1eX said:


> Also funny because I had the same question that the first analyst asked which is basically why this elaborate 5 pillar plan (which they talked about on the call) for growth while also looking to sell off parts of the business especially after you just merged with Tivo and incurred debt to merge with Tivo. I guess the answer was something like it's not as simple as there's Tivo and there's Rovi because the IP side of Rovi used a lot of Tivo IP to enhance it's portfolio while the Tivo product side particularly the IPTV experience gave some synergies to other Rovi services. The separation they are talking about is Product and IP. So it sounds like they are going to sell off either the IP or the Product business and focus only on one. What business are they going to sell off you think?


Like others have guessed, I too would think that TiVo would sell off their product business. But the line between product and IP/services gets blurry. Think about it: TiVo no longer directly manufactures their own hardware. So what is their "product" business except a bunch of IP in the form of software (the TiVo operating system and TiVo apps) that employs specific features/mechanisms? I guess if they sold off the product business, then they would essentially be giving the buyer a perpetual license to use TiVo software/IP in whatever hardware products they might directly manufacture and market, either to retail buyers or MSO partners? Meanwhile, the current company would retain rights to license bits and pieces of their IP, as well as their guide data and metadata, to other companies for inclusion in their own products and services? I dunno, maybe I'm not clearly conceptualizing the divide between the two sides.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> It doesn't matter one iota. Just like anything you read touting how well Tivo was going to do 15 years ago matters not 1 iota today either. There's no correlation.


History doesn't help inform the present and the future? I guess that I disagree there.


> And yes one still has the enjoyment and benefit of one's Tivo DVR in the meanwhile even if they go out of business next week and yes Tivo with lifetime could still prove cost-effective today. But that's a strawman argument. Who was saying otherwise?


Not a strawman argument at all--instead, a very valid point to make, when people are reading a thread like this and then wondering if they should purchase a TiVo box and/or Lifetime service, and considering whether that is financially wise. A constant theme in this forum.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TiVo isn't going anywhere. They still have a number of small MSO partners that is collectively a much larger market than retail. I'm skeptical that TiVo will make the transition to ATSC 3.0, and with cable going IPTV, retail TiVos may disappear, but I don't think the MSO boxes will anytime soon.


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

By getting rid of Tivo you are getting rid of MR brain and that's not going to happen on my account.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> History doesn't help inform the present and the future? I guess that I disagree there.
> 
> Not a strawman argument at all--instead, a very valid point to make, when people are reading a thread like this and then wondering if they should purchase a TiVo box and/or Lifetime service, and considering whether that is financially wise. A constant theme in this forum.


Now you're up to 2 strawman arguments.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> It's news to me. Wonder what they've got up their sleeves?
> 
> Like others have guessed, I too would think that TiVo would sell off their product business. But the line between product and IP/services gets blurry. Think about it: TiVo no longer directly manufactures their own hardware. So what is their "product" business except a bunch of IP in the form of software (the TiVo operating system and TiVo apps) that employs specific features/mechanisms? I guess if they sold off the product business, then they would essentially be giving the buyer a perpetual license to use TiVo software/IP in whatever hardware products they might directly manufacture and market, either to retail buyers or MSO partners? Meanwhile, the current company would retain rights to license bits and pieces of their IP, as well as their guide data and metadata, to other companies for inclusion in their own products and services? I dunno, maybe I'm not clearly conceptualizing the divide between the two sides.


Good question. I would guess it means they keep the patents so they can collect licensing fees, but sell off the Tivo Hydra experience. Whoever bought it would own it but they would have to pay licenses for some of the patents it uses. LIke Apple has to pay various companies license fees for some of the tech in its phones.

Here's the Q&A:

"
So the first question I had was, why go through the separation? I mean, you guys went through a merger between Rovi and TiVo. Why aren't you just following that strategic -- strategy of what that merger was supposed to mean because that incurred debt for this deal? Now you're walking away from it essentially. That's what it sounds like when you're separating the business.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Raghavendra Rau, TiVo Corporation - Interim President, CEO & Director [13]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, that's really not accurate, Hamed. TiVo had a strong licensing portfolio as well as a strong Product business. We have very successfully integrated the licensing portfolio that TiVo had to the portfolio that Rovi had and we have now expanded our portfolio and our licensing perspective customers with both portfolios and enhancing our revenues on the IP front. On the Product side, the TiVo business has given significant product advantages, including in the IPTV area and the consumer footprint that we are talking about in terms of the new Experience 4 that we're rolling out. And also this new content network and discovery solution that we have is based on the Experience 4 platform and enables us to provide a rich content network, very unique discovery experience and with multiple endpoints for advertising. So that has benefited in this way. The separation that we're talking about is the Product and the IP. It's not really the Rovi and the TiVo.""


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> Now you're up to 2 strawman arguments.


At least they're not specious.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

trip1eX said:


> Reading some more of the conference call. Tivo says 2 major new product launches coming this year. Is that new news?
> 
> And what's the Tivo Experience 4 the CEO talks about? Is that Hydra or some post-hydra Tivo experience? They want to get it out to every customer ASAP so they can monetize their customers more. They talk about it being setup for multiple ad points as well as more content discovery etc.
> 
> Also funny because I had the same question that the first analyst asked which is basically why this elaborate 5 pillar plan (which they talked about on the call) for growth while also looking to sell off parts of the business especially after you just merged with Tivo and incurred debt to merge with Tivo. I guess the answer was something like it's not as simple as there's Tivo and there's Rovi because the IP side of Rovi used a lot of Tivo IP to enhance it's portfolio while the Tivo product side particularly the IPTV experience gave some synergies to other Rovi services. The separation they are talking about is Product and IP. So it sounds like they are going to sell off either the IP or the Product business and focus only on one. What business are they going to sell off you think?


Well, to me, it seems like they are trying to "dump" as much of their hardware as possible using these sales. Clearing out the warehouse maybe but I'm just guessing. That might make the TiVo side of things either easier to sell or easier to keep. I could see a competitor willing to buy the nice TiVo UI and patents for their products without needing any of the hardware.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

trip1eX said:


> Good question. I would guess it means they keep the patents so they can collect licensing fees, but sell off the Tivo Hydra experience. Whoever bought it would own it but they would have to pay licenses for some of the patents it uses. LIke Apple has to pay various companies license fees for some of the tech in its phones.
> 
> Here's the Q&A:
> 
> ...


To me this sounds like they just want to be an IP company with maybe some software development for putting ads in the right places along with the data collection/analytics. No hardware at all.


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

The TIVO death watch reminds me of the Tom Brady falling off the cliff claims. For several years some have said he is ready to fall off a cliff in ability to be a Quarterback. In fact that was said about four years ago, THREE Super Bowl appearances with two wins since. 
Like about everything at some point Brady and TIVO will no longer be a player. (Use of word player on purpose) But as they say word of their demise is premature.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

mschnebly said:


> Well, to me, it seems like they are trying to "dump" as much of their hardware as possible using these sales. Clearing out the warehouse maybe but I'm just guessing. That might make the TiVo side of things either easier to sell or easier to keep. I could see a competitor willing to buy the nice TiVo UI and patents for their products without needing any of the hardware.


A return to the beginnings: TiVo originally had not wanted to be in the hardware manufacture/retail business. And others have done that "for" TiVo in the past. E.g. I have a Series 2 TiVo DVR/DVD recorder, made by Toshiba.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> At least they're not specious.


HEre I thought the entire purpose of your strawmen was to obfuscate.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

tampa8 said:


> The TIVO death watch reminds me of the Tom Brady falling off the cliff claims. For several years some have said he is ready to fall off a cliff in ability to be a Quarterback. In fact that was said about four years ago, THREE Super Bowl appearances with two wins since.
> Like about everything at some point Brady and TIVO will no longer be a player. (Use of word player on purpose) But as they say word of their demise is premature.


I think the Tivo death watch reminds me of Tom Brady too. IT's pretty easy to see Tivo is the ~41 yr old QB in the NFL.

Some might try in vain to predict the exact date they retire. But some of us know better. But it doesn't change the age of the QB and the game they are in.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> HEre I thought the entire purpose of your strawmen was to obfuscate.


No, my posts have raised valid points which you just don't like being raised or agree with, and so have chosen to mischaracterize. But your positions are understood.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> No, my posts have raised valid points which you just don't like being raised or agree with, and so have chosen to mischaracterize. But your positions are understood.


They haven't raised any valid pts. IT's all besides the pt.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> They haven't raised any valid pts. IT's all besides the pt.


Thank you--you're just repeating yourself. Just because you don't like the points (which, in fact, others have stated similarly or "liked") or them being raised doesn't make the discussion "invalid." But, again, your position is understood and is given its due consideration.


----------



## Qnapfan (Feb 13, 2019)

trip1eX said:


> I think the Tivo death watch reminds me of Tom Brady too. IT's pretty easy to see Tivo is the ~41 yr old QB in the NFL.
> 
> Some might try in vain to predict the exact date they retire. But some of us know better. But it doesn't change the age of the QB and the game they are in.


I think this a spot on assessment and see it similarly ... one caveat though, the variable of new technology as a 'walk-on' phenom. Imagine the introduction of a truly cheap A.I. that would give relatively 'brilliant' decision making capacity to an otherwise ordinary device. Now, I'm not saying Hal, or C3PO, but rather a _cheaper yet more effective_ Siri on a chip. The two punch of availability and ability ... would or should potentially shake up the 'interactive automation' market significantly.

Don't get me wrong here, voice recognition and smart voice systems have made great strides to the present state of the art ... but IMHO, it will take a bit more 'fluency' and neural capacity to truly interact with squishy biological units (with the ease, convenience and most importantly, the accuracy) ... desired for the proverbial 'thinking toaster' servant of the future.

... at such a time, I think Tivo will be done.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> Thank you--you're just repeating yourself. Just because you don't like the points or them being raised doesn't make the discussion "invalid." But, again, your position is understood and is given its due consideration.


They are invalid. IT's not because I don't like the points or them being raised. IT's because they having to do with anything I said and you replied to me. I didn't reply to you. That's why. 

I mean if you had a made a PSR in this thread reminding people that they can still enjoy their Tivos I would never have replied to you. I would be like who cares. That seems off-topic.


----------



## stile99 (Feb 27, 2002)

Please take the pissing match to PMs. If I wanted to watch "this isn't an argument, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't" I'd watch some Monty Python.

ObTiVodeath: Eventually those who have been predicting it for decades will be right. Today they aren't. In 100 years TiVo will be dead and so will we all.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

stile99 said:


> Please take the pissing match to PMs. If I wanted to watch "this isn't an argument, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't" I'd watch some Monty Python.
> 
> ObTiVodeath: Eventually those who have been predicting it for decades will be right. Today they aren't. In 100 years TiVo will be dead and so will we all.


Sorrry for the pointless back and forth. I knew it would lead nowhere.

But, as for "Tivo's death" as you called it, some of us like talking about the business of Tivo and their prospects and the prospects and direction of the industry as a whole. For me I invest in companies and worked in this particular industry even at one pt as an engineer and find it interesting to discuss and get a feel for where the industry is headed and how it is changing. The pt of which isn't to persuade or dissuade anyone from purchasing or enjoying a Tivo nor it is to predict the date of a company's demise. It's just to analyze and discuss and articulate the state of the business and industry.

In this case the original post was linked to information from their conference call discussing their recent fiscal year and quarter and the upcoming year.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> TiVo isn't going anywhere. They still have a number of small MSO partners that is collectively a much larger market than retail. I'm skeptical that TiVo will make the transition to ATSC 3.0, and with cable going IPTV, retail TiVos may disappear, but I don't think the MSO boxes will anytime soon.


Well, obviously we'll have to see what plays out at the corporate level with TiVo and with their hardware partner Arris (which is merging with CommScope, and may reportedly spin off or sell their cable STB business, which is the piece that manufactures TiVos). But if there are still retail TiVos being made, it seems reasonable to me that new OTA models will be coming out in the next couple years, probably including an ATSC 3.0 model. (There's still a lot that's up in the air about ATSC 3.0; it's rumored that inclusion of some kind of DRM is being talked about for it now by the major broadcasters.)

As for their larger MSO-partner business, I'm not sure how much more supplying there is to be done by TiVo for QAM-only hardware, such as the MG2 box. I mean, it's there, for any of those small MSOs still looking to upgrade their STBs while sticking with a traditional QAM TV system. But I think at this point, most smaller MSOs are evaluating a number of options about which way to more forward in this changing video landscape, and TiVo's new IPTV platform is only one option. There are other options that are more outsourced/less capital intensive, such as MobiTV or just reselling, say, YouTube TV.

I say all that to mean that TiVo's target market for their MSO partner business is fracturing while the entire traditional cable TV business declines. Yes, TiVo (or some other company using the TiVo brand) will continue to be a player there for years to come but I tend to think that business will slowly go downhill.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> apparently inclusion of some kind of DRM is being talked about for it now by the major broadcasters.


They tried this with ATSC 1 and it was struck down by the courts. The airwaves are public. If they want DRM they have the option of becoming a cable only channel or OTT.

For info look up "broadcast flag".


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Adaptability is a good skill, and a nice alternative to extinction. It remains to be seen if TiVo can or wants to try to pull it off, both technologically and business-wise (defying nay-sayers, as it has been able to do earlier). As I mentioned previously, a talented and creative division head would be a good thing.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> They tried this with ATSC 1 and it was struck down by the courts. The airwaves are public. If they want DRM they have the option of becoming a cable only channel or OTT.
> 
> For info look up "broadcast flag".


Well, who knows whether some kind of controls will make it into the eventual implementation of ATSC 3.0 or not. Perhaps they would exist only for subscription content distributed via ATSC 3.0 (which is absolutely among the possibilities envisioned). Obviously that stuff has to be somehow protected/encrypted. I don't really see the legal distinction between Showtime and Starz distributed via cable, via OTT or via the now-defunct AirBox subscription OTA service that ran on ATSC 1.0.

As for the broadcast flag (a form of DRM that specifically pertains to the ability to record the transmission), I don't think that ever made it to the Supreme Court; we don't know how they might rule. We also don't know whether Congress might expand the FCC's authority to create and enforce such a system across broadcasters and consumer electronics providers for ATSC 3.0.

Who knows? Future political and regulatory action is a real wild card. Imagine if the whole retransmission compensation structure for local stations that was put in place in the 90s was killed by a future Congress. (Not that I think that's necessarily likely.) Lots of interesting what-ifs to think about...


----------



## ggieseke (May 30, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> As for their larger MSO-partner business, I'm not sure how much more supplying there is to be done by TiVo for QAM-only hardware, such as the MG2 box. I mean, it's there, for any of those small MSOs still looking to upgrade their STBs while sticking with a traditional QAM TV system. But I think at this point, most smaller MSOs are evaluating a number of options about which way to more forward in this changing video landscape, and TiVo's new IPTV platform is only one option. There are other options that are more outsourced/less capital intensive, such as MobiTV or just reselling, say, YouTube TV.


They already have a decent amount of experience with other MSOs and even pure IPTV on an international basis. Virgin in the UK, Vodaphone in Spain, and Comhem in Sweden come to mind.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Well, obviously we'll have to see what plays out at the corporate level with TiVo and with their hardware partner Arris (which is merging with CommScope, and may reportedly spin off or sell their cable STB business, which is the piece that manufactures TiVos). But if there are still retail TiVos being made, it seems reasonable to me that new OTA models will be coming out in the next couple years, probably including an ATSC 3.0 model. (There's still a lot that's up in the air about ATSC 3.0; it's rumored that inclusion of some kind of DRM is being talked about for it now by the major broadcasters.)
> 
> As for their larger MSO-partner business, I'm not sure how much more supplying there is to be done by TiVo for QAM-only hardware, such as the MG2 box. I mean, it's there, for any of those small MSOs still looking to upgrade their STBs while sticking with a traditional QAM TV system. But I think at this point, most smaller MSOs are evaluating a number of options about which way to more forward in this changing video landscape, and TiVo's new IPTV platform is only one option. There are other options that are more outsourced/less capital intensive, such as MobiTV or just reselling, say, YouTube TV.
> 
> I say all that to mean that TiVo's target market for their MSO partner business is fracturing while the entire traditional cable TV business declines. Yes, TiVo (or some other company using the TiVo brand) will continue to be a player there for years to come but I tend to think that business will slowly go downhill.


That sounds about right.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, TiVo (or some other company using the TiVo brand) will continue to be a player there for years to come but I tend to think that business will slowly go downhill.


That's OK--I only need another 40 years.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> They tried this with ATSC 1 and it was struck down by the courts. The airwaves are public. If they want DRM they have the option of becoming a cable only channel or OTT.
> 
> For info look up "broadcast flag".


For the broadcast flag, an appeals court ruled the FCC didn't have the power to regulate receiving devices. But the FTC has this power. The FTC runs the do-not-call list for a similar reason. And the Supreme Court can overule the appellate court's decision.

So the way it stands today, the broadcast flag can be set, but the receiving devices aren't obligated to enforce it. But that can easily change. Especially if unencrypted ATSC 1.0 remains unlike last time when NTSC was shut off.

You can also look up DRM and ATSC 3.0, and get a bunch of articles as to why it will probably happen.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> That's OK--I only need another 40 years.


Ha! Well, I don't know if I'd give it that long. But then, the payback on a TiVo with lifetime service is way less than 40 years, right?

The bottom line for current and prospective TiVo owners, I'd say, is that there's no good reason to think that TiVo won't continue to operate their MSO-partner business for the next few years at least, which means continuing to provide service (guide data, etc.) to them. And as long as TiVo servers are running for those customers, surely they'll continue to also serve their retail DVRs (even if, at some future point, TiVo devices cease to be sold in the retail market). So not much to worry about (other than the possibility that one's cable TV provider switches in part or full to IPTV, which is incompatible with your CableCARD-equipped TiVo).

But that's looking at TiVo from a consumer perspective. From an investor perspective evaluating the company's future business prospects, eh, it's not great.


----------



## greer1999 (Apr 5, 2017)

Tivo is in certainly in trouble. They will have to make changes to how they deal with their fees because they are way out of touch.

I bought a Bolt 500 years ago when they first came out. Used it for a year because it came with 1 year of service. Service ran out and they wanted $500+ for the all-in and if the box died 10 minutes later I would be out $500+ and back to square one. They suggested I just buy a new Bolt with the all-in and a service plan. Not-a-chance. Put the bolt in the closest.

Last week I saw the deal on the 'renewed' Bolt 500 for $279 including the all-in. Thought maybe... I called to see if they would just sell me the all-in for my closeted Bolt for $279 rather than buying an entire 'renewed' one for $279. Wouldn't/Couldn't do it so I passed.

Today I thought I'd call again because it's the last day of the 'deal' just to see if someone else would do it. Not only is the all-in for my closeted Bolt still $549 they don't have any of the 'renewed' ones left. Tried to tell me and sell me a Romeo OTA instead. Told him I wanted it for 4k. He told me the Romeo OTA did 4k. I told him it didn't do 4k so he checked and then said 'Let me correct myself - the Romeo OTA is HD but won't do 4k'. Geez...

I continue to use and am pretty much happy with my Romeo OTA that I bought when I closeted the Bolt. Just want 4k. ShowtimeAnytime would be nice.

In the past Tivo could get away with this kind of stupidity but not anymore. When I can buy other products from the competition for much less money there isn't enough reason to pay Tivo's crazy all-in prices. I still can't watch Showtimeanytime on Tivo but I can on my Roku and my FireTV. 

Time to change things up or take your marbles and go home.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

^ I suspect there are thousands of TiVos sitting in closets for the same reason. I have 2. TiVo would rather get nothing than something, very arrogant and financially stupid I must say.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

foghorn2 said:


> ^ I suspect there are thousands of TiVos sitting in closets for the same reason. I have 2. TiVo would rather get nothing than something, very arrogant and financially stupid I must say.


well customers do the same thing like the guy that you replied to.  I mean to not get renewed Bolt for $280 because they wouldn't let you pay $280 to use lifetime on the Bolt you have that you don't use doesn't seem like the smartest decision. He could have used his old Bolt for parts, got another Bolt and solved his "i'm worried that it will break down in 10 minutes and I"ll be out everything" problem.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

I've been following this thread for awhile and it has been some interesting reading. Yes, Tivo is in trouble for a few reasons and I guess we'll get to see how they find solutions going forward. I thought of a few.
Add more streaming apps and make them part of the unified search and one pass we have now on at least 3 of the streaming apps. Apple is doing that now with a fair number of apps though it isn't perfect.
Add one or more cable replacement streaming apps. Of course with all of them losing money right now it is hard to say which ones will survive the shakeout, and IMO, I think it will fade a bit in the longer term when the rates are raised to profitable levels. And regardless of the praise some sing about them, the bottom line is if you pay significantly less that a cable sub costs, you get less. Less channel selection with only using one of the services, and even at today's pricing, adding another service to fill in those holes, the cost then gets pretty close to what a cable sub costs.
The cable replacement apps would be difficult to bring into unified search I think and of course, if that service has 'cloud dvr' as part of their service you add to the complexity of using them. IOW, I don't see a way that Tivo could integrate them into the simplicity they have now.
I had thought ATSC3 would be a big issue soon, but in reality it looks like 3-5 years before it becomes the standard according to what I read. So Tivo has that period of time to make the necessary improvements/changes.

Sent from my Google Chromebook Pixel (2015) using Tapatalk


----------



## greer1999 (Apr 5, 2017)

trip1eX said:


> well customers do the same thing like the guy that you replied to.  I mean to not get renewed Bolt for $280 because they wouldn't let you pay $280 to use lifetime on the Bolt you have that you don't use doesn't seem like the smartest decision. He could have used his old Bolt for parts, got another Bolt and solved his "i'm worried that it will break down in 10 minutes and I"ll be out everything" problem.


If I really wanted/needed the 'renewed' Bolt I would have still bought it when they said no. The reality is I was only considering it so I wouldn't have to switch inputs/remotes to go to my Roku for Netflix, Showtime and Hulu. Yes, I can watch Netflix and Hulu with the Tivo but I can switch to Roku go to Netflix and already be watching a movie by the time my Romeo loads the Netflix app.

It was just stupid enough that they would rather send me a used Bolt with all-in rather than just sell me the all-in for the Bolt I already own I passed on it. I mean seriously? They would make more money but they couldn't/wouldn't.

I wasn't really expecting them to do it - I've dealt with them for years. If they had said yes I would have done it.

Not a big deal - It is TV we are talking about.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

greer1999 said:


> If I really wanted/needed the 'renewed' Bolt I would have still bought it when they said no. The reality is I was only considering it so I wouldn't have to switch inputs/remotes to go to my Roku for Netflix, Showtime and Hulu. Yes, I can watch Netflix and Hulu with the Tivo but I can switch to Roku go to Netflix and already be watching a movie by the time my Romeo loads the Netflix app.
> 
> It was just stupid enough that they would rather send me a used Bolt with all-in rather than just sell me the all-in for the Bolt I already own I passed on it. I mean seriously? They would make more money but they couldn't/wouldn't.
> 
> ...


Yeah I hear you. It was dumb on Tivo's part to not do what you wanted. But I couldn't help but notice some irony there. Maybe you didn't think of it at the time but being flexible would have let you use your old Bolt as spare parts particularly the hard drive and power supply assuming the power supplies in those are transplantable. Those are the 2 main failure points. And that would have helped mitigate the concern you had of the Tivo failing 10 minutes after buying lifetime and watching your $$$ go down the drain.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

greer1999 said:


> It was just stupid enough that they would rather send me a used Bolt with all-in rather than just sell me the all-in for the Bolt I already own I passed on it. I mean seriously? *They would make more money but they couldn't/wouldn't.*
> 
> I wasn't really expecting them to do it - I've dealt with them for years. If they had said yes I would have done it.
> 
> Not a big deal - It is TV we are talking about.


Bureaucracies, and basic retail/corporate inflexibility. As you're right, they would have made more, in the end, by selling you the subscription alone. Unless there is another metric that TiVo needs here--e.g. being able to show further subscribers as reflected in box sales. Of course, it got nothing, here.


----------



## greer1999 (Apr 5, 2017)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah I hear you. It was dumb on Tivo's part to not do what you wanted. But I couldn't help but notice some irony there. Maybe you didn't think of it at the time but being flexible would have let you use your old Bolt as spare parts particularly the hard drive and power supply assuming the power supplies in those are transplantable. Those are the 2 main failure points. And that would have helped mitigate the concern you had of the Tivo failing 10 minutes after buying lifetime and watching your $$$ go down the drain.


I hear you - the power supply is external and hard drives are cheap these days. The main board failure is what would do me on the all-in costs and those can't be 'swapped'.

Again - not a big deal - just another reason Tivo is in trouble.


----------



## Qnapfan (Feb 13, 2019)

greer1999 said:


> I hear you - the power supply is external and hard drives are cheap these days. The main board failure is what would do me on the all-in costs and those can't be 'swapped'.
> 
> Again - not a big deal - just another reason Tivo is in trouble.


Sigh, that's part of what I miss about the older generations of tech ... the progressive loss of 'repairability' ... which encourages 'plug and play' repair and refit. Granted there are advantages, size, power consumption and potentially greater reliability ... but for many expensive devices it comes down to ahhhh, it bwoke ... <throw away> buy a new one. For this reason, I find it extremely interesting and informative in studying less industrialized countries ... more times than not, the economic and cultural personality of such countries tend to be more proactive at recycling, preserving and generally extending the life of devices they buy.


----------



## greer1999 (Apr 5, 2017)

Mikeguy said:


> Bureaucracies, and basic retail/corporate inflexibility. As you're right, they would have made more, in the end, by selling you the subscription alone. Unless there is another metric that TiVo needs here--e.g. being able to show further subscribers as reflected in box sales. Of course, it got nothing, here.


Good point - maybe there is some reason it makes sense to Tivo that we don't know about. Seems nuts but stranger things happen it large organizations.

Truth is I really want Tivo to survive. It's going to be difficult to sell more hardware to anyone but true fans going forward. Tivo is quite a bit more money than the competition and they are falling short in the streaming world which is where I suspect most people are headed. My $80 some-odd dollar Roku Ultra runs circles around the Bolt for streaming. Hell, my Amazon FireStick that came free with something I bought runs circles around Tivo for streaming!

I just hope they come up with something stay in the game.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

greer1999 said:


> I hear you - the power supply is external and hard drives are cheap these days. The main board failure is what would do me on the all-in costs and those can't be 'swapped'.
> 
> Again - not a big deal - just another reason Tivo is in trouble.


Yeah I've dealt with the Tivo CSRs before and had stuff charged on my card that shouldn't have been and had to call 3x and play CSR roulette to get it the charges removed and other stuff done plus the whole paying ~$900 for a box to watch tv anytime you want is outdated in the age of the Netflix and similar services that you can watch on today's tv without any extra equipment.


----------



## Qnapfan (Feb 13, 2019)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah I've dealt with the Tivo CSRs before and had stuff charged on my card that shouldn't have been and had to call 3x and play CSR roulette to get it the charges removed and other stuff done plus the whole paying ~$900 for a box to watch tv anytime you want is outdated *in the age of the Netflix and similar services that you can watch on today's tv without any extra equipment.*



Ouch ... that last part is so true it hurts. Sister just bought a <very cheap> 4k Roku TV ... which up to that point had a plethora of add on media related devices attached ... after the install and the 'fat reduction' of the majority of devices ... her set up was almost sinfully clean and integrated. Heck the tv (by way of integrated Roku) had a decent plex player.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Qnapfan said:


> Ouch ... that last part is so true it hurts. Sister just bought a <very cheap> 4k Roku TV ... which up to that point had a plethora of add on media related devices attached ... after the install and the 'fat reduction' of the majority of devices ... her set up was almost sinfully clean and integrated. Heck the tv (by way of integrated Roku) had a decent decent plex player.


Yeah I just found a TV for my brother (65" Samsung and nice one for $800) and same thing although I haven't seen it in person yet. I didn't trust the built-in on stuff on TVs for a long while because it wasn't up to snuff but that's changing.


----------



## Qnapfan (Feb 13, 2019)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah I just found a TV for my brother (65" Samsung and nice one for $800) and same thing although I haven't seen it in person yet. I didn't trust the built-in on stuff on TVs for a long while because it wasn't up to snuff but that's changing.


Actually, in retrospect, I think I will put back the Roku ... as odd as that may sound on the surface, given how far away my sister lives, the second live unit could be configured as a fall back device. Tuck away the remote with lithium batteries and a note ... Dear Sis, if your (in TV Roku has gone insane) do the following ... >> Exit/Reenter app >> power down/up TV >> Power up TV > Switch to HDMI 2 > Activate target app ... If it still doesn't work, text me ...  Added thought ... the independent Roku could be hooked up to a small UPS ... which may help with electronic derangement/amnesia due to outtages.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

One of the bolts has lots of CP from cable, that's why I wish they'd offer the special on it than get a new one.

Not to resell it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> As for their larger MSO-partner business, I'm not sure how much more supplying there is to be done by TiVo for QAM-only hardware, such as the MG2 box. I mean, it's there, for any of those small MSOs still looking to upgrade their STBs while sticking with a traditional QAM TV system. But I think at this point, most smaller MSOs are evaluating a number of options about which way to more forward in this changing video landscape, and TiVo's new IPTV platform is only one option. There are other options that are more outsourced/less capital intensive, such as MobiTV or just reselling, say, YouTube TV.
> 
> I say all that to mean that TiVo's target market for their MSO partner business is fracturing while the entire traditional cable TV business declines. Yes, TiVo (or some other company using the TiVo brand) will continue to be a player there for years to come but I tend to think that business will slowly go downhill.


Yes, it will slowly go downhill, but keep in mind that Comcast still hasn't done wide-scale IPTV over HFC. They're tip-toeing into it with full IPTV over EPON and some IPTV boxes on HFC systems, but not at scale, as most still use QAM. Even if Comcast pulled the trigger and started converting tomorrow, it would take them several years to execute.

Now think about RCN, ABB, and even smaller MSOs. They aren't anywhere close to where Comcast is, so they're many years out from IPTV, if they ever get to it before the linear TV market totally implodes. I think there is a not insignificant chance that smaller MSOs could end up reselling something like AT&T's upcoming OTT IPTV service, as they are getting killed on content costs.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Yes, it will slowly go downhill, but keep in mind that Comcast still hasn't done wide-scale IPTV over HFC. They're tip-toeing into it with full IPTV over EPON and some IPTV boxes on HFC systems, but not at scale, as most still use QAM. Even if Comcast pulled the trigger and started converting tomorrow, it would take them several years to execute.
> 
> Now think about RCN, ABB, and even smaller MSOs. They aren't anywhere close to where Comcast is, so they're many years out from IPTV, if they ever get to it before the linear TV market totally implodes. I think there is a not insignificant chance that smaller MSOs could end up reselling something like AT&T's upcoming OTT IPTV service, as they are getting killed on content costs.


What's kind of sad is that back when Tivo and Comcast were actually working together instead of suing each other, Tivo announced that they had partnered with Comcast to work on allowing Tivo boxes to support IPTV on Comcast. Now that will never happen even though technically it's possible.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Now think about RCN, ABB, and even smaller MSOs. They aren't anywhere close to where Comcast is, so they're many years out from IPTV, if they ever get to it before the linear TV market totally implodes. I think there is a not insignificant chance that smaller MSOs could end up reselling something like AT&T's upcoming OTT IPTV service, as they are getting killed on content costs.


Well, because Comcast is moving slowly from QAM to IPTV doesn't mean that it must be done that way. Rogers is moving into it very aggressively. But that's beside the point.

My point is that these smaller MSOs -- TiVo's target market -- have other options besides staying with QAM (where TiVo's original platform is an option) or moving to managed IPTV (where TiVo's new platform is an option). As you say, they could also go with just reselling national OTT vMVPD services (like from AT&T) or move to an outsourced "TV as a service" solution like MobiTV. Bottom line is that TiVo has more competition than in the past to serve these MSOs, at the same time that these MSOs are seeing TV service becoming relatively less profitable for them. Hence, my comment that I see TiVo's MSO platform business slowly declining.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

morac said:


> What's kind of sad is that back when Tivo and Comcast were actually working together instead of suing each other, Tivo announced that they had partnered with Comcast to work on allowing Tivo boxes to support IPTV on Comcast. Now that will never happen even though technically it's possible.


And in the meantime, the pay TV universe is collapsing, so it's largely irrelevant at this point anyway.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Bigg said:


> And in the meantime, the pay TV universe is collapsing, so it's largely irrelevant at this point anyway.


Actually surprisingly it's not. For the longest time people wanted to be able to pick and choose what "channels" they got. They didn't want the bundle that is cable. Now with all these OTT charging $10 or more per "channel" it's getting to be where pay cable TV is actually cheaper than OTT subscription services.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

lparsons21 said:


> regardless of the praise some sing about them, the bottom line is *if you pay significantly less that a cable sub costs, you get less*. Less channel selection with only using one of the services, and even at today's pricing, adding another service to fill in those holes, the cost then gets pretty close to what a cable sub costs.


If you pay significantly more for a premium provider, you get less and may have to add another service to fill in the holes. One of the reasons premium providers suddenly became vulnerable after the government disrupted 'free tv' is that a lot of the value of a premium provider has evaporated even as prices rose.

When cable arrived in the 70s, Home Box Office (HBO) offered something special -- uncut movies with profanity and nudity in the home. The cable companies tried to multiply the revenue from HBO by spreading that special over multiple 'premium' channels and eventually charging for that 'specialness' on a per view (pay per view) basis. One of the attractions of the premium providers was the promise of no commercials -- pay for the service and enjoy ad free television. Now most cable channels are ad supported and early each morning more than half run infomercials.

I think that a lot of people are seeing Netflix, Prime, and the others (to a lesser extent) the way we saw HBO and are looking to supplement the 'specialness' with other stuff (news, sports, and special interest programming. 


lparsons21 said:


> I had thought ATSC3 would be a big issue soon, but in reality it looks like 3-5 years before it becomes the standard according to what I read. So Tivo has that period of time to make the necessary improvements/changes.


I did not think ATSC 3.0 would ever be a big issue and, frankly, still have my doubts as Sinclair is in a race to the bottom against the wireless providers to be your low cost entertainment provider. (These races to the bottom hardly ever work out.) That said, Sinclair has promised to launch ATSC 3.0 in 26 markets this summer and supplement the cost of ATSC 3.0 hardware in the home. Three to five years is not very long. At the same time, the government is damaging the value of ATSC 1.0 by cramming too many channels into too little bandwidth -- via the reverse auction and repacking -- at a time when the 'diginets' are still growing. While most thought that OTA HD looked great, it's hard to look at some of the repacked sub-channels at this time. I suspect some of this is intended to make ATSC 3.0 alternatives much more attractive going forward. My cable provider did this when they went digital -- severely degrading versions of local channels (which were broadcast in HD) for customers who would not pay for premium digital 'technology' and set top boxes.

Unfortunately, there is nothing here that can help TiVo. TiVo is engaged in its own race to the bottom at the same time supplemental revenue (licenses and settlements) is drying up.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

The Premium providers have their own issues going forward IMO. Currently we can subscribe a month and binge watch shows and then cancel to later do the same thing. For us consumers that seems wonderful, but the original programming that makes those Premium services worth much at all could be a problem for them if more consumers just sub a couple months a year, binge watch, and then cancel. They are all predicated on us subbing for a year or at least significant multiple months. IOW, instead of subbing for the few months a GOT is on, we only sub one month at the end of that season.
My comment about "pay less, get less" was specifically about the cable/sat replacement streamers (Sling, PSVue and others), which offer less of the same thing we get via cable/sat now. For most people I have talked to the offerings of each service is missing some few channels they do value, and as I said, adding a 2nd cable/sat replacement service to get those channels often pushes the price up to what cable/sat costs. They offer less channels, less convenience and yet another different GUI to deal with.
I think the bigger question for all the providers is where are we going to want to watch videos and what are we going to watch on? If as many are suggesting, it is tablets/phones then all cable/sat providers and even content providers are in for a rough ride.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Makes no sense to get a subscriptions unless there is always something to watch. Which is why with HBO, Starz, CBS ALL Access, Philo, and Showtime, I only get a subscription when there is something there I want to watch. With Netflix, my list is always over one hundred titles so I always have something to watch. So I subscribe all year round. I also do with Amazon, but that is also because I have Prime for shipping. And then I also have Hulu commercial free all year because there are always shows I want to watch there too.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

morac said:


> Actually surprisingly it's not. For the longest time people wanted to be able to pick and choose what "channels" they got. They didn't want the bundle that is cable. Now with all these OTT charging $10 or more per "channel" it's getting to be where pay cable TV is actually cheaper than OTT subscription services.


HUH? vMVPDs are skinny bundles. No one does a la carte cable channels because they can't.



wizwor said:


> after the government disrupted 'free tv'


What?!?



> At the same time, the government is damaging the value of ATSC 1.0 by cramming too many channels into too little bandwidth -- via the reverse auction and repacking -- at a time when the 'diginets' are still growing. While most thought that OTA HD looked great, it's hard to look at some of the repacked sub-channels at this time. I suspect some of this is intended to make ATSC 3.0 alternatives much more attractive going forward. My cable provider did this when they went digital -- severely degrading versions of local channels (which were broadcast in HD) for customers who would not pay for premium digital 'technology' and set top boxes.


You have to look at the bigger picture. The government is obsessed with more spectrum, more spectrum, more spectrum at basically any cost. The carriers just keep crying gimme! gimme! gimme!. The problem is that the spectrum in the US has been poorly and inefficiently managed since day one, and it should never be sold, but rather leased, with leases not renewed if companies don't do a good job actually utilizing that spectrum. This is further degraded by a push to make everything wireless everywhere. I'm still a firm believer in having as much wired as possible, but that's not the way the market has been going, due to spineless and corrupt regulators. Telcom policy in the US is a dumpster fire, and as a result, we now need small cells and 5G for residential service, as the competition that should have occurred between multiple MSOs and the ILEC in any given area hasn't materialized. Tens of billions of dollars have been squandered, and we aren't any closer to having better broadband access.



lparsons21 said:


> The Premium providers have their own issues going forward IMO. Currently we can subscribe a month and binge watch shows and then cancel to later do the same thing. For us consumers that seems wonderful, but the original programming that makes those Premium services worth much at all could be a problem for them if more consumers just sub a couple months a year, binge watch, and then cancel.


Yup. We could end up with only a couple of giant services with tons of shows so people will want to keep their subscriptions active, or a whole bunch of small ones with only a few good shows because people will sub, binge, and cancel. I'm not that worried though, I think it will all shake out now that we have far more consumer choice. Providers are going to have to figure out how to survive in this new landscape.



> My comment about "pay less, get less" was specifically about the cable/sat replacement streamers (Sling, PSVue and others), which offer less of the same thing we get via cable/sat now. For most people I have talked to the offerings of each service is missing some few channels they do value, and as I said, adding a 2nd cable/sat replacement service to get those channels often pushes the price up to what cable/sat costs. They offer less channels, less convenience and yet another different GUI to deal with.


This kind of attitude is exactly why the pay tv industry is in a death spiral. Not everyone can have every little niche channel full of junk, but yet the content producers have gotten people to yell and scream and have a hissy fit when their MVPD drops their one niche channel. MVPDs need to grow a pair, and just cut the crap out, as it's unsustainable to have content costs going up far faster than inflation forever. Comcast used to rubber stamp every contract and pay more and more, then YES broke the camel's back, and Comcast told them to go pound sand, although they later did agree to a deal. Now that broadband is their main business, I'm hoping that MVPDs will start to cut channels that are either junk, or just charge way too much like YES.



> I think the bigger question for all the providers is where are we going to want to watch videos and what are we going to watch on? If as many are suggesting, it is tablets/phones then all cable/sat providers and even content providers are in for a rough ride.


I firmly believe that there is a central role for the living room television going forward, but it's clear cable is not part of that role. Roku, FireTV, Apple TV, etc, are going to be the platforms of choice, and since content providers are just apps now, the market could be very dynamic.



aaronwt said:


> Makes no sense to get a subscriptions unless there is always something to watch. Which is why with HBO, Starz, CBS ALL Access, Philo, and Showtime, I only get a subscription when there is something there I want to watch. With Netflix, my list is always over one hundred titles so I always have something to watch. So I subscribe all year round. I also do with Amazon, but that is also because I have Prime for shipping. And then I also have Hulu commercial free all year because there are always shows I want to watch there too.


Yeah, that pretty much sums it up!


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> What?!?


Whether or not you like the result, the transition to digital tv was a disruption.



Bigg said:


> You have to look at the bigger picture. The government is obsessed with more spectrum, more spectrum, more spectrum at basically any cost. The carriers just keep crying gimme! gimme! gimme!. The problem is that the spectrum in the US has been poorly and inefficiently managed since day one, and it should never be sold, but rather leased, with leases not renewed if companies don't do a good job actually utilizing that spectrum. This is further degraded by a push to make everything wireless everywhere. I'm still a firm believer in having as much wired as possible, but that's not the way the market has been going, due to spineless and corrupt regulators. Telcom policy in the US is a dumpster fire, and as a result, we now need small cells and 5G for residential service, as the competition that should have occurred between multiple MSOs and the ILEC in any given area hasn't materialized. Tens of billions of dollars have been squandered, and we aren't any closer to having better broadband access.


We're not far apart here except for motive. The government was bribed by the wireless providers and the premium providers to bury broadcast television. AT&T, Comcast, and T-Mobile are all in the top 50 lobbyists.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> (which is merging with CommScope, and may reportedly spin off or sell their cable STB business, which is the piece that manufactures TiVos)


Maybe we'll see TiVo buy it! LOL


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> Whether or not you like the result, the transition to digital tv was a disruption.


It was an upgrade to free tv, and made free tv much more viable as an alternative to cable.



> We're not far apart here except for motive. The government was bribed by the wireless providers and the premium providers to bury broadcast television. AT&T, Comcast, and T-Mobile are all in the top 50 lobbyists.


I don't think they were trying to bury free TV per se, but rather they wanted more spectrum so that they could offer more and more high-profit, non-unionized, low-capital intensity wireless services versus actually investing in wireline services and offering more limited wireless services that they could have with the wireless spectrum available 10 years ago.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

lparsons21 said:


> I've been following this thread for awhile and it has been some interesting reading. Yes, Tivo is in trouble for a few reasons and I guess we'll get to see how they find solutions going forward. I thought of a few.
> Add more streaming apps and make them part of the unified search and one pass we have now on at least 3 of the streaming apps. Apple is doing that now with a fair number of apps though it isn't perfect.
> Add one or more cable replacement streaming apps. Of course with all of them losing money right now it is hard to say which ones will survive the shakeout, and IMO, I think it will fade a bit in the longer term when the rates are raised to profitable levels. And regardless of the praise some sing about them, the bottom line is if you pay significantly less that a cable sub costs, you get less. Less channel selection with only using one of the services, and even at today's pricing, adding another service to fill in those holes, the cost then gets pretty close to what a cable sub costs.
> The cable replacement apps would be difficult to bring into unified search I think and of course, if that service has 'cloud dvr' as part of their service you add to the complexity of using them. IOW, I don't see a way that Tivo could integrate them into the simplicity they have now.
> ...


I certainly pay significantly less and get less... less of the channels that I never watched or wanted. I do get all the channels I want to watch and more. For me it's been nothing short of awesome.


----------



## tommiet (Oct 28, 2005)

It seems TiVo has ALWAYS been for sale..... Some may call that a good thing.... but not me and the stock market.

When the cable cards go away, Tivo will be right behind it as they are doing nothing to prepare for that change. OTA TiVo will not be enough to keep them going and cost too much as other options for less are available now.

I'm not a hater... I do like my TiVo. Just being realistic. I also liked my Beta-max recorded AND my laser disk player too.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

morac said:


> What's kind of sad is that back when Tivo and Comcast were actually working together instead of suing each other, Tivo announced that they had partnered with Comcast to work on allowing Tivo boxes to support IPTV on Comcast. Now that will never happen even though technically it's possible.


Being sued tends to stifle cooperation.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> They have been in trouble for awhile. First it was cable dvrs. But that just regulated them to a niche mainly.
> 
> Next it was the rise of OTT services like Netflix. This is the deathknell. A service like Netflix not only offers a lot of what cable tv offers but it performs all the functions of a DVR and you just need a ~$100 streaming box that is the size of a hockey puck and not a $1000 Tivo with lifetime. And more and more you don't even need the ~$100 streaming box to watch something (like) Netflix. It's built into your tv.
> 
> Now obviously this transition doesn't happen overnight. But ...the way I see it, it can only to go to zero. The number of customers that are going to shell out $1000 for the next Tivo with lifetime is going to be dramatically smaller. Eventually small enough that Tivo can't make money on them.


The problem with Netflix is content is extremely inconsistent. They're like Costco. Get used to buying something you like for a bit, then walk in to buy it one day, and it's no longer on the shelf.

The sad thing is, everyone clamored for ala carte service and the end of bundling. Now everyone is coming out with a streaming service and making content exclusive. So all these cord cutters aren't in the greatest of positions to save money like they thought they would. By the time you subscribe to all the streaming content you want, you're right back to double/triple play prices but now have a bunch of services you have to hop around to to watch everything. And to boot, some of these companies aren't really turning a profit, and you see price increases creeping in and furthering the point that ala carte and streaming isn't necessarily the answer people thought it was.

So now you're back to cable anyway. Tivo is still the best alternative to renting company boxes and aggregating the major content into one solution. The only real death blow to them would be a massive industry wide switch to IP based cable/fios which will never happen in the near future so cable card support will remain for quite a while.

It's a shame there isn't good marketing for tivo. At least I never see it. I remember the days of seeing it all over. Now it seems non existent.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> It was an upgrade to free tv, and made free tv much more viable as an alternative to cable.


Except you had to use those crappy digital to analog converters which were not free even if you got the government vouchers. Just ask Comcast which was among the premium providers that spent a bazillion dollars offering special deals to people impacted by the end of broadcast television.



Bigg said:


> I don't think they were trying to bury free TV per se, but rather they wanted more spectrum so that they could offer more and more high-profit, non-unionized, low-capital intensity wireless services versus actually investing in wireline services and offering more limited wireless services that they could have with the wireless spectrum available 10 years ago.


You, my friend, need to be more cynical. You know what you could not use those vouchers for? GOOD digital to analog converters like TiVos and DTVPals. The terms SPECIFICALLY limited to use towards a crappy converter. So many 'special interests' benefited from the reverse auction and repack. Bill Binney was a politician and businessman from New Hampshire. He bought a lot of properties just to sell during the reverse auction.

No matter. TiVo is in trouble because there are not enough people willing to pay enough to keep TiVo profitable once the settlement/license revenue evaporates.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tommiet said:


> When the cable cards go away, Tivo will be right behind it as they are doing nothing to prepare for that change. OTA TiVo will not be enough to keep them going and cost too much as other options for less are available now.


Most of their market is MSOs... that's their biggest risk if they go away from the TiVo platform.



dbpaddler said:


> So all these cord cutters aren't in the greatest of positions to save money like they thought they would. By the time you subscribe to all the streaming content you want, you're right back to double/triple play prices but now have a bunch of services you have to hop around to to watch everything. And to boot, some of these companies aren't really turning a profit, and you see price increases creeping in and furthering the point that ala carte and streaming isn't necessarily the answer people thought it was.


I've seen a lot of people make comments about how streaming is now somehow as expensive as cable. These comparisons are logical nonsense, and dishonest. Many of the streaming services are often subscribed to in addition to cable anyway, so you can't really look at them as alternatives to cable per se. And when you do the math out, cutting the cord is MUCH cheaper, as you can subscribe to what you want when you want it instead of being locked into a giant cable package full of garbage.

The argument that somehow people will have to end up paying just as much is also nonsense. That sort of zero-sum thinking is missing the fact that the content producing market and a lot of the intermediaries are going to have to shrink or go away entirely. A lot of cable channels are going to implode and go off the air entirely.



> So now you're back to cable anyway.


No you're not.



> Tivo is still the best alternative to renting company boxes and aggregating the major content into one solution. The only real death blow to them would be a massive industry wide switch to IP based cable/fios which will never happen in the near future so cable card support will remain for quite a while.


Retail is a small part of TiVo's market compared to MSO partners. They are the ones out there pushing and advertising TiVo within their footprints. Comcast is getting close to being able to scale up IP multicast over HFC, and they are already doing IPTV over EPON. Sure, other MSOs are about 5 years behind Comcast in technology, but it's not THAT far off. However, there probably won't be much of an MVPD pay-tv market left by then between CoIP/vMVPD options and true cord cutting, so it really won't matter in the end.

I think OTA will survive a lot longer than cable, as that real estate is valuable, and there is always a market for free. ATSC 3.0 could be the rebirth of OTA as we see large numbers of HD subchannels on a single transmitter.



wizwor said:


> Except you had to use those crappy digital to analog converters which were not free even if you got the government vouchers. Just ask Comcast which was among the premium providers that spent a bazillion dollars offering special deals to people impacted by the end of broadcast television.


Stupid people who didn't understand what was going on and dishonest cable companies making it sound like OTA TV was going away, instead of getting better like it actually was != the government "disrupting" anything. Those converters were dumb, but those were only for S2's. S3's and newer have ATSC tuners, as do all modern TVs.



> You, my friend, need to be more cynical. You know what you could not use those vouchers for? GOOD digital to analog converters like TiVos and DTVPals. The terms SPECIFICALLY limited to use towards a crappy converter. So many 'special interests' benefited from the reverse auction and repack. Bill Binney was a politician and businessman from New Hampshire. He bought a lot of properties just to sell during the reverse auction.


I don't think AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and the like were gunning for OTA TV. I think they're just greedy and wanted the spectrum for their own uses.


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

This is all so fuuking depressing


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

dadrepus said:


> This is all so fuuking depressing


Hopefully, any possible events will outlive all of us.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Bigg said:


> I've seen a lot of people make comments about how streaming is now somehow as expensive as cable. These comparisons are logical nonsense, and dishonest. Many of the streaming services are often subscribed to in addition to cable anyway, so you can't really look at them as alternatives to cable per se. And when you do the math out, cutting the cord is MUCH cheaper, as you can subscribe to what you want when you want it instead of being locked into a giant cable package full of garbage.
> 
> The argument that somehow people will have to end up paying just as much is also nonsense. That sort of zero-sum thinking is missing the fact that the content producing market and a lot of the intermediaries are going to have to shrink or go away entirely. A lot of cable channels are going to implode and go off the air entirely.


I currently pay $99 for TV and Internet with Comcast. They don't break out the cost of each and their price list is extremely confusing as they appear to charge by genre now (https://comcaststore.s3.amazonaws.c...75b2cec7a/high_res/UN0000007_sik_high_res.pdf), but let's just say $50 for TV which includes a few hundred channels.

The cheapest streaming service that offers live TV (Sling TV) costs $25 (others charge $40 or more) and doesn't offer many of the channels I watch (and I'm not watching niche channels). Even assuming I used that and dropped TV from Comcast, my Internet price would increase since Comcast gives a discount for bundling TV and Internet. At best it would be a wash to get less channels than I do now. At worse it would cost more and that's not even including OTT streaming services or services like CBS access which would be needed to watch CBS broadcast on demand (included with Comcast), so it's not "logical nonsense" that having cable TV can be cheaper.

I agree that a lot of niche channels should go away (though many of those are À la cart these days) and expensive channels like ESPN shouldn't be forced onto customers, but that doesn't mean cable TV isn't the best value. Not unless you forgo watching you favorite shows for a year until they hit only one of the numerous streaming services forcing subscription to multiple services to see all your shows. Yes you could subscribe to one at a time, binge watch and cancel, but that would quickly result in likely falling hopelessly behind.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

morac said:


> I currently pay $99 for TV and Internet with Comcast. They don't break out the cost of each and their price list is extremely confusing as they appear to charge by genre now (https://comcaststore.s3.amazonaws.c...75b2cec7a/high_res/UN0000007_sik_high_res.pdf), but let's just say $50 for TV which includes a few hundred channels.
> 
> The cheapest streaming service that offers live TV (Sling TV) costs $25 (others charge $40 or more) and doesn't offer many of the channels I watch (and I'm not watching niche channels). Even assuming I used that and dropped TV from Comcast, my Internet price would increase since Comcast gives a discount for bundling TV and Internet. At best it would be a wash to get less channels than I do now. At worse it would cost more and that's not even including OTT streaming services or services like CBS access which would be needed to watch CBS broadcast on demand (included with Comcast), so it's not "logical nonsense" that having cable TV can be cheaper.
> 
> I agree that a lot of niche channels should go away (though many of those are À la cart these days) and expensive channels like ESPN shouldn't be forced onto customers, but that doesn't mean cable TV isn't the best value. Not unless you forgo watching you favorite shows for a year until they hit only one of the numerous streaming services forcing subscription to multiple services to see all your shows. Yes you could subscribe to one at a time, binge watch and cancel, but that would quickly result in likely falling hopelessly behind.


I pay $39.99 for Comcast internet 60MB. I pay $25 for DirecTV Now (I'm an AT&T Cell user) and I use an antenna for locals. I couldn't find a bundle for that cost from Comcast after fees and taxes. Now I know that you might not think this is much savings but I can switch and choose from several streaming services on a whim. Go on vacation? Stop the service and don't pay for it until I get back and start it back up. I can switch to watch games or switch for a good series. That freedom is worth more to me than the cost. I've had Netflix, Hulu and Prime Video for years along with cable so those are no additional cost. My wife struggled with it for a week or so but now is right at home with it. When one of the kids come to visit they feel right at home with using apps. It's not for everyone but for me it's the best thing that ever happened. I cant see ever going back to cable.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dbpaddler said:


> The problem with Netflix is content is extremely inconsistent. They're like Costco. Get used to buying something you like for a bit, then walk in to buy it one day, and it's no longer on the shelf.
> 
> The sad thing is, everyone clamored for ala carte service and the end of bundling. Now everyone is coming out with a streaming service and making content exclusive. So all these cord cutters aren't in the greatest of positions to save money like they thought they would. By the time you subscribe to all the streaming content you want, you're right back to double/triple play prices but now have a bunch of services you have to hop around to to watch everything. And to boot, some of these companies aren't really turning a profit, and you see price increases creeping in and furthering the point that ala carte and streaming isn't necessarily the answer people thought it was.
> 
> ...


I don't see it like that. I see it as Netflix taking over the industry. Not a move to become an ala carte cable channel.

They have ~139 million subscribers worldwide. The entire pay tv industry in the US has ~90 million subscribers.

A good chunk of major content today is not found on cabletv. It's only growing. We're in the early innings.

And services are easy to switch in and out of.

And in this world it doesn't matter if Tivo is the best alternative to a company box when you don't even need a company box.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> I don't see it like that. I see it as Netflix taking over the industry. Not a move to become an ala carte cable channel.
> 
> They have ~139 million subscribers worldwide. The entire pay tv industry in the US has ~90 million subscribers.
> 
> A good chunk of major content today is not found on cabletv.


Not many people pay for just one streaming service. And Netflix frustratingly ditches content all the time. Quite a few times I remember going to watch something we had just started on live TV figuring we can avoid commercials only to see it no longer there. And as more studios create their own streaming services, they'll pull content from Netflix, Prime, Hulu.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

dbpaddler said:


> Not many people pay for just one streaming service. And Netflix frustratingly ditches content all the time. Quite a few times I remember going to watch something we had just started on live TV figuring we can avoid commercials only to see it no longer there. And as more studios create their own streaming services, they'll pull content from Netflix, Prime, Hulu.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


I guess I've been lucky. I haven't run into that enough times to make it worth paying the cost of keeping cable.


----------



## tommiet (Oct 28, 2005)

I don't think the so called "skinny" bundles are that cost effective. I'm getting 200MB, phone and every single cable channel (Spectrum) provides for $135.00. YUP,,, All the movie channels too. Spectrum charges $69.95 for just 60MB internet. Using that price, I'm only paying about $60.00 for all my cable channels. It's not skinny, but a fair price.. IMO. 

NOW.. if you were to toss all the DVR hardware fees... my price for 1 POS Spectrum dvr and 2 HD slaves would add about $40.00 a month to the bill.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

mschnebly said:


> I guess I've been lucky. I haven't run into that enough times to make it worth paying the cost of keeping cable.


And not sure what you watch, but go try and find any DC content anywhere. CW DC shows are gone from Hulu. A lot of animated DC content is gone from Netflix. Couldnt even watch Suicide Squad on Prime last night. Not saying that is making it worth it to keep cable, but it's a step in the wrong direction from our perspective.

Now go over to AVS forums where they talk of the death of 4k Blu ray disc's. The shift to streaming, being ruled by an internet connection and paying for content you technically don't own and is given to you at the whim of the provider. Paying for digital copies of things you can't watch without streaming, you can't sell to someone else or donate to charity (like my DVD collection).

Granted that's a bit of a different argument, but it has some parallels.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

mschnebly said:


> I guess I've been lucky. I haven't run into that enough times to make it worth paying the cost of keeping cable.












The costs savings of streaming is just an illusion.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

dbpaddler said:


> And not sure what you watch, but go try and find any DC content anywhere. CW DC shows are gone from Hulu. A lot of animated DC content is gone from Netflix. Couldnt even watch Suicide Squad on Prime last night. Not saying that is making it worth it to keep cable, but it's a step in the wrong direction from our perspective.


The CW DC shows moved over to Netflix when Netflix and CW signed a deal. The rest of the DC stuff, especially the animated content is on DC's own streaming service.

That's part of the problem now as a lot of content providers have started or soon will be starting their own streaming service. Disney+ starting this year will be the big one as they produce a lot of content which is currently now on Netflix. Warner is doing something similar. Even Apple is getting into the game.

Used to be you could just subscribe to Netflix and/or Hulu to get everything. That's no longer the case.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

mschnebly said:


> I pay $39.99 for Comcast internet 60MB. I pay $25 for DirecTV Now (I'm an AT&T Cell user) and I use an antenna for locals. I couldn't find a bundle for that cost from Comcast after fees and taxes.


This is probably where I will end up next -- except I pay $50/month for internet, but that is for life. Right now I am paying $20 for one TV on a satellite dish. Free HBO too. If I move on from AT&T (which is likely), I'd probably do Amazon Prime/Channels. Who knows.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

foghorn2 said:


> The costs savings of streaming is just an illusion.


Hard to argue with that except to say that it depends where you live and what you watch. I was walking through a mall a week or so ago when I was assailed by a Comcast sales person. He promised me cable and internet for $89.99 per month. I asked for how long and he said forever. I asked for that in writing and that was the end of the pitch.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

morac said:


> The CW DC shows moved over to Netflix when Netflix and CW signed a deal. The rest of the DC stuff, especially the animated content is on DC's own streaming service.
> 
> That's part of the problem now as a lot of content providers have started or soon will be starting their own streaming service. Disney+ starting this year will be the big one as they produce a lot of content which is currently now on Netflix. Warner is doing something similar. Even Apple is getting into the game.
> 
> Used to be you could just subscribe to Netflix and/or Hulu to get everything. That's no longer the case.


That was kind of my point above, and I know they did that. All these studios taking their stuff in house. Over time you could end up paying more to stream and have to deal with so many different streaming companies. And it's not like porn where you can sign up, download a ton of stuff for a month and cancel, owning the content you downloaded.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

morac said:


> I currently pay $99 for TV and Internet with Comcast. They don't break out the cost of each and their price list is extremely confusing as they appear to charge by genre now


That's a teaser rate, so the equivalent internet only is about $40/mo, although it can depend on the market and what promos they are running. The off-promo rate for broadband is $75/mo, and Digital Starter plus internet is around $150/mo give or take.



> The cheapest streaming service that offers live TV (Sling TV) costs $25 (others charge $40 or more) and doesn't offer many of the channels I watch (and I'm not watching niche channels). Even assuming I used that and dropped TV from Comcast, my Internet price would increase since Comcast gives a discount for bundling TV and Internet. At best it would be a wash to get less channels than I do now. At worse it would cost more and that's not even including OTT streaming services or services like CBS access which would be needed to watch CBS broadcast on demand (included with Comcast), so it's not "logical nonsense" that having cable TV can be cheaper.


That's not cord cutting, that's cord replacing. CoIP/vMVPD services have their place in the market, but they just aren't cord cutting. Cord cutting is going entirely with OTA and OTT SVOD, which absolutely is significantly cheaper than keeping the cord, especially since most of the OTT SVOD services are typically stacked on the cord anyway, like Netflix and Amazon.



> I agree that a lot of niche channels should go away (though many of those are À la cart these days) and expensive channels like ESPN shouldn't be forced onto customers, but that doesn't mean cable TV isn't the best value. Not unless you forgo watching you favorite shows for a year until they hit only one of the numerous streaming services forcing subscription to multiple services to see all your shows. Yes you could subscribe to one at a time, binge watch and cancel, but that would quickly result in likely falling hopelessly behind.


Most of the garbage channels are not a la carte, they are right in there in the digital cable packages. Without ESPN, you don't have much of a cable package, unless you're just looking at news channels. YouTube TV is a model for what should stay in a live TV package, as it doesn't have much of the stuff that shouldn't. One or two garbage channels from Disney snuck in, as they had to put those in to get ESPN.

There's virtually nothing on cable channels anymore except news and sports, which is all very time-sensitive. If you're into sports, then you need to get a vMVPD/CoIP package for that team's season, but they are easily cancelled, and don't have all the extra fees, so they are going to be a lot cheaper than a traditional MVPD on a yearly basis. Everything else is on one of the premium or OTT SVOD channels anyway.

You've also got to look at how content is changing. We've had this explosion of really good, interesting, and unique content in the last few years. Having a virtually never ending Netflix list is the norm, and there is so much great content to watch that you don't have to "keep up" with whatever show on whatever premium, you can go and binge stuff that's interesting, subscribe and drop services, etc, and even without cable you will have far more than you can possibly watch unless you dedicate the equivalent of a full-time job to watching TV.

This is a really exciting time in the TV universe, but there just isn't much room for traditional pay TV, either in terms of economics, or in terms of the time and attention to watch it. Now, it's not just Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, and Showtime competing for eyeball-hours, it's YouTube and games that are increasingly competing for limited screen time.



tommiet said:


> I don't think the so called "skinny" bundles are that cost effective. I'm getting 200MB, phone and every single cable channel (Spectrum) provides for $135.00. YUP,,, All the movie channels too.


You must have a lot of competition in your market. That's not typical at all. My old local cable company was the cheapest and charged $200/mo for the all-in package, Comcast typically charges around $250/mo for that level of service, although you get Netflix included, and Cox charges around $300/mo.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

My economy cable package for Comcast was about perfect. Had some of the super station channels (USA, tnt, TV's and such), no Comcast sports tax, no ESPN. I had that, 25mb internet (they upgraded it to 50mb) and HBO for under $70. I was content. The canceled that package so I couldn't renew it, and kept raising my price on it to $110/mo. When I called about it, all they would do was see what services they could cut me back on to reach the price point I wanted. At that point I think I snapped and told the guy to F off considering I had the most basic non local only package, mediocre internet and only HBO was any sort of value add on.

I don't even use a streaming TV service. Tried Phylo and liked it, but during the trial I used it twice and opted not to pay for it. Just not convenient to go into an app to watch live TV. I pay $1/mo for Hulu and don't even use it. So OTA, Netflix (which Tmo pays for) and Prime which I never bought for the video side.

And Fios wasn't any better. Their $70 triple play was $110 out the door. No premium anything.

So Tivo isn't in trouble with me. I'm enjoying OTA and the sub channels. Haven't watched Third Rock or Drew Carey in ages 

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

Mostly OTA but some times the signal gets wonky. Still need a rooftop antenna. Waiting for the weather to break. On the times the signal is bad I purchased Locast for $5 donation, wink, wink... they say they are non proffit. Just get the local primary, ABC, CBS, etc but it keeps the wife happy. Not a great picture but good enough for the "Bachelor".


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

I mounted an antenna on the chimney a decade ago when incutbthebcord once. Faces the main array nicely about 15 miles away. 

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Bigg said:


> That's a teaser rate, so the equivalent internet only is about $40/mo, although it can depend on the market and what promos they are running. The off-promo rate for broadband is $75/mo, and Digital Starter plus internet is around $150/mo give or take.


It is a promo rate, but every time it expires I just call up Comcast and they give me whatever the latest promo rate is (which unfortunately keeps going up).

Currently I'm getting digital preferred plus Blast (extra $20 for upwards of 300 Mbps) for about $120/mo plus HBO for another $10/month.

Comcast does have the annoying policy of charging sports and broadcast fees which originally were around $3/mo, but now are closer to $15/mo. Comcast claims they don't control those.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> That's not cord cutting, that's cord replacing. CoIP/vMVPD services have their place in the market, but they just aren't cord cutting. Cord cutting is going entirely with OTA and OTT SVOD, which absolutely is significantly cheaper than keeping the cord, especially since most of the OTT SVOD services are typically stacked on the cord anyway, like Netflix and Amazon.


This is the reason I have come to dislike the term cord cutter. If Comcast knocked on my door and offered me a reasonably priced package with reasonable hedges against price creep, I would take the deal. For me, the OTA experiment was about getting the television I wanted at a price I was willing to pay.



Bigg said:


> Most of the garbage channels are not a la carte, they are right in there in the digital cable packages. Without ESPN, you don't have much of a cable package, unless you're just looking at news channels. YouTube TV is a model for what should stay in a live TV package, as it doesn't have much of the stuff that shouldn't. One or two garbage channels from Disney snuck in, as they had to put those in to get ESPN.


Broadcast TV is the for a live TV package. None of the OTT packages offer the diginets. Most of the diginets are not available via any premium provider.



Bigg said:


> There's virtually nothing on cable channels anymore except news and sports, which is all very time-sensitive. If you're into sports, then you need to get a vMVPD/CoIP package for that team's season, but they are easily cancelled, and don't have all the extra fees, so they are going to be a lot cheaper than a traditional MVPD on a yearly basis. Everything else is on one of the premium or OTT SVOD channels anyway.


Over the last two days, we had a storm that dumped 7-14" of snow on my commute. Coverage was excellent without interrupting scheduled programming because my locals all own secondary channels which could focus on the event. Political junkies watch those cable news channels. Unless something has changed, the OTT sports offerings have serious issues with blackouts. You discount the tastes of those who enjoy niche television like The History Channel, The Food Network, or Vice. A lot of cable channels have morphed into binges of popular sitcoms and classic movies (which used to live on Netflix). My Dish subscription does not include sports packages.



Bigg said:


> You've also got to look at how content is changing. We've had this explosion of really good, interesting, and unique content in the last few years. Having a virtually never ending Netflix list is the norm, and there is so much great content to watch that you don't have to "keep up" with whatever show on whatever premium, you can go and binge stuff that's interesting, subscribe and drop services, etc, and even without cable you will have far more than you can possibly watch unless you dedicate the equivalent of a full-time job to watching TV.


I subscribed to Netflix before streaming. I had Netflix streaming. I left because the 'really good, interesting, and unique content' did not entertain me. To each his own.



Bigg said:


> This is a really exciting time in the TV universe, but there just isn't much room for traditional pay TV, either in terms of economics, or in terms of the time and attention to watch it. Now, it's not just Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, and Showtime competing for eyeball-hours, it's YouTube and games that are increasingly competing for limited screen time.


You really need to sprinkle 'to me' or 'IMHO' over your pontifications. Nearly 80% of television viewers disagree with you. The fact that you and I can choose what to watch and pay is the most exciting thing about this era.



Bigg said:


> You must have a lot of competition in your market. That's not typical at all. My old local cable company was the cheapest and charged $200/mo for the all-in package, Comcast typically charges around $250/mo for that level of service, although you get Netflix included, and Cox charges around $300/mo.


They charge what the market will bear. When I moved into a new development in 1990, I called the local cable company. They told me that installation would be $5000 but suggested that I could split this cost with my new neighbors. I put up an antenna.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

foghorn2 said:


> The costs savings of streaming is just an illusion.


LOL That's a great one!!!


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

dbpaddler said:


> And not sure what you watch, but go try and find any DC content anywhere. CW DC shows are gone from Hulu. A lot of animated DC content is gone from Netflix. Couldnt even watch Suicide Squad on Prime last night. Not saying that is making it worth it to keep cable, but it's a step in the wrong direction from our perspective.
> 
> Now go over to AVS forums where they talk of the death of 4k Blu ray disc's. The shift to streaming, being ruled by an internet connection and paying for content you technically don't own and is given to you at the whim of the provider. Paying for digital copies of things you can't watch without streaming, you can't sell to someone else or donate to charity (like my DVD collection).
> 
> Granted that's a bit of a different argument, but it has some parallels.


I just use the CW streaming app. It doesn't cost anything. Like I said, I haven't really missed anything yet. Every time I look I see something new from Netflix, Hulu or Prime that is original material and there is just WAY too much to watch. I'm sure not trying to talk anyone out of cable. Just saying for me I've gone a different direction.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

mschnebly said:


> I just use the CW streaming app. It doesn't cost anything. Like I said, I haven't really missed anything yet. Every time I look I see something new from Netflix, Hulu or Prime that is original material and there is just WAY too much to watch. I'm sure not trying to talk anyone out of cable. Just saying for me I've gone a different direction.


And CW doesn't give you all the animated and movie content... It's not just great you can find some things here or there. It's the general direction things are moving across the industry.

And I don't have cable anymore so don't think I'm advocating cable.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

The move away from cable is age and income dependent. Interests change with time and age. The cable industry has priced themselves out of the market. Each "new" content delivery system has it's own unique issues. Still TiVo is at the center of most / all of this for us in this forum. How will TiVo compete to survive?


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

tommiet said:


> NOW.. if you were to toss all the DVR hardware fees... my price for 1 POS Spectrum dvr and 2 HD slaves would add about $40.00 a month to the bill.


Why haven't you replaced those with a TiVo and 2 Mini's (used for a faster payback or you could have taken advantage of the recent sale). 

Scott


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

morac said:


> It is a promo rate, but every time it expires I just call up Comcast and they give me whatever the latest promo rate is (which unfortunately keeps going up).
> 
> Currently I'm getting digital preferred plus Blast (extra $20 for upwards of 300 Mbps) for about $120/mo plus HBO for another $10/month.
> 
> Comcast does have the annoying policy of charging sports and broadcast fees which originally were around $3/mo, but now are closer to $15/mo. Comcast claims they don't control those.


Same here. These aren't 'teaser rates' on Comcast, it's very easy to get the same new customer rate every time my current promo expires. I'm paying about the same as you for the same package, I wouldn't call it excessive and since I am a big sports fan I would in fact call it necessary. No other combo would be as cheap as a Comcast DP bundle for sports.

Additionally, nothing can beat having a DVR where content NEVER goes away if you choose. You can't say the same about any paid streaming service. Not to mention comskip, much better transport controls etc.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

When Comcast controls many of the local sports broadcasts, especially on the east coast, they completely control the prices. In Philly they boxed out Fios for quite a while until they lost in court.

Thankfully my mom has a triple play so I just use her credentials to sign into NBC sports or fox or whatever network happens to be broadcasting a Philly game and cast it to my TV. 

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

The reason Netflix is "losing content" just further indicates the direction things are going. 

Netflix has done so well and essentially validated the way tv is going to be watched that the big media companies finally realize they need to enter streaming for themselves. They finally realize this is more than just some incremental addition to the bottom line. This is looking more like the car to the horse & buggy.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

dbpaddler said:


> And CW doesn't give you all the animated and movie content... It's not just great you can find some things here or there. It's the general direction things are moving across the industry.
> 
> And I don't have cable anymore so don't think I'm advocating cable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


I don't think there is or ever has been a service that has literally everything that someone might want to watch. As long as it costs money to make shows companies are going to find way to make a profit. I guess the trick is to get the best bang for the buck and try to not get locked in while the industry is changing so quickly.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

mschnebly said:


> I don't think there is or ever has been a service that has literally everything that someone might want to watch. As long as it costs money to make shows companies are going to find way to make a profit. I guess the trick is to get the best bang for the buck and try to not get locked in while the industry is changing so quickly.


Never said there was a one stop shop. But again, the trend is moving towards studios taking their content in house, pulling them from the services most used. Requiring you to have more subscriptions (ie: spend more money) to watch content you previously could watch over a couple or few different options.

And yes, the question comes into play the value of that content. Like me, I'd rather forgo watching DC content I used to watch on Netflix before I'd spend for a DC streaming service. Same for other content I know I'm already doing without. Was nice to have when it was part of a package, but now that I have to seek it out outside of what I already have, I'm most likely not going to miss it.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> The reason Netflix is "losing content" just further indicates the direction things are going.
> 
> Netflix has done so well and essentially validated the way tv is going to be watched that the big media companies finally realize they need to enter streaming for themselves. They finally realize this is more than just some incremental addition to the bottom line. This is looking more like the car to the horse & buggy.


Question is, do you watch some content because it's already available on the service you're using? Or is it content you would seek out to watch if it weren't available on your current sources. And if so, how much additional would you be willing to spend over what you're already paying?

Like if all the non original Netflix content I enjoyed watching was pulled from Netflix, I'd probably stop paying for Netflix to seek out that other content. Also knowing that a lot of their so called "original" content is really overseas content they call their own.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

I too regret Marvel moving from Netflix to Disney+ but I'm not going to pay for Disney+ or CBS All Access, or DC- whatever it is called. I already have Netflix, Amazon Prime and Locast. That is more than enough to keep us entertained until we are 6 feet under. My Son pays for Netflix, I pay for Prime, we share, which is allowed. Locast is just $5 and just gets the local channels. and I get 50/50 from Verizon for $55/month.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dbpaddler said:


> Question is, do you watch some content because it's already available on the service you're using? Or is it content you would seek out to watch if it weren't available on your current sources. And if so, how much additional would you be willing to spend over what you're already paying?
> 
> Like if all the non original Netflix content I enjoyed watching was pulled from Netflix, I'd probably stop paying for Netflix to seek out that other content. Also knowing that a lot of their so called "original" content is really overseas content they call their own.


That's neither here nor there. You don't like a service you don't pay for it. News at 11.


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

Are we getting away from the original question?


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> That's neither here nor there. You don't like a service you don't pay for it. News at 11.


Wow... So profound. THA KS for adding such a valuable and unthought of opinion to the convo. Never thought consumers could vote with their wallets. 

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dbpaddler said:


> Wow... So profound. THA KS for adding such a valuable and unthought of opinion to the convo. Never thought consumers could vote with their wallets.


I don't understand. I was just summing up your post.

You were basically saying you might not pay for a service if enough content you enjoy was removed from it I agree. But I think that goes without saying for everything. Isn't that how everything works?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

mschnebly said:


> I just use the CW streaming app. It doesn't cost anything. Like I said, I haven't really missed anything yet. Every time I look I see something new from Netflix, Hulu or Prime that is original material and there is just WAY too much to watch. I'm sure not trying to talk anyone out of cable. Just saying for me I've gone a different direction.


It doesn't cost anything but has tons of commercials. Which I couldn't stand. So I just pay for the shows on the CW to avoid any commercials. Since you can't avoid the commercials from the CW shows on the broadcast streaming services.

As long as I can get the HD episodes for $2 or less, then I am happy. And so far I've payed around $1.25 per HD episode for the two CW shows I've purchased so far. I've purchased the current seasons for The Flash and Super Girl.


----------



## tommiet (Oct 28, 2005)

HerronScott said:


> Why haven't you replaced those with a TiVo and 2 Mini's (used for a faster payback or you could have taken advantage of the recent sale).
> 
> Scott


I do!!! Bolt and 2 mini's. Never had a cable box in my house that I had to pay for.... My comment was cable would NOT be an option without my TiVo's. Cost too much. That is why I dumped Dish. Hardware cost was out of site.

When cable cards go away... So will my cable TV AND TiVo. I don't expect that for years as my area still only has the POS 2 channel DVR and I'm in the woods. We still run when we hear banjos playing.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> It doesn't cost anything but has tons of commercials. Which I couldn't stand. So I just pay for the shows on the CW to avoid any commercials. Since you can't avoid the commercials from the CW shows on the broadcast streaming services.
> 
> As long as I can get the HD episodes for $2 or less, then I am happy. And so far I've payed around $1.25 per HD episode for the two CW shows I've purchased so far. I've purchased the current seasons for The Flash and Super Girl.


You know entire seasons of The CW series go up on Netflix like a week after the season ends on the broadcast channel, right?
Netflix and the CW Confirm New Licensing Deal for All Scripted Series


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

morac said:


> It is a promo rate, but every time it expires I just call up Comcast and they give me whatever the latest promo rate is (which unfortunately keeps going up).


If you can get that teaser rate over and over again, you could probably do the same on internet only for around $40/mo without all the fees and crap.



> Comcast does have the annoying policy of charging sports and broadcast fees which originally were around $3/mo, but now are closer to $15/mo. Comcast claims they don't control those.


Yeah right. Those are made up BS fees. Sure, they are paying more for content, but that's a cost of doing business, it should be in the advertised price.



wizwor said:


> This is the reason I have come to dislike the term cord cutter. If Comcast knocked on my door and offered me a reasonably priced package with reasonable hedges against price creep, I would take the deal. For me, the OTA experiment was about getting the television I wanted at a price I was willing to pay.


I like the term, as I have embraced cord cutting. However, I may replace the cord, depending on if I want to start following bball again, or if I want to watch the 2020 debates and Olympics. However, I can get all of those things on YouTube TV with no commitment.



> Broadcast TV is the for a live TV package. None of the OTT packages offer the diginets. Most of the diginets are not available via any premium provider.


No one watches more of the diginets, but if for some reason you wanted them, you could get them OTA. Also, I wasn't talking about networks or diginets, but rather garbage cable channels.



> Over the last two days, we had a storm that dumped 7-14" of snow on my commute. Coverage was excellent without interrupting scheduled programming because my locals all own secondary channels which could focus on the event. Political junkies watch those cable news channels. Unless something has changed, the OTT sports offerings have serious issues with blackouts. You discount the tastes of those who enjoy niche television like The History Channel, The Food Network, or Vice. A lot of cable channels have morphed into binges of popular sitcoms and classic movies (which used to live on Netflix). My Dish subscription does not include sports packages.


Like I said, YTTV had the news and sports stuff. The "niche" content is all garbage now. The History and Discovery Channels used to be the best channels on TV, when they actually shows History and science-related programming, now they are wastelands of reality TV trash.



> I subscribed to Netflix before streaming. I had Netflix streaming. I left because the 'really good, interesting, and unique content' did not entertain me. To each his own.


There's a lot of junk, but the amount of good and interesting content has just gone up on Netflix.



> You really need to sprinkle 'to me' or 'IMHO' over your pontifications. Nearly 80% of television viewers disagree with you. The fact that you and I can choose what to watch and pay is the most exciting thing about this era.


I don't think it's fair to say that 80% of television viewers disagree with me. Most who have the cord have it for news or sports, or there is one member of the household watching trash on TV, so the whole household has pay TV. There's some people who are in bulk TV deals, and others who are in bundles to get internet, and it was only a few bucks more, or sometimes even less, to take TV, and then they don't have to futz with an antenna to get their local channels. I think you'd find when you break it down that most people don't care about the garbage channels, and of people who don't care about the garbage channels, only some care about the news and sports channels.



> They charge what the market will bear. When I moved into a new development in 1990, I called the local cable company. They told me that installation would be $5000 but suggested that I could split this cost with my new neighbors. I put up an antenna.


There is no way that a cable company is offering every channel for $135/mo without heavy competition. If there is limited competition from other MVPDs, then it gets to $250/mo or even $300/mo, which seems to be the breaking point, as Cox towns around here have far more DirecTV dishes than Comcast towns.



dbpaddler said:


> Question is, do you watch some content because it's already available on the service you're using? Or is it content you would seek out to watch if it weren't available on your current sources. And if so, how much additional would you be willing to spend over what you're already paying?


That's just the thing. I, probably like many on this forum who are TiVo enthusiasts, seek out specific content from wherever it is. Most people just browse. They used to channel surf, now they click through Netflix. Netflix has enough good stuff to keep them happy. Maybe they have a few shows on HBO that they watch, but they're not going to spend more money to get CBS All Access or Disney's streaming service. Netflix is "good enough" for them.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

Bigg said:


> If you can get that teaser rate over and over again, you could probably do the same on internet only for around $40/mo without all the fees and crap.
> 
> Yeah right. Those are made up BS fees. Sure, they are paying more for content, but that's a cost of doing business, it should be in the advertised price.
> 
> ...


Good enough might not be the case though. You keep ignoring how content seems to be leaving streaming services. That statement might have held true at one point but could be changing greatly over the next couple years. And I highly doubt you speak for the masses when using the term "good enough".

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> You know entire seasons of The CW series go up on Netflix like a week after the season ends on the broadcast channel, right?
> Netflix and the CW Confirm New Licensing Deal for All Scripted Series


I have no desire to wait until the seasons end. To then have to watch dozens of episodes.(just the Flash and Suoergirl would be over forty episodes, plus the other two CW shows I watch and crossovers) I already have too much I want to watch from Netflix, with their original programing. I watch the CW shows the day after they air. Currently I am watching the CW shows through Fandango, since I got the best price there.

Sent from my Nexus 7(32GB) using Tapatalk


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

People don't have season passes for them? 

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> I have no desire to wait until the seasons end. To then have to watch dozens of episodes.(just the Flash and Suoergirl would be over forty episodes, plus the other two CW shows I watch and crossovers) I already have too much I want to watch from Netflix, with their original programing. I watch the CW shows the day after they air. Currently I am watching the CW shows through Fandango, since I got the best price there.


Fair enough, although it takes the same amount of time to watch that content, regardless of when you watch it. So it's just about shifting the viewing window. But I can understand not wanting to wait for shows you really care about.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dbpaddler said:


> Good enough might not be the case though. You keep ignoring how content seems to be leaving streaming services. That statement might have held true at one point but could be changing greatly over the next couple years.


Content isn't leaving streaming services. It is switching streaming services. For example, Disney is starting a streaming service and, instead of making another multi-year deal with Netflix, they are going to put their content on their own streaming service.

Netflix made a $100 million deal to keep Friends for another year. But that might not be renewed once WarnerMedia's upcoming streaming service is ready.

Meanwhile Netflix has been creating its own content and lots of it. They are competing with the media companies to buy new original shows. So for Netflix, their future is in developing and buying new original content. AS they've said before they want to become HBO faster than HBO can become them. They've also found that content from one country can play well in another country. I don't know how big this is. They've mentioned it though. But this is something that pre-Netflix didn't happen so much.

I'm sure they will continue to make deals for old content from media companies where they can and where it makes sense for them.

And it's not a given a Disney or WarnerMedia streaming service will be more successful or more profitable than making multi-year deals with Netflix.

But I haven't heard of anything leaving streaming services. Switching streaming services is what I've heard some content is doing.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dbpaddler said:


> People don't have season passes for them?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


I still have Season Passes(as a last resort) but the video quality frrm FiOS, Comcast, and DC OTA is crap. Which is the entire reason I went to streaming. Since the video quality from all the streaming services far surpasses FiOS, Comcast, and OTA in the DC area now.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> I still have Season Passes(as a last resort) but the video quality frrm FiOS, Comcast, and DC OTA is crap. Which is the entire reason I went to streaming. Since the video quality from all the streaming services far surpasses FiOS, Comcast, and OTA in the DC area now.


Hmmm... OTA in Philly doesn't seem too bad. I noticed a big difference in HBO from cable to HBO go. To the point, I still recorded, but ended up streaming most of the time. I just did HBO now through Google, but might switch it to Amazon so I can go through the prime app and not need to go through chromecast or fire TV.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dbpaddler said:


> Good enough might not be the case though. You keep ignoring how content seems to be leaving streaming services. That statement might have held true at one point but could be changing greatly over the next couple years. And I highly doubt you speak for the masses when using the term "good enough".


There's constantly content coming in and out, but the net change on Netflix seems to be a lot MORE content. Sure, it's a fluid market. Netflix could end up losing their really good shows, and make crappy ones.



trip1eX said:


> But I haven't heard of anything leaving streaming services. Switching streaming services is what I've heard some content is doing.


Plus you've got Amazon and their aggregation model. Newer streaming services may offer their own services through Amazon in order to get into more homes more quickly.



dbpaddler said:


> Hmmm... OTA in Philly doesn't seem too bad.


It all depends on the individual station and how much crap they are trying to cram onto a single transmitter.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dbpaddler said:


> Hmmm... OTA in Philly doesn't seem too bad. I noticed a big difference in HBO from cable to HBO go. To the point, I still recorded, but ended up streaming most of the time. I just did HBO now through Google, but might switch it to Amazon so I can go through the prime app and not need to go through chromecast or fire TV.


HBO via Amazon Channels (add-on subscriptions to Prime Video) will give you the best possible picture quality, better than HBO Now/HBO Go.


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

just read an article about atsc 3 ASTC 3.0 Explained: Broadcast TV Is Coming to Your Phone . It may be coming sooner than we think but the Govt. is going to make sure atsc 1 sticks around for at least 5 years.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> HBO via Amazon Channels (add-on subscriptions to Prime Video) will give you the best possible picture quality, better than HBO Now/HBO Go.


Will have to switch then. Got a month free via Google.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

dadrepus said:


> just read an article about atsc 3 ASTC 3.0 Explained: Broadcast TV Is Coming to Your Phone . It may be coming sooner than we think but the Govt. is going to make sure atsc 1 sticks around for at least 5 years.


Unlike the ntsc to atsc transition, there is no deadline/shut off date. I imagine stations will cling to astc1 as long as possible.

And then cable/fios will have an ultra HD fee to tack onto our bills (for those that still have cable by then) if we want greater than 1080. 

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

Well, I bought a 55 4k tv, cause the plazma failed due to a Lightening strike. Don't have any 4k media except for what is on Netflix. Not any better to my eyes, of course these are 65yo eyes.


dbpaddler said:


> Unlike the ntsc to atsc transition, there is no deadline/shut off date. I imagine stations will cling to astc1 as long as possible.
> 
> And then cable/fios will have an ultra HD fee to tack onto our bills (for those that still have cable by then) if we want greater than 1080.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

dadrepus said:


> Well, I bought a 55 4k tv, cause the plazma failed due to a Lightening strike. Don't have any 4k media except for what is on Netflix. Not any better to my eyes, of course these are 65yo eyes.


No streaming 4k will look as good as a good 4k transfer on a UHD disc. Won't sound as good either. Sadly, the masses don't care. I don't get the shift of having to rely on an internet signal and highly compressed content to watch a movie. And they want you to pay extra for it to boot. No sense of actual ownership of product. Reliance on the internet. Watered down product. Just sad.

Watch planet earth 2 in 4k via streaming. Then go get the UHD disc. Big difference. So many have said anyway. My pj is still 1080, and I don't have a disc player attached to my 4k TV in the living room. Plan on upgrading the pj at some point, and I am buying 4k discs that are quality transfers. Some are just crap.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Plus you've got Amazon and their aggregation model. Newer streaming services may offer their own services through Amazon in order to get into more homes more quickly.


I've seen that you can buy channels through them. Is the aggregation include a UI for all or is it still separate apps?

On the AppleTV you can sign up streaming services like Showtime and they are billed through iTunes. Netflix stopped allowing this late last year so they wouldn't have to share any revenue with Apple.

I did read Apple is going to talk about their new video streaming service in the coming months possibly later this month and that it might have some bundle with other services like a Showtime and I assume Apple will offer some of these through 1 UI.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> Content isn't leaving streaming services. It is switching streaming services. For example, Disney is starting a streaming service and, instead of making another multi-year deal with Netflix, they are going to put their content on their own streaming service.


Which means, of course, that you have to keep spending more money to get the same content - i.e. more streaming services. CBS All Access is another crappy example of how content that used to be on the OTA or cable channels is now reserved for yet another pay service.

There is no free lunch.


----------



## Dr. Moriarty (Mar 3, 2019)

dbpaddler said:


> No streaming 4k will look as good as a good 4k transfer on a UHD disc. Won't sound as good either. Sadly, the masses don't care. I don't get the shift of having to rely on an internet signal and highly compressed content to watch a movie. And they want you to pay extra for it to boot. No sense of actual ownership of product. Reliance on the internet. Watered down product. Just sad.
> 
> Watch planet earth 2 in 4k via streaming. Then go get the UHD disc. Big difference. So many have said anyway. My pj is still 1080, and I don't have a disc player attached to my 4k TV in the living room. Plan on upgrading the pj at some point, and I am buying 4k discs that are quality transfers. Some are just crap.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


I've given up buying all physical media. For me it's a complete waste of my money since I've looked back over the years and found that all the "must have!" discs I bought sat on a shelf unwrapped or maybe watched once and tossed aside or given away.

I love the look and sound of the 4K content I've been streaming. Looks amazing. It's ample enough for my needs vs. investing $200+ on another machine and $20++ per disc just to watch once. Thanks but no thanks.

I'm looking forward to joining the Disney+ service when it comes out. Will have some awesome stuff, including the old school Disney titles you can't get on discs.

Physical media is dying at a fairly rapid pace and I'm glad I jumped off that ship and money pit and moved to 100% streaming now.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

Dr. Moriarty said:


> I've given up buying all physical media. For me it's a complete waste of my money since I've looked back over the years and found that all the "must have!" discs I bought sat on a shelf unwrapped or maybe watched once and tossed aside or given away.
> 
> I love the look and sound of the 4K content I've been streaming. Looks amazing. It's ample enough for my needs vs. investing $200+ on another machine and $20++ per disc just to watch once. Thanks but no thanks.
> 
> ...


We all have different tastes and needs. I have a dedicated theater room. Don't see much point in settling for lesser quality. I buy movies I'd like to re-watch every now and then. Ones I don't care about, I stream. I lend out discs to family and friends. I wouldn't pay for Disney. That cost over the course of a year would easily pay for movies I want to buy. I can also sell or donate discs. Plenty still cling to DVD, no problem donating my DVD collection and take the rite off while others can get cheap movies at goodwill.

As others have mentioned, if you can go through months and not utilize a service, why pay for it? If I did pay for Disney, it would be to share with family. Then it would be worth subscribing to with three households utilizing it.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr. Moriarty (Mar 3, 2019)

We find a ton of stuff to stream daily. I haven't put a disc in a player in probably a year. I have a handful of Blu's and DVD's in a box but just no desire to re-watch. We get Netflix free with TMO and Hulu is $8 a month. I'm betting D+ will be around $8-10 a month and for that I'll have access to hundreds upon hundreds of great titles. If I had to buy those movies, I'd be out THOUSANDS of dollars which for me would be foolish.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> Which means, of course, that you have to keep spending more money to get the same content - i.e. more streaming services.
> 
> There is no free lunch.


Well if you subscribed to Netflix for its selection of Disney content and also enjoy Netflix original shows and you want 24/7/365 access to the both then yes you would have to spend more money than you were spending assuming you were just getting Netflix before.

But it's not like you would be getting the same content. You'd be getting more content. Netflix is going to spend that money they didn't spend on Disney content on other content. And it's not like Disney is going to charge Netflix prices for just the content it had on Netflix.

Plus one can switch in and out of streaming services. There are umpteenth scenarios here, but if you just wanted to watch a season of a Disney show or a movie from Disney like the latest STar Wars that hit theatres 6 months prior then you could just subscribe to the upcoming Disney service for a month. YOu could even cancel Netflix for a month or two and switch to the Disney service for that time period and your cost would be no different than before.

Last, for me, I already get Netflix and cable. I already spend ~$90/mo on video content and that doesn't include the pro-rated cost of my Tivo setup. To me the more streaming services that have content I am interested in the more I don't need cable. And so I don't see it like the way you put it. IF anything I might be paying less money. I certainly would not be keeping cable and subscribing to a handful of streaming services on top of it just because a few chunks of content Netflix was paying for before moved to other streaming services.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

Bottom line is nobody has a clue what the landscape will look like a couple years from now. I think broadcast TV is probably the surest bet to still be there. And if you have a variety of streaming services, tivo is still a good choice to be a one box solution. If more cut the cable cord, you keep your box for OTA, and hopefully tivo does what they can to offer as many major streaming apps as possible. Integrated into its universal search would make bouncing between streaming services rather seamless, especially with its bookmarking feature.

You'd have all the shows or movies you'd like to watch aggregated under MyTivo regardless of its source. Much easier than bouncing across apps looking for content, having to go to my shows, bookmarks or what not on each individual app.

They could still be the most elegant single source solution for the varied combination of viewing options. Along with still having the ease and immediate satisfaction of old school turning on the TV and having content immediately available. Which you don't get in any way, shape or form if you just use streaming options for everything. Having cut out cable, I like coming home and turning on the TV to have the Laff channel on with some old comedy sitcom playing to entertain in the background while I'm settling back in. 

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

dbpaddler said:


> No streaming 4k will look as good as a good 4k transfer on a UHD disc. Won't sound as good either. Sadly, the masses don't care. I don't get the shift of having to rely on an internet signal and highly compressed content to watch a movie. And they want you to pay extra for it to boot. No sense of actual ownership of product. Reliance on the internet. Watered down product. Just sad.
> 
> Watch planet earth 2 in 4k via streaming. Then go get the UHD disc. Big difference. So many have said anyway. My pj is still 1080, and I don't have a disc player attached to my 4k TV in the living room. Plan on upgrading the pj at some point, and I am buying 4k discs that are quality transfers. Some are just crap.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


Personally I love the PQ and audio of a disk but I don't want to buy a disk of every movie I want to watch one time. That's where streaming is strong.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

slowbiscuit said:


> There is no free lunch.


OTA is a free lunch. No ISP, no service provider, and no service fees.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

mschnebly said:


> Personally I love the PQ and audio of a disk but I don't want to buy a disk of every movie I want to watch one time. That's where streaming is strong.


I wouldn't buy every movie either. I buy ones that are worthwhile, whether its rewatchable or just a classic or part of a collection I want. Others I don't mind streaming.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

dbpaddler said:


> Bottom line is nobody has a clue what the landscape will look like a couple years from now. I think broadcast TV is probably the surest bet to still be there. And if you have a variety of streaming services, tivo is still a good choice to be a one box solution. If more cut the cable cord, you keep your box for OTA, and hopefully tivo does what they can to offer as many major streaming apps as possible. Integrated into its universal search would make bouncing between streaming services rather seamless, especially with its bookmarking feature.
> 
> You'd have all the shows or movies you'd like to watch aggregated under MyTivo regardless of its source. Much easier than bouncing across apps looking for content, having to go to my shows, bookmarks or what not on each individual app.
> 
> ...


I really doubt we'll ever see that happening. Streaming services don't want to lose their UI identity and I don't think TiVo would pay them for the right to do it. TiVo is just way too small of a company to have any leverage.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

dbpaddler said:


> Bottom line is nobody has a clue what the landscape will look like a couple years from now.


I do. Pretty much as it looks now. Nothing changes in two years. If you want to look out five years, ATSC 1.0 will continue to dominate OTA and ATSC 3.0 will have made inroads or will have been forgotten. The 'cable' companies will continue to offer services we did not know we needed. For them, television will just be another service to bundle. Lines will blur between wireless providers and the 'cable' companies. Amazon, Apple, and Roku will dominate the set top box market. Satellite services will be mostly migrated to high speed internet of some sort. Games, social services, healthcare, and security services will all be delivered to the home.

A lot of this has been possible for decades, but now it's going to be easy to use. Urine and poop samples will be analyzed in your toiler. Your doctor will video conference with you. A security monitor will react to anomalies in your activity.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

mschnebly said:


> I really doubt we'll ever see that happening. Streaming services don't want to lose their UI identity and I don't think TiVo would pay them for the right to do it. TiVo is just way too small of a company to have any leverage.


Not really following. HBO, Prime, Netflix work similarly on tivo as they do on Android, ios, roku, prime. The only benefit on tivo is the ability to bookmark and use universal search.

Why would Disney care how you utilize their service. They just want their $15/mo from you. Or whatever they'll charge for it. The greater audience they can reach, the more money in their pocket.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

wizwor said:


> I do. Pretty much as it looks now. Nothing changes in two years. If you want to look out five years, ATSC 1.0 will continue to dominate OTA and ATSC 3.0 will have made inroads or will have been forgotten. The 'cable' companies will continue to offer services we did not know we needed. For them, television will just be another service to bundle. Lines will blur between wireless providers and the 'cable' companies. Amazon, Apple, and Roku will dominate the set top box market. Satellite services will be mostly migrated to high speed internet of some sort. Games, social services, healthcare, and security services will all be delivered to the home.
> 
> A lot of this has been possible for decades, but now it's going to be easy to use. Urine and poop samples will be analyzed in your toiler. Your doctor will video conference with you. A security monitor will react to anomalies in your activity.


Was talking more about the availability of content and where in regards to studio and company streaming services vs what's available on Prime, Netflix, Hulu and the like. But thanks armchair Nostradamus.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dr. Moriarty said:


> We find a ton of stuff to stream daily. I haven't put a disc in a player in probably a year. I have a handful of Blu's and DVD's in a box but just no desire to re-watch. We get Netflix free with TMO and Hulu is $8 a month. I'm betting D+ will be around $8-10 a month and for that I'll have access to hundreds upon hundreds of great titles. If I had to buy those movies, I'd be out THOUSANDS of dollars which for me would be foolish.


"Reports have indicated it (Disney+) will fall in the $6-to-$8-per-month range."
Disney Shareholders Approve Executive Pay And Hear New Details On Streaming, Fox Acquisition, Film Slate


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dbpaddler said:


> Hmmm... OTA in Philly doesn't seem too bad. I noticed a big difference in HBO from cable to HBO go. To the point, I still recorded, but ended up streaming most of the time. I just did HBO now through Google, but might switch it to Amazon so I can go through the prime app and not need to go through chromecast or fire TV.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


In the DC area they are frequency sharing a bunch of the main channels. That combined with the sub channels makes for a crappy picture. If OTA still had good quality here then I wouldnt need to pay the $12 a month to Hulu.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Dr. Moriarty said:


> I've given up buying all physical media. For me it's a complete waste of my money since I've looked back over the years and found that all the "must have!" discs I bought sat on a shelf unwrapped or maybe watched once and tossed aside or given away.
> 
> I love the look and sound of the 4K content I've been streaming. Looks amazing. It's ample enough for my needs vs. investing $200+ on another machine and $20++ per disc just to watch once. Thanks but no thanks.
> 
> ...


I wish I could make the jump. But everytime I compare the streaming version to the disc either the audio, or video, or both ends up being so much better on the disc.

So for now I will continue what I've been doing for the last twelve years. I'll buy some content on disc and some on streaming. And I'll rent some content on disc and some on streaming. A combination of everything seems to work the best for me.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dbpaddler said:


> Not really following. HBO, Prime, Netflix work similarly on tivo as they do on Android, ios, roku, prime. The only benefit on tivo is the ability to bookmark and use universal search.
> 
> Why would Disney care how you utilize their service. They just want their $15/mo from you. Or whatever they'll charge for it. The greater audience they can reach, the more money in their pocket.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


I hope they charge at least half that or less.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> HBO via Amazon Channels (add-on subscriptions to Prime Video) will give you the best possible picture quality, better than HBO Now/HBO Go.


Yeah, I've got Showtime through that, and it's great.



dbpaddler said:


> No streaming 4k will look as good as a good 4k transfer on a UHD disc. Won't sound as good either.


You have a point on sound, but a well produced 4k show like House of Cards or Narcos looks INCREDIBLE on Netflix, far better than BD at 1080p.

For movies, however, the sound of UHD BD is a HUGE advantage over streaming UHD.



dbpaddler said:


> And if you have a variety of streaming services, tivo is still a good choice to be a one box solution.


TiVo is a lousy streaming device. I like to have the very best, so I have TiVo for my DVR and a Roku for my streaming.



wizwor said:


> OTA is a free lunch. No ISP, no service provider, and no service fees.


There definitely is an issue with heavy users and 1TB data caps, and even more of an issue with 150 and 160GB caps in some rural areas, but in most cases, the cost of the ISP is the same whether people are streaming or not, regardless of what people are streaming on it.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

wizwor said:


> OTA is a free lunch. No ISP, no service provider, and no service fees.


Which tastes rather lousy here. All the locals' image quality is far below streaming quality. Tried to watch a basketball game the other day, gave up, watched some of the Oscars and YouTube's (free coverage) had much more detail. When you have a 4K set and the source isn't much (bit starved) better than SD it really has to be something you want to watch...


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

dbpaddler said:


> Was talking more about the availability of content and where in regards to studio and company streaming services vs what's available on Prime, Netflix, Hulu and the like. But thanks armchair Nostradamus.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


Obviously...


dbpaddler said:


> Bottom line is nobody has a clue what the landscape will look like a couple years from now. *I think broadcast TV is probably the surest bet to still be there*.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Charles R said:


> Which tastes rather lousy here. All the locals' image quality is far below streaming quality. Tried to watch a basketball game the other day, gave up, watched some of the Oscars and YouTube's (free coverage) had much more detail. When you have a 4K set and the source isn't much (bit starved) better than SD it really has to be something you want to watch...


All OTA is local, as they say. HD OTA is pretty spectacular. I watched SD hockey as a kid. Then they tried using telestrators to help the stoners keep track of the puck. HD hockey is breathtaking.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> All OTA is local, as they say. HD OTA is pretty spectacular. I watched SD hockey as a kid. Then they tried using telestrators to help the stoners keep track of the puck. HD hockey is breathtaking.


Depends on how your locals compress. I thought you were in the Boston DMA? Boston's NBC at least is a hot mess since they are channel sharing.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

wizwor said:


> All OTA is local, as they say. HD OTA is pretty spectacular. I watched SD hockey as a kid. Then they tried using telestrators to help the stoners keep track of the puck. HD hockey is breathtaking.


Definitely depends on the area. OTA in the DC are used to be superb way back in 2001. Even back in 2010 it looked very good. But as they added more sub-channels the bitrates got lower and the compression artifacts worse. And now many of them in the DC area are sharing frequencies. Further lowering the bitrate and increasing artifacts. And the detail is almost non existent. So it has gone majorly downhill these last few years. It is close to Comcast terrible and FiOS is also almost as bad with their cable channels too. It's entirely why I changed to getting my broadcast content from streaming services. I just couldn't take it any more.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

wizwor said:


> HD OTA is pretty spectacular.


I wouldn't know as our locals haven't broadcast anything in HD (quality) for years.


----------



## Qnapfan (Feb 13, 2019)

[QUOTE="

*TiVo is a lousy streaming device. I like to have the very best, so I have TiVo for my DVR and a Roku for my streaming.*

[/QUOTE]

Hmmmmm ... outside of ATMOS ... IMHO, the Shield is or should be a more capable streaming device for a high end entertainment setup ... particularly when compared to devices like the Roku (Ultra). That said, the Roku line is generally more 'robust' in terms of bullet proof usage by ... humanity, and it does have more app support, but in terms of graphics processing and horsepower, the Shield is notably better.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

Charles R said:


> Which tastes rather lousy here. All the locals' image quality is far below streaming quality. Tried to watch a basketball game the other day, gave up, watched some of the Oscars and YouTube's (free coverage) had much more detail. When you have a 4K set and the source isn't much (bit starved) better than SD it really has to be something you want to watch...


I've had the opposite with sports going through the Fox and NBC apps vs Broadcast. Sadly.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

With scripted shows the pic quality on streaming is better than cable pretty much across the board. 

Opposite with sports I find so far.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Depends on how your locals compress. I thought you were in the Boston DMA? Boston's NBC at least is a hot mess since they are channel sharing.


Yes, Boston. NBC? LMAO, you could be right. I can't remember the last time I watched anything on NBC.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Qnapfan said:


> Hmmmmm ... outside of ATMOS ... IMHO, the Shield is or should be a more capable streaming device for a high end entertainment setup ... particularly when compared to devices like the Roku (Ultra). That said, the Roku line is generally more 'robust' in terms of bullet proof usage by ... humanity, and it does have more app support, but in terms of graphics processing and horsepower, the Shield is notably better.


Fair enough.... I should qualify best as reliability, ease of use, and breadth of content. If best means raw horsepower or the customization of Android for you, then the Shield would be the winner.



wizwor said:


> Yes, Boston. NBC? LMAO, you could be right. I can't remember the last time I watched anything on NBC.


Ah ok, you guys must have a couple of other channels that are still OK. Boston is a weird DMA for a bunch of reasons.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Ah ok, you guys must have a couple of other channels that are still OK. Boston is a weird DMA for a bunch of reasons.


I get Boston and Portland. I can get Portland, anyway. Right now there's nothing in Portland I want that I cannot get from Boston. Maybe Antenna TV, but probably not worth the effort. Last time I pointed an antenna at Portland was before H&I became a sub to WSBK. All my UHF stations are due south, so I pull them in with a DB8e in the south peak of my attic. I get two VHF stations from the northwest using a Stellar Labs 30-2476. I haven't even thought about my antennas for years. Everything just works and is out of the weather. We have very decent OTA including HD PBS, PBS Explore, CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, MyTV, CW, and ION plus a lot of SD diginets like StartTV, MeTV, ThisTV, PBS World, PBS, Create, PBS Kids, Cozi, Escape, LAFF, Heroes & Icons, Comet, Charge, BUZZR, ION Life, getTV, Grit, and quba plus stuff I don't watch. Local channel 7, which used to be NBC, broadcasts in 1080i. I like their news. It's not affiliated with a network, so much more local and much less biased.

One of the cool things about all the subs is that during a storm or news event, a lot of the national channels run coverage on a sub while continuing scheduled programming on the main channel.

I'm not sure Boston is weird, but I have relied on OTA broadcasts for nearly a decade. Right now I have a DirecTV dish in my backyard, but that is because it's $20/month including HBO (nine channels). Sometimes I go to bed with Laura Ingraham (has a hair style had a bigger impact on anyone, ever?). We have Prime as well (student plan and mostly for shipping, but also occasional binging.

One of the reasons we looked at OTA is that we have ten televisions scattered throughout the house. When Comcast went digital, we replaced old tubes with HDTVs. Then they started moving things around so you really needed a box to get anything. We got an antenna to see how bad OTA was and were forced to use it when we lost power for a week in 2010. I left the antenna connected to the TV in my bedroom when cable was restored. Within a month, both of my kids asked to have the antenna connected to their televisions. We fired Comcast in May.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> One of the cool things about all the subs is that during a storm or news event, a lot of the national channels run coverage on a sub while continuing scheduled programming on the main channel.


I hate subchannels. I wish they would all die, but that's not going to happen. The best we hope for is ATSC 3.0 with HEVC allows all the channels to have good video quality simultaneously in 1080i/p.



> I'm not sure Boston is weird, but I have relied on OTA broadcasts for nearly a decade. Right now I have a DirecTV dish in my backyard, but that is because it's $20/month including HBO (nine channels). Sometimes I go to bed with Laura Ingraham (has a hair style had a bigger impact on anyone, ever?). We have Prime as well (student plan and mostly for shipping, but also occasional binging.


Boston is weird. It's geographically too big for a DMA, with many of the northern parts being too far from Needham to get reception. I actually drove by the Needham towers today, that's a weird place for TV towers as well. Boston was one of the first large markets to have channel sharing, and the largest market until recently not to have an O&O NBC station (which caused the channel sharing when NBC put up a new station shared with Telemundo and yanked their affiliate channel). It's also got WMUR, which is nationally famous and yet is a duplicate ABC channel without other duplicates technically in the same DMA, but farther away from the main stations is Boston than the entire size of many DMAs. On the pay TV side, it's one of the only, if not the only large market to have a significant proportion of the market covered by 3 pay TV providers.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Bigg said:


> I hate subchannels. I wish they would all die, but that's not going to happen. The best we hope for is ATSC 3.0 with HEVC allows all the channels to have good video quality simultaneously in 1080i/p.


I know that there is the video quality issue (fortunately, I don't have much of that here), but the subchannels have opened up_ so much_ new (old) content for me.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> I know that there is the video quality issue (fortunately, I don't have much of that here), but the subchannels have opened up_ so much_ new (old) content for me.


Most definitely. I've got sitcoms as new as big bang and as old as night court. Throw in some Third Rock, Home Improvement, Drew Carey and more, and I've got good background while I'm doing other things. And I don't need to hop on a streaming app, find it and select it.

On another note, and I don't feel like scrolling and quoting. I have no issues with using streaming apps on my tivos. If they want to stay relevant moving forward, it's in their best interest to keep improving the apps be it the quality of the app itself and the selection of them as newer services pop up.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

The programming of lots of sub channels is way better then the major networks or the .1 positions. I'd hate for them to go.


----------



## exdishguy (May 1, 2004)

Sparky1234 said:


> Happy anniversary to TiVo's 'strategic review,' which still hasn't found a strategy


Yes. They are in a very tough spot and it won't end well for shareholders. Might not be bad for customers....or so we all hope. They've been shopping the company for a very long time and cannot find a buyer for either business that will pay anywhere near what they want. As such, I will predict here and now - there are plenty of "strategics" out there that will wait patiently to eventually pick them apart. Take for instance, Anthony Wood. I worked with some engineers that helped him build the ReplayTV and met Anthony at his house when he first started Roku back in early 2000s. The guy is smart - wicked smart. I imagine there are more than a few patents that would be of interest to Anthony. But he won't overpay. He has done exactly one acquisition since founding the company and he only paid (a whopping) $3.5M.

The product business probably can't be sold without the brand IMO. And let's be honest, they are VERY late to the game with Android and getting their software code base nimble enough to play in the app market - whereby, hardware and bandwidth are commodities. I mean, someone might pay something for it but probably nowhere near what Rovi/Tivo wants right now.

As a customer with four Lifetime boxes, I am hoping they finally cave and waive the white flag to their shareholders on the product business and then sell it off to someone that will innovate aggressively.


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

I just wish that MR Brain could have done more to prevent this tragedy.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> I know that there is the video quality issue (fortunately, I don't have much of that here), but the subchannels have opened up_ so much_ new (old) content for me.


I rarely watch any subchannels, the only one I watch once in a blue moon is our local PBS. So much new stuff to watch that I can't watch it all. The subchannels are a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Boston was one of the first large markets to have channel sharing, and the largest market until recently not to have an O&O NBC station (which caused the channel sharing when NBC put up a new station shared with Telemundo and yanked their affiliate channel). It's also got WMUR, which is nationally famous and yet is a duplicate ABC channel without other duplicates technically in the same DMA, but farther away from the main stations is Boston than the entire size of many DMAs. On the pay TV side, it's one of the only, if not the only large market to have a significant proportion of the market covered by 3 pay TV providers.


Well THAT is weird!

When I was a kid CBS was 7 and NBC was 4. At some point there was a squabble and CBS and NBC swapped places on the dial. It was kind of a big deal as most branding was about the number. Recently there was another squabble with 25 wanting out of Fox and NBC playing chicken with 7 (which also owns 56/cw). Most expected fox to end up on 7 and NBC on 25, but it hasn't really worked out.

Who are the three pay tv providers? Verizon does not serve NH, ME, or VT. Comcast is everywhere. Who is the third?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> Who are the three pay tv providers? Verizon does not serve NH, ME, or VT. Comcast is everywhere. Who is the third?


Part of 128 ring plus Natick and Framingham have RCN, Comcast, and Verizon. There are a few other combinations and a couple of muni cable cos as well, some that are monopolies, others with varying levels of competition.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/01/vk/cable2015.pdf


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I rarely watch any subchannels, the only one I watch once in a blue moon is our local PBS. So much new stuff to watch that I can't watch it all. The subchannels are a waste of bandwidth.


There's a lot of great TV from yesteryear that gets featured on subchannel networks like Me-TV, Antenna TV, Cozi, etc. And a lot of the older folks who might naturally be more interested in that content may also be less inclined toward streaming. So I do think that there's value in having subchannels. Unfortunately, it's a trade-off in terms of picture quality and number of subchannels carried and we've seen lots of stations go overboard. Rather than having one or two SD subchannels, they have 3, or 4, or 5. Oh well.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> There's a lot of great TV from yesteryear that gets featured on subchannel networks like Me-TV, Antenna TV, Cozi, etc. And a lot of the older folks who might naturally be more interested in that content may also be less inclined toward streaming. So I do think that there's value in having subchannels. Unfortunately, it's a trade-off in terms of picture quality and number of subchannels carried and we've seen lots of stations go overboard. Rather than having one or two SD subchannels, they have 3, or 4, or 5. Oh well.


I hate to admit it but I love the really horrible Comet channel. Poor PQ and even worse Science Fiction/Horror shows but I love it! LOL


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

mschnebly said:


> I hate to admit it but I love the really horrible Comet channel. Poor PQ and even worse Science Fiction/Horror shows but I love it! LOL


The funny part about some of those old horrible horror shows was how they scared the crap out of us when we were kids!!


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

mschnebly said:


> I hate to admit it but I love the really horrible Comet channel. Poor PQ and even worse Science Fiction/Horror shows but I love it! LOL


For me, it's Heroes and Icons. After that LAFF.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> it's a trade-off in terms of picture quality and number of subchannels carried and we've seen lots of stations go overboard. Rather than having one or two SD subchannels, they have 3, or 4, or 5. Oh well.


WENH carries PBS and Explore at 720p and World, Create, and Kids at 480i. All look great.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

mschnebly said:


> I hate to admit it but I love the really horrible Comet channel. Poor PQ and even worse Science Fiction/Horror shows but I love it! LOL


Get the Comet app on Roku to see it in HD!


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

mdavej said:


> Get the Comet app on Roku to see it in HD!


A movie from 1950 is just the same in 480i as 1080p. Both are funny.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Sinclair also has a new app called STIRR that has live streams of various channels, including Comet, Charge!, and Buzzr, along with a dinky selection of on-demand content.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

JoeKustra said:


> A movie from 1950 is just the same in 480i as 1080p. Both are funny.


Broadcast 480i should look DVD quality. But it's so highly compressed, it doesn't even come close. If you watch Comet on the app, everything, even 480i, looks much, much sharper.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

mdavej said:


> Broadcast 480i should look DVD quality. But it's so highly compressed, it doesn't even come close. If you watch Comet on the app, everything, even 480i, looks much, much sharper.


I was moving my AVR from Comet channel to my cable feed of Comet. I could detect no change. The signal from Roku was 1080p/60. The cable feed was 480i. The movie was "Prehistoric Women" which was playing while I was doing my last post. The current movie (1988) looks much better on the Roku.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Ok, broadcast AND cable feed is highly compressed. Both look horrible compared to the 480i in the app.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

mdavej said:


> Ok, broadcast AND cable feed is highly compressed. Both look horrible compared to the 480i in the app.


Let me be clear. My Roku Ultra on my internet feed looked the same as my cable tv feed (SD channel) through my Roamio. But maybe I am missing the definition of "app". I am using my Roku's app for Comet, like its Pandora app. Is there a different app? The next movie in this range won't be unit Friday from 1954.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

JoeKustra said:


> Let me be clear. My Roku Ultra on my internet feed looked the same as my cable tv feed (SD channel) through my Roamio. But maybe I am missing the definition of "app". I am using my Roku's app for Comet, like its Pandora app. Is there a different app? The next movie in this range won't be unit Friday from 1954.


Not sure if it's still running, but the series "Space 1999" looked like youtube on dial-up on OTA, but gorgeous in the app (yes, like Pandora). I'll try and watch tonight for more examples.


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

mdavej said:


> Not sure if it's still running, but the series "Space 1999" looked like youtube on dial-up on OTA, but gorgeous in the app (yes, like Pandora). I'll try and watch tonight for more examples.


This was a terrible show even when it was new.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> There's a lot of great TV from yesteryear that gets featured on subchannel networks like Me-TV, Antenna TV, Cozi, etc. And a lot of the older folks who might naturally be more interested in that content may also be less inclined toward streaming.


Older folks can figure out how to stream. Or, if channels are necessary, they belong on cable with the 400 other channels of garbage. Unfortunately, subchannels are here to stay. Hopefully ATSC 3.0 will allow them to coexist without tanking the quality of the main feed.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

mdavej said:


> Not sure if it's still running, but the series "Space 1999" looked like youtube on dial-up on OTA, but gorgeous in the app (yes, like Pandora). I'll try and watch tonight for more examples.


Friday, 3/15 10am "Riders to the Stars" (1954).


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

dadrepus said:


> This was a terrible show even when it was new.


But it's awesome now to a nostalgic child of the 70's - the clothes, the colors, the fonts, the tech, the effects, the ridiculous plots - riveting!


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

mdavej said:


> But it's awesome now to a nostalgic child of the 70's - the clothes, the colors, the fonts, the tech, the effects, the ridiculous plots - riveting!


That's why we have different programs for different people. To each their own.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

mdavej said:


> Broadcast 480i should look DVD quality. But it's so highly compressed, it doesn't even come close. If you watch Comet on the app, everything, even 480i, looks much, much sharper.


Bingo ! There are stations running nine sd sub-channels, yech..Comet is now on Sling and it's running in HD, better than the OTA version. Usually if there is an interesting movie running on This it can be found streaming in Tubi with ads for free, usually in HD and and 1:78 ratio not 4x3. Streaming is going to suck up the digi net market, having the crappy SD channels will just hasten it.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

tenthplanet said:


> Bingo ! There are stations running nine sd sub-channels, yech..Comet is now on Sling and it's running in HD, better than the OTA version. Usually if there is an interesting movie running on This it can be found streaming in Tubi with ads for free, usually in HD and and 1:78 ratio not 4x3. Streaming is going to suck up the digi net market, having the crappy SD channels will just hasten it.


I wouldn't go that far as free versus money. Wallets are usually the biggest voter.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

smark said:


> I wouldn't go that far as free versus money. Wallets are usually the biggest voter.


I would agree, except that streaming can offer a virtually infinite choice of old content versus a handful of subchanels in each market. That being said, I don't think subchannels are going away. Maybe the old niche content will, but there will be something on the airwaves if the affiliates can grind out even a meagre amount of advertising revenue. When ATSC 3.0 comes around, they could do several 1080p plus several 720p channels on a single transmitter and they'd still look pretty good since it will be in HEVC. 720p subchannels will be a thing, and they'll have re-runs, syndicated shows, news, weather, or some combination thereof.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

JoeKustra said:


> I was moving my AVR from Comet channel to my cable feed of Comet. I could detect no change. The signal from Roku was 1080p/60. The cable feed was 480i. The movie was "Prehistoric Women" which was playing while I was doing my last post. The current movie (1988) looks much better on the Roku.


I'm one of the unlucky souls that have data caps on my internet. I've never gone over but I've come close a couple of times. So, stuff like this I just use my antenna .


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

mschnebly said:


> I'm one of the unlucky souls that have data caps on my internet. I've never gone over but I've come close a couple of times. So, stuff like this I just use my antenna .


You have a new look on Star Trek Discovery....


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Sparky1234 said:


> You have a new look on Star Trek Discovery....


It's a downgrade in looks but their powers are stronger!


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

mschnebly said:


> It's a downgrade in looks but their powers are stronger!


Lol. Interesting characters.


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

TiVo must be in really big trouble if we can't even stay on topic.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

ufo4sale said:


> TiVo must be in really big trouble if we can't even stay on topic.


You must have been gone away for a very long time.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

mschnebly said:


> You must have been gone away for a very long time.


He has a UFO.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

I've found it productive to derail a "Doom & Gloom' thread. For me.


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

If you couldn't tell it was a joke people. If all we ever talk about is TiVo then there would be less time to talk about MR Brain. The supreme overload and ruler of all that is holly in this world.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

ufo4sale said:


> If you couldn't tell it was a joke people. If all we ever talk about is TiVo then there would be less time to talk about MR Brain. The supreme overload and ruler of all that is holly in this world.


I think it is time to apply the Three Stooges test.

"How different would things be if Curly, Larry, and Moe were running the show?"

If the answer is "Not very" don't waste time making moral judgments. Just get out of there before the next explosion.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

mdavej said:


> But it's awesome now to a nostalgic child of the 70's - the clothes, the colors, the fonts, the tech, the effects, the ridiculous plots - riveting!


Same here! Heck I bought it on DVD years ago when it was on sale. 

Scott


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mschnebly said:


> I'm one of the unlucky souls that have data caps on my internet. I've never gone over but I've come close a couple of times. So, stuff like this I just use my antenna .


Who do you use again for broadband?


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> Who do you use again for broadband?


Comcast. It's all we have here.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mschnebly said:


> Comcast. It's all we have here.


Don't know if it's offered in your area, but at least in some spots Comcast offers unlimited data for those who rent their $15/mo xFi Advanced Gateway (combo modem/router). If you're concerned about exceeding your data cap, it might be something to consider. Also, BTW, Comcast's official policy is to waive overage fees on the first two times you exceed your monthly cap. After that, they hit you with the fees, up to $200.

Comcast Brings Back "Free" Unlimited Data, If You Rent Their $15 Hardware ·


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Retail is a small part of TiVo's market compared to MSO partners. They are the ones out there pushing and advertising TiVo within their footprints. *Comcast is getting close to being able to scale up IP multicast over HFC, and they are already doing IPTV over EPON.* Sure, other MSOs are about 5 years behind Comcast in technology, but it's not THAT far off. However, there probably won't be much of an MVPD pay-tv market left by then between CoIP/vMVPD options and true cord cutting, so it really won't matter in the end.


FWIW, I took a meeting this week with three Comcast employees (an MDU Account Exec, a Community Account Rep, and a tech rep), and they stated that Comcast was scratching deployment of EPON in favor of full duplex DOCSIS 3.1 over HFC.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> FWIW, I took a meeting this week with three Comcast employees (an MDU Account Exec, a Community Account Rep, and a tech rep), and they stated that Comcast was scratching deployment of EPON in favor of full duplex DOCSIS 3.1 over HFC.


Do you mean FDX (full duplex DOCSIS 3.1) instead of EPON specifically just for MDUs? Or that they're dropping EPON completely, including in greenfield neighborhoods? FDX over HFC has, I think, been the plan for all, or nearly all, of their legacy network for the past few years. Although, at least per a roadmap I saw awhile back, that may get replaced with full FTTH several years down the road.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Do you mean FDX (full duplex DOCSIS 3.1) instead of EPON specifically just for MDUs? Or that they're dropping EPON completely, including in greenfield neighborhoods? FDX over HFC has, I think, been the plan for all, or nearly all, of their legacy network for the past few years. Although, at least per a roadmap I saw awhile back, that may get replaced with full FTTH several years down the road.


I did not ask whether their comments applied solely to MDU's, but I did inquire whether they were referring only to our region (Atlanta metro) or globally, and they said it was the latter. The issue is particularly germane to our property because Comcast ran fiber lines into our complex last year but have given no sign that they are going to connect them to terminals or offer us the opportunity to subscribe to FTTH service. I asked about it because I am not eager to see them deploy EPON here given its current limitations on their system (e.g., must have Xfinity HSI service, must use Xfinity gateway, non-compatible with CableCARD or DTA's, and no "adult" subscriptions or PPV service).

If you are sufficiently interested in more detailed information, just let me know and I will shoot my contacts an email with your questions.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Don't know if it's offered in your area, but at least in some spots Comcast offers unlimited data for those who rent their $15/mo xFi Advanced Gateway (combo modem/router). If you're concerned about exceeding your data cap, it might be something to consider. Also, BTW, Comcast's official policy is to waive overage fees on the first two times you exceed your monthly cap. After that, they hit you with the fees, up to $200.
> 
> Comcast Brings Back "Free" Unlimited Data, If You Rent Their $15 Hardware ·


Can you just put it in bridge mode and use your own router to avoid the xFi crap?



chiguy50 said:


> FWIW, I took a meeting this week with three Comcast employees (an MDU Account Exec, a Community Account Rep, and a tech rep), and they stated that Comcast was scratching deployment of EPON in favor of full duplex DOCSIS 3.1 over HFC.


Interesting. They've already deployed some EPON, and have other areas that are RFoG. Does that mean that they will not deploy any more EPON? Or any more brownfield EPON, and just do it for large greenfield deployments? I thought the plan all along was EPON in large greenfields, targeted brownfields with bulk agreements, and FDX for everyone else. The whole EPON architecture is made to be compatible with fiber-deep rphy and eventually FDX. Are they now skipping mid-split fiber-deep to wait for FDX? I guess that makes sense, but it's frustrating when they could jump from 35mbps up to 100mbps up, fix their awful video quality, and have way more DOCSIS capacity all at once by combining mid-split and fiber-deep while bumping the upper end to 1002mhz based on technology that's already out there.



NashGuy said:


> Although, at least per a roadmap I saw awhile back, that may get replaced with full FTTH several years down the road.


I just don't see why they would need to go to full FTTH, as FDX with <128 actives/node has the same bandwidth as EPON. Maybe in exurban areas where N+0 can't reach 128 actives without becoming N+1, N+2, etc, but in more suburban/urban areas, I don't see what would push them to FTTH.



chiguy50 said:


> I did not ask whether their comments applied solely to MDU's, but I did inquire whether they were referring only to our region (Atlanta metro) or globally, and they said it was the latter. The issue is particularly germane to our property because Comcast ran fiber lines into our complex last year but have given no sign that they are going to connect them to terminals or offer us the opportunity to subscribe to FTTH service. I asked about it because I am not eager to see them deploy EPON here given its current limitations on their system (e.g., must have Xfinity HSI service, must use Xfinity gateway, non-compatible with CableCARD or DTA's, and no "adult" subscriptions or PPV service).
> 
> If you are sufficiently interested in more detailed information, just let me know and I will shoot my contacts an email with your questions.


Fiber for individual customers, or for fiber-deep HFC? Or RFoG? I'd be interested to know what their plan is for EPON and RFoG moving forward.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> I did not ask whether their comments applied solely to MDU's, but I did inquire whether they were referring only to our region (Atlanta metro) or globally, and they said it was the latter. The issue is particularly germane to our property because Comcast ran fiber lines into our complex last year but have given no sign that they are going to connect them to terminals or offer us the opportunity to subscribe to FTTH service. I asked about it because I am not eager to see them deploy EPON here given its current limitations on their system (e.g., must have Xfinity HSI service, must use Xfinity gateway, non-compatible with CableCARD or DTA's, and no "adult" subscriptions or PPV service).
> 
> If you are sufficiently interested in more detailed information, just let me know and I will shoot my contacts an email with your questions.


Thanks for posting the info here and the offer to follow up personally, although not necessary. I have no personal vested interest one way or another regarding Comcast's EPON vs FDX HFC roadmap, just find it all interesting from a business/tech perspective.



Bigg said:


> Can you just put it in bridge mode and use your own router to avoid the xFi crap?


I honestly have no idea. I've never rented any modem, router or combined gateway from Comcast. I just try to pass along info I come across that might be helpful.



Bigg said:


> Interesting. They've already deployed some EPON, and have other areas that are RFoG. Does that mean that they will not deploy any more EPON? Or any more brownfield EPON, and just do it for large greenfield deployments? I thought the plan all along was EPON in large greenfields, targeted brownfields with bulk agreements, and FDX for everyone else.


Yeah, that seems to be pretty much the info that I posted awhile back based on that slide presentation I found of the Comcast network roadmap, along with comments in a thread over at DSL Reports. Keep in mind, though, that presentation dated from a couple years ago. So plans could well have changed a bit since then.



Bigg said:


> I just don't see why they would need to go to full FTTH, as FDX with <128 actives/node has the same bandwidth as EPON. Maybe in exurban areas where N+0 can't reach 128 actives without becoming N+1, N+2, etc, but in more suburban/urban areas, I don't see what would push them to FTTH.


Yeah, HFC still appears to have a lot of life left in it. CableLabs is saying that symmetrical 10 Gbps is on the horizon for HFC. As for Comcast's plans to eventually replace the last vestiges of coax and go full fiber, I was just repeating what was in that online slide presentation I came across a couple months ago. Plans can and do change. Apart from pure bandwidth considerations, though, perhaps there are other cost/reliability benefits to be had from a pure FTTH network vs. HFC?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, that seems to be pretty much the info that I posted awhile back based on that slide presentation I found of the Comcast network roadmap, along with comments in a thread over at DSL Reports. Keep in mind, though, that presentation dated from a couple years ago. So plans could well have changed a bit since then.


True. Comcast's plans constantly slide back and don't get done. Look at IPTV. Everything was supposed to be IPTV by now, and now there's no plan in sight for it. I think they're looking at their TV business and wondering why they should spend the money when over-compressing MPEG-4 freed up a lot of bandwidth for DOCSIS, and there is more to be gained by getting rid of SD and converting the remaining non-HD channels to MPEG-4.



> Yeah, HFC still appears to have a lot of life left in it. CableLabs is saying that symmetrical 10 Gbps is on the horizon for HFC. As for Comcast's plans to eventually replace the last vestiges of coax and go full fiber, I was just repeating what was in that online slide presentation I came across a couple months ago. Plans can and do change. Apart from pure bandwidth considerations, though, perhaps there are other cost/reliability benefits to be had from a pure FTTH network vs. HFC?


I would think it would depend on the environment. If you're in a suburban/exurban low turnover area, full FTTH may well make sense. In a more urban area with higher churn, I see coax making more sense. With FTTH, you have to put fiber in to every house, along with the equipment, which is enormously expensive, versus coax, where you just send hardline down the block and tap off of it. Even if they only get one or two blocks off of each fiber deep node in an urban area, that's still WAY cheaper than FTTH. I could see FTTH possibly being beneficial on area immediately adjacent to the ocean, due to corrosion problems with coax, or very sprawled out areas, or other specific use cases.

If you're building a brand new network, FTTH makes sense, I just can't see how it makes economic sense for an MSO. I'd love to be wrong, but I'm just not seeing it.

I just wonder how many eons it's going to take Comcast to actually do widespread FDX. They've done a bit of fiber deep in a few areas, but not much. Ironically, Comcast is treating fiber deep like some newfangled concept, my old local former muni cable company built an HFC system with <125 actives/node in the mid-2000's, and never made a big deal of it, that's just how they built it. Now Comcast comes along with fancy mini-nodes and makes a big deal out of this new architecture called "fiber deep". Ironically my old cable company probably made Comcast closer to fiber deep in that area with their existing archiac system by stealing some of their subscribers and improving their actives per node ratio.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

I think the days of TiVo as a cable box are coming to an end. Cable cards will soon retire and will be replaced with branded streaming services. It will work well in the OTA space, but that is crowded and TiVo is still an expensive, albeit flexible solution.

So... yes, I think TiVo’s current business model is aging. They need to do something interesting and unique. I still wish they would have partnered with Amazon or Roku a decade ago for their app platform.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Fiber for individual customers, or for fiber-deep HFC? Or RFoG? I'd be interested to know what their plan is for EPON and RFoG moving forward.


I'll ask for more detail and report back.



Bigg said:


> I just wonder how many eons it's going to take Comcast to actually do widespread FDX.


I asked the tech rep for an FDX timeline and he just shrugged his shoulders.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> I asked the tech rep for an FDX timeline and he just shrugged his shoulders.


I'd bet they have at least one or two systems with in within a couple of years. The bigger question is how long until their entire territory gets it. Could be decades the way Comcast operates.


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

The Comcast rep in our area said that they would soon be converting RFoG communities to EPON.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

bradleys said:


> I think the days of TiVo as a cable box are *coming to an end*. Cable cards will *soon retire* and will be replaced with branded streaming services.


When, and define 'soon'.

This thread will still be alive for years.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I'd bet they have at least one or two systems with in within a couple of years. The bigger question is how long until their entire territory gets it. Could be decades the way Comcast operates.


Eh, only took Comcast about 2.5 years to roll out DOCSIS 3.1 across their entire footprint, finishing in the fall of last year. I think they're still evaluating exactly which vendors, etc. they're going to go with for DAA/Remote PHY, which is a necessary network upgrade to support FDX. They other part of the equation is fiber deep/N+0. But they've already pushed fiber pretty deep, haven't they? Perhaps more than any other major US cable broadband provider, Comcast could get to N+0 fairly quickly if they want to.

And CableLabs only completed the FDX spec in late 2017. As of last fall, Arris was already plugging their solutions for FDX implementation, expecting sales in the US to start in 2019. (At that point, they'd already supplied their tech to roll out FDX with an Australian broadband provider.)

My guess is that we'll see Comcast begin implementation of FDX either late this year or in 2020, with the whole thing done across their footprint a few years later.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

DigitalDawn said:


> The Comcast rep in our area said that they would soon be converting RFoG communities to EPON.


That makes sense, as I think the RFoG stuff is 5-42 1002mhz equipment, so it doesn't work in a 5-85 or FDX world. Fiber goes EPON, coax goes to FDX. It makes perfect sense, and it's moving everything towards a fully IP delivery model where the network has no reason to care whether the last half- or quarter-mile is done via EPON or fiber-deep FDX.



slowbiscuit said:


> When, and define 'soon'.
> 
> This thread will still be alive for years.


I think Comcast could be all-IP within 5 years if they really want to be. However, doing the math out, I'm not sure that there's a huge push for all-IP unless they want to go to rphy and get rid of the analog RF on the fiber entirely. Maybe that's part of FDX. However, even if that's the master plan, if they start converting in 2020, it would take at least 10 years to convert all their systems nationwide, and knowing Comcast, there will be some still on 5-42 750mhz in 10 or 15 years.

Even if Comcast starts converting in 2020, Charter is 10 years behind them, and many small MSOs are even farther behind. Comcast will lead Cox, who will lead the rest of the industry. Then there's Verizon that may still have QAM until linear TV dies or they get out of the business completely. Or they may go IPTV. Who knows. They seem to hate to throw out any cable box, even if it's ancient.

CableCard TiVos aren't going anywhere, at least in most places, anytime soon. They may well be useless on large parts of Comcast come the mid-2020s, but as for other MSOs, that's unlikely. QAM is dying, but it's dying a slow death.



NashGuy said:


> Eh, only took Comcast about 2.5 years to roll out DOCSIS 3.1 across their entire footprint, finishing in the fall of last year.


That's not a plant rebuild, that's just reclaiming spectrum and plopping in a new CMTS, and that took 2.5 years to do. Imagine actually rebuilding the plants to fiber deep N+0, even if they don't do rphy at the same time. I think Groton, CT got upgraded from a 625mhz to an 860mhz (really 1002 with nothing above 860mhz), but Plainville, CT, AFAIK, is still running a 750mhz system with gig somehow crammed in.



> I think they're still evaluating exactly which vendors, etc. they're going to go with for DAA/Remote PHY, which is a necessary network upgrade to support FDX. They other part of the equation is fiber deep/N+0. But they've already pushed fiber pretty deep, haven't they? Perhaps more than any other major US cable broadband provider, Comcast could get to N+0 fairly quickly if they want to.


I don't have a good sense for their node sizes. The last report I saw was from 4 or 5 years ago, it was accidentally not redacted, and it was a bad example, as it was for Groton, which has a much lower penetration rate due to being overbuilt. Some of the systems with exurban towns, i.e. Madison, Marlborough, Simsbury, etc, have high-income pockets that Frontier doesn't serve, and have near 100% penetration on those nodes.

However, they could well have already put the fiber in for those nodes, it's just sitting dark waiting for the electronics. I can't imagine the nodes today are larger than 500 actives/node, although it may have crept up over the past couple of years as people have switched away from Slow DSL to cable. If it's 250-300/node, they're only splitting nodes in 2 or 3 to get to fiber deep, which is 128 actives/node on Comcast.

Maybe they've sped up their deployment, but as of a few years ago, they were positively glacial at doing anything on the last mile. They are super fast with deploying core network technologies, IP transport, business fiber, etc, just not HFC last mile.



> And CableLabs only completed the FDX spec in late 2017. As of last fall, Arris was already plugging their solutions for FDX implementation, expecting sales in the US to start in 2019. (At that point, they'd already supplied their tech to roll out FDX with an Australian broadband provider.)
> 
> My guess is that we'll see Comcast begin implementation of FDX either late this year or in 2020, with the whole thing done across their footprint a few years later.


It sounds like they are skipping 5-85 for the most part and going directly to FDX, but it is going to require an epic amount of work. They have to not only split nodes, but get rid of all of the downstream amps, and I believe they have to change or eliminate some filters at various split or tap points to be fully bidirectional. The real doozy, however, is that they have to remove each and every drop amp, and I'm not sure how they do that with N+0 as the whole point of N+0 is that there are no secondary amps, and I'm not sure they can make an FDX drop amp. It's really easy to take an N+4 5-42 system in an exurban area with 25 homes per cable mile and tack on one more layer of amps in each house to support a maze of wiring that feeds 5 TVs, broadband, phone, etc. I don't know how they do that with FDX. At least with 5-85, houses with drop amps just lose half of the upstream channels, which isn't ideal, but everything more or less keeps working, possibly with drop amp users getting reduced speeds, or putting their modem on a passive port before the amp electronics so that the modem does receive the full 5-85, and X1 doesn't need that many upstream channels anyway.

So with FDX can a drop amp be made? Or are there MSO-grade amps that can be deployed to an N+1 configuration to get deep into exurban areas? Or do they just run 30-50 home nodes to keep the power levels up? Or do they deploy EPON and spend gazillions of dollars pulling fiber through conduits and trenching, since many of those exurban areas have a lot of UG.

The other issue is what is the business case for FDX? Of course cloud is becoming huge, and managing upstream bandwidth is becoming more of a challenge on 5-42. But what does FDX solve that 5-85 fiber deep doesn't? In markets with heavy exposure to FiOS, the few techie users who really care about upload bandwidth and use cloud heavily are going to self-select to FiOS or AT&T fiber anyway, and Comcast can't be competitive for that market with FDX, they would have to go to full EPON. In markets that don't have heavy competitive exposure to fiber, they have no incentive to go to FDX, as 5-85 can blow anything else in the market out of the water. Most VDSL2 implementations top out at 20mbps up, while 5-85 fiber deep can do 100mbps up 1000mbps down.

Lastly, does going to FDX and rphy force Comcast to move to full IPTV in those markets? Their backend is ready for it, but the CPE changes required for that are very, very significant. If I were Comcast, I'd go to 5-85 1002 fiber deep, fix their crap MPEG-4 quality by moving to regional/local stat muxes, get rid of MPEG-2 entirely, de-duplicate SD/HD channels, which would allow for a maxed out 32 DOCSIS 3 + 2x 192mhz DOCSIS 3.1 configuration.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

slowbiscuit said:


> When, and define 'soon'.
> 
> This thread will still be alive for years.


LOL 10 years after TiVo does goes out of business there will be folks on here saying that as long as their box keeps running TiVo will never be dead! "You'll have to pry my TiVo from my cold....."


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

It's not about being a diehard, it's about the reality of cable system TV inertia. As Bigg said Comcast et al have taken years to slowroll IPTV on their cable plants (if at all), so the thought that cable cards are going away 'soon' is laughable to me based on the evidence we have.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> It's not about being a diehard, it's about the reality of cable system TV inertia. As Bigg said Comcast et al have taken years to slowroll IPTV on their cable plants (if at all), so the thought that cable cards are going away 'soon' is laughable to me based on the evidence we have.


My area still doesn't have fiber to the node, let alone FTTH. That causes all kinds of problems periodically as ingress can literally enter the system anywhere and affect people across multiple towns.

Comcast needs to focus on updating their infrastructure before they can even think about implementing full IPTV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It sounds like they are skipping 5-85 for the most part and going directly to FDX, but it is going to require an epic amount of work. They have to not only split nodes, but get rid of all of the downstream amps, and I believe they have to change or eliminate some filters at various split or tap points to be fully bidirectional. The real doozy, however, is that they have to remove each and every drop amp, and I'm not sure how they do that with N+0 as the whole point of N+0 is that there are no secondary amps, and I'm not sure they can make an FDX drop amp. It's really easy to take an N+4 5-42 system in an exurban area with 25 homes per cable mile and tack on one more layer of amps in each house to support a maze of wiring that feeds 5 TVs, broadband, phone, etc. I don't know how they do that with FDX. At least with 5-85, houses with drop amps just lose half of the upstream channels, which isn't ideal, but everything more or less keeps working, possibly with drop amp users getting reduced speeds, or putting their modem on a passive port before the amp electronics so that the modem does receive the full 5-85, and X1 doesn't need that many upstream channels anyway.
> 
> So with FDX can a drop amp be made? Or are there MSO-grade amps that can be deployed to an N+1 configuration to get deep into exurban areas? Or do they just run 30-50 home nodes to keep the power levels up? Or do they deploy EPON and spend gazillions of dollars pulling fiber through conduits and trenching, since many of those exurban areas have a lot of UG.
> 
> ...


Your post makes a number of points, some of which, TBH, are beyond my ken when it comes to HFC network tech. You raise some good questions too.

Few things I would say, in response:

First, I think Comcast's extension of fiber across their footprint in general may be more extensive than what you're seeing in the local areas you cite. I saw them rolling out fiber in my neighborhood several months back, not sure for what. D3.1 had already been deployed here at that time (Nashville was one of their first markets) and there were no new speed tiers that become available at my location after that new fiber got hung. Likewise, I've seen posts in this or other similar threads on this forum from folks who've seen Comcast fiber getting extended through their backyards, etc. My point is, I think Comcast has been at work for awhile now on moving towards fiber deep/N+0. I don't think their plan was to just implement D3.1 and then, after that's all done, start doing all the things (including fiber deep) that would be necessary to implement FDX. At least some of the work toward fiber deep had been going on for awhile now, I think. As bandwidth demands among the public increase every year, getting fiber closer to the end customer and shrinking the number of homes per node has benefits beyond setting the table for FDX.

Next, you raise the question of the business case for FDX, i.e. will it provide the greatest market return for Comcast's infrastructure buck? I'm not going to hazard a guess one way or another, I just know that I have repeatedly read, from multiple credible sources over the past couple of years, that FDX is next on Comcast's network roadmap after D3.1. One might debate how *smart* such a move is but I don't think there's any reason to question that that's what Comcast is going to do. And I may be wrong, but I really don't see it taking them until the late 2020s to implement it. At that point, I think their plan is to have already moved on to newer technological improvements to HFC.

Oh, BTW, I've also read that "full network virtualization" that uses cheaper, generic hardware is also on Comcast's network roadmap, perhaps to be implemented as the same time as DAA/FDX.

Lastly, I still it's plausible (not sure I'd say probable any more) that we see Comcast go to an almost-fully-IPTV system in the next few years. They could leave, say, their Digital Starter channel tier (plus maybe the original main channels for HBO, SHO, Starz, Cinemax and TMC) on QAM but only in SD (MPEG-4). All TV service in HD and any channels beyond that tier, as well as all VOD, would require switching to either of Comcast's IPTV services (X1 or Xfinity Instant TV). That shouldn't be a problem for all those already on X1; it might be pretty much a seamless switch. Others would have to decide whether to switch out their STB (and potentially also get a Comcast internet gateway, even if they don't subscribe to broadband) or instead, stick with their existing hardware and settle for a max of ~100 channels in SD. Such a move would allow all those businesses (waiting rooms, etc.) to keep using the little DTAs that dangle from their wall-mounted TVs, and it would keep Comcast from cutting off elderly folks and others who are very averse to tech change. Those folks probably can't tell the difference between SD and HD anyway. Such a move would free up all the bandwidth currently devoted to HD QAM channels to be repurposed as D3.1 OFDM IP bandwidth. This might be a transitional thing, though. Maybe a couple years later, they'd fully shut down those SD channels on QAM (or truncate them even further to just the Limited Basic tier of locals).

And, yes, it's also plausible that Comcast decides that the costs involved in deprecating/shutting down QAM TV don't justify the benefits as the traditional linear-channel cable TV business evolves and shrinks in the 2020s. In which case, whatever improvements they make going forward (e.g. 4K HDR, new channels, integration of their upcoming SVOD service) will be restricted to IPTV while their existing QAM TV platform is frozen in time. Such a scenario does not match repeated info that has leaked out of Comcast over the past few years but, of course, plans can change.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

morac said:


> My area still doesn't have fiber to the node, let alone FTTH. That causes all kinds of problems periodically as ingress can literally enter the system anywhere and affect people across multiple towns.


How is DOCSIS handled? It still has to effectively be split up between multiple CMTS's, even if it is running on hardline RF from the headend. Is the broadcast video a true RF system, with each different CMTS notched in?



NashGuy said:


> First, I think Comcast's extension of fiber across their footprint in general may be more extensive than what you're seeing in the local areas you cite. I saw them rolling out fiber in my neighborhood several months back, not sure for what. D3.1 had already been deployed here at that time (Nashville was one of their first markets) and there were no new speed tiers that become available at my location after that new fiber got hung. Likewise, I've seen posts in this or other similar threads on this forum from folks who've seen Comcast fiber getting extended through their backyards, etc. My point is, I think Comcast has been at work for awhile now on moving towards fiber deep/N+0. I don't think their plan was to just implement D3.1 and then, after that's all done, start doing all the things (including fiber deep) that would be necessary to implement FDX. At least some of the work toward fiber deep had been going on for awhile now, I think. As bandwidth demands among the public increase every year, getting fiber closer to the end customer and shrinking the number of homes per node has benefits beyond setting the table for FDX.


To be fair, their upgrades are very splotchy, and Connecticut is towards the bottom of the list for them. I'm not sure about MA, as one train of logic would say that they would be competing harder there than anywhere else because of FiOS, another would say that their capital is best spent elsewhere, and they're better off running their oldest technology and offering aggressive pricing, since the techie customers are going to go with FiOS anyway.

I don't doubt that Comcast is doing SOMETHING, the question is what are they doing it and where are they doing it. So fiber deep doesn't require FDX, and it doesn't even require 5-85 1002mhz. However, as I understand it, FDX requires N+0, which effectively requires fiber deep, as I don't think you can run 200+ subs off of an N+0 node. They may well be moving towards fiber deep through node splits with their traditional HFC network. There's nothing special about their fiber-deep mini-nodes, other cable companies did fiber deep 10+ years ago with regular nodes and amps.



> Next, you raise the question of the business case for FDX, i.e. will it provide the greatest market return for Comcast's infrastructure buck? I'm not going to hazard a guess one way or another, I just know that I have repeatedly read, from multiple credible sources over the past couple of years, that FDX is next on Comcast's network roadmap after D3.1. One might debate how *smart* such a move is but I don't think there's any reason to question that that's what Comcast is going to do. And I may be wrong, but I really don't see it taking them until the late 2020s to implement it. At that point, I think their plan is to have already moved on to newer technological improvements to HFC.


I know FDX is on their roadmap, I'm just wondering what the business case for it is (i.e. how much can they monetize the upstream?). I highly doubt that they will have FDX widely deployed (i.e. on 80% or more of their footprint) by the late 2020s. They take 15+ years to do a cycle of upgrades, and one arm of the company never seems to know what the other arm is doing, at least in the area of the last mile HFC infrastructure.



> Oh, BTW, I've also read that "full network virtualization" that uses cheaper, generic hardware is also on Comcast's network roadmap, perhaps to be implemented as the same time as DAA/FDX.


That makes sense. They are already using white box server hardware for software MPEG-4 encoding, and I could see that model spreading, I just don't understand enough about it to understand how that fits in with FDX, fiber deep, etc.



> Lastly, I still it's plausible (not sure I'd say probable any more) that we see Comcast go to an almost-fully-IPTV system in the next few years. They could leave, say, their Digital Starter channel tier (plus maybe the original main channels for HBO, SHO, Starz, Cinemax and TMC) on QAM but only in SD (MPEG-4). All TV service in HD and any channels beyond that tier, as well as all VOD, would require switching to either of Comcast's IPTV services (X1 or Xfinity Instant TV). That shouldn't be a problem for all those already on X1; it might be pretty much a seamless switch. Others would have to decide whether to switch out their STB (and potentially also get a Comcast internet gateway, even if they don't subscribe to broadband) or instead, stick with their existing hardware and settle for a max of ~100 channels in SD. Such a move would allow all those businesses (waiting rooms, etc.) to keep using the little DTAs that dangle from their wall-mounted TVs, and it would keep Comcast from cutting off elderly folks and others who are very averse to tech change. Those folks probably can't tell the difference between SD and HD anyway. Such a move would free up all the bandwidth currently devoted to HD QAM channels to be repurposed as D3.1 OFDM IP bandwidth. This might be a transitional thing, though. Maybe a couple years later, they'd fully shut down those SD channels on QAM (or truncate them even further to just the Limited Basic tier of locals).


It's possible. There are a lot of scenarios. What would make sense to me is to keep about 70 SD MPEG-2 channels for DTAs, and then move the rest of the SD channels to MPEG-4 and de-duplicate the ones that are also available in HD. If they did that, they would have plenty of room for DOCSIS, although FDX could potentially use more spectrum than the current implementation of DOCSIS 3.1, so maybe that's what pushes them fully to IPTV. I'm also not sure if QAM video is compatible with FDX and rphy, as you'd need a way to have both fiber Ethernet (rphy) and analog fiber (RF) feeding each node, and then combining the signals together at the node level.



> And, yes, it's also plausible that Comcast decides that the costs involved in deprecating/shutting down QAM TV don't justify the benefits as the traditional linear-channel cable TV business evolves and shrinks in the 2020s. In which case, whatever improvements they make going forward (e.g. 4K HDR, new channels, integration of their upcoming SVOD service) will be restricted to IPTV while their existing QAM TV platform is frozen in time. Such a scenario does not match repeated info that has leaked out of Comcast over the past few years but, of course, plans can change.


Yeah, I think they're just buying time at the moment to either shed more customers that won't have to be converted, or for the whole TV business to fundamentally change. However, their business model of trying to force people into marginally profitable (at best) TV bundles doesn't line up with that technical strategy. If they weren't force-bundling, I think they'd lose another 1-3 million TV subscribers, possibly even more, within 1 year. There aren't going to be many, if any new channels for linear TV. What we will see is many channels disappearing as they are no longer profitable, and providers don't want to pay for them. Comcast never really got into the HD tonnage wars, and they may lead the thinning out of the cable TV lineup.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It's possible. There are a lot of scenarios. What would make sense to me is to keep about 70 SD MPEG-2 channels for DTAs, and then move the rest of the SD channels to MPEG-4 and de-duplicate the ones that are also available in HD. If they did that, they would have plenty of room for DOCSIS, although FDX could potentially use more spectrum than the current implementation of DOCSIS 3.1, so maybe that's what pushes them fully to IPTV.


Just as an example of how quickly a conversion to IPTV _could go_ if Comcast were serious about it, have a look at Rogers, Canada's largest cable company. They're licensing Comcast's X1 platform to power their Ignite TV service, which is 100% IPTV. Ignite TV uses only small wireless STBs at each TV -- the 4K HDR-capable Xi6 and maybe also the Xi5 (which is basically the same, but can't do 4K HDR) -- that work in conjunction with a required Rogers RDK-B compliant gateway modem/router (which is probably the same as or a lot like Comcast's xFi Advanced Gateway). No local DVR, only cloud DVR. Linear channels are either multicast or unicast, depending on popularity/network traffic. (Note that Roger's approach represents a clean break from QAM TV to IPTV as opposed to Comcast's transitional approach, which includes earlier generations of X1 hardware that are QAM/IPTV hybrid devices.)

Rogers introduced Ignite TV in mid-2018 as their new upper-tier video offering, running alongside their traditional QAM-based cable TV service that uses legacy STBs. But Rogers now says that they "plan to switch over entirely to Ignite TV and other X1-based 'connected home' products before the end of the year (2019)." "We'll move to stop selling our legacy products as early as we can," Stafferi (a Rogers exec) said. While he declined to put an exact time frame on it, he said expects that to happen "towards the back half of the year."

Rogers, Videotron Angle for X1 Edge | Light Reading

So, about 18 months after introducing the new IPTV platform, Rogers will deprecate the legacy QAM TV service and make it unavailable for new subs. (I'm taking the more conservative interpretation of his "stop selling our legacy products" to mean "stop signing up new customers on the legacy products" as opposed to "completely shut down the legacy products".) So who knows how long they'll continue to operate the legacy service in order to give those customers a chance to trade in their STBs and migrate over to IPTV. But keep in mind, for all the discussion we've had about the bandwidth considerations of delivering video via QAM vs. managed IP, _Rogers has been fully supporting both distribution systems simultaneously since June 2018 and will continue to do so until whenever they shut down their legacy QAM TV system_, which I would guess wouldn't come before the end of 2020.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

The x1 boxes and clients are capable of IPTv. The problem is the millions of people not on x1. People with boxes that wont work properly with iptv. Those boxes need to be changed out for comcast to switch completely to iptv.

Sent from my Galaxy S10


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But keep in mind, for all the discussion we've had about the bandwidth considerations of delivering video via QAM vs. managed IP, _Rogers has been fully supporting both distribution systems simultaneously since June 2018 and will continue to do so until whenever they shut down their legacy QAM TV system_, which I would guess wouldn't come before the end of 2020.


That's an interesting example, but I wonder how many channels they have up there compared to what we have down here, and what frequency their systems are operating at. It's a lot easier to run both a on 1ghz system versus 750mhz or even lower systems. Existing XG1 and XG2 boxes can use IPTV with the right gateway, even though some of their hardware becomes redundant.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> The x1 boxes and clients are capable of IPTv. The problem is the millions of people not on x1. People with boxes that wont work properly with iptv. Those boxes need to be changed out for comcast to switch completely to iptv.


Well, as Rogers is proving, it's certainly possible to run a full-scale IPTV system and a full-scale QAM TV system on the same network simultaneously. So Comcast could do this if they wanted now. (Actually, Comcast IS doing this now, but they're only serving a sliver of their total client devices -- Roku, mobile phones, and computers -- completely via their IPTV system, so IPTV is not consuming all that much bandwidth -- surely far, far less than Netflix + YouTube on their network. And I doubt that Comcast is running any linear channels via multicast except in areas on EPON and perhaps certain areas where they are reportedly testing deployment of the Xi6 + xFi Gateway without an XG1 or XG2 in the home.)

As of March, Comcast stated that about 2/3 of their residential customers were using X1 for TV service. (I assume this meant 2/3 of their residential TV customers, not 2/3 of their total residential base, as many of those customers are broadband-only.) Throw in a few percent of customers who are on the Roku/mobile-delivered Xfinity Instant TV IPTV service, and that leaves about 30% of their TV customers who are on legacy QAM-only hardware.



Bigg said:


> That's an interesting example, but I wonder how many channels they have up there compared to what we have down here, and what frequency their systems are operating at. It's a lot easier to run both a on 1ghz system versus 750mhz or even lower systems. Existing XG1 and XG2 boxes can use IPTV with the right gateway, even though some of their hardware becomes redundant.


Their website today advertises "170+" channels on their traditional QAM product and 189 channels on their Ignite IPTV product. Which is a lot, although fewer than Comcast's stated "260+" channels.

The heart of their footprint is Ontario, which has an 860 MHz cable plant. The other 9% of their footprint is out in the Atlantic provinces, which I presume has a lesser system. Those figures come from the following PDF, which looks like it was made back in 2013. So it's possible that they've further upgraded their plant since then, e.g. to 1 GHz. I don't know.

https://www.rogers.com/cms/investor_relations/pdfs/At_A_Glance_Highlights-Rogers_Cable.pdf


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, as Rogers is proving, it's certainly possible to run a full-scale IPTV system and a full-scale QAM TV system on the same network simultaneously. So Comcast could do this if they wanted now. (Actually, Comcast IS doing this now, but they're only serving a sliver of their total client devices -- Roku, mobile phones, and computers -- completely via their IPTV system, so IPTV is not consuming all that much bandwidth -- surely far, far less than Netflix + YouTube on their network. And I doubt that Comcast is running any linear channels via multicast except in areas on EPON and perhaps certain areas where they are reportedly testing deployment of the Xi6 + xFi Gateway without an XG1 or XG2 in the home.)


There's no good reason for them to offer an all-IP system on their own boxes, as the XG1 and XG2 boxes have QAM tuners. They do, however, offer some packages and channels that are IP-only. Since they are specialty content, they use the 8x4 DSG and IP unicast, but they would need RDK-B on D3.1 gateways to do IP multicast and a wider delivery of content via IP.

My big question is can they do fiber-deep FDX with rphy and still inject QAM via analog fiber? That's the tipping point that I see for them needing to move entirely to IPTV.



> Their website today advertises "170+" channels on their traditional QAM product and 189 channels on their Ignite IPTV product. Which is a lot, although fewer than Comcast's stated "260+" channels.
> 
> The heart of their footprint is Ontario, which has an 860 MHz cable plant. The other 9% of their footprint is out in the Atlantic provinces, which I presume has a lesser system. Those figures come from the following PDF, which looks like it was made back in 2013. So it's possible that they've further upgraded their plant since then, e.g. to 1 GHz. I don't know.
> 
> https://www.rogers.com/cms/investor_relations/pdfs/At_A_Glance_Highlights-Rogers_Cable.pdf


Interesting. They've got quite a bit less channel tonnage, and because they are all Xi5/Xi6, they may be using HEVC on their IPTV, versus Comcast with the older XG1s that limits them to MPEG-4. It's quite possible that the Atlantic provinces were upgraded later directly to 1ghz, or to the same 860mhz as the rest.


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

So, I live in the Baltimore /Washington DC area. Got a flyer from Comcast in my mail detailing their new internet based TV network. So, it is here in my area. Verizon is so behind they may never catch up. Oh, finally got my antenna connected to the chimney instead of the attic. What a difference in reception. "Action Antenna" did a great job.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> There's no good reason for them to offer an all-IP system on their own boxes, as the XG1 and XG2 boxes have QAM tuners. They do, however, offer some packages and channels that are IP-only. Since they are specialty content, they use the 8x4 DSG and IP unicast, but they would need RDK-B on D3.1 gateways to do IP multicast and a wider delivery of content via IP.


Rogers reports far lower customer acquisition (hardware + installation) costs on Ignite TV vs. their legacy TV product, which is among the reasons they're shifting over to it so quickly. That could be a reason why Comcast would want to switch to a similar scenario with 100% IPTV delivered exclusively to Xi6/Xi5 + their own gateway. No more XG1 and XG2 boxes with their own internal modems and hard drives.

As for those XG1 and XG2 boxes, why could their internal modems not run RDK-B firmware, enabling them to directly support multicast IPTV without going through a separate gateway? I realize that the XG1 and XG2 modems are probably D3.0, not D3.1, but multicast doesn't have to be deployed on D3.1's OFDM blocks.

However, if you're right, and Comcast would have to get all those X1 homes (basically all of which use an XG1 or XG2 as their primary STB, right?) to also adopt a Comcast gateway running RDK-B before they could deprecate their QAM TV system (i.e. by making it SD-only, or only supporting a limited set of channels), then that's another significant hurdle for them. Because I would imagine that a good chunk of those X1 homes use their own retail modems and routers which do not run RDK-B.



Bigg said:


> My big question is can they do fiber-deep FDX with rphy and still inject QAM via analog fiber? That's the tipping point that I see for them needing to move entirely to IPTV.


I'm not sure, although I don't think I've read anything that suggests that R-PHY and FDX are inherently incompatible with legacy QAM video, therefore absolutely requiring adoption of IPTV.



Bigg said:


> Interesting. They've got quite a bit less channel tonnage, and because they are all Xi5/Xi6, they may be using HEVC on their IPTV, versus Comcast with the older XG1s that limits them to MPEG-4. It's quite possible that the Atlantic provinces were upgraded later directly to 1ghz, or to the same 860mhz as the rest.


Good point, I would bet that Roger's Ignite IPTV is fully HEVC. OTOH, I don't think they ever converted their legacy QAM TV system from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, so those 170+ channels it carries are probably eating up more bandwidth than Comcast's 260+ in MPEG-4. Instead of upgrading all their legacy STBs to support MPEG-4, Rogers chose to focus on developing an IPTV replacement, an effort they spent five years on but then abandoned in 2016 when they announced they would instead just license Comcast's X1 as the basis for IPTV.



dadrepus said:


> So, I live in the Baltimore /Washington DC area. Got a flyer from Comcast in my mail detailing their new internet based TV network. So, it is here in my area. Verizon is so behind they may never catch up.


I assume the Comcast flyer you mention was advertising their Xfinity Instant TV service? Yeah, they're pushing it somewhat as a low-priced TV service for folks who might otherwise only consider standalone broadband. I'm curious how many subs it has now.

As for Verizon FiOS TV, I think they finally did roll out a new STB that supports 4K (although Netflix may be about the only 4K content it actually delivers). After they beta tested and gave up on a next-gen IPTV service last year, I don't think Verizon is ever going to replace FiOS TV, they'll just ride it out. For their 5G Wireless Broadband Home customers, they don't even offer their own TV service and instead just give you a free Apple TV 4K and three months of YouTube TV.


----------



## owine (Dec 15, 2011)

My condo finally voted to select RCN's Tivo/Android TV-based IPTV solution for the building. We're projecting turn up in August. The rep demoed the platform for us last week and it was very slick. Full TE4 interface, nice stream quality, streaming apps and VOD. The box deployed is the eSTREAM 4K™ | Evolution Digital - IP Video Solutions for Cable Operators with a RCN-branded voice remote that includes both TiVo voice control and Google Assistant. No on-prem DVR storage, all cloud-based. The demo was actually done over a LTE hotspot so all boxes can hookup via ethernet or 5Ghz WiFi.

RCN's deployment seems to be targeted at MDUs for now (at least in Chicago) where they deploy an ethernet-based Gigabit network (no speed tiers) with the IPTV service. All things considered it really blows Comcast out of the water.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Rogers reports far lower customer acquisition (hardware + installation) costs on Ignite TV vs. their legacy TV product, which is among the reasons they're shifting over to it so quickly. That could be a reason why Comcast would want to switch to a similar scenario with 100% IPTV delivered exclusively to Xi6/Xi5 + their own gateway. No more XG1 and XG2 boxes with their own internal modems and hard drives.


I don't think that the XG1 really costs that much more. Rogers was comparing IPTV to their legacy QAM hardware, not X1-based QAM hardware. That, and with cord cutting, they are probably re-using a lot of XG1 boxes that come back.



> As for those XG1 and XG2 boxes, why could their internal modems not run RDK-B firmware, enabling them to directly support multicast IPTV without going through a separate gateway? I realize that the XG1 and XG2 modems are probably D3.0, not D3.1, but multicast doesn't have to be deployed on D3.1's OFDM blocks.


They're 8x4, there's just not enough bandwidth to do a whole node's worth of IPTV in a single set of 8 channels. There is plenty when you talk about D3.1. It works fine for VOD and low-popularity channels via IP unicast, as you can just have different boxes on different sets of channels to spread the load out.



> However, if you're right, and Comcast would have to get all those X1 homes (basically all of which use an XG1 or XG2 as their primary STB, right?) to also adopt a Comcast gateway running RDK-B before they could deprecate their QAM TV system (i.e. by making it SD-only, or only supporting a limited set of channels), then that's another significant hurdle for them. Because I would imagine that a good chunk of those X1 homes use their own retail modems and routers which do not run RDK-B.


Yeah, I think we discussed that before. They'd have to either force people to rent it as their gateway, which will cause some customer churn, or issue XB6 gateways that are locked down for only IPTV. The bigger issue for Comcast is that they still have a lot of XB3s out there that would have to be exchanged as well. In the category of absurd solutions, a household that wants an owned D3.1 data-only modem with Triple Play would end up with a data modem, an eMTA, an IPTV gateway, and a router all in a jumbled pile of wires.

The better approach from a support perspective might be to allow people to use the XB6 for their internet and voice for free, and then charge for the router and Wi-Fi like Charter does, although that's not without it's support issues too. For my parents, if they are forced to rent an XB6, I'd probably just set it up as their router, and put it on the same SSID as their other two hardwired APs.



> I'm not sure, although I don't think I've read anything that suggests that R-PHY and FDX are inherently incompatible with legacy QAM video, therefore absolutely requiring adoption of IPTV.


Yeah, I don't know for sure, it just seems that if you can use QAM with rphy, you basically end up building two redundant fiber networks to each node, which is a massive expensive PITA. I don't know how FDX carves up the spectrum, and if there can be a chunk of it that is downstream-only for QAM. There probably is, as you'd want to have backwards compatibility with D3 and D3.1 non-FDX modems on a traditional split running below the FDX.



> Good point, I would bet that Roger's Ignite IPTV is fully HEVC. OTOH, I don't think they ever converted their legacy QAM TV system from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, so those 170+ channels it carries are probably eating up more bandwidth than Comcast's 260+ in MPEG-4. Instead of upgrading all their legacy STBs to support MPEG-4, Rogers chose to focus on developing an IPTV replacement, an effort they spent five years on but then abandoned in 2016 when they announced they would instead just license Comcast's X1 as the basis for IPTV.


Do they use SDV? That can save a lot of bandwidth too.



> As for Verizon FiOS TV, I think they finally did roll out a new STB that supports 4K (although Netflix may be about the only 4K content it actually delivers). After they beta tested and gave up on a next-gen IPTV service last year, I don't think Verizon is ever going to replace FiOS TV, they'll just ride it out. For their 5G Wireless Broadband Home customers, they don't even offer their own TV service and instead just give you a free Apple TV 4K and three months of YouTube TV.


Verizon has 4.66 million TV subscribers, Comcast has 22.12 million TV subscribers. In that mid-tier of MVPDs, there is Verizon, Cox, and Altice. Altice and Cox both have large monopoly markets that they can abuse to make TV profitable, Verizon is not a monopoly for TV virtually anywhere, and on top of that they have an huge channel tonnage, so I doubt that their TV business is even profitable. Their profitability on FiOS come from broadband and FDV, and cost avoidance by offering POTS over the network as well. Comcast, Charter, and AT&T have massive scales of economy and bargaining power that probably make TV marginally profitable for them. I don't think that Verizon even cares about the TV market, they actively market FiOS for cord cutters.



owine said:


> My condo finally voted to select RCN's Tivo/Android TV-based IPTV solution for the building. We're projecting turn up in August. The rep demoed the platform for us last week and it was very slick. Full TE4 interface, nice stream quality, streaming apps and VOD. The box deployed is the eSTREAM 4K™ | Evolution Digital - IP Video Solutions for Cable Operators with a RCN-branded voice remote that includes both TiVo voice control and Google Assistant. No on-prem DVR storage, all cloud-based. The demo was actually done over a LTE hotspot so all boxes can hookup via ethernet or 5Ghz WiFi.
> 
> RCN's deployment seems to be targeted at MDUs for now (at least in Chicago) where they deploy an ethernet-based Gigabit network (no speed tiers) with the IPTV service. All things considered it really blows Comcast out of the water.


That's a fairly compelling case for a bulk deal, as much as I have a strong distaste for such arrangements. Is it active Ethernet, like a regular CAT-5 drop into each unit?


----------



## owine (Dec 15, 2011)

Bigg said:


> That's a fairly compelling case for a bulk deal, as much as I have a strong distaste for such arrangements. Is it active Ethernet, like a regular CAT-5 drop into each unit?


Yes. Currently have AT&T U-verse who declined to bid at all to keep the business. There are a few providers in Chicago that reuse the homerun from the unit to the node (in building) as Cat5 by re-terminating. In many recent buildings I guess the actual copper is Cat5 terminated as Cat3 for AT&T. Re-terminate the jack in the unit as Cat5, re-terminate in the telco room into a 10G switch, plug your own router into your in-unit ethernet jack and boom. Those providers typically will use point-to-point microwave whereas RCN will run true fiber. And minimal infrastructure investment brings a ridiculously low price.


----------



## schatham (Mar 17, 2007)

owine said:


> My condo finally voted to select *RCN's Tivo/Android TV-based IPTV solution for the building. *We're projecting turn up in August. The rep demoed the platform for us last week and it was very slick. Full TE4 interface, nice stream quality, streaming apps and VOD. The box deployed is the eSTREAM 4K™ | Evolution Digital - IP Video Solutions for Cable Operators with a RCN-branded voice remote that includes both TiVo voice control and Google Assistant. No on-prem DVR storage, all cloud-based. The demo was actually done over a LTE hotspot so all boxes can hookup via ethernet or 5Ghz WiFi.
> 
> RCN's deployment seems to be targeted at MDUs for now (at least in Chicago) where they deploy an ethernet-based Gigabit network (no speed tiers) with the IPTV service. All things considered it really blows Comcast out of the water.


This is where Tivo is going and explains Hydra; retail Tivo may be left in the dust bin of history.

If RCN can do this, why can't they offer this everywhere as long as you have an internet connection?


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

I don't think Comcast will flip the switch all at once. And this is how it has been going so far. They have already started introducing all NEW channels as IPTV only (Newsy, and a few others I forgot). They have also launched MLB/NHL/NBA IPTV, allowing them to increase the amount of HD games they can provide to subscribers. EVERYTHING else is already broadcasting in IPTV for mobile, PC, Roku, etc (and can all be received via IP using X1 boxes. I predict they will continue moving lesser watched channels to IPTV only (as contracts are renewed) until only the top 20 networks are provided in QAM (I could see this moving as well, depending on demands placed by Internet speeds).

Slowly, more and more will migrate as services require it, until there is no need for QAM. Tivo will need to adapt to this (if Comcast lets them) or they'll lose out as boxes become less and less useful.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I don't think that the XG1 really costs that much more. Rogers was comparing IPTV to their legacy QAM hardware, not X1-based QAM hardware. That, and with cord cutting, they are probably re-using a lot of XG1 boxes that come back.


I'd say an XG1 costs more, not less, than a traditional QAM-only DVR, given that the XG1 also contains IP components, mainly a modem, in addition to the QAM tuners and hard drive. I'd say costs comparison would be: XG1 > legacy QAM DVR > legacy QAM STB (no DVR) > Xi6 (which is basically a Roku Ultra -- no hard drive, no QAM tuners, no modem). But, yes, Comcast is of course re-using XG1s and XG2s as they get turned back in.



mntvjunkie said:


> I don't think Comcast will flip the switch all at once. And this is how it has been going so far. They have already started introducing all NEW channels as IPTV only (Newsy, and a few others I forgot). They have also launched MLB/NHL/NBA IPTV, allowing them to increase the amount of HD games they can provide to subscribers. EVERYTHING else is already broadcasting in IPTV for mobile, PC, Roku, etc (and can all be received via IP using X1 boxes. I predict they will continue moving lesser watched channels to IPTV only (as contracts are renewed) until only the top 20 networks are provided in QAM (I could see this moving as well, depending on demands placed by Internet speeds).
> 
> Slowly, more and more will migrate as services require it, until there is no need for QAM. Tivo will need to adapt to this (if Comcast lets them) or they'll lose out as boxes become less and less useful.


Yep, makes sense. Although, along that gradual path, Comcast will have to take certain steps. An important one would be if Comcast were to stop giving out QAM-capable STBs to new customers and instead only offer them IPTV-only hardware, such as an Xi5 or Xi6 set-top box to be used in conjunction with a Comcast gateway. AFAIK, they've only done that in limited test cases, but I would imagine that will become the regular policy at some point in the future.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

schatham said:


> This is where Tivo is going and explains Hydra; retail Tivo may be left in the dust bin of history.
> 
> If RCN can do this, why can't they offer this everywhere as long as you have an internet connection?


I think retail may get a Hydrated android streamer... even if it doesn't involve some sort of managed IPTV service like the MSO version.

For the last couple of quarterly calls, Tivo has talked up their plans to monetize Hydra. Not just with ads, but they want to embrace a "transactional model". There is a good chance they're going to partner with OTT channels directly, like Amazon, Hulu and Apple are doing with HBO, CBS, Starz, etc. and possibly direct VOD. They specifically mentioned the "consumer footprint" becomes more valuable with these goals in mind.

Then there was Ted Malone at CES: "I think if we were to do something there [live tv streaming], we would want it to be seamlessly integrated into the tuner experience," Malone said. "We don't have any plans to announce right now, but... I would like to have something to announce in the area."


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

owine said:


> Yes. Currently have AT&T U-verse who declined to bid at all to keep the business. There are a few providers in Chicago that reuse the homerun from the unit to the node (in building) as Cat5 by re-terminating. In many recent buildings I guess the actual copper is Cat5 terminated as Cat3 for AT&T. Re-terminate the jack in the unit as Cat5, re-terminate in the telco room into a 10G switch, plug your own router into your in-unit ethernet jack and boom. Those providers typically will use point-to-point microwave whereas RCN will run true fiber. And minimal infrastructure investment brings a ridiculously low price.


Most buildings built after 1995 have CAT-5e to each unit. It's still CAT-5e, whether it's terminated in an RJ-11 or RJ-45. WebPass does that with microwave. It's interesting that RCN is doing Ethernet, as they are a cable company, and cable companies usually love coax.



NashGuy said:


> I'd say an XG1 costs more, not less, than a traditional QAM-only DVR, given that the XG1 also contains IP components, mainly a modem, in addition to the QAM tuners and hard drive. I'd say costs comparison would be: XG1 > legacy QAM DVR > legacy QAM STB (no DVR) > Xi6 (which is basically a Roku Ultra -- no hard drive, no QAM tuners, no modem). But, yes, Comcast is of course re-using XG1s and XG2s as they get turned back in.


The XG1 is most likely way less than a traditional DVR, as they are universal (work on Moto or Sci Atlanta system), Comcast owns the design and bids out the manufacturing to the lowest bidder overseas, keeping hardware costs very low. An Xi6 is cheaper than an XG1, but I'd bet an XG1 is cheaper than even a non-DVR Moto or Sci Atlanta box. The different now is that they haven't bought traditional boxes in a long time, so they are just re-issued.



> Yep, makes sense. Although, along that gradual path, Comcast will have to take certain steps. An important one would be if Comcast were to stop giving out QAM-capable STBs to new customers and instead only offer them IPTV-only hardware, such as an Xi5 or Xi6 set-top box to be used in conjunction with a Comcast gateway. AFAIK, they've only done that in limited test cases, but I would imagine that will become the regular policy at some point in the future.


There's no need to do that until after the IPTV transition, since the XG1 is IP unicast capable on it's own, and would work with IP multicast with an RDK-B DOCSIS 3.1 gateway. Heck, there's no need to do that ever, as XG1s and XG2s could be re-issued even to an IPTV-only system. Of course, they wouldn't buy new XG1s and XG2s at that point, since they'd cost more than an Xi6.


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> I think retail may get a Hydrated android streamer... even if it doesn't involve some sort of managed IPTV service like the MSO version.
> 
> For the last couple of quarterly calls, Tivo has talked up their plans to monetize Hydra. Not just with ads, but they want to embrace a "transactional model". There is a good chance they're going to partner with OTT channels directly, like Amazon, Hulu and Apple are doing with HBO, CBS, Starz, etc. and possibly direct VOD. They specifically mentioned the "consumer footprint" becomes more valuable with these goals in mind.
> 
> Then there was Ted Malone at CES: "I think if we were to do something there [live tv streaming], we would want it to be seamlessly integrated into the tuner experience," Malone said. "We don't have any plans to announce right now, but... I would like to have something to announce in the area."


I would like an option to make my TiVo ad-free. Nothing sponsored at all. No ads for TIVo-related stuff either if I don't want it. Either an additional monthly fee or a one-time fee would be nice. Delete ads, pause ads, episode folder ads, Discovery Bar ads, let them be customizable and removable for those of us who want to pay a fee.


----------



## mulscully (May 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I'm sure that was trouble. Everyone seems to always be looking for the one big knock-out blow that finally kills TiVo, but it looks like the demise of TiVo will be more like a gradual death by a thousand cuts.


This was the point in which I dropped DirecTv and moved to Cable/Fios.

I love the TiVo for live TV and recording shows, but I do not like it for streaming. My TV and FireTv do that better IMHO. So I am not sure what in the future for TiVo as we move more into streaming. I do like the Idea of putting the TiVo experience on the FireTv and using them instead of Mini's. I could see a centralized Tuner/DVR in a closet in my house and AppleTvs, FireTv,s Etc around the house getting the content from it.


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

I am TiVo. Without me TiVo doesn't exist. So says MR Brain.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> The XG1 is most likely way less than a traditional DVR, as they are universal (work on Moto or Sci Atlanta system), Comcast owns the design and bids out the manufacturing to the lowest bidder overseas, keeping hardware costs very low. An Xi6 is cheaper than an XG1, but I'd bet an XG1 is cheaper than even a non-DVR Moto or Sci Atlanta box.


Nah. You're overestimating the per-unit premium Comcast paid third parties (e.g. Moto, SA, etc.) for huge orders of legacy DVRs/STBs (in a market with multiple competing providers all using pretty generic, undifferentiated software/technology) vs. the cost savings of owning the design and bidding out the manufacturing. Yes, there are some cost savings there, but I still don't think it would offset the increased build costs of an XG1 -- with its D3.0 modem, larger hard drive, greater number of tuners, voice remote, etc. -- vs. the crappy legacy DVRs Comcast used to buy, much less their legacy non-DVR STBs. (And in both cases, Comcast must license program guide data and metadata to actually provide service to the box, so that's a separate expense.)

At any rate, this is one of those rabbit-trail debates that's really neither here nor there. I think we can at least agree that, when it comes to ordering and paying for new STBs, it will be much more cost-effective for Comcast to go with something like the little IP-only Xi6 as opposed to the hybrid QAM/IP boxes like the XG1 and XG2. (Rogers says that their per-home CPE+installation costs have dropped from $1200 to $400 by going from their legacy QAM system to the Xi6-based IPTV system. And keep in mind that that $400 figure is still inclusive of the "hefty royalty payments to Comcast for the X1 syndication rights."



Bigg said:


> There's no need to do that until after the IPTV transition, since the XG1 is IP unicast capable on it's own, and would work with IP multicast with an RDK-B DOCSIS 3.1 gateway. Heck, there's no need to do that ever, as XG1s and XG2s could be re-issued even to an IPTV-only system. Of course, they wouldn't buy new XG1s and XG2s at that point, since they'd cost more than an Xi6.


Sure, it's quite possible that Comcast will re-issue XG1 and XG2 boxes to new customers after a big shift to IPTV (e.g. deprecating QAM to SD-only), so long as they are paired with a multicast-capable (RDK-B) gateway, based on the logic that reusing those X1 boxes would keep down the number of new Xi6s they have to buy. But I think that moving to the Xi6 as a standalone box would actually have marketing value for Comcast, because it's small, sleek and energy efficient, more akin to an Apple TV box as opposed to a big, clunky traditional cable box. Note also that the Xi6 has lower shipping costs for self-installs due to its lower weight and smaller size vs. XG1 or XG2. I think that the per-unit cost of the Xi6 will be so low at the scale that Comcast will order them that it just may not be worth it to Comcast to continue refurbishing and re-using the XG1s and XG2s. Although existing ones in use out in the field might remain there until they fail, with their QAM tuners unused. (BTW, note that Comcast is going to use the Xi6 + gateway as the hardware platform for their upcoming Xfinity Flex service for broadband-only subs. This, to me, looks like the initial stage of the next iteration of their X1 video platform.)

Anyhow, my original point was that, so far, Comcast hasn't (to my knowledge) began giving hardware to their new TV subscribers that is 100% reliant on their IPTV system. When they do that, it will be a big signal to us of where they are on the QAM-to-IPTV transition. Yes, they sell Xfinity Instant TV, which is 100% IPTV, but that is a niche offering that uses Rokus and other retail devices. AFAIK, Comcast is serving all those Xfinity Instant TV subs purely through unicast streams. But when Comcast starts giving their regular, mainstream X1 TV subscribers hardware that is all-IP, such as the Xi6, we'll know that they are serious about scaling up their IPTV system and presumably implementing multicast video.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> I think retail may get a Hydrated android streamer... even if it doesn't involve some sort of managed IPTV service like the MSO version.
> 
> For the last couple of quarterly calls, Tivo has talked up their plans to monetize Hydra. Not just with ads, but they want to embrace a "transactional model". There is a good chance they're going to partner with OTT channels directly, like Amazon, Hulu and Apple are doing with HBO, CBS, Starz, etc. and possibly direct VOD. They specifically mentioned the "consumer footprint" becomes more valuable with these goals in mind.
> 
> Then there was Ted Malone at CES: "I think if we were to do something there [live tv streaming], we would want it to be seamlessly integrated into the tuner experience," Malone said. "We don't have any plans to announce right now, but... I would like to have something to announce in the area."


Yeah, I'd say that IF we see a next-gen OTA TiVo DVR (beyond the Bolt OTA) that connects directly to a TV, it will probably be an Android TV device running the Hydra UI. But I'm not sure there will be another such all-in-one TV-connected TiVo. Rather than another box that would house the tuners and hard drive, TiVo might separate those elements out like a Tablo. And, of course, if separated out, I'm not sure TiVo would see the need to even produce a front-end Android TV box that you connect to your TV, since the central network-attached tuner/hard drive box could simply be accessed by the forthcoming TiVo app on existing Apple TV, Roku, Fire TV and Android TV devices. We'll see.

As for TiVo integrating a live streaming cable service in with an OTA DVR, that would be cool. Sling TV has done it with their own service on the AirTV Player. I'm just not sure that any of the OTT services would ever agree to let their streams be accessed within TiVo's UI rather than their own.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> At any rate, this is one of those rabbit-trail debates that's really neither here nor there. I think we can at least agree that, when it comes to ordering and paying for new STBs, it will be much more cost-effective for Comcast to go with something like the little IP-only Xi6 as opposed to the hybrid QAM/IP boxes like the XG1 and XG2. (Rogers says that their per-home CPE+installation costs have dropped from $1200 to $400 by going from their legacy QAM system to the Xi6-based IPTV system. And keep in mind that that $400 figure is still inclusive of the "hefty royalty payments to Comcast for the X1 syndication rights."


True, neither of us has access to those numbers, and they're not really apples to apples anyway, as Comcast hasn't bought legacy equipment in years anyway. Yes, new installations would be cheaper as they buy new hardware, but by the time Comcast gets to rolling IPTV out, they may not be buying new boxes anyway as old ones come in from cord cutting, so I'm not sure how much of a selling point that is at this point.



> Sure, it's quite possible that Comcast will re-issue XG1 and XG2 boxes to new customers after a big shift to IPTV (e.g. deprecating QAM to SD-only), so long as they are paired with a multicast-capable (RDK-B) gateway, based on the logic that reusing those X1 boxes would keep down the number of new Xi6s they have to buy. But I think that moving to the Xi6 as a standalone box would actually have marketing value for Comcast, because it's small, sleek and energy efficient, more akin to an Apple TV box as opposed to a big, clunky traditional cable box. Note also that the Xi6 has lower shipping costs for self-installs due to its lower weight and smaller size vs. XG1 or XG2. I think that the per-unit cost of the Xi6 will be so low at the scale that Comcast will order them that it just may not be worth it to Comcast to continue refurbishing and re-using the XG1s and XG2s. Although existing ones in use out in the field might remain there until they fail, with their QAM tuners unused. (BTW, note that Comcast is going to use the Xi6 + gateway as the hardware platform for their upcoming Xfinity Flex service for broadband-only subs. This, to me, looks like the initial stage of the next iteration of their X1 video platform.)


Sure, that's quite possible. The existing hardware in the field will be around just about forever, as the most likely part to fail is the hard drive. As long as they can run without a hard drive, they could just keep going like zombies. I wonder if they will start tiering DVR storage using their cloud DVR system? Given the cost of storage, they could make a pretty penny offering chunks of 100 hours for $5/mo or something, especially if they just made it auto-expand and auto-bill you for it.



> Anyhow, my original point was that, so far, Comcast hasn't (to my knowledge) began giving hardware to their new TV subscribers that is 100% reliant on their IPTV system. When they do that, it will be a big signal to us of where they are on the QAM-to-IPTV transition. Yes, they sell Xfinity Instant TV, which is 100% IPTV, but that is a niche offering that uses Rokus and other retail devices. AFAIK, Comcast is serving all those Xfinity Instant TV subs purely through unicast streams. But when Comcast starts giving their regular, mainstream X1 TV subscribers hardware that is all-IP, such as the Xi6, we'll know that they are serious about scaling up their IPTV system and presumably implementing multicast video.


I'm not sure that signal will happen. I think that within a given system, letters will go out about upgrading to X1 and an XB6 if they don't have those already, and when the switch happens, it happens, and no one will really notice except TiVo users.

I'm still wondering how they will handle the gateway issue, knowing Comcast they will force rentals in order to use their TV service, or just raise the price of the bundles in order to include it for "free".



NashGuy said:


> And, of course, if separated out, I'm not sure TiVo would see the need to even produce a front-end Android TV box that you connect to your TV, since the central network-attached tuner/hard drive box could simply be accessed by the forthcoming TiVo app on existing Apple TV, Roku, Fire TV and Android TV devices. We'll see.


That's true, but an Android TV box would also provide a much better third-party streaming experience.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

ufo4sale said:


> I am TiVo. Without me TiVo doesn't exist. So says MR Brain.


"Unfortunately no one can say what the Tivo is, you have see it for yourself"/"You mean The Matrix, right ?"/"What's The Matrix?"/"What's the Tivo?"


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

tenthplanet said:


> "Unfortunately no one can say what the Tivo is, you have see it for yourself"/"You mean The Matrix, right ?"/"What's The Matrix?"/"What's the Tivo?"


All will be revealed in time. Time makes fools of us all.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Verizon has 4.66 million TV subscribers, Comcast has 22.12 million TV subscribers. In that mid-tier of MVPDs, there is Verizon, Cox, and Altice. Altice and Cox both have large monopoly markets that they can abuse to make TV profitable, Verizon is not a monopoly for TV virtually anywhere, and on top of that they have an huge channel tonnage, so I doubt that their TV business is even profitable. Their profitability on FiOS come from broadband and FDV, and cost avoidance by offering POTS over the network as well. Comcast, Charter, and AT&T have massive scales of economy and bargaining power that probably make TV marginally profitable for them. I don't think that Verizon even cares about the TV market, they actively market FiOS for cord cutters.


I hope Verizon keeps not caring about the TV market, because it's easily been the best service - TV and internet - I've ever had. If my wife ever decides to divorce me, she can have the kids and the dogs, as long as I get to keep FiOS. I kid, I kid! Only, not so much.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

I think Comcast is closer than ever before to making the switch to IPTV, and they haven't launched anything new over QAM in my market for about 4 years now. Comcast doesn't NEED to switch to an all-IPTV box in order to make the switch (and this would be odd and against the way they have done technology upgrades in the past). When they shut of old versions of DOCSIS, they had technology in the field that could do all modes, but got to a breaking point where it was cheaper to send the remaining people DOCSIS 3 hardware or force them to upgrade.

When they went from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 for HDTV, it was a several year endeavor where they gave out gear capable of decoding both, and when it got to a tipping point (again) they sent notices to remaining people that had these boxes to come in and get new ones. 

The plan is clearly to go all IPTV at some point, if 66% of the boxes in a given market are X1, then we are probably still a few years out (In my area, I have also noticed that they have been doing a number of network upgrades over the past few years, although I don't know what those entail, I know at least some has been laying more fiber). I am part of a community group rate, and when we re-signed with them 3 years ago, they came in and ripped out all our old gear (Internet and TV) and swapped them for gateways and X1 boxes.

Yes, I understand QAM boxes are more expensive, and they probably do want to stop deploying them sooner rather than later. But in the meantime, they probably still make money charging $10 per box per month, it just has a longer break-even time. Once they CAN move to all-ip, that will cut down the breakeven time (assuming they even have equipment to deploy and don't have apps in TV's, and consumer set top streamers with apps). They have also had a (weak) cloud DVR service here for years, so the groundwork is in place for that as well (they just need to increase the number of hours, I think it's only 20 hours right now).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

sangs said:


> I hope Verizon keeps not caring about the TV market, because it's easily been the best service - TV and internet - I've ever had. If my wife ever decides to divorce me, she can have the kids and the dogs, as long as I get to keep FiOS. I kid, I kid! Only, not so much.


Their TV service is lousy these days, as their compression sucks, and video quality has tanked as a result. It's a bit of a different issue than Comcast, which is excellent at encoding, but has bit-starved their content so badly by cramming in 9 or 10 HDs per QAM that it just can't look good no matter how much CPU power they throw at the encoding. It's actually amazing that they can form a DVD-quality picture at an ostensible resolution of 720p at all with the low bitrates they are using.



mntvjunkie said:


> I think Comcast is closer than ever before to making the switch to IPTV, and they haven't launched anything new over QAM in my market for about 4 years now. Comcast doesn't NEED to switch to an all-IPTV box in order to make the switch (and this would be odd and against the way they have done technology upgrades in the past). When they shut of old versions of DOCSIS, they had technology in the field that could do all modes, but got to a breaking point where it was cheaper to send the remaining people DOCSIS 3 hardware or force them to upgrade.
> 
> When they went from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 for HDTV, it was a several year endeavor where they gave out gear capable of decoding both, and when it got to a tipping point (again) they sent notices to remaining people that had these boxes to come in and get new ones.


All-IPTV is a bit different since they would have to push out gateways that are IP-multicast capable. That being said, they could probably put the less popular half of HD channels and most SD channels on IPTV-only and handle them as IP unicast without significant hardware upgrades, and come out ahead from a bandwidth perspective. However, even if they move everything except the core 50 channels in HD and 70 channels in SD to IPTV, that's still only about 20 QAMs or 120mhz reclaimed, and some of that will go right back to IPTV. The smaller the nodes, the more this makes sense, since there would be fewer users using IP unicast on a node, and that bandwidth gain is per-node/CMTS. If they wanted to, they could also move some of the SD-only channels to 720p, increasing their HD tonnage while saving bandwidth.



> The plan is clearly to go all IPTV at some point, if 66% of the boxes in a given market are X1, then we are probably still a few years out (In my area, I have also noticed that they have been doing a number of network upgrades over the past few years, although I don't know what those entail, I know at least some has been laying more fiber). I am part of a community group rate, and when we re-signed with them 3 years ago, they came in and ripped out all our old gear (Internet and TV) and swapped them for gateways and X1 boxes.


Fiber-deep is inevitable whether they stay with QAM or go IPTV. Moving at least half of the channels to IPTV complements fiber-deep, but one doesn't necessarily depend on the other. My old cable provider built a system that would be considered "fiber deep" in the mid-2000's, and they're still running 69 analogs in addition to SD and HD on QAM, gigabit internet, etc, but it was built as a 5-42 1ghz plant, so they have have a huge downstream bandwidth.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Well, I don't know when it will happen, but when Comcast does shift towards IPTV as their main video platform, I think it will be standardized on an xFi Gateway + Xi6 set-top box. I say this because that seems to be what they've exclusively deployed in their FTTH (EPON) neighborhoods in Florida (well, they've used a combo of Xi6 and non-4K Xi5 boxes). It's also the combo that Rogers is exclusively using for their X1-based IPTV service. And lastly, it's the hardware combo that Comcast will use for their upcoming Xfinity Flex $5/mo service, which is basically Comcast's attempt to rent their own box to broadband-only subscribers to use in place of a Roku or Apple TV for streaming Netflix, Prime Video, YouTube, etc.

The UI on the Xi6 for Flex subscribers will let them add Comcast TV service at any time they like. So, more than anything, I think Flex is Comcast's backdoor attempt to get their broadband-only subs to use Comcast's own video services. I'm sure that the upcoming ad-supported NBCUniversal SVOD service will be featured prominently on it too. I'll be interested to see whether Flex lets those folks subscribe to full-scale X1 TV packages, with hundreds of channels and 100+ hours of cloud DVR storage, or whether they'll be limited to the skinny Xfinity Instant TV service.


----------



## TostitoBandito (Sep 18, 2006)

I don't have a problem paying for cable. What I have a problem with is paying for cable where the video quality is complete garbage. When I first moved to HD back in 2006 I was getting probably twice the bitrate from Comcast as I do now post-MPEG4 conversion. The 720p/1080i channels back then actually looked pretty good. Now all channels are in compressed-to-hell low bitrate 720p, in a day and age when 4K TV's are quickly gaining share and where basically everyone who has cable has a TV capable of 1080p. The quality looks about on par with what it would look like if I played a 480p DVD on my screen due to all the compression. I'm hoping that their IPTV offering will come sooner rather than later, and that it will include quality at least comparable to what I can get today via Netflix or Amazon in 4K/HDR. If there's channels which aren't available in 4K because the source isn't there, at least give them to me in high bitrate 1080p. There's also still all these SD channels taking up QAM bandwidth which I don't even have listed on my Tivo because I don't want to watch them, and it's frustrating that it's been like 15 years and they're still there taking up space and making everything else look worse.

I'd cut the cord while I wait, but the other side of the issue is that the whole streaming world is becoming more and more fragmented and makes less and less sense as a cost saving measure versus cable. Several years ago you could basically get everything out there on two or three streaming services, plus any premium channels you wanted a la carte. Now the networks and studios are all spinning up their own streaming services with their own fees and pulling their content from the content aggregators like Netflix and Amazon. If you sit down and do the math you end paying close to what cable costs and still lose out on a bunch of content (especially certain live sports) and convenience since you now have to hop around a dozen or more different apps to watch what previously just required a channel change.

Yay monopolies.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, I don't know when it will happen, but when Comcast does shift towards IPTV as their main video platform, I think it will be standardized on an xFi Gateway + Xi6 set-top box. I say this because that seems to be what they've exclusively deployed in their FTTH (EPON) neighborhoods in Florida (well, they've used a combo of Xi6 and non-4K Xi5 boxes). It's also the combo that Rogers is exclusively using for their X1-based IPTV service. And lastly, it's the hardware combo that Comcast will use for their upcoming Xfinity Flex $5/mo service, which is basically Comcast's attempt to rent their own box to broadband-only subscribers to use in place of a Roku or Apple TV for streaming Netflix, Prime Video, YouTube, etc.


I would agree, with the caveats that existing customers with XG1 and XG2 boxes will be able to keep them, and customers with an XB3 will need to upgrade to the XB6 in order to have RDK-B on DOCSIS 3.1.



TostitoBandito said:


> I don't have a problem paying for cable. What I have a problem with is paying for cable where the video quality is complete garbage. When I first moved to HD back in 2006 I was getting probably twice the bitrate from Comcast as I do now post-MPEG4 conversion. The 720p/1080i channels back then actually looked pretty good. Now all channels are in compressed-to-hell low bitrate 720p, in a day and age when 4K TV's are quickly gaining share and where basically everyone who has cable has a TV capable of 1080p. The quality looks about on par with what it would look like if I played a 480p DVD on my screen due to all the compression. I'm hoping that their IPTV offering will come sooner rather than later, and that it will include quality at least comparable to what I can get today via Netflix or Amazon in 4K/HDR. If there's channels which aren't available in 4K because the source isn't there, at least give them to me in high bitrate 1080p. There's also still all these SD channels taking up QAM bandwidth which I don't even have listed on my Tivo because I don't want to watch them, and it's frustrating that it's been like 15 years and they're still there taking up space and making everything else look worse.


You're absolutely spot-on about video quality. Unfortunately, most consumers are oblivious or have $200 TVs from Wal-Mart, and can't tell the difference, so Comcast has over-compressed the crap out of their TV service. They are also lazy in that they compress CBR streams nationally and slot them locally, as opposed to running local or regional stat muxes to use bandwidth most efficiently.



> I'd cut the cord while I wait, but the other side of the issue is that the whole streaming world is becoming more and more fragmented and makes less and less sense as a cost saving measure versus cable. Several years ago you could basically get everything out there on two or three streaming services, plus any premium channels you wanted a la carte. Now the networks and studios are all spinning up their own streaming services with their own fees and pulling their content from the content aggregators like Netflix and Amazon. If you sit down and do the math you end paying close to what cable costs and still lose out on a bunch of content (especially certain live sports) and convenience since you now have to hop around a dozen or more different apps to watch what previously just required a channel change.


I've heard this argument over and over again, and it's illogical, disingenuous, and untrue. First of all, Netflix and Amazon have different content than what cable has, and that content is the stuff that's hot and what people are talking about. Most people with Netflix have cable and visa versa, so that's not a replacement to cable, it's something different. Amazon Prime Video is basically free since it comes with the 2-day shipping. HBO is basically the same price whether you get it through cable or streaming for the same content.

What's left is cable channels, and they are very overpriced for what you get. If you truly cut the cord, and don't have cable channels, you WILL save a lot of money when you do a fair comparison. Even if you get a CoIP/cord replacement service like YouTube TV, you will still save quite a bit over traditional pay tv.

Further, even if you have cable, you can't avoid jumping around from service to service. Sure, cable can bring together the OTA, cable, and premium channels' content, but you are still left with siloed apps for Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and YouTube content, so it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of a fragmented and siloed market.


----------



## TostitoBandito (Sep 18, 2006)

Bigg said:


> I've heard this argument over and over again, and it's illogical, disingenuous, and untrue. First of all, Netflix and Amazon have different content than what cable has, and that content is the stuff that's hot and what people are talking about. Most people with Netflix have cable and visa versa, so that's not a replacement to cable, it's something different. Amazon Prime Video is basically free since it comes with the 2-day shipping. HBO is basically the same price whether you get it through cable or streaming for the same content.
> 
> What's left is cable channels, and they are very overpriced for what you get. If you truly cut the cord, and don't have cable channels, you WILL save a lot of money when you do a fair comparison. Even if you get a CoIP/cord replacement service like YouTube TV, you will still save quite a bit over traditional pay tv.
> 
> Further, even if you have cable, you can't avoid jumping around from service to service. Sure, cable can bring together the OTA, cable, and premium channels' content, but you are still left with siloed apps for Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and YouTube content, so it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of a fragmented and siloed market.


I should have been more specific. The "costs" of cutting the cord while trying to get comparable coverage a la carte are things like slingtv or one of its competitors, standalone premiums (hbo, showtime, starz, etc...), network/studio streaming services (CBS, Hulu (to some extent), ESPN, Disney, etc...), and so forth. You add all that up and you might be able to get most of the content you care about, but it's fragmented all over the place and still costs nearly as much in total. That's my case. There are other versions of "cutting the cord" I suppose, like someone whos' fine with just Netflix and Amazon and maybe HBO. That's not me. I care about live sports along with access to major network/cable channel programming, so that means I have to get something like Sling to fill the gap between what I can get OTA (not much) and what I want. Yeah I'd rather be able to get my channels a la carte so I can weed out all the garbage I don't care about, but the inconvenience of doing that today via a zillion services doesn't outweigh my complaints about cable. And it's really not any cheaper. The whole exercise for me was more about whether I could get off Comcast and still get most of what I cared about without it being a giant inconvenience or expense, and the answer was no.

If you can live with not having access to certain content, channels, or types of programming, then sure cutting cable for a barebones streaming setup is cheap and effective. The point I was trying to make earlier was that it's getting more and more expensive to get access to the same overall amount of content compared to 5+ years ago. Instead of just Netflix/Amazon/Hulu, now we've got premium apps with original content from CBS, ESPN, Disney (soon), and likely many others following after that. The Netflixes and Amazons of the world will eventually just have their original content plus whatever (mostly older) content they can get for cheap. All the major studios and networks are starting their own pay apps to try and get that revenue stream, and will gate all their content there.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Well, I don't know when it will happen, but when Comcast does shift towards IPTV as their main video platform, *I think it will be standardized on an xFi Gateway + Xi6 set-top box.* I say this because that seems to be what they've exclusively deployed in their FTTH (EPON) neighborhoods in Florida (well, they've used a combo of Xi6 and non-4K Xi5 boxes). It's also the combo that Rogers is exclusively using for their X1-based IPTV service.


If you believe Comcast's published guidance on their EPON network, the requirement for an xFi gateway is only temporary.

*Retail/Purchased Modem* - Currently, you must rent a modem from Comcast, as there are no retail modems on the market that work with this new technology. We believe that this will be remedied in the future.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

TostitoBandito said:


> I should have been more specific. The "costs" of cutting the cord while trying to get comparable coverage a la carte are things like slingtv or one of its competitors, standalone premiums (hbo, showtime, starz, etc...), network/studio streaming services (CBS, Hulu (to some extent), ESPN, Disney, etc...), and so forth. You add all that up and you might be able to get most of the content you care about, but it's fragmented all over the place and still costs nearly as much in total. That's my case. There are other versions of "cutting the cord" I suppose, like someone whos' fine with just Netflix and Amazon and maybe HBO. That's not me. I care about live sports along with access to major network/cable channel programming, so that means I have to get something like Sling to fill the gap between what I can get OTA (not much) and what I want. Yeah I'd rather be able to get my channels a la carte so I can weed out all the garbage I don't care about, but the inconvenience of doing that today via a zillion services doesn't outweigh my complaints about cable. And it's really not any cheaper. The whole exercise for me was more about whether I could get off Comcast and still get most of what I cared about without it being a giant inconvenience or expense, and the answer was no.
> 
> If you can live with not having access to certain content, channels, or types of programming, then sure cutting cable for a barebones streaming setup is cheap and effective. The point I was trying to make earlier was that it's getting more and more expensive to get access to the same overall amount of content compared to 5+ years ago. Instead of just Netflix/Amazon/Hulu, now we've got premium apps with original content from CBS, ESPN, Disney (soon), and likely many others following after that. The Netflixes and Amazons of the world will eventually just have their original content plus whatever (mostly older) content they can get for cheap. All the major studios and networks are starting their own pay apps to try and get that revenue stream, and will gate all their content there.


 I don't view streaming as a way to get comparable coverage.

for me it's the place where the good shows are nowadays. especially now that you can get HBO, Showtime, etc via streaming without a cable subscription.

To me it's becoming more of a "I couldn't replace streaming with cable" scenario. Or I really don't need cable nowadays type of scenario. And a I'd rather watch via streaming than cable scenario.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I would agree, with the caveats that existing customers with XG1 and XG2 boxes will be able to keep them, and customers with an XB3 will need to upgrade to the XB6 in order to have RDK-B on DOCSIS 3.1.


Yeah, agree that Comcast would allow deployed XG1 and XG2 boxes to remain in use. Not sure, though, that an upgrade from the XB3 to XB6 gateway would be required. Looks like the XB3 supports RDK-B. It's D3.0, not D3.1, but there's no reason why Comcast must deploy multicast on D3.1-specific frequencies.

See chart at bottom here:
Overview of Xfinity Gateways



chiguy50 said:


> If you believe Comcast's published guidance on their EPON network, the requirement for an xFi gateway is only temporary.
> 
> *Retail/Purchased Modem* - Currently, you must rent a modem from Comcast, as there are no retail modems on the market that work with this new technology. We believe that this will be remedied in the future.


Interesting. I'm not aware of any other fiber services that lets users buy and use a retail modem; they all just include their own gateway in as part of the service price. I'm not sure why Comcast would want to stray from that model. Or whether there would even be enough Comcast FTTH customers interested in buying their own fiber gateway (which probably couldn't be used with any other provider) to support Arris or any other company bothering to manufacture and market such a product. At any rate, if that happens, I would expect such a retail fiber gateway to support multicast-to-unicast conversion so that any device on the home network can be served Comcast's multicast video streams.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Their TV service is lousy these days, as their compression sucks, and video quality has tanked as a result. It's a bit of a different issue than Comcast, which is excellent at encoding, but has bit-starved their content so badly by cramming in 9 or 10 HDs per QAM that it just can't look good no matter how much CPU power they throw at the encoding. It's actually amazing that they can form a DVD-quality picture at an ostensible resolution of 720p at all with the low bitrates they are using.


Your opinion, which is fine. I recently switched to their new FiOS TV One hardware and am quite pleased. The PQ is noticeably improved from the previous VMS hardware. Still a couple channels that don't look great - looking at you AMC - but I've noticed those channels also don't look great on YouTube TV or DirecTV Now either, so not blaming FiOS compression for that.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

We've been on FiOS since they lit up the fiber here (we were the first town in NJ) but have had TV from them only since 2015. We switched from DirecTV and at that time I saw little or no difference between the two providers. PQ has definitely deteriorated over the last couple of years as they have squeezed in more HD channels, but it is still perfectly acceptable. I honestly don't see a huge difference between FiOS and Netflix. Some of my high bitrate Bluray rips blow it all away in terms of PQ but TWD looks just fine on our 67" TV.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

TostitoBandito said:


> If you can live with not having access to certain content, channels, or types of programming, then sure cutting cable for a barebones streaming setup is cheap and effective. The point I was trying to make earlier was that it's getting more and more expensive to get access to the same overall amount of content compared to 5+ years ago. Instead of just Netflix/Amazon/Hulu, now we've got premium apps with original content from CBS, ESPN, Disney (soon), and likely many others following after that. The Netflixes and Amazons of the world will eventually just have their original content plus whatever (mostly older) content they can get for cheap. All the major studios and networks are starting their own pay apps to try and get that revenue stream, and will gate all their content there.


I look at cord cutting differently, and I think most people are in this boat. With cord cutting, and services that entail that, cancelling subscriptions is easy. So, rather than pay for HBO all year long, I let content stack up a bit, and get it for a month here or a month there. Same is true of any of these services (although for me, Netflix and Amazon have been the exception, Netflix may fall into "get when I need it" status too.) So yes, I would save a ton of money (still have cable, because it's paid for by my association, but I don't have any premiums through cable, too hard to cancel, easier to do it in app, or through Amazon Channels).

Where I live, Cable is $90+ per month with fees. To "cut the cord" and get most of what I want, I would need:

Hulu: $6-12 (12 is not a fair comparison because it also means no commercials)
Netflix: $13
CBS AA: $8
Time Warner (upcoming): Guessing $15
Disney+: (upcoming) Guessing $10
Buying shows or OTT Service: Leftover money

If I had all of the above services, which gives me MOST of what cable would, I would pay $52 but get MORE content. I didn't include premium, because I didn't include that as part of my base cable subscription. That leaves me with around $40 to buy a service like Sling TV, or buy individual shows. I'd have to see what I am missing, but I am guessing if I bought the individual shows that I miss it would be cheaper. And really, I should take Netflix off the list, because I am going to have that whether I have cable or not.

I think for some people, it makes more sense to stay with cable. Those that like a lot of content, those that like a lot of reality shows, and those that like live sports, it will probably be cheaper to just stay with cable. But, if I had to pay full price for cable, I'd probably drop it and just either buy episodes that I couldn't get elsewhere, or subscribe to an OTT service like Sling in addition to the ones mentioned above. Bonus because most of the services mentioned above give me MUCH more content than TV ever could. (Disney+ is going to have every Disney feature film ever made, who else can give me that? I am betting that the Time Warner app will be similar, and CBS gives hundreds of hours of back catalog content plus exclusives). And most services are commercial free, no DVR needed.

I do think cord cutting is cheaper for most, gives more content than most, and a better experience than most. And, unless you NEED everything all of the time, I am thinking it will stay cheaper for a long time.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

trip1eX said:


> I don't view streaming as a way to get comparable coverage.
> 
> for me it's the place where the good shows are nowadays. especially now that you can get HBO, Showtime, etc via streaming without a cable subscription.
> 
> To me it's becoming more of a "I couldn't replace streaming with cable" scenario. Or I really don't need cable nowadays type of scenario. And a I'd rather watch via streaming than cable scenario.


Exactly, I didn't cut cable just to try to get the same channels someplace else. I cut cable because I wasn't interested in such a heavy cost for stuff I didn't want to watch. The streaming companies have so much great original stuff now that I cant keep up. For us it's cheaper by far and much better.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

With all the various streaming services, how nice would it be if tivo upped their app game and their ability to reliable track all the shows so that they could be aggregated into the MyTivo section as a turnkey solution?

Of course it'd be slow on older equipment, but I've had a decent experience with the bolt and Mini Vox. I'm OTA now for live TV. I miss my $65 internet, economy cable & HBO package. Went to $90 then $110,and I said goodbye to xfinity. Sad thing is fios can't even touch that since they charge extra for everything including a cable card.

But I think with so many streaming services popping up, it'd be annoying having to bounce around from service to service and having a central location for it all would be a godsend for many. As long as it is fairly quick and reliable.

If someone didn't want to even use a dvr, they could create a standalone mini for a little more that would have their guide service and all the apps on it.

Or maybe their guide service could be adapted to other streaming devices and they could sell it as a software solution to create a turnkey offering on any major streaming device. 

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mntvjunkie said:


> Hulu: $6-12 (12 is not a fair comparison because it also means no commercials)
> Netflix: $13
> CBS AA: $8
> Time Warner (upcoming): Guessing $15
> ...


Disney has stated that Disney+ will definitely cost less than Netflix when it debuts and the range I've seen batted around by industry observers seems to be $7-8/mo. We might get a definitive price point this Thur. 4/11 when Disney showcases the upcoming service for investors.

I'm personally far more interested in WarnerMedia's upcoming OTT service, which I'm predicting will be named HBO+. We know it's going to be largely built around HBO, with the company's additional media properties added to it, and they want it to be their answer to Netflix. Although they're upping the amount they're spending on HBO original content, in order to increase the volume, I think they realize that HBO by itself cannot fully, directly compete with Netflix (which carries various types of content that wouldn't really fit under the main HBO brand/service).

Based on their own statements, it sounds like this new service will have three tiers:


The Free tier: Anyone will be able download the app and access this section for free, but it will of course include non-skippable ads in the content. This is basically WarnerMedia's attempt to compete against Tubi, The Roku Channel, Amazon (IMDB Freedive) and others in the next generation of free, ad-supported TV. It will use AT&T's Xander targeted ad platform (which also powers ads on other AT&T-owned platforms). I expect the content in this tier to mainly be older movies and TV series, much of it likely stuff that's owned by WarnerMedia, although they might license third-party stuff too. I'm sure they'll throw debut episodes of HBO series in here to encourage sampling and paid subscriptions. Maybe they'll also throw in other assets they own, such daily CNN news clips, maybe even live breaking news coverage, or content from their Audience cable channel.
The HBO tier: This will basically just be everything that's now included in the HBO Now/HBO Go apps -- all the HBO originals plus recent Hollywood films from WB, Universal, 20th Century Fox, etc. Maybe they'll decide to also throw in a live stream of the main HBO linear channel too (like Showtime does in their OTT app).
The "+" tier: This is all the extra stuff that they're going to offer beyond HBO to try to make this service stand toe-to-toe with Netflix. We know content from their Turner channels is going to figure in here, so perhaps it will include everything you can get now in the TBS, TNT, and TruTV apps (basically, the last 5 or more eps of their original series) -- except that you won't need a separate cable subscription for that content if you pay for this top tier of HBO+. I expect this is where past seasons of those Turner series will live too, rather than (or in addition to) being licensed out to Hulu, Amazon Prime or Netflix. In addition, there will be a slew of older movies available that aren't currently on regular HBO, many of them from Warner Bros. On top of that, it will offer a number of older TV series created and owned by Warner Bros., such as Friends, Gotham, Chuck, Gilmore Girls, etc. Probably current and older documentary films and series from CNN. (There's a ton of non-scripted yet non-news content from CNN and Great Big Story covering food, travel, etc. that could be repackaged here.) Maybe some classic Looney Toons and Hanna-Barbera cartoons from Boomerang. Maybe Adult Swim shows. Maybe some licensed third-party TV series and films too to pad things out. Possibly past seasons of Cinemax original series? Plus in 2020 they'll begin offering a limited amount of fresh original content that's exclusive to this tier, not found on any cable channel. I expect all this stuff to be commercial-free. WarnerMedia's plan here seems to be to mainly further monetize all the content that they already own, while spending relatively little on additional content.
If they're smart, they'll price and structure this thing to go head-on against Netflix. They'll sell the HBO tier for $13 with 2 simultaneous HD streams. They'll sell the HBO and "+" tiers together for $16 and upgrade select titles (mainly HBO originals) throughout the service to 4K HDR.

Yes, I know they currently sell HBO as a standalone service -- via HBO Now, Amazon Channels, Hulu add-ons, etc. -- for $15. But lowering the price a bit to equal Netflix's main HD tier would help HBO sell more subscriptions. And keep in mind that 80% or more of HBO's US subscribers get it via traditional cable or satellite service. Know how much HBO gets from those traditional distribution partners, on average, per sub? About $7.75. So HBO can afford to lower the price for their streaming service; depending on how you sign up, HBO's cut of the current $15 charge is anywhere from 70% to 100%. 70% of $13 would be over $9 per sub, so that's still more than they're getting on 80% of their current subscriber base. (All that said, who knows, maybe the pricing for the two tiers will be $14 and $18, or $15 and $20, or $13 and $17.)

I expect that this new HBO+ (or whatever it's called) app will replace the current HBO Now and HBO Go apps. Current log-ins for those apps will continue to work with the new app, unlocking the middle HBO tier. Those customers will be able to purchase an upgrade to unlock the "+" tier too.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TostitoBandito said:


> I should have been more specific. The "costs" of cutting the cord while trying to get comparable coverage a la carte are things like slingtv or one of its competitors, standalone premiums (hbo, showtime, starz, etc...), network/studio streaming services (CBS, Hulu (to some extent), ESPN, Disney, etc...), and so forth. You add all that up and you might be able to get most of the content you care about, but it's fragmented all over the place and still costs nearly as much in total.


That's not cord cutting. You completely missed the point of cord cutting. You are trying to replace the entire cord with a bunch of different streaming services including a CoIP service with the same 400 channels of garbage that are in your cable bundle like DTVN, which is likely going to cost you close to, or as much as, traditional cable. True cord cutting is moving away from linear pay tv entirely, and utilizing only OTT SVOD services. Some people are cord-replacing with skinny bundles like YouTube TV, which do save quite a bit of money, but don't have 400 channels of junk, they are much leaner and more streamlined packages.

I personally have Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and HBO, and I would have those even if I had cable, so I have saved the entire cost of cable. If/when I can get VDSL from Frontier, I'll save even MORE than the entire cost of cable TV, as my internet alone will be cheaper than SuxCox even in a bundle. If I get YouTube TV for a while, then that's cord-replacing, but only with a skinny bundle that cut the crap out and is far cheaper than an equivalent cable package and CableCard/TA from SuxCox.



> If you can live with not having access to certain content, channels, or types of programming, then sure cutting cable for a barebones streaming setup is cheap and effective.


That is literally the definition and purpose of cord cutting. Live without the 400 channels of garbage (although you lose news and sports too). I wouldn't call it barebones these days with the veritable plethora of content available via OTT SVOD. I have more content than I can possibly watch in the next few YEARS, and by then there will be 20 new shows that I want to watch!!



> The Netflixes and Amazons of the world will eventually just have their original content plus whatever (mostly older) content they can get for cheap. All the major studios and networks are starting their own pay apps to try and get that revenue stream, and will gate all their content there.


Sure. People aren't going to subscribe to them all. It will either be just Netflix, and whatever is there, or people will rotate or just choose one or two. It's going to be interesting to see how the whole OTT SVOD space plays out given how fast this space is moving.



chiguy50 said:


> If you believe Comcast's published guidance on their EPON network, the requirement for an xFi gateway is only temporary.


There is no established model for owning your own fiber gateway, and they are unlikely to have a critical mass of EPON users anytime soon, so unless they offer a separate ONT either Ethernet, I don't see that as being a likely scenario.



NashGuy said:


> Yeah, agree that Comcast would allow deployed XG1 and XG2 boxes to remain in use. Not sure, though, that an upgrade from the XB3 to XB6 gateway would be required. Looks like the XB3 supports RDK-B. It's D3.0, not D3.1, but there's no reason why Comcast must deploy multicast on D3.1-specific frequencies.


I don't think D3.0 has enough bandwidth to do IPTV multicast, at least not with 250mbps and 400mbps internet tiers, since all the modems in the system would have to be on the same set of channels.



> Interesting. I'm not aware of any other fiber services that lets users buy and use a retail modem; they all just include their own gateway in as part of the service price.


Nobody else does fiber directly to the gateway, which is a weird model. Google, AT&T, Verizon, etc, all have an ONT and then Ethernet to the gateway/modem. I don't know about Google, but I do know that it's easy to use your own router with Verizon's ONT, but not with AT&T's.



sangs said:


> Your opinion, which is fine. I recently switched to their new FiOS TV One hardware and am quite pleased. The PQ is noticeably improved from the previous VMS hardware.


I haven't really watched much FiOS TV myself, but I've read numerous reports, including from aaronwt, who is an expert in the area, and the FiOS TV quality has drastically declined. It's not at total trash level like Comcast, but it's definitely not good.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I'm personally far more interested in WarnerMedia's upcoming OTT service, which I'm predicting will be named HBO+. We know it's going to be largely built around HBO, with the company's additional media properties added to it, and they want it to be their answer to Netflix.


I hope that they fix HBO's horrible app. They had a horrible app, and made a new horrible app. Netflix is so far ahead of the pack with their UI/UX. Amazon is decent too, a lot of the others are just awful.



> Based on their own statements, it sounds like this new service will have three tiers:


That sounds like a confusing mess that people won't understand. Netflix is tiered by number of screens and resolution, which is annoying AF for a single person like me with a 4K TV, BUT at least it's all the same content.



> And keep in mind that 80% or more of HBO's US subscribers get it via traditional cable or satellite service. Know how much HBO gets from those traditional distribution partners, on average, per sub? About $7.75. So HBO can afford to lower the price for their streaming service; depending on how you sign up, HBO's cut of the current $15 charge is anywhere from 70% to 100%. 70% of $13 would be over $9 per sub, so that's still more than they're getting on 80% of their current subscriber base. (All that said, who knows, maybe the pricing for the two tiers will be $14 and $18, or $15 and $20, or $13 and $17.)


I think a lot of people with traditional pay TV are password sharing HBO and other premiums, just like Netflix, just tied to a cable account. Also, with cable the cable provider does the distribution and support, which, to be fair, keeps getting cheaper and cheaper on the IP side, but the CDN costs more than nothing.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> That sounds like a confusing mess that people won't understand. Netflix is tiered by number of screens and resolution, which is annoying AF for a single person like me with a 4K TV, BUT at least it's all the same content.


Seems pretty easy to grasp to me. If they name it HBO+, the concept is literally right there in the name -- it's HBO plus something more. Lower paid tier is the same HBO consumers have always known, upper paid tier is the "plus," i.e. additional stuff beyond HBO. Frankly, I think it's easier to upsell folks on the concept of getting additional content for their extra dollars, as opposed to just additional streams or better picture quality.



Bigg said:


> I think a lot of people with traditional pay TV are password sharing HBO and other premiums, just like Netflix, just tied to a cable account. Also, with cable the cable provider does the distribution and support, which, to be fair, keeps getting cheaper and cheaper on the IP side, but the CDN costs more than nothing.


True, although AFAIK, HBO alone is shouldering the cost of CDNs/digital distribution for HBO Go that so many of their traditional subs are using. Based on surveys I've seen, I think a majority of HBO streaming is done via HBO Go vs. all the other apps (HBO Now, Amazon, etc.) combined. So you have to subtract those HBO Go distribution costs out of the average $7.75 per sub they're getting from traditional partners.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I don't think D3.0 has enough bandwidth to do IPTV multicast, at least not with 250mbps and 400mbps internet tiers, since all the modems in the system would have to be on the same set of channels.


It could possibly be done, just depends on how many linear channels Comcast wants to run on multicast. 20 more popular channels? 40? 60? (Of course, that number can be dynamically altered, depending on popularity at any given time.)


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Disney has stated that Disney+ will definitely cost less than Netflix when it debuts and the range I've seen batted around by industry observers seems to be $7-8/mo. We might get a definitive price point this Thur. 4/11 when Disney showcases the upcoming service for investors.
> 
> I'm personally far more interested in WarnerMedia's upcoming OTT service, which I'm predicting will be named HBO+. We know it's going to be largely built around HBO, with the company's additional media properties added to it, and they want it to be their answer to Netflix. Although they're upping the amount they're spending on HBO original content, in order to increase the volume, I think they realize that HBO by itself cannot fully, directly compete with Netflix (which carries various types of content that wouldn't really fit under the main HBO brand/service).


I could be interested in both, but again, probably not at the same time. Right now, the balance I have is I have 2 standard services that never get cancelled (Netflix and Amazon). I will keep Amazon because of yearly pricing and free shipping (with other benefits), and likely keep Netflix at least for the short term, as they have a variety of content. Then, for the third service, I rotate based on what is available. Right now, it's HBO (catching up on shows and movies I missed while I was on "break"). In June, (if the ads bother me) I will pick up Hulu for Handmaids Tale and drop HBO (I get free Hulu with Spotify now, but it's got ads). When HMT is done, I may pick up CBS All Access to watch Twilight Zone, etc. That seems to be the sweet spot FOR ME, but I also still have Cable and Tivo. If I ever dropped cable, I wouldn't hesitate to have 4 or even 5 streaming services, as I would still save quite a bit over cable (and still have room to buy the occasional show that just isn't on ANY streaming service) but again, I would probably look to make those "efficient" by only subscribing to services that have shows I want to watch, and letting a few episodes or more pile up before I subscribe.

This, and no commercials, is the value to streaming services. If you let cable "lapse" for a few months, aside from paying install fees, etc. you will simply miss those shows, or need to wait for them to repeat. With HBO, Netflix, Hulu (mostly) etc. once the show "airs" it lives there forever. Miss True Detective? No problem, it's waiting for you!

And again, because "basic" cable (well, technically not basic, but the one that gets you most of the major cable networks) is over $90 and rising, you could subscribe to almost every streaming service out there and STILL save money (and have WAY more content than time to watch said content). Sure, you may not be able to watch The Walking Dead episodes as they air, but you could BUY them and watch them the next day WITH NO COMMERCIALS for less than you pay for cable (and watch on your terms, and as many times as you want because you have licensed that content for as long as the service is around). And that's only for the shows that aren't available anywhere else, which should be pretty minimal (thinking networks like AMC, and for now TBS).


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

Bigg said:


> I hope that they fix HBO's horrible app. They had a horrible app, and made a new horrible app. Netflix is so far ahead of the pack with their UI/UX. Amazon is decent too, a lot of the others are just awful.
> 
> That sounds like a confusing mess that people won't understand. Netflix is tiered by number of screens and resolution, which is annoying AF for a single person like me with a 4K TV, BUT at least it's all the same content.
> 
> I think a lot of people with traditional pay TV are password sharing HBO and other premiums, just like Netflix, just tied to a cable account. Also, with cable the cable provider does the distribution and support, which, to be fair, keeps getting cheaper and cheaper on the IP side, but the CDN costs more than nothing.


Everyone I know does that. We share in the family. Everyone uses my Netflix. My mom uses my Prime (which I have had for the shopping for ages). I use her Verizon login to watch Philly sports since I'm just OTA. And we'll share HBO during GOT and probably ditch it after.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

Good points on the variety of streaming choices exploding.

My tie to cable Is mostly sports, but my wife loves the life and drama channels like hgtv, food network, hallmark (Christmas).

So it is still looking at live-tv plays (cable, YouTube tv, Sling, DirectNow, Vue, etc) plus the stream services....with Hulu playing in between.

I still see Comcast/xfjnity and major mso’s looking to try tie some of these together like Xfinity is already trying to do with their x1 platform and handling the billing and customer relationships.

Interesting times




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Michael Miranda (Jan 21, 2019)

Streaming is nice, I have Netflix, Amazon Prime, and my Friend's Plex server. Love TiVo for free TV. I would rather do without the streaming before I gave up the TiVo. That's how much I like it. I watch my favorite shows on my schedule. 

As for the demise of TiVo, don't they get some cash for the information they supply on what we are watching and recording?


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> There is no established model for owning your own fiber gateway, and they are unlikely to have a critical mass of EPON users anytime soon, so unless they offer a separate ONT either Ethernet, I don't see that as being a likely scenario.


I have no clue what technology is on the horizon or even in the pipeline, which is why I used the caveat "if you believe Comcast's published guidance." But the mere fact that they state that they "believe" it will be available implies more probability than not (under the assumption that the corporate lawyers vet these marketing publications). Otherwise, it would have been very simple for them to use more non-committal terminology such as "may be possible" if the objective is to allay the trepidation of potential customers who would rather not be tied to a rental gateway.



Bigg said:


> Nobody else does fiber directly to the gateway, which is a weird model. Google, AT&T, Verizon, etc, all have an ONT and then Ethernet to the gateway/modem. I don't know about Google, but I do know that it's easy to use your own router with Verizon's ONT, but not with AT&T's.


As you probably know, the Google gateway (which they term a "Network Box") is included in the price of their fiber service. I do not believe that it can be replaced by a third-party device; however, you can add your own router.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

mntvjunkie said:


> I look at cord cutting differently, and I think most people are in this boat. *With cord cutting, and services that entail that, cancelling subscriptions is easy.* So, rather than pay for HBO all year long, I let content stack up a bit, and get it for a month here or a month there. Same is true of any of these services (although for me, Netflix and Amazon have been the exception, Netflix may fall into "get when I need it" status too.) So yes, I would save a ton of money (still have cable, because it's paid for by my association, but* I don't have any premiums through cable, too hard to cancel, easier to do it in app, or through Amazon Channels*).


I can't speak to the other CTV services, but with Comcast you would be better off having the premium channel subscriptions (HBO/SHO/Cinemax, et al) through their service if your goal is to save money via intermittent usage. AFAIK any OTT SVOD service is going to charge you by the month regardless of how many days you use it. With Comcast, you can start and stop at any time (and any number of times, I am told) and you will only be charged a pro rata fee based on the actual number of days that the subscription was active.

It may not be "easier" per se (perhaps, depending on your particular account setup, requiring a telephone call rather than a few mouse clicks), but it can certainly be advantageous from a monetary standpoint.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I would agree, with the caveats that existing customers with XG1 and XG2 boxes will be able to keep them, and customers with an XB3 will need to upgrade to the XB6 in order to have RDK-B on DOCSIS 3.1.
> 
> You're absolutely spot-on about video quality. Unfortunately, most consumers are oblivious or have $200 TVs from Wal-Mart, and can't tell the difference, so Comcast has over-compressed the crap out of their TV service. They are also lazy in that they compress CBR streams nationally and slot them locally, as opposed to running local or regional stat muxes to use bandwidth most efficiently.
> 
> ...


Most XB3s support RDK-B.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Seems pretty easy to grasp to me. If they name it HBO+, the concept is literally right there in the name -- it's HBO plus something more. Lower paid tier is the same HBO consumers have always known, upper paid tier is the "plus," i.e. additional stuff beyond HBO. Frankly, I think it's easier to upsell folks on the concept of getting additional content for their extra dollars, as opposed to just additional streams or better picture quality.


I think it will be named something else and then possibly bundled (at a discount) with HBO.

I think the HBO brand has its own identity and it would be weird to see Turner stuff on there.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> I think it will be named something else and then possibly bundled (at a discount) with HBO.
> 
> I think the HBO brand has its own identity and it would be weird to see Turner stuff on there.


Yeah, I would have thought the same but AT&T execs have repeatedly indicated that HBO content will be the cornerstone of this new service. So it's hard for me to see how they don't use the HBO name in the branding for it. HBO is *clearly* their standout brand.

They've also stated that standalone HBO as it exists now -- HBO Now, essentially -- will continue to be available.

Here's just one recap (from Engadget) of the three-tiered strategy that AT&T announced last fall for the service:

_The "entry" tier would be focused on movies, while the "premium" tier would offer more of what you're actually looking for, including "premium & popular" original shows as well as "blockbuster" flicks. And if you're determined to go all-out, a "bundle" tier would throw in classics, kids' programming, niche material and other extras.
_​How does that middle "premium" tier sound any different than HBO Now? OK, it's possible that this tier will only contain a subset of HBO content -- maybe only past seasons of their series? -- along with a mix of original premium content that isn't found on HBO. But that really would be a mess to explain to consumers. It would essentially be a sorta-replacement and sorta-complement to HBO. Weird.

This is what leads me to believe that the "HBO Now" brand will die and that it will simply become this middle "premium" tier inside this new service. Folks will still be able to get standalone HBO as a streaming service, it's just that the branding and app will change.

Here's another quote from a great piece at Deadline about all the content this service will feature:

_HBO customers will be able to keep a stand-alone HBO service or buy into the combined service. "When they are offered together, they will be a seamless consumer experience, so you're not going to have to toggle back and forth," he added._​
So it definitely sounds like the app for this new service will house all HBO content for HBO subscribers (potentially replacing the HBO Go and HBO Now apps), along with all the non-HBO stuff the new service is going to have (which, per the above link include _Bugs Bunny, Scooby Doo, The Lego Movie, The Flash, RBG _and _The Alienist_ with movies including _The Lord of the Rings, The Hangover _and_ Casablanca)._

I'm not sure how you put all those pieces together in a logical way that differs very much from the scenario I sketched out in my earlier post above.

Since then, AT&T's CEO has stated that some of the less premium content would be ad-supported. It's a cinch, then, that ads will appear in that entry tier focused on movies. I could be wrong to say that this tier will be free. Maybe it will cost a few dollars and screen all the movies that debuted on HBO and Cinemax six months ago, sort of making it to HBO what Encore is to Starz (except that Encore doesn't have ads). Will that sell though? I kinda doubt it, especially given how many movies stream for free with ads from Vudu, Pluto, Roku Channel, Tubi, Amazon/IMDb, Filmrise, etc. Free ad-supported VOD is a huge growth area in streaming right now and I see this entry tier as AT&T's play there. And free stuff would draw people to the app, where they would hopefully upgrade to the paid tiers.

Perhaps that top-level "bundle" tier will have ads too but that would seem sort of weird. If the anchor middle level below it is premium HBO content, which must always be ad-free, will folks buy the add-on upgrade tier if it has ads? Getting subscribers to pay for content with forced ads is a tough proposition; Hulu does it but I think it's because they largely offer current stuff from the major broadcast nets that just aired last night. People are accustomed to watching ads on ABC, NBC and Fox. I'm not sure people will pay to watch ads on library content from Warner Bros., especially when its commingled in the same app as their ad-free HBO.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

I have not heard one good thing about AT&T, not a god damn thing. AT&T is in the same anti-consumer, money grubby, swill class as Comcast and Viacom, the same two who's swill brought down cable and caused the consumer runaway to cord cutting. AT&T in this content area sucks.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Seems pretty easy to grasp to me. If they name it HBO+, the concept is literally right there in the name -- it's HBO plus something more.


Maybe two tiers. Maybe. You get to 3 and it's just a confusing, jumbled mess. Then again, AT&T has made fortunes on wireless with a confusing, jumbled up mess of a poorly executed branding strategy that no one understands, so maybe they figure it will work here too.



> True, although AFAIK, HBO alone is shouldering the cost of CDNs/digital distribution for HBO Go that so many of their traditional subs are using.


That's a good point.



NashGuy said:


> It could possibly be done, just depends on how many linear channels Comcast wants to run on multicast. 20 more popular channels? 40? 60? (Of course, that number can be dynamically altered, depending on popularity at any given time.)


Can there be a set of "core" DOCSIS channels that all modems on the node have to use for multicast, and a bunch of others that are only for unicast/HSI?



Michael Miranda said:


> I would rather do without the streaming before I gave up the TiVo. That's how much I like it. I watch my favorite shows on my schedule.


Shouldn't content be king though? The most interesting content that the most people talk about it almost entirely on Netflix. For back catalog, it's a bit more spread out, but mostly OTT SVOD or premium.



chiguy50 said:


> I have no clue what technology is on the horizon or even in the pipeline, which is why I used the caveat "if you believe Comcast's published guidance." But the mere fact that they state that they "believe" it will be available implies more probability than not (under the assumption that the corporate lawyers vet these marketing publications).


Either they are going to offer a way to buy their EPON gateway, or they are going to let Arris sell it, I can't imagine anyone else is going to make retail EPON hardware for such a tiny market, especially when it's useless if you move, since it's only in certain communities. At least DOCSIS is available almost everywhere unless you're in the boonies, or apparently one of these Comcast EPON communities.



> As you probably know, the Google gateway (which they term a "Network Box") is included in the price of their fiber service. I do not believe that it can be replaced by a third-party device; however, you can add your own router.


It's not officially supported or easy, but it can be done.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/googlefiber/comments/5ou8hy



chiguy50 said:


> I can't speak to the other CTV services, but with Comcast you would be better off having the premium channel subscriptions (HBO/SHO/Cinemax, et al) through their service if your goal is to save money via intermittent usage.


Yeah, but who wants to call 1-800-Comcast every month to cancel stuff? If you have a bunch of people who are watching a lot of content, the mondo bundle that includes Netflix, HBO, Showtime, Starz, and TMC offers some savings, but very, very few families actually watch all those on a regular basis to make it worthwhile. I think Amazon is the best deal, as their UI/UX is far better than the individual apps, and you can manage your subscriptions through one interface.



Joe3 said:


> I have not heard one good thing about AT&T, not a god damn thing. AT&T is in the same anti-consumer, money grubby, swill class as Comcast and Viacom, the same two who's swill brought down cable and caused the consumer runaway to cord cutting. AT&T in this content area sucks.


They're a pretty awful company with a completely unintelligible mess of billing systems on wireless, they've ruined DirecTV, and they dumped us to suffer with Frontier and not get fiber. That being said, their wireless network is pretty darn good, and it's getting faster (aside from the results that they cooked the books on with fake 5G).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Maybe two tiers. Maybe. You get to 3 and it's just a confusing, jumbled mess.


Well, that's part of the reason why I think that the first tier is free. So only 2 paid tiers. (And keep in mind that consumers are now used to the concept of streaming services that have a base tier and an add-on tier -- Hulu and Prime Video both offer various add-ons in the form of HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc. This thing from WarnerMedia may just be the other way around: HBO is the premium base tier and you can add on a non-premium upgrade tier.)

Imagine opening the app and it has three tabs at the top, going from left to right: "Freeview" / "HBO" / "+ So Much More". (The ad copy writes itself -- "Introducing HBO+: It's HBO. Plus so much more.")

That rightmost tab is where they're going to cram all that content from the Turner nets, classic cartoons, old films from TCM, CNN docu films, kids' stuff, DC superhero series and films, classic WB network TV series like Friends, etc. Everyone gets the first Freeview tab just for downloading the app, because AT&T has some ads they'd like to show you. Everyone who subscribes to HBO, regardless of how they get it/whom they pay through, gets access to the middle tab, home to all HBO content, ad-free as usual. Anyone with an HBO subscription would also be able to pay a few more bucks to also stream all the content in the rightmost tab. All combined, it could be a pretty compelling bundle of content, combining new, original prestige TV, a lot of familiar old "comfort food" TV favorites, plus big recent Hollywood movies. I could imagine a number of Netflix subscribers thinking "Maybe I'll switch between Netflix and this new HBO thing every 3 months or so."



Bigg said:


> Then again, AT&T has made fortunes on wireless with a confusing, jumbled up mess of a poorly executed branding strategy that no one understands, so maybe they figure it will work here too.


That's true and it makes me nervous about what they're going to do to HBO. Done right, this could be a good thing. But it could also be a big mess too. Devil is in the details.



Bigg said:


> Can there be a set of "core" DOCSIS channels that all modems on the node have to use for multicast, and a bunch of others that are only for unicast/HSI?


Yes, I _think_ so. If you really want to geek out on this stuff, you might be interested in this 2017 white paper from Arris that I stumbled across recently. Start reading at pg. 21: https://www.arris.com/globalassets/resources/technical-white-papers/big-network-changes-coming.pdf


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> That's true and it makes me nervous about what they're going to do to HBO. Done right, this could be a good thing. But it could also be a big mess too. Devil is in the details.


I see a big mess on the horizon. What I'm more concerned about, however, is AT&T micromanaging HBO and scaring off the content creators.



> Yes, I _think_ so. If you really want to geek out on this stuff, you might be interested in this 2017 white paper from Arris that I stumbled across recently. Start reading at pg. 21: https://www.arris.com/globalassets/resources/technical-white-papers/big-network-changes-coming.pdf


Thanks, I'll have to take a look! I skimmed it and two things stood out to me:

1. Their extrapolation of Nielsen's law of internet bandwidth is off the rocker. There is only so much video people can consume in a day, and only so much resolution you need before you can't physically tell the difference anyway. There is no organic demand for gig internet today, people on that tier are mostly driven by upload speeds, the rest is marketing, and the network is driven by capacity, not peak speeds.
2. The selective FTTH installation sounds like a giant support and installation nightmare. The only scenario I could see where they offer selective FTTH would be something like Cox's implementation of RFoG, where GPON and RFoG co-exist on the same fiber, and lower-tier or lighter users might get RFoG with 256 or 512 subs/node, while high utilization users would get GPON or EPON brought into the house via Ethernet. Two physical plants makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Bigg said:


> I see a big mess on the horizon. What I'm more concerned about, however, is AT&T micromanaging HBO and scaring off the content creators.


Well they can always talk to Netflix or Amazon. They certainly are willing to put out some great new content and are getting well known for it.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, but who wants to call 1-800-Comcast every month to cancel stuff?


It is a bit of a hassle, but if saving $10 p.m. ($120 p.a.) is meaningful enough to you (i.e., using the subscription for just a few days per month), a couple of minutes on the phone is probably not going to amount to a big deal. Besides, I think non-bulk service customers can probably start and stop the premium channel subscriptions on-line. In my case, as a bulk subscriber, I am compelled to call in.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

sangs said:


> Your opinion, which is fine. I recently switched to their new FiOS TV One hardware and am quite pleased. The PQ is noticeably improved from the previous VMS hardware. Still a couple channels that don't look great - looking at you AMC - but I've noticed those channels also don't look great on YouTube TV or DirecTV Now either, so not blaming FiOS compression for that.


FiOS is way over compressed.it looks like crap now. aMC looks much better from my recordings on Philo than it does from recordings on FiOS. All FiOS channels look terrible. FiOS has been racing to get quickly to the low Comcast quality. They aren't there yet but they are getting close. I cringe anytime I watch video on FiOS . Its the entire reason I watch 98% of my broadcast content from streaming now. Either commercial free or the ability to scan past commercials, like with Philo.

Sent from my Nexus 7(32GB)


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> FiOS is way over compressed.it looks like crap now. aMC looks much better from my recordings on Philo than it does from recordings on FiOS. All FiOS channels look terrible. FiOS has been racing to get quickly to the low Comcast quality. They aren't there yet but they are getting close. I cringe anytime I watch video on FiOS . Its the entire reason I watch 98% of my broadcast content from streaming now. Either commercial free or the ability to scan past commercials, like with Philo.


Just curious: why do you pay to keep FiOS TV at all? You're already paying to replicate some of that content from streaming sources like Philo. If you added YouTube TV alongside your Philo subscription, would you be missing any linear channels that matter to you?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Just curious: why do you pay to keep FiOS TV at all? You're already paying to replicate some of that content from streaming sources like Philo. If you added YouTube TV alongside your Philo subscription, would you be missing any linear channels that matter to you?


The triple play package I have with FiOS has Custom TV. So I can change that every day if I want to get another channel, but that's a last resort. I am currently only using Custom TV for news, and as a backup to streaming.

If I dropped custom TV and went to Youtube TV, my monthly price would skyrocket. Besides I tried all the streaming services. My requirement was to be able to either not see commercials or be able to scan past them. And youtube TV, DirecTV Now, PSVue, etc did not fit that bill. It didn't work with the CW shows. And their cost is rather high as well, especially to get the proper amount of DVR storage, if they even offer it.

So I ended up signing up for Philo to get Discovery, AMC and a few other channels. They have unlimited DVR storage, but can only be kept for 30 days. Which for me is much better than 20 hours of storage with shows kept for six months, like some of the other streaming services. I also got Hulu commercial free for most of the NBC, Fox, and ABC shows. Then I buy the CW shows outright. And subscribe to CBS AA commercial free part of the year. As well as HBO, showtime etc. as needed. This way I still get access to the content I want without being forced to watch commercials, and the video quality is much better than FiOS has now. And as icing on the cake, it cost me less than when I was on the Ultimate HD tier on FiOS.

Ideally I would have rather stayed on the Ultimate HD tier, but I just could not stand how bad the video quality had become. I was shocked at how bad it had become.


----------



## jefny (Feb 13, 2008)

I have been following this discussion for some time now. I should mention that I have been a Tivo customer for over ten years with 2 Tivo HD's (all life time). Last year I transferred my life service to a new Bolt and several months ago I took advantage of a refurbed Bolt with lifetime service for the price of the hardware. As I read through the discussion I am wondering if I made a mistake in getting the Bolts but a recent visit to a friend of ours convinced me otherwise.

There are millions of people who continue with the standard cable service, over pay for what they get and would benefit from a Tivo in place of their cable box/DVR. Our friend has Cablevision with an antiquated modem, router ans cable box. Her rental for an extremely outdated cable box (with no DVR capacity) costs far in excess of a Tivo with Tivo monthly service and a cable card. At my urging she called Cablevision to complain about the antiquated equipment to which they sent her a new modem without the power cable. When she called on the missing cable they told her to use the one for the old modem which, however, did not fit into the new modem. She is paying through the nose for a basic triple play service.

She would be a perfect customer for Tivo but she is afraid of the complexity. I am working on her. I think there are tens of thousands of customers like that that Tivo can market to. Tivo may be a niche product but it should be around for a while. At least that's what I am hoping.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I would have thought the same but AT&T execs have repeatedly indicated that HBO content will be the cornerstone of this new service. So it's hard for me to see how they don't use the HBO name in the branding for it. HBO is *clearly* their standout brand.
> 
> They've also stated that standalone HBO as it exists now -- HBO Now, essentially -- will continue to be available.
> 
> ...


All makes sense. Just skeptical they'll brand it all with the HBO name. Nothing mentioned there precludes them from offering a tiered Warner service and then bundling HBO in there under the same UI.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mschnebly said:


> Well they can always talk to Netflix or Amazon. They certainly are willing to put out some great new content and are getting well known for it.


My point exactly. They will go to Amazon and Netflix, and HBO won't be left with much of anything. I guess we'll just follow them there, and still be stuck with HBO for Last Week Tonight.



chiguy50 said:


> It is a bit of a hassle, but if saving $10 p.m. ($120 p.a.) is meaningful enough to you (i.e., using the subscription for just a few days per month), a couple of minutes on the phone is probably not going to amount to a big deal. Besides, I think non-bulk service customers can probably start and stop the premium channel subscriptions on-line. In my case, as a bulk subscriber, I am compelled to call in.


I subscribe to services for a month at a time, binge a bunch of stuff, and then cancel it for a while, so the savings would be minimal at best even if I had a pay TV provider to do that through.



jefny said:


> She would be a perfect customer for Tivo but she is afraid of the complexity. I am working on her. I think there are tens of thousands of customers like that that Tivo can market to. Tivo may be a niche product but it should be around for a while. At least that's what I am hoping.


All the major MSOs except Charter have modern DVR boxes, in her case Altice ONE. Charter has something, but I'm not sure exactly what it is or how it compares to anything else. They're not great, and certainly TiVo is better than any of them, but they aren't outdated like whatever she has. Further, the pay TV market is a dying market anyway.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> All makes sense. Just skeptical they'll brand it all with the HBO name. Nothing mentioned there precludes them from offering a tiered Warner service and then bundling HBO in there under the same UI.


That's possible but it's not the gist I have gotten from everything we've learned so far. If they gave this top-level tier (with Turner stuff, WB library stuff, some fresh exclusive original stuff, etc.) its own brand -- let's call it WarnerStream -- and also used that same brand name on the app, it would be very weird if you opened the WarnerStream app with the intention of signing up and was told that you needed an HBO subscription as a pre-condition for signing up for WarnerStream and using that app. And yet everything we've learned so far -- and, sure, this could change -- indicates that this new top-level tier will only be available if you also subscribe to the tier below it, the premium" tier that basically just sounds like regular ol' HBO. So if HBO is the main thing that you MUST subscribe to first, it's hard to see how HBO won't be in the overall brand name on the app.

Now, again, perhaps the main pay tier in this new service will only include some, but not all, HBO stuff, along with some new original non-HBO stuff. Maybe it just has some of HBO's movies and, I dunno, only their half-hour original series but none of the hour-longs. But that would be pretty stupid. I really can't imagine anything that makes sense, from a marketing perspective, of how that middle "premium" tier includes some, but not all, HBO content. So I keep coming back to the idea that the middle tier is just regular HBO, all of it. And the bottom tier is either free, ad-supported stuff, or (less likely) a cheap pay tier that gives you some of the older movies on HBO but nothing else.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

If you pay for it and watch on your TV, it's pay TV. Pay TV is not another name for cable. The only free stuff is OTA, everything else has costs and hidden costs.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> That's possible but it's not the gist I have gotten from everything we've learned so far. If they gave this top-level tier (with Turner stuff, WB library stuff, some fresh exclusive original stuff, etc.) its own brand -- let's call it WarnerStream -- and also used that same brand name on the app, it would be very weird if you opened the WarnerStream app with the intention of signing up and was told that you needed an HBO subscription as a pre-condition for signing up for WarnerStream and using that app. And yet everything we've learned so far -- and, sure, this could change -- indicates that this new top-level tier will only be available if you also subscribe to the tier below it, the premium" tier that basically just sounds like regular ol' HBO. So if HBO is the main thing that you MUST subscribe to first, it's hard to see how HBO won't be in the overall brand name on the app.
> 
> Now, again, perhaps the main pay tier in this new service will only include some, but not all, HBO stuff, along with some new original non-HBO stuff. Maybe it just has some of HBO's movies and, I dunno, only their half-hour original series but none of the hour-longs. But that would be pretty stupid. I really can't imagine anything that makes sense, from a marketing perspective, of how that middle "premium" tier includes some, but not all, HBO content. So I keep coming back to the idea that the middle tier is just regular HBO, all of it. And the bottom tier is either free, ad-supported stuff, or (less likely) a cheap pay tier that gives you some of the older movies on HBO but nothing else.


Who says you have to subscribe to HBO to get the Warner service? Why not just a separate Warner service and then if you wanted HBO, you could get it in the same UI? CBS has its own service and yet they also own Showtime and its sold as a separate service. But they are 2 different UIs. This couldn't be the same thing except with the ability to access and cross-sell the other service through the same UI?

From the sound of what you said, I don't see why the upcoming Warner service couldn't be all the movies they show on Turner and TBS etc for the first tier. The 2nd tier would be all the original content they show. Possibly the sports content as well. And then the 3rd tier is the back catalog.

And then HBO is separate from all that but can be accessed in the same UI if you subscribe to both.

To suddenly make HBO a dumping ground for all things Turner and Warner would...dilute the brand in my mind.

I also recall a Warner exec saying Netflix has no brand and that made headlines recently. That doesn't mean necessarily mean anything. Sometimes people vent loudly at the same time they realize they gotta do something different.

But it would be weird for a company to suddenly offer its product (HBO) for a few dollars less. Companies don't do that without a good need to do that. I don't sense they need to do that. HBO is a great brand afaik. Be weird too for them to suddenly say hey for $1 more than your current $15/mo price, you get all our HBO content plus Turner content and all other Warner content and all the back catalogs of all these services.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Who says you have to subscribe to HBO to get the Warner service? Why not just a separate Warner service and then if you wanted HBO, you could get it in the same UI? CBS has its own service and yet they also own Showtime and its sold as a separate service. But they are 2 different UIs. This couldn't be the same thing except with the ability to access and cross-sell the other service through the same UI?


Everything you're saying, in terms of how you would expect this new offering to be structured, makes sense to me and, TBH, it's what I was originally expecting too: have this new Warner service essentially be like their own CBS All Access or mini-Hulu that stands as its own service separate from HBO, although the two could be bundled together (maybe at a discount) and accessed within the same app/UI.

But then in late Nov. 2018, AT&T revealed the outlines for how the service would be structured. Here are the key descriptors, straight from the horse's mouth:

_AT&T said WarnerMedia's SVOD service will offer consumers three options to subscribe, starting with "entry-level movie-focused package." It will also feature "a premium service with original programming and blockbuster movies" and a third option "that bundles content from the first two plus an extensive library of WarnerMedia and licensed content."
_​This quote (and multiple other media reports) clearly indicates that the top tier is not a standalone option but rather part of an overall bundle that includes the two tiers below it. Everything seems to build: You get the entry-level tier for cheap (or, if my hunch is right, free with ads). If you upgrade to the middle "premium" tier, then your bundle will also include the entry-level content. If you upgrade to the third tier, then your bundle will include content from all three tiers. (Of course, it's also possible that the structure of this thing has evolved since last Nov. and all this speculation is for naught.)

Maybe I'm wrong about the middle "premium" tier simply being HBO, despite the fact that multiple stories say that HBO content will be the centerpiece of this new service. Maybe they're planning, in effect, to create an all-new third premium ad-free service offered separately from HBO and Cinemax, and that's what this new middle tier of the upcoming SVOD will be, and the only way it incorporates HBO is because it offers some older seasons of HBO series (i.e. the stuff they now have on Prime Video) to supplement a whole new range of original series, films and docs that won't be on HBO or any of their cable channels. Or maybe it will be a more family-friendly premium service that contains all the stuff you find on their HBO Family linear channel, plus some additional new non-HBO original premium content rated TV-G/PG/14. This would be like spinning HBO Family out as its own separate service with a new name.

But those ideas are just wild speculation. They aren't based on any available info. Based on Warner's public statements so far, and applying Occam's razor, the likeliest scenario is that the middle "premium" tier is just HBO.

And it's also possible that they give this top tier it's own brand name to avoid tainting the HBO brand -- WarnerStream, or whatever -- and that it doesn't have its own app but just exists inside a new redesigned HBO app, since the only way to get WarnerStream would be to first subscribe to HBO.

As for the pricing I suggested -- the whole thing for just $16 to match Netflix's premium plan -- that's simply my hope but it's not based on anything I've read. I admit it's unlikely to be that cheap. Maybe HBO stays at $15 and the Warner add-on is an extra $6 and includes ads (matching CBS All Access pricing). But frankly, if the Warner segment were robust enough to command $6 with ads, I don't know why they wouldn't offer it as a standalone service, the same way that CBS AA is available separately from Showtime. Also, if we imagine a total price of $21 for the overall package, I'm not sure how well that competes against Netflix at $16 (or just $13 for the standard HD plan), especially given that Disney+, reportedly to be priced at $7-8, will be launching this fall too, competing for those same subscriber dollars.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> FiOS is way over compressed.it looks like crap now. aMC looks much better from my recordings on Philo than it does from recordings on FiOS. All FiOS channels look terrible. FiOS has been racing to get quickly to the low Comcast quality. They aren't there yet but they are getting close. I cringe anytime I watch video on FiOS . Its the entire reason I watch 98% of my broadcast content from streaming now. Either commercial free or the ability to scan past commercials, like with Philo.


Yup, thought the same thing in recent years when I was using the VMS 1100 and/or TiVo Bolt. Was a very big critic of the PQ in other forums. Now, however, I'm using the new FiOS TV One 4100 and it's like having a new TV. Which I don't. Same 80-inch 4K LG I've been using since 2015. FiOS looks better than YTTV, but not better than DTVNow. (Haven't tried Philo.) Very happy with the switch. So happy that I decided to dump both those services following their recent price increases.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tenthplanet said:


> If you pay for it and watch on your TV, it's pay TV. Pay TV is not another name for cable. The only free stuff is OTA, everything else has costs and hidden costs.


Pay tv is widely understood to mean MVPDs and vMVPDs, and to not include OTT SVOD.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

sangs said:


> Yup, thought the same thing in recent years when I was using the VMS 1100 and/or TiVo Bolt. Was a very big critic of the PQ in other forums. Now, however, I'm using the new FiOS TV One 4100 and it's like having a new TV. Which I don't. Same 80-inch 4K LG I've been using since 2015. FiOS looks better than YTTV, but not better than DTVNow. (Haven't tried Philo.) Very happy with the switch. So happy that I decided to dump both those services following their recent price increases.


But why is it looking better? The only way it could possibly look better is if it is using IP delivery for the channels. And then they would have to be using less compression for the IP delivery to look better. Otherwise if it's still QAM, it will be the same.

I just know over QAM, all the detail in the picture is gone. People have waxy faces etc. It's only a step up from DVD quality. And DVDs really have no detail to the picture with it's very low resolution.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

Quite happy at the moment. Signed up for HBO Now and was quite disappointed to know I couldn't get the dolby digital feed unless I had a specific device. Wasn't about to go get a CC Ultra or other 4k based stick just to get SD for HBO. I swapped my subscription to Prime and went through my old Tivo Mini, and bam, Dolby Digital. Wasn't listed on their list of devices to support it.

+1 for Tivo streaming app. 

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> But why is it looking better? The only way it could possibly look better is if it is using IP delivery for the channels. And then they would have to be using less compression for the IP delivery to look better. Otherwise if it's still QAM, it will be the same.
> 
> I just know over QAM, all the detail in the picture is gone. People have waxy faces etc. It's only a step up from DVD quality. And DVDs really have no detail to the picture with it's very low resolution.


Don't know what to tell you. All I can say is that it looks much better than it did on the Quantum DVR. Whatever they're putting in the magic sauce, it's working. Maybe it's the FiOS One 4K boxes, maybe they're not compressing as much, I don't know and I don't care.  (And I previously jettisoned all FiOS hardware because of how crappy the picture looked with the Quantum DVRs.)


----------

