# And So It Begins......Streams, streams everywhere!



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

It seems as if everyone's getting into the game since SlingTV and Vue have debuted:

*Report: TWC's new streaming-only skinny bundle for NYC starts at $10/month, offers 20 channels*

*Comcast's Stream is MIA as cable rivals ramp up tests*

Add to this the rumored Apple Streaming Service (hopefully sometime!) and maybe an NCTA offering one too?

It would be so cool if TiVo could offer these apps from the major Cable providers, especially for those OTA users!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I would only be interested in these services if there was some way to record them. Not much use to me if they're only live TV. Also I would need access to more then one channel at a time. IIRC the current SlingTV offering only allows streaming to one device at a time.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Agreed. I think I read the TWC TV one offers up to four streams at once.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I still think TiVo should get in on this. Maybe partner with the NCTA? If they could merge a cloud DVR for this service with the OTA hardware to record locals they could really have a cord cutter's dream. Plus they could hide their service fees in the cost of the streaming service/cloud DVR so the value proposition would be better from a user perspective. 

I really hope this is something they are at least looking in to. I really think that if the CableCARD replacement falls through this is going to be the only way they'll be able to survive long term.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Why are these streaming only? The stuff is already out there on the QAM cable system. Do they just not want to deploy hardware for lower-priced packages? Is it some sort of marketing gimmick just to attract attention? Are they trying to limit cannibalization of their normal TV packages with full DVR capabilities?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Why are these streaming only? The stuff is already out there on the QAM cable system. Do they just not want to deploy hardware for lower-priced packages? Is it some sort of marketing gimmick just to attract attention? Are they trying to limit cannibalization of their normal TV packages with full DVR capabilities?


It will eventually allow them to expand the service beyond their physical presence. So you'll be able to get say Charter streaming service even if you live in a Comcast area. It should, eventually, lead to more competition and better pricing.

Plus if they switch to pure IP they can ditch QAM and convert their cable to pure DOCSIS 3.1, which will gain them about 3Gbps more bandwidth per node.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> I still think TiVo should get in on this. Maybe partner with the NCTA? If they could merge a cloud DVR for this service with the OTA hardware to record locals they could really have a cord cutter's dream. Plus they could hide their service fees in the cost of the streaming service/cloud DVR so the value proposition would be better from a user perspective.
> 
> I really hope this is something they are at least looking in to. I really think that if the CableCARD replacement falls through this is going to be the only way they'll be able to survive long term.


Well Dan, you already put a bug in the ear of the players in the future of cablecard FCC mandate meetings, so now it's time for you to put THIS bug in the ear of TiVo's decision makers!

They gave you a free Bolt, so *someone* must like you there!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Why are these streaming only? The stuff is already out there on the QAM cable system. Do they just not want to deploy hardware for lower-priced packages? Is it some sort of marketing gimmick just to attract attention? Are they trying to limit cannibalization of their normal TV packages with full DVR capabilities?


All the above, I'd guess.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Why are these streaming only? The stuff is already out there on the QAM cable system. Do they just not want to deploy hardware for lower-priced packages? Is it some sort of marketing gimmick just to attract attention? Are they trying to limit cannibalization of their normal TV packages with full DVR capabilities?





NashGuy said:


> All the above, I'd guess.


I'm thinking they want to simplify hookups and disconnects because you can do it at will online according to the article, similar to SlingTV and PS Vue, appeasing the cord-cutters/nevers that are used to these things on their streaming apps, etc.

It also means that the cable co's wouldn't have to deploy any hardware except maybe shipping the Roku 3's that are included in some of the streaming packages.

What I am curious about is why Comcast's is being delayed and then some of the renewed chatter about TiVo and Comcast working together towards online activation of cablecards and the "software cablecard-less" security, which makes me wonder if maybe TiVo and Comcast are working on getting their IP streaming Service offered on newer TiVos?


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

HarperVision said:


> It seems as if everyone's getting into the game since SlingTV and Vue have debuted:
> 
> *Report: TWC's new streaming-only skinny bundle for NYC starts at $10/month, offers 20 channels*


TWC have had the streaming app for quite a while, this looks like a natural progression of the delivery of that app.

I liked it better than the TWC cable box but not as much as TiVo. A handy addition to create additional screens in a home.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

HobokenSkier said:


> TWC have had the streaming app for quite a while, this looks like a natural progression of the delivery of that app.
> 
> I liked it better than the TWC cable box but not as much as TiVo. A handy addition to create additional screens in a home.


I know, and I agree it's a GREAT app! One thing I think they're adding to the new streaming only app are the local broadcast networks like ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS, CW, etc.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> Well Dan, you already put a bug in the ear of the players in the future of cablecard FCC mandate meetings, so now it's time for you to put THIS bug in the ear of TiVo's decision makers!
> 
> They gave you a free Bolt, so *someone* must like you there!


I wish I had that kind of influence. I don't. There was a time when I actually knew a few higher ups over there, but they've all moved on. The free Bolt came in conjunction with the AMA with Ira and was from a PR person, not anyone with any sort of technical clout.

Hopefully TiVo still reads these boards and if they haven't already started looking in to this maybe we'll have sparked the idea for them.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Why are these streaming only? The stuff is already out there on the QAM cable system. Do they just not want to deploy hardware for lower-priced packages? Is it some sort of marketing gimmick just to attract attention? Are they trying to limit cannibalization of their normal TV packages with full DVR capabilities?


In the case of SlingTV, DISH just sees it as a way to target young single people who aren't settled and aren't really the target market for DISH.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

_"*ESPN is losing subscribers* because of a critical mistake it made in 2012 when it was negotiating carriage deals with cable companies like Comcast, Cablevision, and Cox.

According to Ourand, ESPN was negotiating for a $6-per-subscriber fee from the cable companies. To secure that high of a fee, ESPN had to be flexible on its "penetration benchmark levels," or the number of homes that cable companies guarantee ESPN will be in.

At the time, ESPN was guaranteed to be in 90% of cable subscribers' homes. To get $6 per subscriber, ESPN lowered that threshold to 80%.

When ESPN lowered the standard, it allowed cable companies to start introducing new cable packages that excluded ESPN. People are signing up for those cable packages,* leading to ESPN's losing 8.5 million subscribers over the past four and half years*, according to Ourand citing Nielsen estimates.

This falls in line with the numbers we collected recently. After three decades of growth, ESPN's place in the American home is slipping."_

Is there really packages that don't included ESPN? I don't recall seeing any besides a limited basic package which is mostly just the OTA networks. And they've had those packages for a long time.

Didn't know ESPN had lost that many subscribers either.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

IIRC every major MSO has a package that doesn't include sports channels, specifically because many folks don't want to pay for them. It's a certain package of basic cable channels + all the locals. Comcast calls theirs Digital Economy.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Mine includes ESPN in the basic package, so there is no way to avoid it. I don't watch sports at all, so I'd be perfectly fine without it. Although my wife does like to watch football occasionally, so she might miss it.


----------



## raqball (Feb 23, 2015)

I'm all for competition in the area. Sling TV is absolutely terrible and has been since day 1.. They can't get it right.

An example is ESPN. If I watch on my Roku via the Sling TV app it buffers, buffers, and buffers some more. It also drops video quality constantly when it's not buffering. If I watch ESPN via the ESPN app, using my Sling sign in credentials, the feed is rock solid..

I am to the point of giving up on Sling TV as it's not just ESPN, it's almost all the channels that behave in this manner..

I'd love for someone to do a suitable and working alternative and I'd love it even more (and pay more) if it were available on Tivo..


----------



## sar840t2 (Mar 1, 2003)

What's ESPN? :-D

If this is going to be similar to Comcast's existing VOD (where you often cannot fast-forward), then no thanks. If I have to glue myself to the TV at whatever time the show is "broadcast", then no thanks.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Mine includes ESPN in the basic package, so there is no way to avoid it. *I don't watch sports at all,* so I'd be perfectly fine without it. *Although my wife does like to watch football occasionally, *so she might miss it.





sar840t2 said:


> What's ESPN? :-D ..............


OK, what's wrong with this picture (and America!)?  This is supposed to be the land of "where men are men, and the sheep run scared"!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I'm not much of a manly man. Sports can be marginally entertaining on rare occasions, but I'd rather watch scripted TV or a movie if I'm in the mood for mindless violence. It's certainly not exciting enough to me to root for a specific team or refer to them as "we" in conversation like some of my friends/family.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

raqball said:


> I'm all for competition in the area. Sling TV is absolutely terrible and has been since day 1.. They can't get it right.
> 
> An example is ESPN. If I watch on my Roku via the Sling TV app it buffers, buffers, and buffers some more. It also drops video quality constantly when it's not buffering. If I watch ESPN via the ESPN app, using my Sling sign in credentials, the feed is rock solid..
> 
> ...


Well they do have this thing called cable tv. 

NO buffering. YOu can record shows for later viewing on your Tivo. It costs a bit more.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> IIRC every major MSO has a package that doesn't include sports channels, specifically because many folks don't want to pay for them. It's a certain package of basic cable channels + all the locals. Comcast calls theirs Digital Economy.


OH wow I didn't know this or forgot. IT's limited basic with some major cable channels like AMC, AE, History and Discovery channel. No ESPNs, TNT/TBS, and no NICK seem to be the major exclusions from the standard cable package.

NO wonder ESPN is losing subs. Although I'm sure being able to see highlights on the internets hurts as well.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> OK, what's wrong with this picture (and America!)?  This is supposed to be the land of "where men are men, and the sheep run scared"!


That's Montana.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

I personally don't want to pay for watching so called educated men doing athletic stunts sometimes in tight outfits and getting paid millions for it. Or even watching manly women with muscles sometimes in thongs playing volleyball.

Sick.

Or anything that has to do with Montana,
maybe all the wasted fuel rods should be stored there.

And I don't need a large Pickup or Suv, Dan.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> It will eventually allow them to expand the service beyond their physical presence. So you'll be able to get say Charter streaming service even if you live in a Comcast area.


I'm not so sure about that. It's a really interesting thought, but it would make things mega awkward between the various cable providers.



> Plus if they switch to pure IP they can ditch QAM and convert their cable to pure DOCSIS 3.1, which will gain them about 3Gbps more bandwidth per node.


That's a totally different system to feed IPTV to X1, and a full conversion is not going to happen for a long, long time. What I could see happening is new channel adds being handled over IP, with older equipment being forced to upgrade to get the new channels or packages.

But at that point, why not just use SDV? It works with the oldest, creakiest of boxes, and they could allow TiVo to bake code in to avoid needing a TA.



HarperVision said:


> I'm thinking they want to simplify hookups and disconnects because you can do it at will online according to the article, similar to SlingTV and PS Vue, appeasing the cord-cutters/nevers that are used to these things on their streaming apps, etc.


That's a good point. The cost of activating cable equipment has got to be high.



> What I am curious about is why Comcast's is being delayed and then some of the renewed chatter about TiVo and Comcast working together towards online activation of cablecards and the "software cablecard-less" security, which makes me wonder if maybe TiVo and Comcast are working on getting their IP streaming Service offered on newer TiVos?


No. The cablecard-less security is for the existing QAM system, which will be around for a long, long time.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> That's Montana.





Dan203 said:


> I'm not much of a manly man. Sports can be marginally entertaining on rare occasions, but I'd rather watch scripted TV or a movie if I'm in the mood for mindless violence. It's certainly not exciting enough to me to root for a specific team or refer to them as "we" in conversation like some of my friends/family.





foghorn2 said:


> I personally don't want to pay for watching so called educated men doing athletic stunts sometimes in tight outfits and getting paid millions for it. Or even watching manly women with muscles sometimes in thongs playing volleyball.
> 
> Sick.
> 
> ...


  :up:

UPDATE:
*Comcast's Strauss: MSO is testing Stream OTT service in Boston; launch is 'imminent'*


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> I'm not so sure about that. It's a really interesting thought, but it would make things mega awkward between the various cable providers.


Dish is essentially doing this with Sling TV, and Sony with Playstation Vue. If these types of services catch on I don't see any reason the cable companies can't go wider with them and offer them to people in areas they don't service.



Bigg said:


> But at that point, why not just use SDV? It works with the oldest, creakiest of boxes, and they could allow TiVo to bake code in to avoid needing a TA.


The MSOs agree, which is why SDV was invented. It's essentially the poor mans IP using the old VOD system. But DOCSIS 3.1 does give them an advantage over SDV. SDV still uses QAM, which on a 800Mhz system only has about 5Gbps of total bandwidth. With DOCSIS 3.1 they could get about 8Gbps from the same system. Unlike previous versions of DOCSIS, v3.1 uses a new modulation scheme which does away with the 6Mhz "channels" and is able to squeeze more data down the same pipe. I think that will be a major incentive to converting to real IP.

As for baking the TA in to TiVo.... that's not really possible. There are several different systems with different technologies for communicating with the head end. A better alternative would probably be to build the TA into the cable modem and then allow the TiVo to communicate with it over the local network. Kind of like a TA gateway of sorts.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> ..........As for baking the TA in to TiVo.... that's not really possible..........


I'm pretty sure TiVo already announced that they were working on or had the technology to do this already? It was a year or so ago IIRC.

EDIT - Yep, here it is:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/tivo-crafts-embedded-switched-digital-video-tech/376007


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> I'm pretty sure TiVo already announced that they were working on or had the technology to do this already? It was a year or so ago IIRC.
> 
> EDIT - Yep, here it is:
> http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/tivo-crafts-embedded-switched-digital-video-tech/376007


That's system specific. It uses the internet to communicate with the head end, kind of like their Comcast VOD solution. They would need to include special code for each system, and each system would need to expose it's SDV switching system to the internet.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> That's system specific. It uses the internet to communicate with the head end, kind of like their Comcast VOD solution. They would need to include special code for each system, and each system would need to expose it's SDV switching system to the internet.


Yeah, but the technology is already baked into the TiVo, which you said was *"...not really possible"*, when in fact all that has to happen would be up to the MSO's themselves if they'd like to use this capability.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> Yeah, but the technology is already baked into the TiVo, which you said was *"...not really possible"*, when in fact all that has to happen would be up to the MSO's themselves if they'd like to use this capability.


What I meant is it's not possible for TiVo, or even the FCC, to do this unilaterally. It requires the cooperation of each MSO individually.

By contrast TAs are an open standard mandated by the FCC.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> What I meant is it's not possible for TiVo, or even the FCC, to do this unilaterally. It requires the cooperation of each MSO individually.
> 
> By contrast TAs are an open standard mandated by the FCC.


Why couldn't the FCC mandate that too?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> Why couldn't the FCC mandate that too?


It requires a pretty major infrastructure change. They already went through this whole bit back in 2008 and that's how we ended up with TAs in the first place. The FCC isn't going to mandate another change to the system when there is already a working solution. We may not like them, and they may not be 100%, but for the most part TAs do what they're suppose to do.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> :up:
> 
> UPDATE:
> *Comcast's Strauss: MSO is testing Stream OTT service in Boston; launch is 'imminent'*


Nice. The package sounds like its limited basic plus HBO plan aka major broadcast networks and HBO. But for $15/mo instead of ~$30. Might have a device limit though. And only available to Comcast internet users as they roll it out.

Wonder if the broadcast channels are local with full content or not?

Unfortunately you probably can't skip commercials.

$15 including HBO tho? HBO costs $15 alone.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Dish is essentially doing this with Sling TV, and Sony with Playstation Vue.


That's a little bit of an unfair comparison, as DISH already competes with Comcast and TWC and such. Comcast and TWC currently don't compete with each other. I doubt they have the capital to do it, but one interesting player to launch something like this would be RCN, as they already compete with TWC, Comcast, and Verizon in various areas.



> The MSOs agree, which is why SDV was invented. It's essentially the poor mans IP using the old VOD system. But DOCSIS 3.1 does give them an advantage over SDV. SDV still uses QAM, which on a 800Mhz system only has about 5Gbps of total bandwidth. With DOCSIS 3.1 they could get about 8Gbps from the same system. Unlike previous versions of DOCSIS, v3.1 uses a new modulation scheme which does away with the 6Mhz "channels" and is able to squeeze more data down the same pipe. I think that will be a major incentive to converting to real IP.


Who cares how much bandwidth you're getting out of it if you have SDV? An 860mhz system can easily support 1gbps of D3.1, 8 channels of D3, phone, VOD, 200+ HD channels, 400+ SD channels, and some UHD channels if the bulk of all the channels are on SDV, and thus are effectively unlimited.

Also, the spectral efficiency of D3.1 isn't really that much better than D3.0. Unlike in the cell phone world, where OFDMA was a huge improvement over 64QAM, and the far more common 16QAM used on Faux G networks, OFDMA isn't a huge jump over 256QAM. Arris claiming anywhere from 6% to 30% better spectral efficiency, which isn't too impressive. Combine that with H.264, however, and it would be significantly more impressive, in terms of IPTV.

It's going to take around 120-140mhz of spectrum to get 1gbps of bandwidth available to the DOCSIS 3.1 node (assuming they want to advertise 1gbps speeds), and they may deploy up to 200mhz. Even on top of current D3 deployments, that still leaves more than enough room to run the TV system on an 860mhz system, assuming smart use of SDV, with only a few dozen of the most popular channels, plus local and expanded basic SD staying linear.

One neat little trick they could use to do some double counting would be to run 4K over IPTV, with QoS, so that it stays ahead of people downloading porn. If a bunch of people in the neighborhood were watching 4K, then no one could get the full gigabit of internet speed, but no one would really notice or care that their porn is only downloading at 700mbps. This wouldn't require any equipment to be replaced, since 4k equipment doesn't exist yet. If the 4k boxes had their own D3.1 modems, no one would be the wiser that it's not QAM.



> As for baking the TA in to TiVo.... that's not really possible.


Comcast has effectively already done it with their VOD system. I'm talking specifically for Comcast, so it would have to be set up between TiVo and Comcast and would work with all Comcast systems through an IP gateway. They would just have to make it work far more often than their VOD system, which doesn't work more often than it does.



trip1eX said:


> $15 including HBO tho? HBO costs $15 alone.


Local broadcast channels are free anyway via OTA. And I doubt this would make you eligible for the bundled internet prices.

The skinny bundles with internet and TV via QAM are still a better deal...


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Local broadcast channels are free anyway via OTA. And I doubt this would make you eligible for the bundled internet prices.
> 
> The skinny bundles with internet and TV via QAM are still a better deal...


Yep but OTA can be a pain the ass and if you're paying $15 anyway for HBO, you're getting broadcast channels for the same cost as OTA plus whatever else they are offering with this package.

If you went OTA you're not eligible for bundled internet either.

Whether or not it is a better deal than any other cable package is impossible to say right now because we don't know all the details yet. I'd have to guess it will be a better deal for some customers otherwise they'd get no uptake.


----------



## belfert (Nov 15, 2007)

I thought I saw something about Comcast planning to go 100% IP TV for their cable services in 2016, but I can't find it again now. I would think this would be a major project to replace all cable boxes and DVRs, but they did it already for digital cable once.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

belfert said:


> I thought I saw something about Comcast planning to go 100% IP TV for their cable services in 2016, but I can't find it again now. I would think this would be a major project to replace all cable boxes and DVRs, but they did it already for digital cable once.


I believe I also read the press release about this. I think what they said was that all comcast areas would have IP capabilities in 2016, not be all exclusive IP and ditch QAM.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> Yep but OTA can be a pain the ass and if you're paying $15 anyway for HBO, you're getting broadcast channels for the same cost as OTA plus whatever else they are offering with this package.
> 
> If you went OTA you're not eligible for bundled internet either.
> 
> Whether or not it is a better deal than any other cable package is impossible to say right now because we don't know all the details yet. I'd have to guess it will be a better deal for some customers otherwise they'd get no uptake.


Yeah, that's kind of my point. The skinny bundles all include the local channels, and whatever else you get, like HBO. Basically all the good channels except sports. And they work with CableCard or a Comcast box.

Or people aren't rational consumers (they're not) or it will be a big flop (not the first time that has happened).



HarperVision said:


> I believe I also read the press release about this. I think what they said was that all comcast areas would have IP capabilities in 2016, not be all exclusive IP and ditch QAM.


Correct. We really have no idea what this actually *means*. I wouldn't be surprised if they started offering international or sports packages over IP, and required X1 to get them, but the mainstream content will not be converted for a long, long time.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HarperVision said:


> I believe I also read the press release about this. I think what they said was that all comcast areas would have IP capabilities in 2016, not be all exclusive IP and ditch QAM.





Bigg said:


> We really have no idea what this actually *means*. I wouldn't be surprised if they started offering international or sports packages over IP, and required X1 to get them, but the mainstream content will not be converted for a long, long time.


Here's the link to the article in question:
http://www.lightreading.com/video/multi-screen-video/comcast-all-ip-video-target-is-q1/d/d-id/718748

The most relevant section is:
_During the first quarter of 2016, Comcast will have all of its linear and VoD services available over IP. In fact, according to Werner, 95% of the company's footprint already has all video services available in IP. The final 5% will join the rest of the group early next year.

To be clear, this does not mean that all of Comcast's subscribers will receive their pay-TV services in IP in the near term. There is still a large base of legacy set-tops in the field, and Comcast Corp. will continue to deliver QAM-based video for some time to come.

However, even on that point, Werner had a substantial update to share.

"By the end of next year we'll have deployed eight million IP set-tops," declared Werner._

It sounds to me as if Comcast is already offering their entire TV line-up -- all linear channels plus on-demand stuff -- in IP as well as QAM. If I understand this correctly, Comcast customers who have a certain set-top box (the X1, I presume) are already getting *all* their TV in IP rather than QAM, at least in some markets. Seems like I've read that the X1 does not use CableCard-based authentication like earlier Comcast set-tops, which would make sense if it's all-IP and doesn't use QAM.

Clearly, Comcast believes the future of cable TV is IP. Over the next several years they will transfer all customers over to IP set-tops and phase out QAM completely.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Here's the link to the article in question: http://www.lightreading.com/video/multi-screen-video/comcast-all-ip-video-target-is-q1/d/d-id/718748 The most relevant section is: During the first quarter of 2016, Comcast will have all of its linear and VoD services available over IP. In fact, according to Werner, 95% of the company's footprint already has all video services available in IP. The final 5% will join the rest of the group early next year. To be clear, this does not mean that all of Comcast's subscribers will receive their pay-TV services in IP in the near term. There is still a large base of legacy set-tops in the field, and Comcast Corp. will continue to deliver QAM-based video for some time to come. However, even on that point, Werner had a substantial update to share. "By the end of next year we'll have deployed eight million IP set-tops," declared Werner. It sounds to me as if Comcast is already offering their entire TV line-up -- all linear channels plus on-demand stuff -- in IP as well as QAM. If I understand this correctly, Comcast customers who have a certain set-top box (the X1, I presume) are already getting all their TV in IP rather than QAM, at least in some markets. Seems like I've read that the X1 does not use CableCard-based authentication like earlier Comcast set-tops, which would make sense if it's all-IP and doesn't use QAM. Clearly, Comcast believes the future of cable TV is IP. Over the next several years they will transfer all customers over to IP set-tops and phase out QAM completely.


Thanks Nash. I believe Zerdian has been saying the newer version X1 doesn't have cablecard for a couple weeks now and people have been poo pooing him. Sounds like he's right on target.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Just took this month's survey for TiVo and it had an interesting section asking "Which television networks do you consider "must-keep TV"?". I wonder if TiVo is investigating the possibility of launching their own streaming service and trying to gauge which channels people really "need" for it to be successful?


----------



## raqball (Feb 23, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> Just took this month's survey for TiVo and it had an interesting section asking "Which television networks do you consider "must-keep TV"?". I wonder if TiVo is investigating the possibility of launching their own streaming service and trying to gauge which channels people really "need" for it to be successful?


For me:

1) ESPN
2) AMC
3) Discovery
4) HGTV
5) CW
6) History
7) Locals (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX)

If I could get them, I'd be a happy camper. I use Sling TV and OTA right now to get them all except Discovery.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

raqball said:


> For me: 1) ESPN 2) AMC 3) Discovery 4) HGTV 5) CW 6) History 7) Locals (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) If I could get them, I'd be a happy camper. I use Sling TV and OTA right now to get them all except Discovery.


That's my list too except I'd replace CW with VH1 Classic so I can watch all my 80's Hair Metal nostalgia!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

They didn't have many of the sub channels on there. Like they had VH1 but not VH1 Classic, they had FX but not FXX, etc... It was basically a list of the most popular basic cable channels with maybe a few extended basic channels thrown in. 

One big negative... it was missing premium channels.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> They didn't have many of the sub channels on there. Like they had VH1 but not VH1 Classic, they had FX but not FXX, etc... It was basically a list of the most popular basic cable channels with maybe a few extended basic channels thrown in.
> 
> One big negative... it was missing premium channels.


That's because they're going to offer those as apps like HBONow, SHO Anytime, etc.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> That's because they're going to offer those as apps like HBONow, SHO Anytime, etc.


How quickly do those services add first run content? I don't really use them so I'm not sure. Like how soon can I watch the newest episode of Game of Thrones on HBONow? Is there like a 1 day delay or is available at 9:00pm EST the day it airs?


----------



## davefred99 (Oct 31, 2004)

raqball said:


> For me:
> 
> 1) ESPN
> 2) AMC
> ...


The big one for me would be Fox news & for my wife LMN & lifetime. I like the Sling TV Package Ok if I could substitute Fox for CNN. Frome what I here FOX is a major hold out for OTT but the FOX online clips make it slightly palpable.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> How quickly do those services add first run content? I don't really use them so I'm not sure. Like how soon can I watch the newest episode of Game of Thrones on HBONow? Is there like a 1 day delay or is available at 9:00pm EST the day it airs?


I'm pretty sure they're the exact same as the HBO and SHO that you can get with cable and they include the east and west coast feeds live too. These are the stand alone streaming apps, not the cable sub add on ones.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Here's the link to the article in question:
> http://www.lightreading.com/video/multi-screen-video/comcast-all-ip-video-target-is-q1/d/d-id/718748
> 
> The most relevant section is:
> ...


There is absolutely no way that everything is being broadcast over QAM and through IP at the same time. Saying that a box could access something over IP is different from any equipment actually doing that at the current time. The VOD *might* be IP, and the Cloud DVR *might* be IP, but no one seems to know what X1 is really running on at the moment.

So it's all clear as much what's actually going on here. Also, the authentication system and how the video is being delivered are two completely different things. If they have a waiver from CableCard, they may well be delivering the authorization via IP, which then allows the boxes to access QAM channels.

QAM isn't going anywhere anytime soon. They have WAY too much equipment out there to just get rid of it. It will be a slow transition. They have an amazing take rate on X1, but it's still only a fraction of their total subscribers.



Dan203 said:


> Just took this month's survey for TiVo and it had an interesting section asking "Which television networks do you consider "must-keep TV"?". I wonder if TiVo is investigating the possibility of launching their own streaming service and trying to gauge which channels people really "need" for it to be successful?


The problem for me is how sprawled out certain events are. I only regularly watch a couple of cable channels. But then add in my school's basketball teams, that adds about a dozen channels, add in all the news channels for the presidential debates, and four more channels for the Olympics, and in addition to locals and HBO, there are 20+ channels, most of which I don't watch frequently.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> There is absolutely no way that everything is being broadcast over QAM and through IP at the same time. Saying that a box could access something over IP is different from any equipment actually doing that at the current time. The VOD *might* be IP, and the Cloud DVR *might* be IP, but no one seems to know what X1 is really running on at the moment.


You may be right but your interpretation of the situation is clearly at odds with what's reported in the article I referenced. Again, perhaps the article is mistaken in the facts it reports. But if the article is correct, then you are not. Quoting again:

_During the first quarter of 2016, Comcast will have all of its linear and VoD services available over IP... To be clear, this does not mean that all of Comcast's subscribers will receive their pay-TV services in IP in the near term. There is still a large base of legacy set-tops in the field_


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

raqball said:


> For me:
> 
> 1) ESPN
> 2) AMC
> ...


 I also do the OTA and Sling TV, throw USA and Bravo in there too.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> You may be right but your interpretation of the situation is clearly at odds with what's reported in the article I referenced. Again, perhaps the article is mistaken in the facts it reports. But if the article is correct, then you are not. Quoting again:
> 
> _During the first quarter of 2016, Comcast will have all of its linear and VoD services available over IP... To be clear, this does not mean that all of Comcast's subscribers will receive their pay-TV services in IP in the near term. There is still a large base of legacy set-tops in the field_


No it's not at all at odds at all, if you actually bother to read what it says. The article said that the content is _available_, not that anything is _actually accessing_ it over IP. There is no way that all X1 boxes could be getting all linear content over IP while it is also broadcast in QAM. Not possible, not enough bandwidth. Cloud DVR and VOD *might* be IP, as that would allow them to scale back the number of QAM VOD channels and ramp on DOCSIS 3 bandwidth, possibly moving to H.264 over IP in the process.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Doesn't this relegate TiVo to OTA service? If everything is streamed, isn't a Roku or FireTV adequate?


----------



## Eddie501 (Jun 4, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> How quickly do those services add first run content? I don't really use them so I'm not sure. Like how soon can I watch the newest episode of Game of Thrones on HBONow? Is there like a 1 day delay or is available at 9:00pm EST the day it airs?


Programming on both HBO Now & Showtime is available to stream immediately upon it's East Coast airing. I was actually surprised at first that GoT and Homeland just pop up at exactly 9:00 pm. The only exception is live programming like Bill Maher or boxing. Those usually take a day.

Showtime has east/west live streams also, but the quality is not as good as streaming individual shows. And I think HBO only has a live feed on Sling & it's the east coast version.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wizwor said:


> Doesn't this relegate TiVo to OTA service? If everything is streamed, isn't a Roku or FireTV adequate?


Regardless of what anyone wants to believe TiVos are fundamentally a DVR. All the features TiVo offers including streaming apps are designed to help make buying a TiVo DVR are better choice (or at least a viable alternative) than buying or renting another DVR.

If someone doesn't want and isn't willing to pay for a DVR there is no reason to buy or even look at a TiVo. Also if there is no content to record there is no reason to have a DVR.

So as long as TiVo can record content from a pay TV service or via OTA and people want to record that content then nothing has changed. Once people either don't want to record the content or TiVo can no longer record the content then there is no reason for a TiVo DVR.

At this point in Time nothing has changed when it comes to a TiVo DVR being able to record content from a cable TV service. If or when that is going to change is not known and nothing but speculation. My opinion is that one will be able to record a cable TV services content with a TiVo DVR for an extended period of time (longer than 5 years). If people will want or need to continue to record that content with all the streaming/Void options is anther question - but so far I would say people will still want to record it.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> You may be right but your interpretation of the situation is clearly at odds with what's reported in the article I referenced. Again, perhaps the article is mistaken in the facts it reports. But if the article is correct, then you are not. Quoting again:
> 
> _During the first quarter of 2016, Comcast will have all of its linear and VoD services available over IP... To be clear, this does not mean that all of Comcast's subscribers will receive their pay-TV services in IP in the near term. There is still a large base of legacy set-tops in the field_


Everything being available in IP doesn't mean everything is being broadcast in IP.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

There is no reason TiVo couldn't record a streaming service. Other then the fact that existing streaming services prevent it and there is no mandate in place to force them to allow it. 

I've mentioned this before but my vision for a TiVo service would be two tier. First they would have a streaming cable service, akin to Sling TV, that is paired with a cloud DVR. This service coukd be accessed from other hardware, like Roku or FireTV, and would have a familiar TiVo interface. However the service could also be paired with an OTA only TiVo which would seamlessly meld the cloud DVR with a local 4 tuner OTA DVR. This would allow them to mix in the local OTA channels with the streaming cable channels without the nightmare logistics, and expense, that DSS and Playstation Vue deal with.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> No it's not at all at odds at all, if you actually bother to read what it says. The article said that the content is _available_, not that anything is _actually accessing_ it over IP. There is no way that all X1 boxes could be getting all linear content over IP while it is also broadcast in QAM. Not possible, not enough bandwidth. Cloud DVR and VOD *might* be IP, as that would allow them to scale back the number of QAM VOD channels and ramp on DOCSIS 3 bandwidth, possibly moving to H.264 over IP in the process.


I bothered to read the article, quite carefully. Saying that something is available is meaningless if it can't actually be accessed. Are you interpreting the article to mean that 95% of Comcast's network (soon to be 100%) has the pieces in place to deliver IPTV but that they aren't actually delivering linear channel IPTV yet and won't do so until ALL of their customers have IPTV-capable set-tops, at which point they'll switch over all TV transmission from QAM to IP? That interpretation just isn't consistent with the rest of the article.

You keep saying that it's only VOD that might be delivered in IP when the article quite clearly states it's both linear and VOD. You're saying that because you assume there's insufficient bandwidth for Comcast to deliver all of their TV content via both QAM and IP at the same time. Do you understand the way that IPTV works? From the IPTV article on Wikipedia:

The Internet protocol-based platform offers significant advantages, including the ability to integrate television with other IP-based services like high speed Internet access and VoIP. A switched IP network also allows for the delivery of significantly more content and functionality. *In a typical TV or satellite network, using broadcast video technology, all the content constantly flows downstream to each customer, and the customer switches the content at the set-top box.* The customer can select from as many choices as the telecomms, cable or satellite company can stuff into the "pipe" flowing into the home. *A switched IP network works differently. Content remains in the network, and only the content the customer selects is sent into the customer's home. That frees up bandwidth, and the customer's choice is less restricted by the size of the "pipe" into the home.*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPTV

In an IPTV system like AT&T Uverse, all of the linear channels to which the customer subscribes are *not* constantly flowing through the line to the house, taking up bandwidth as they do with traditional QAM multicast. Only those channels which are currently requested for live viewing or DVR recording are taking up bandwidth. Comcast has lots of bandwidth available on their network beyond what they devote to QAM multicast, which is how they offer internet speeds of 1 Gbps+ as well as IP telephony. There's no reason why they couldn't use some of that bandwidth to deliver a few live HD video streams (whether those streams are live linear channels or VOD makes no difference) to an X1 or some other connected "second screen" device.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> Regardless of what anyone wants to believe TiVos are fundamentally a DVR. All the features TiVo offers including streaming apps are designed to help make buying a TiVo DVR are better choice (or at least a viable alternative) than buying or renting another DVR.
> 
> If someone doesn't want and isn't willing to pay for a DVR there is no reason to buy or even look at a TiVo. Also if there is no content to record there is no reason to have a DVR.
> 
> ...


Isn't this announcement signalling a transition to streaming linear plus streaming on demand? Doesn't that make the DVR much less necessary?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> There is no reason TiVo couldn't record a streaming service. Other then the fact that existing streaming services prevent it and there is no mandate in place to force them to allow it. I've mentioned this before but my vision for a TiVo service would be two tier. First they would have a streaming cable service, akin to Sling TV, that is paired with a cloud DVR. This service coukd be accessed from other hardware, like Roku or FireTV, and would have a familiar TiVo interface. However the service could also be paired with an OTA only TiVo which would seamlessly meld the cloud DVR with a local 4 tuner OTA DVR. This would allow them to mix in the local OTA channels with the streaming cable channels without the nightmare logistics, and expense, that DSS and Playstation Vue deal with.


I've said the same thing for awhile and agree since I've posted many Fierce Telecom articles on these steaming subjects. If I were TiVo, that would be MY version of Aereo that I'd market. Maybe they could actually offer up the national east and west coast feeds of the major networks if a customer can't get them OTA and they can apply to the local stations for a waiver, a la DirecTV?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

wizwor said:


> Isn't this announcement signalling a transition to streaming linear plus streaming on demand? Doesn't that make the DVR much less necessary?


Is the on-demand content commercial free? If not, can I FF through the on-demand content's commercials? If not, then a DVR is just as necessary as ever.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Is the on-demand content commercial free? If not, can I FF through the on-demand content's commercials? If not, then a DVR is just as necessary as ever.


Plus many of these on demand shows don't come available until some period after it airs. With a DVR I can start my playback within milliseconds of it starting and then trick play all I want.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

I'm not talking about how cable works now. I'm talking about where they are going. If cable is linear and on demand over IP, then a Roku can pause and fast forward. This is wishful thinking on my part. I am an OTA-first cord cutter with three TiVos and a pair of Minis. It's clear to me that OTA is an afterthought. I'm looking forward to a day when TiVo's development is focused on an OTA customer.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wizwor said:


> Isn't this announcement signalling a transition to streaming linear plus streaming on demand? Doesn't that make the DVR much less necessary?


As you can see from the discuss what the announcement means is not clear. I stick by my last post - nothing changes until either TiVo can not record the content or people no longer want to record the content. If or when either of those two things are going to happen is an unknown. My opinion is TiVo will be able to record the content for an extended period of time (5+ years) and nothing I see coming in that same time period will make the majority of the people no longer want to record the content.



wizwor said:


> I'm not talking about how cable works now. I'm talking about where they are going. If cable is linear and on demand over IP, then a Roku can pause and fast forward. This is wishful thinking on my part. I am an OTA-first cord cutter with three TiVos and a pair of Minis. It's clear to me that OTA is an afterthought. I'm looking forward to a day when TiVo's development is focused on an OTA customer.


Talking about where cable TV delivery is going is pretty speculative. TWC already has a Roku app that their users can use to access their channels with, nearly every cable company had some level of VOD. So far plenty of people still want to record their content with a DVR. When something new gets here people will use it and decide if it can replace a DVR or not. Up to then it is just speculation.

Not sure what you mean by OTA is an afterthought - if you are talking about TiVo they have been making OTA DVRs since day one (15+ yrs) and pretty much have had very good to excellent OTA DVRs for all of that time. Right now both the Roamio and Bolt TiVos are both very good to excellent OTA DVRs. That said if someone primarily wants an excellent streaming device they are better off buying a dedicated one as TVs, DVRs, Blu-ray players, gaming consoles, etc. are not now and likely will never be as good at streaming or have access to as much content as the top dedicated streaming devices.


----------



## javabird (Oct 13, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> _
> 
> Is there really packages that don't included ESPN? I don't recall seeing any besides a limited basic package which is mostly just the OTA networks. And they've had those packages for a long time.
> 
> Didn't know ESPN had lost that many subscribers either._


_

I have the Comcast Blast package which includes "Extended Basic" cable and it excludes ESPN._


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> Plus many of these on demand shows don't come available until some period after it airs. With a DVR I can start my playback within milliseconds of it starting and then trick play all I want.


Very true. And on-demand content often disappears after a few weeks or months of being aired. With a DVR, I can keep the recording as long as I want and watch it anytime I want.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> As you can see from the discuss what the announcement means is not clear. I stick by my last post - nothing changes until either TiVo can not record the content or *people no longer want to record the content*. If or when either of those two things are going to happen is an unknown. My opinion is TiVo will be able to record the content for an extended period of time (5+ years) and nothing I see coming in that same time period will make the majority of the people no longer want to record the content.


This is what I am talking about. On demand essentially puts your DVR in the cloud. Xfinity kind of does this, but it requires expensive hardware rentals. I have always believed that cable could kill off the competition by using less expensive set top hardware. It sounds like they are getting ready to do this.


atmuscarella said:


> Talking about where cable TV delivery is going is pretty speculative. *TWC already has a Roku app* that their users can use to access their channels with, nearly every cable company had some level of VOD. So far plenty of people still want to record their content with a DVR. When something new gets here people will use it and decide if it can replace a DVR or not. Up to then it is just speculation.


Exactly. 


atmuscarella said:


> Not sure what you mean by OTA is an afterthought - if you are talking about TiVo they have been making OTA DVRs since day one (15+ yrs) and pretty much have had very good to excellent OTA DVRs for all of that time. Right now both the Roamio and Bolt TiVos are both very good to excellent OTA DVRs. That said if someone primarily wants an excellent streaming device they are better off buying a dedicated one as TVs, DVRs, Blu-ray players, gaming consoles, etc. are not now and likely will never be as good at streaming or have access to as much content as the top dedicated streaming devices.


The OS is written for cable/satellite. For instance, if I press 5 on the remote, I get channel not found rather than 5.1. Analog has been gone for six years.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I bothered to read the article, quite carefully. Saying that something is available is meaningless if it can't actually be accessed. Are you interpreting the article to mean that 95% of Comcast's network (soon to be 100%) has the pieces in place to deliver IPTV but that they aren't actually delivering linear channel IPTV yet and won't do so until ALL of their customers have IPTV-capable set-tops, at which point they'll switch over all TV transmission from QAM to IP? That interpretation just isn't consistent with the rest of the article.


The article clearly says that IP is *available*. We know that Comcast's network doesn't have anywhere close to enough bandwidth to deliver everything in QAM and active channels on that node via IP, and _delivering redundant IP streams of content already available via QAM makes no logical sense whatsoever_. Therefore, we can deduce that linear content will continue to be delivered via QAM for the foreseeable future. This is not hard to figure out by reading the article and using common sense.



> You keep saying that it's only VOD that might be delivered in IP when the article quite clearly states it's both linear and VOD. You're saying that because you assume there's insufficient bandwidth for Comcast to deliver all of their TV content via both QAM and IP at the same time. Do you understand the way that IPTV works? From the IPTV article on Wikipedia:


I know how IPTV works. It's not rocket science. However, if you knew anything about how Comcast's cable system works, you would know that they are using most of the capacity of the system for linear QAM, and delivering redundant programming via IP and QAM uses *MORE* bandwidth than just delivering linear content via QAM.



> In an IPTV system like AT&T Uverse, all of the linear channels to which the customer subscribes are *not* constantly flowing through the line to the house, taking up bandwidth as they do with traditional QAM multicast.


No sh*t Sherlock. Comcast, however, is already running a linear QAM system. Thus, anything available via linear QAM *WILL* be accessed via linear QAM, and not via a _redundant_ IP stream. Cloud DVR and VOD content, as well as future channel additions not available on QAM (bad news for TiVo users if this is the case) may use IP, as that would be more efficient than making them available via SDV/QAM based VOD as is used today for legacy equipment and TiVos.

My suspicion is that, if they can get away with it, they will launch additional niche packages and content available only on X1, and delivered via IP, like out of market sports and international channels. I'm not sure how the CableCard mandate applies to this content, however, as it is not QAM content, so TiVos may be left out in the dark.

What you don't seem to understand, aside from the fact that Comcast doesn't have the ability to deliver programming twice, once in IP, and once in QAM, is that part of the goal of X1 is making a platform where the user can't tell what is QAM, what is IP, what is local, what is cloud, and integrating DVR, VOD, and live TV all into one clear interface. It can make switching from QAM to IP and back again completely seamless, which will help Comcast over the next decade as they transition from QAM to IP. That article is just slippery wording to say that content is "available", which is kind of a joke, since nothing out there as of right now is actually accessing all content via IP.



wizwor said:


> I have always believed that cable could kill off the competition by using less expensive set top hardware. It sounds like they are getting ready to do this.


I think they're going step by step to not requiring a local DVR, and allowing the small boxes to be able to access the Cloud DVR and effectively look and feel like a local DVR without the local DVR. I guess someone figured out that it's beneficial in one way or another, as it's not cheap to run the Cloud DVR service when it could all be kept in the field on traditional hard-drive based DVR systems.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wizwor said:


> This is what I am talking about. On demand essentially puts your DVR in the cloud. Xfinity kind of does this, but it requires expensive hardware rentals. I have always believed that cable could kill off the competition by using less expensive set top hardware. It sounds like they are getting ready to do this.
> 
> Exactly.


In a perfect world if cable companies deployed these type service in the way that people want I could see the need/desire to record content going away or at least declining significantly. However that has not happened so far and it does not appear likely that it will so I still believe that for an extend period of time many people will want to record content. Remember TiVo stand alone DVRs are a niche product and are deployed in less than 1% of American households. While TiVo would love their DVRs to go mainstream, I find that unlikely, if they could get to 3-4% of households that would be great.



wizwor said:


> The OS is written for cable/satellite. For instance, if I press 5 on the remote, I get channel not found rather than 5.1. Analog has been gone for six years.


Analog hasn't been gone for 6 years. Low power stations where/are able to broadcast until some time this year.

That said TiVo Roamio & Bolt DVRs can not tune analog OTA so I agree TiVo should default a number to a .1 station. However the Premiere OTA units still needed to tuner to analog until now so perhaps they didn't change the software because of them. Hopefully they will do it now.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

More potential signs TiVo is moving in the streaming direction:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10686698#post10686698

This should make Dan happy!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Not sure those are really related. I *think* that Fioptics is actually switching away from their previous proprietary IPTV system over to a hybrid QAM system like FIOS so that they can support CableCARD, and thus TiVo. Not sure what that has to do with Roku, but maybe the software also includes some streaming functionality on their end. In any case I think this is just an upgrade to their system and nothing to do with a future TiVo streaming service.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> The article clearly says that IP is *available*. We know that Comcast's network doesn't have anywhere close to enough bandwidth to deliver everything in QAM and active channels on that node via IP, and _delivering redundant IP streams of content already available via QAM makes no logical sense whatsoever_. Therefore, we can deduce that linear content will continue to be delivered via QAM for the foreseeable future. This is not hard to figure out by reading the article and using common sense.
> 
> That article is just slippery wording to say that content is "available", which is kind of a joke, since nothing out there as of right now is actually accessing all content via IP.


Yes, the original article from Light Reading clearly states that QAM will be used for some time to come because there are so many QAM-only set-tops in the field. But delivering the same linear channels in both QAM and IP _absolutely makes logical sense_ if you are aiming to transition over from QAM to IP for set-tops and, in the meantime, serve linear channels to other connected devices. Here's another article about Comcast's IP initiative which you can try to refute:

http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/2014/03/comcast-uncoiling-viper-across-video-services

Specifically note the following sentences:

_Comcast started developing its organically grown Viper platform several years ago as a way to build a cloud-based, IP video infrastructure that would deliver live streams, *full linear lineups*, on-demand video, cloud DVR service and other digital video products and services to the full range of IP devices.

Using the Viper platform, late last year Comcast updated its mobile viewing app, Xfinity TV Go, to allow subscribers to watch *35 live TV channels* on their Apple and Android devices outside of their homes.

Comcast also uses Viper for its IP-delivered "Xfinity on Campus" multi-screen service, which is being trialed by the University of New Hampshire, Drexel University and Emerson College. Previously, Comcast trialed a managed IP video service at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT.)

"We've been delivering *full IP linear* and VOD service to MIT for almost three years now," Broome said.

"The big thing is just deploying it out and moving more and more services over to the IP platform," Broome said. "*As we start supporting full IP set-top boxes*, those will be on the Viper platform. The platform is in place so it can be used no matter where we go."_

Now, whether any linear channels are currently being delivered via IP to any Comcast set-tops, such as the X1, I do not know. I had originally inferred that may be the case (and it may not be) but I also stated that the transmission of linear IP channels could be to connected second-screen devices; either possibility would be consistent with the Light Reading article's clear assertion that linear IP is available from Comcast. Based on the quote above about the Xfinity mobile app, it would certainly appear that linear IP is being fed to non-set-top devices. You kept insisting that Comcast absolutely was not delivering linear channels via IP to any device, even though both the original article from Light Reading as well as the one from CED above clearly states they are.



Bigg said:


> The article said that the content is _available_, not that anything is _actually accessing_ it over IP.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Not sure those are really related. I *think* that Fioptics is actually switching away from their previous proprietary IPTV system over to a hybrid QAM system like FIOS so that they can support CableCARD, and thus TiVo.


They started with QAM, but all new installs for the past few years have been IPTV, a la U-Verse, but with fiber bandwidth. I'm not sure when the QAM-based system phases out though. They also have some FTTN areas that obviously never had QAM.



NashGuy said:


> Yes, the original article from Light Reading clearly states that QAM will be used for some time to come because there are so many QAM-only set-tops in the field. But delivering the same linear channels in both QAM and IP _absolutely makes logical sense_ if you are aiming to transition over from QAM to IP for set-tops and, in the meantime, serve linear channels to other connected devices.


It makes *absolutely zero sense*. Considering that X1 can tune either, why would Comcast waste bandwidth duplicating what is already available on QAM? The answer, of course, is that they wouldn't, aren't, and aren't planning to anytime soon.



> Here's another article about Comcast's IP initiative which you can try to refute:


There's nothing to refute, it just doesn't support your bizarre, nonsensical, and technically impossible theory that Comcast is delivering redundant IP and QAM linear programming.

In fact, reading the article, one learns that Viper has the capability to deliver all-IP in the future, but is currently a system that unifies their various backend systems, and co-exists with QAM. X1 has been IP-enabled from day 1, and we know that the guide data, control signals, thumbnails, and the like are all coming in over IP. I'm not sure about VOD, it may be using IP, but that's not clear at the moment, as the performance increase may simply be due to running the control signals for VOD over IP, not a Moto or Sci Atlanta headend like traditional cable boxes use.

The IP-based delivery systems on university campuses are a totally different animal from their consumer HFC system. The IPTV doesn't use HFC, and delivers services entirely via IP over the university's computer network, creating a converged network that's way cheaper than maintaining an HFC plant, and allows students to stream wirelessly to their own devices.



> Now, whether any linear channels are currently being delivered via IP to any Comcast set-tops, such as the X1, I do not know. I had originally inferred that may be the case (and it may not be) but I also stated that the transmission of linear IP channels could be to connected second-screen devices; either possibility would be consistent with the Light Reading article's clear assertion that linear IP is available from Comcast. Based on the quote above about the Xfinity mobile app, it would certainly appear that linear IP is being fed to non-set-top devices. You kept insisting that Comcast absolutely was not delivering linear channels via IP to any device, even though both the original article from Light Reading as well as the one from CED above clearly states they are.


So you're back-tracking on your entire thesis? Because common sense took over, and you realized that it would be a ridiculous idea to deliver everything twice to X1?

We are talking about *IPTV*, which means delivery of video via IP to Comcast's equipment in lieu of QAM, which is not happening. They've had streaming video available through a website and app for a couple of years now, that's not what we're talking about, and that goes through your home network, and not on their managed network end to end (although it likely never goes on the public internet if you're on a Comcast internet connection, so it leaves their control only for the last few hundred feet of it's trip). They have a bunch of channels available through their app/website, and likely could technically have any channel available, but that is currently limited by their carriage agreements.

Yes, someday, everything will be IP, and there will be IP-only boxes available, but that's not the world we live in today. I believe Comcast has boxes without QAM tuners, but they are basically TiVo Minis are require an X1 DVR to tune the QAM signal, and then transmit it to the box via MoCA within the user's dwelling, in much the same way that the TiVo Mini works.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> They've had streaming video available through a website and app for a couple of years now


Glad to see you're admitting that you were wrong in stating that nothing is accessing linear IP channels from Comcast. (Ha! As if you would ever admit as much.)

X1 accessing linear IP channels was never my entire thesis, only that, as the original article stated, Comcast is making a big deal about offering their entire suite of TV services (including linear) via IP, prompting my prediction that eventually they will switch over totally to IP, with all set-top boxes accessing all TV services via IP, not by QAM. As the article states, and as I have stated, this will happen slowly due to legacy equipment but there's no reason to believe it's not the future. (Perhaps by the early 2020s Comcast will catch up with what Uverse has been doing since 2006.) Moving to all IP would obviously save a lot of bandwidth; Comcast toyed with SVD in the past to save bandwidth but ultimately decided against widespread deployment. Instead, they will get those savings first by switching to MPEG4 (already underway) and ultimately by switching from QAM to all IP. As you have repeatedly stated, it makes no sense to offer all their services in both QAM and IP. Comcast has demonstrated they are devoted to IP and are not going to give up the "anywhere, any device" flexibility that it offers and that younger generations in particular expect. In the meantime, their Viper IP system will obviously be what powers their upcoming skinny bundle Stream service, along with VOD and cloud DVR viewing (plus possibly some linear channel viewing) on the X1 and other current set-tops. And as that article stated at the end, it will be what eventually powers Comcast's future full-IP set-top boxes.

I don't think I'm alone in noticing that you are rude and obnoxious in the way that you choose to respond to others on this site. Please show better manners to me and others or just don't bother coming around.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> I don't think I'm alone in noticing that you are rude and obnoxious in the way that you choose to respond to others on this site. Please show better manners to me and others or just don't bother coming around.


Good luck with that.  To quote him actually... "He's a mess"


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> X1 accessing linear IP channels was never my entire thesis, only that, as the original article stated, Comcast is making a big deal about offering their entire suite of TV services (including linear) via IP, prompting my prediction that eventually they will switch over totally to IP, with all set-top boxes accessing all TV services via IP, not by QAM. As the article states, and as I have stated, this will happen slowly due to legacy equipment but there's no reason to believe it's not the future. (Perhaps by the early 2020s Comcast will catch up with what Uverse has been doing since 2006.) Moving to all IP would obviously save a lot of bandwidth; Comcast toyed with SVD in the past to save bandwidth but ultimately decided against widespread deployment. Instead, they will get those savings first by switching to MPEG4 (already underway) and ultimately by switching from QAM to all IP. As you have repeatedly stated, it makes no sense to offer all their services in both QAM and IP. Comcast has demonstrated they are devoted to IP and are not going to give up the "anywhere, any device" flexibility that it offers and that younger generations in particular expect. In the meantime, their Viper IP system will obviously be what powers their upcoming skinny bundle Stream service, along with VOD and cloud DVR viewing (plus possibly some linear channel viewing) on the X1 and other current set-tops. And as that article stated at the end, it will be what eventually powers Comcast's future full-IP set-top boxes.


IP isn't exactly a bandwidth saver.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> IP isn't exactly a bandwidth saver.


Multicast IP has essentially the same bandwidth savings as SDV. And if they convert to all IP they can convert to DOCSIS 3.1 which adds bandwidth to the system.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Glad to see you're admitting that you were wrong in stating that nothing is accessing linear IP channels from Comcast. (Ha! As if you would ever admit as much.)


NO. You're twisting what I said. I said that there is nothing using IPTV from Comcast right now. Their streaming apps and website are not IPTV, they are a separate system. IPTV is TV delivered via IP to a set top box, a la U-Verse. VIPER has unified VOD, IPTV, and web/app-based streaming into one backend, but that doesn't mean that the services are the same. They are not.



> X1 accessing linear IP channels was never my entire thesis, only that, as the original article stated, Comcast is making a big deal about offering their entire suite of TV services (including linear) via IP, prompting my prediction that eventually they will switch over totally to IP, with all set-top boxes accessing all TV services via IP, not by QAM.


Your theory originally was that X1 boxes are getting linear TV via IP, which is simply not true.



> As the article states, and as I have stated, this will happen slowly due to legacy equipment but there's no reason to believe it's not the future.


I'm glad that you have come around and embraced reality and the physics of a cable plant. 



> (Perhaps by the early 2020s Comcast will catch up with what Uverse has been doing since 2006.) Moving to all IP would obviously save a lot of bandwidth; Comcast toyed with SVD in the past to save bandwidth but ultimately decided against widespread deployment. Instead, they will get those savings first by switching to MPEG4 (already underway) and ultimately by switching from QAM to all IP. As you have repeatedly stated, it makes no sense to offer all their services in both QAM and IP. Comcast has demonstrated they are devoted to IP and are not going to give up the "anywhere, any device" flexibility that it offers and that younger generations in particular expect. In the meantime, their Viper IP system will obviously be what powers their upcoming skinny bundle Stream service, along with VOD and cloud DVR viewing (plus possibly some linear channel viewing) on the X1 and other current set-tops. And as that article stated at the end, it will be what eventually powers Comcast's future full-IP set-top boxes.


Delivering TV via IP has absolutely nothing to do, at least at the network level, with delivering streaming TV on the internet and QAM-based TV services. It's a very savvy way to manage the backend for future growth, but it's not relevant to the rest of the system. QAM is going to be around for a long, long time. Maybe we'll see the top-tier stuff, UHD, and niche content running over IP in the next few years, but the mainstream content is going to be on QAM for at least a decade in one form or another.



> I don't think I'm alone in noticing that you are rude and obnoxious in the way that you choose to respond to others on this site. Please show better manners to me and others or just don't bother coming around.


What is this, a dinner club or something? We're here to talk technology, not be prim, proper, and perfect. I really don't care if you think I'm rude and obnoxious, because complaining about it just comes off as petty and infantile whining.


----------

