# Rumor: Comcast may go all-IP for new subs by year-end



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Well, I've seen Comcast's transition from QAM to IP video coming for awhile but even I'm surprised to read this rumor today over at Light Reading (a well-respected industry news source).

Comcast May Go All IP by End of Year - Rumor | Light Reading

Note that the rumor isn't purporting that Comcast will turn off QAM service this year, only that it will officially deprecate it by making all new subs IP-only. I'm pretty sure all X1 boxes already deployed can seamlessly switch over to IP and let their QAM tuners lie dormant. Given that X1 already accounted for about half of all deployed STBs at the end of 2016, I would imagine Comcast would switch those subs over from QAM to IP somewhere around the same time (year-end '17).

Given that there's not going to be a successor to CableCARD, I imagine it will be up to TiVo to try to work out an arrangement to make their boxes continue to work with Comcast TV service at some point in the next few years when they inevitably cease QAM broadcasts all together in order to free up all that bandwidth.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

While this would be disappointing to say the least, it's not surprising. Hopefully TiVo has been working on something with them, because I don't think it will take more than a few years for them to sunset the old model completely.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

mntvjunkie said:


> While this would be disappointing to say the least, it's not surprising. Hopefully TiVo has been working on something with them, because I don't think it will take more than a few years for them to sunset the old model completely.


I can see how this is disappointing because current TiVo models can't handle it. But in the longer view getting away from CableCARDs and Tuning Adapters is a really good thing. TiVo will handle it with new models eventually and if they don't someone else will -- hopefully someone with better guide data than Rovi provides.

The QAM systems will linger for at least 5 years, more likely 10, so recovering the value invested in current TiVo's will not be a problem.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I can see how this is disappointing because current TiVo models can't handle it. But in the longer view getting away from CableCARDs and Tuning Adapters is a really good thing. TiVo will handle it with new models eventually and if they don't someone else will -- hopefully someone with better guide data than Rovi provides.
> 
> The QAM systems will linger for at least 5 years, more likely 10, so recovering the value invested in current TiVo's will not be a problem.


Without FCC mandates when cable providers switch their traditional cable system from QAM delivery to IPTV delivery users will have no STB/DVR options, you will have to use what ever the cable company is leasing. Same as you do now with AT&T Uverse and Google fiber.

Only the OTT services are going to support third party hardware and it is unlikely many will support TiVo's platform.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Tivo was working with Comcast a few years ago for IPTV delivery but we've heard nothing since.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> Tivo was working with Comcast a few years ago for IPTV delivery but we've heard nothing since.


Ya a few years ago everyone thought there was going to be a FCC mandated cable card replacement and that the Satellite providers and cable systems using IPTV delivery were going to have to provide support for third party STBs/DVRs. That is all dead now.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

dlfl said:


> I can see how this is disappointing because current TiVo models can't handle it. But in the longer view getting away from CableCARDs and Tuning Adapters is a really good thing. TiVo will handle it with new models eventually and if they don't someone else will -- hopefully someone with better guide data than Rovi provides.
> 
> The QAM systems will linger for at least 5 years, more likely 10, so recovering the value invested in current TiVo's will not be a problem.


TiVo models can handle it, but only as an app - so I am not sure what the value would be.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

dlfl said:


> I can see how this is disappointing because current TiVo models can't handle it. But in the longer view getting away from CableCARDs and Tuning Adapters is a really good thing. TiVo will handle it with new models eventually and if they don't someone else will -- hopefully someone with better guide data than Rovi provides.
> 
> The QAM systems will linger for at least 5 years, more likely 10, so recovering the value invested in current TiVo's will not be a problem.


Tivo has software already that can handle SDV without a tuning adapter, but it's up to the cable provider to upgrade the headends


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

ajwees41 said:


> Tivo has software already that can handle SDV without a tuning adapter, but it's up to the cable provider to upgrade the headends


I've always wondered what this entry was in Diagnostics.

Channel Sources:
Cs5: SdvHttp Inactive.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Assuming the rumor reported in the OP is true, here are my thoughts:

1. I would think that once the switchover happens later this year, no new TiVos will be able to be activated on Comcast. Since they won't actually be turning off QAM signals, currently activated TiVos should continue to work the same, but since all new subs will be IP-only, that would seem to rule out any further activations of TiVos (whether first-time activations of new units or reactivations of old units). From what I gather, Comcast accounts for probably 40% or more of all US QAM-based pay TV subs (i.e. cable + FiOS). It's questionable whether the Bolt could continue to be a viable retail product if 40% of otherwise potential buyers could no longer use it. (Never mind the fact that Verizon FiOS may begin a similar QAM-to-IP transition any day now that would even further diminish the pool of potential new TiVo hardware buyers.)

2. It's already been reported that Comcast will begin allowing their app on Rokus and maybe other retail streaming devices to access their TV service and be used as customer-owned STBs later this year. Those devices, of course, would be served via IP, not QAM. (This is already in open beta trials for certain Roku models now.) So I'm guessing IPTV support for Roku will be officially offered (post-beta) at the same time that they switch over all new subs to IP. X1 will immediately become the only type of STBs issued by Comcast. If you don't want X1, you'll need to supply your own Roku or other supported device.

3. If all the above does shake out this year, it would mean Comcast is being even more aggressive in transitioning from QAM to IP than I had imagined. I had been thinking they wouldn't shut off QAM until 2019 or 2020 but they may end up doing it by the end of 2018, roughly a year after beginning the transition. That would be enough time to alert customers who hadn't already migrated to X1 or Roku that they will eventually have to do so. I imagine special incentive deals will be offered to encourage the laggers. Maybe they'll even have discounted Rokus available for purchase (or even free) when customers bring in their old QAM-based STBs.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

I don't see how they could refuse to issue a CableCARD to an existing account that adds a TiVo.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

As long as they are still broadcasting QAM they are required by law to offer CableCARDs. The only way this would effect TiVo users is if they completely stopped broadcasting QAM, which they're not going to do because they have too many devices in the field that need it.

Although they could start moving specific channels to IP only and there is nothing we could do about that.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Although they could start moving specific channels to IP only and there is nothing we could do about that.


Not without changing the packages.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> As long as they are still broadcasting QAM they are required by law to offer CableCARDs. The only way this would effect TiVo users is if they completely stopped broadcasting QAM, which they're not going to do because they have too many devices in the field that need it.
> 
> Although they could start moving specific channels to IP only and there is nothing we could do about that.


So long as Comcast offers customers a way to access their full TV service with an alternative form of customer-owned equipment in the form of streaming boxes like Roku, I'm not sure the FCC would continue requiring Comcast to offer CableCARDs. Maybe. But I wouldn't count on it. Everyone in the industry recognizes that CableCARD is on its last legs.

As for completely stopping QAM transmissions, Comcast obviously wants to do that as soon as is feasible in order to reclaim all that bandwidth. X1 increased from about 30% to 50% of their subs in 2016. Assuming similar gains this year would put their IP-capable installed user base at 70% by the end of this year. Then figure that a good chunk of that remaining 30% will transition to IP pretty quickly, either by voluntarily migrating to the newly available Roku app instead of the clunky old QAM box they were already using or through normal subscriber churn, given that all new subs must be IP.

I really don't see that many subs they would be in jeopardy of losing if they shut off QAM completely by year-end 2018. And those that may choose to walk away are probably such low-margin customers that Comcast wouldn't care all that much. (However, we could very well see the most basic level of service, just local channels in SD, continue to remain available in QAM for awhile longer, maybe indefinitely. That would use very little bandwidth.)


----------



## kokishin (Sep 9, 2014)

Would the switch to iptv force customers to use Comcast internet service? 

I have Comcast TV service only with a Roamio Pro and two Minis all with lifetime service. I use another company for my internet and voice services. I do not want to switch to Comcast for my ISP and voice services. I do not want to rent Comcast's inferior boxes. 

I'm hoping the Trump FCC will not allow Comcast to force their customers to an all Comcast solution. That would suck!

As the infrastructure moves to iptv, I'm hoping Tivo will offer a solution that allows their DVRs to connect to any iptv provider.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

kokishin said:


> Would the switch to iptv force customers to use Comcast internet service?


No. They've already announced that IPTV service for Roku will be available to non-internet subscribers. A Comcast "IP gateway" will be installed -- essentially a cable internet modem that can access only their IPTV streams, I guess.

See this bit from this article:
_It does, however, mean that you'll need a "compatible IP gateway" for access, which Comcast says it will make available soon for cable-only customers who don't already have its modem. _


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Another bit of info about Comcast's future plans that fit in with the scenario above:

Comcast to roll out skinny 'Stream' service across footprint in Q3 | FierceCable

"Xfinity Instant TV" will be the branding for their skinny IPTV service. Makes sense that it will become available at the same time as they officially unveil their Roku app. So I guess all that is going to go down sometime in the July - Sept. time frame. Perhaps the switchover to IP for all new subs happens then too.


----------



## kokishin (Sep 9, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> No. They've already announced that IPTV service for Roku will be available to non-internet subscribers. A Comcast "IP gateway" will be installed -- essentially a cable internet modem that can access only their IPTV streams, I guess.
> 
> See this bit from this article:
> _It does, however, mean that you'll need a "compatible IP gateway" for access, which Comcast says it will make available soon for cable-only customers who don't already have its modem. _


Crap! Based on the size and rental fees of Comcast's other boxes, this gateway will most likely be an inelegant, expensive (rental fees over time) POS.

I'm hoping Tivo has an elegant solution already integrated into their Roamio Pro or Bolt. Or Tivo offers an elegant solution that I will purchase. Ideally, Tivo (or someone) will provide a solution that will work with most iptv service providers over my choice of isp without the need for a separate gateway. iptv should free up the cable tv monopoly/stranglehold that the cable tv companies currently enjoy.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

kokishin said:


> Crap! Based on the size and rental fees of Comcast's other boxes, this gateway will most likely be an inelegant, expensive (rental fees over time) POS.
> 
> I'm hoping Tivo has an elegant solution already integrated into their Roamio Pro or Bolt. Or Tivo offers an elegant solution that I will purchase. Ideally, Tivo (or someone) will provide a solution that will work with most iptv service providers over my choice of isp without the need for a separate gateway. iptv should free up the cable tv monopoly/stranglehold that the cable tv companies currently enjoy.


TiVo would need to have a built in DOCSIS modem and also have DSG (DOCSIS Set top gateway) capability, which it does not have. So once this is done your TiVo's are finished with Comcast.
The X1 box is already a gateway device as it has a built in modem and DSG capability. The VOD system on the X1 uses the upstream/downstream of their DOCSIS feed and not the traditional QAM based one. Also the communication of the box for things like guide data also use the DOCSIS feed and not the traditional OOB channel and upstream channel at 11Mhz. The legacy STB's and TiVos use the OOB, at 75.25Mhz, to receive communications from the headend. They also use the legacy Aloha (Motorola) and Davic (Scientific Atlantic) protocols for security. The X1 uses DSG protocol.
Once Comcast gets to a 80% install base then all older non DOCSIS STBs will be shutdown. Those customers will have to move on or upgrade to the X1 platform. At this point they can convert their entire broadcast spectrum to DOCSIS and do away with the legacy QAM channels. This is a lot cheaper solution for Comcast as this way the do not have to upgrade all the headends that are below 865Mhz.
Also this is why they have been converting their channels to 720p as this the format they will use when they go over to sending them by IP down their DOCSIS feed. My cable system is within their two year window now to do the same thing. This is why I would never buy a cable only TiVo. At least I could use my TiVo with OTA.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

kokishin said:


> Crap! Based on the size and rental fees of Comcast's other boxes, this gateway will most likely be an inelegant, expensive (rental fees over time) POS.


Comcast hasn't announced anything specific about the IP gateway, including whether or not there will be a rental fee for it. Part of the allure of their upcoming skinny streaming Xfinity Instant TV service is supposed to be that you can use your own equipment (e.g. Roku) without having to pay any equipment rental fees. If the service requires a second box (the IP gateway) that you do have to rent, well, that kinda ruins the scenario. Of course, if you're already renting a modem from Comcast for regular internet service, that can serve as your IP gateway for Instant TV. But if you're using a modem that you own (as I do) or if you don't have internet service with Comcast at all, then I think you'll need their IP gateway.

I'll bet the new IP gateway puts out an Xfinity wifi hotspot signal, just like the regular internet modems they rent to broadband customers do. Those hotspots are really handy -- they're everywhere!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

kokishin said:


> I'm hoping Tivo has an elegant solution already integrated into their Roamio Pro or Bolt. Or Tivo offers an elegant solution that I will purchase.


While it would certainly be nice for existing TiVo owners if they worked out a way for Bolts, Roamios, etc. to work with Comcast's IPTV service, I just don't see how it's worthwhile for Comcast to put in the resources to make that happen. At least not in a way that retains the TiVo UI, so that the TiVo continues to operate the way it does now with Comcast's QAM-based TV service. At best, the only bone I see Comcast throwing TiVo owners is a TiVo-compatible version of the same Xfinity app that will be running on Roku and probably other streaming boxes. (But frankly, I'm not sure TiVo would even allow that. You'd be using your TiVo only so you could access apps on it and not even using the TiVo UI or guide data. I don't see how TiVo could charge a monthly fee for that.)

As for future TiVo retail devices specifically designed to work with Comcast's IPTV service with a native TiVo UI, that could happen, although I'm doubtful it will. TiVo and Comcast were reportedly working on such a solution a few years back (or, at least, a non-CableCARD-dependent solution, not necessarily an IPTV solution) but that was before TiVo was acquired by Rovi, who remains in a legal battle with Comcast over patents. Also, Comcast recently switched from Rovi (now TiVo) to Gracenote as their metadata provider. Beyond the bad blood there that doesn't bode well for future cooperation, I'm not sure I see Comcast wanting to support any UI other than X1. (Their Roku app, BTW, has a very X1-like UI.) Comcast is a huge believer in X1 and they're licensing it internationally to other MSOs. (Rogers, Canada's largest cable co, is adopting X1 for their switchover to IPTV.) I'm doubtful that Comcast would, in a very public way, undercut their own X1 product by engineering a way to stream their next-gen TV services to TiVo retail boxes. And I'm betting that Comcast's future product roadmap doesn't include local DVR at all, only cloud DVR, which would further complicate the amount of integration that would have to be developed between TiVo and Comcast. Seems unlikely.


----------



## KingsFan6 (Jan 1, 2016)

What would the switch to IPTV mean for picture quality?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

KingsFan6 said:


> What would the switch to IPTV mean for picture quality?


Picture quality is a function of what Comcast sends down the wire not if they are sending via a QAM delivery system or an IPTV delivery system. If the same stream is sent via both systems there would be no difference in quality to the end user.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Unless a so-called TiVo implementation can actually record the stream and have all the available trick play functionality, an IPTV TiVo implementation would be useless to me. The main value of a TiVo is for recording programs for later playback. If ability to record is not there then a TiVo seems pointless to me.


----------



## KingsFan6 (Jan 1, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> Picture quality is a function of what Comcast sends down the wire not if they are sending via a QAM delivery system or an IPTV delivery system. If the same stream is sent via both systems there would be no difference in quality to the end user.


OK, but by reclaiming bandwidth, wouldn't Comcast find it easier than now (with QAM) to add more bits to their signals?


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

KingsFan6 said:


> OK, but by reclaiming bandwidth, wouldn't Comcast find it easier than now (with QAM) to add more bits to their signals?


Hmmm. So Comcast will increase the quality of their signal as a sign of good faith or to make the customer happy? That would be a first.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

JoeKustra said:


> Hmmm. So Comcast will increase the quality of their signal as a sign of good faith or to make the customer happy? That would be a first.


Ha! Fair enough. One of the nice things about switching to all-IP, though, is that it will make Comcast more flexible and nimble, kind of like streaming services such as Netflix. How long do you think it would be after fully embracing IP delivery later this year before Comcast begins encoding all their live and on-demand streams in the more efficient HEVC h.265 codec in addition to the current AVC h.264? Netflix and Amazon already do this, so that they can serve up lower bitrate HEVC streams to whatever supported devices that can accept them (e.g. all current Fire TV devices, many recent Roku models, all current Android TV boxes). Perhaps those hypothetical HEVC streams from Comcast would offer better picture quality than their current 720p h.264 streams. (Or maybe they would use all the added efficiency of HEVC for bandwidth savings, meaning no picture quality improvement, only a reduction in bitrates.)

I'm sure the next generation of X1 hardware that Comcast deploys will support HEVC too.


----------



## mae (Dec 10, 2001)

FIOS will be going to an all IP service as well. There is a good discussion at DSL Reports, Preliminary Full IPTV discussion - Verizon FiOS TV | DSLReports Forums .

It is currently up to about 20 pages. In summary, their total IPTV system will, for the time being, be run in parallel to their QAM system because so many relatively new Quantum systems are in the field with even older legacy STBs. With the bandwidth available over the fiber, there is no rush to replace everything, but it appears new services and upgrades will eventually only be on the IP solution. Ultimately they will shut down the QAM system. They have FCC certification for a combination ONT/Router that does not provide QAM for set top boxes,New FiOS ONT/Router Manual/photos up on FCC page - Verizon FiOS | DSLReports Forums .

So FIOS users will it probably be able to use TiVos for longer than on Comcast if what has been posted above is true. The handwriting is on the wall that the days of TiVo working on FIOS are numbered as well.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

KingsFan6 said:


> OK, but by reclaiming bandwidth, wouldn't Comcast find it easier than now (with QAM) to add more bits to their signals?


Well that is somewhat of a different question than the post I responded to. Theoretically completely switching from a QAM delivery system to a IPTV delivery system should free up some band width as an IPTV delivery system acts like having switched digital video (QAM systems that need tuning adapters) on a QAM system.

But as other responding to your post have said no one knows what Comcast is planning on doing with that bandwidth. Comcast is currently switch from MPEG 2 streams to h.264 streams on their QAM system which also frees up band width, instead of providing better or even as good video quality Comcast decided to lower the video quality instead and use the band width for other things.

In the end video quality is up to Comcast and of course also limited to the what ever the max quality Comcast is provided by the content providers.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mae said:


> FIOS will be going to an all IP service as well. There is a good discussion at DSL Reports, Preliminary Full IPTV discussion - Verizon FiOS TV | DSLReports Forums .
> 
> It is currently up to about 20 pages. In summary, their total IPTV system will, for the time being, be run in parallel to their QAM system because so many relatively new Quantum systems are in the field with even older legacy STBs. With the bandwidth available over the fiber, there is no rush to replace everything, but it appears new services and upgrades will eventually only be on the IP solution. Ultimately they will shut down the QAM system. They have FCC certification for a combination ONT/Router that does not provide QAM for set top boxes,New FiOS ONT/Router Manual/photos up on FCC page - Verizon FiOS | DSLReports Forums .
> 
> So FIOS users will it probably be able to use TiVos for longer than on Comcast if what has been posted above is true. The handwriting is on the wall that the days of TiVo working on FIOS are numbered as well.


Thanks for the links. Yeah, it sounds like Verizon FiOS users will be able to keep their TiVos for quite awhile longer, although I'm still not sure that I'd buy a Bolt with lifetime service at a minimum of $750 if I were a Verizon customer. And I *definitely* would not do so if I was planning to use the Bolt with Comcast TV service, as I think there's a good chance you'd get 2 years or less service out of it at this point (not counting whatever use you may get by switching to OTA or moving to a different location served by a different cable co).


----------



## mae (Dec 10, 2001)

NashGuy said:


> Thanks for the links. Yeah, it sounds like Verizon FiOS users will be able to keep their TiVos for quite awhile longer, although I'm still not sure that I'd buy a Bolt with lifetime service at a minimum of $750 if I were a Verizon customer. And I *definitely* would not do so if I was planning to use the Bolt with Comcast TV service, as I think there's a good chance you'd get 2 years or less service out of it at this point (not counting whatever use you may get by switching to OTA or moving to a different location served by a different cable co).


Plus, the resale value we have come to expect from our lifetime boxes will likely go down as fewer people will be able to use them. I've used TiVo since my Sony Series 1, and currently have an R-Plus with Minis in both my houses, one on FIOS, one on Mediacom at the shore. At this point I don't think I would buy a replacement with lifetime, maybe not at all. Strangely enough, Mediacom uses Pace branded TiVo's with Minis as their DVR solution, slowly replacing 10 year old Motorola boxes (at a higher cost). I guess they won't be rolling out IPTV for a long while (they only shut down their analog about 2 years ago). They have a TiVo onDemand app, but unlike Comcast, they only provide it on their rented boxes. I've often said their mission statement is to provide an MSO/ISP that Comcast can point to as worse.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

mae said:


> Unlike Comcast, they have a TiVo onDemand app, but they only provide it on their rented boxes.


Either the syntax of that sentence is very garbled, or it is incorrect. In order to be correct, it would have to read "They have a TiVo onDemand app, but unlike Comcast, they only provide it on their rented boxes.".


----------



## mae (Dec 10, 2001)

lpwcomp said:


> Either the syntax of that sentence is very garbled, or it is incorrect. In order to be correct, it would have to read "They have a TiVo onDemand app, but unlike Comcast, they only provide it on their rented boxes.".


I've edited it to conform to your style sheet, thanks!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> So long as Comcast offers customers a way to access their full TV service with an alternative form of customer-owned equipment in the form of streaming boxes like Roku, I'm not sure the FCC would continue requiring Comcast to offer CableCARDs.


Comcast would have to petition the FCC for a waiver, which takes a while to run it's course and would be open to public comments, so if they go this route we'll know about it pretty soon. And I suspect that if they did several companies, including TiVo, would be very much against this and would petition the FCC to deny the waiver.


----------



## mae (Dec 10, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> Comcast would have to petition the FCC for a waiver, which takes a while to run it's course and would be open to public comments, so if they go this route we'll know about it pretty soon. And I suspect that if they did several companies, including TiVo, would be very much against this and would petition the FCC to deny the waiver.


Would they need the waiver if they shut down the QAM system entirely? I haven't looked at the regs recently, but I think the requirement is limited to systems where current cablecards work. Abandoning the legacy technology might be a loophole Comcast could exploit.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> Comcast would have to petition the FCC for a waiver, which takes a while to run it's course and would be open to public comments, so if they go this route we'll know about it pretty soon. And I suspect that if they did several companies, including TiVo, would be very much against this and would petition the FCC to deny the waiver.


Yeah, true. Or Congress could have a line in a bill they pass this year that completely kills CableCARD or (more likely, perhaps) states that any provider transitioning from QAM to IPTV is exempt from issuing any further CableCARDs in any area where they've begun issuing only IPTV, not QAM, STBs to subscribers.

At any rate, even if none of that happens, and Comcast continues to issue CableCARDs after they begin transitioning to IPTV this year (assuming that actually happens), the initial rumor suggests that Comcast is on an aggressive timetable to shutting down QAM completely (or, as I said before, reducing QAM bandwidth to just enough to provide "lifeline" service offering must-carry local channels). And once that happens, of course, CableCARDs and the TiVos that use them will become pretty much useless on their system.


----------



## chrishicks (Dec 31, 2003)

KingsFan6 said:


> What would the switch to IPTV mean for picture quality?





JoeKustra said:


> Hmmm. So Comcast will increase the quality of their signal as a sign of good faith or to make the customer happy? That would be a first.


I wouldn't even bet a dollar that Comcast wouldn't pull another "in recent testing we've seen that 480p is the best all around format across all devices" study out of their butts because I seriously think I'd lose my dollar.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> And once that happens, of course, CableCARDs and the TiVos that use them will become pretty much useless on their system.


We all kind of knew this was coming. Even before the election the FCC was folding on a CC replacement, and now there is zero hope for one. So TiVo is eventually going to be relegated to OTA and MSO integrated devices.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Tivo already talks to an Internet gateway for tuning to On Demand channels. How hard would it be to repurpose that for IPTV?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> We all kind of knew this was coming. Even before the election the FCC was folding on a CC replacement, and now there is zero hope for one. So TiVo is eventually going to be relegated to OTA and MSO integrated devices.


Yup. As I say, though, the noteworthy thing about the story in the OP is that it suggests, to me anyway, that the demise of TiVo seems to be playing out more quickly than previously expected at the largest cable TV provider in the country.

As you say, whatever future the TiVo UI has would appear to be in MSO-issued devices and OTA retail devices. But I wonder a few years from now how many MSOs in the US will be using TiVo for the STBs they issue. TiVo markets themselves as a solutions provider for smaller MSOs (e.g. Mediacom, Suddenlink, etc.), many of which don't make a profit on TV service already. How many of them will simply become resellers of Layer3, Hulu, YouTube TV or other outsourced/OTT cable replacement services? TiVo's brightest prospects may lie in international markets.

As for OTA retail devices, it will be interesting to see how the upcoming TiVo Mavrik fares and, even more so, how the adoption of ATSC 3.0 over the next several years changes things. Given that ATSC 3.0 provides the ability for broadcasters to publish app-like UIs via HTML5, I wonder whether OTA network DVR functionality will even require an actual DVR box. Proponents of ATSC 3.0 have conceptualized a network tuner (connected to or built into a home's wifi router) that could record content simply by plugging in a USB hard drive. It isn't clear to me whether the network tuner would need an embedded DVR OS/UI (i.e. something that could be provided by the likes of TiVo, Tablo, Plex, etc.) or if the ATSC 3.0 standard would allow for that kind of functionality to be transmitted from the broadcaster, either through the OTA signal or via broadband.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

I could see this playing out in several ways, but I'm guessing it will be phased, and here's my guess:

1. 2017 they end "new device" activations over QAM
2. 1H 2018, they start phasing out QAM in s staged approach, starting with the higher end channels over HD being removed from QAM
3. 2H 2018, all premium and high end packages (HD) are exclusive to IPTV,
4. 2019 - By end of the year, all HD channels are IPTV exclusively. SD channels remain on QAM
5. 2022 - SD channels move IPTV exclusive, QAM is shut down

The reason I could see this happening is this: 

1, IPTV already exists in most markets, and in all markets that MPEG-4 is rolled out in. You can check this by going to tv.xfinity.com, as you can now access ALL channels from that service (provided you are in your home, you may also need a Comcast Modem, but I can't confirm). Roku is rolling out now. X1 Platform (the only one available now) has been exclusively rolled out for the past 12 months here (Minneapolis MN)

2. Having to broadcast the channels "twice" is eating up bandwidth, this is why they lowered the quality when switching to MPEG-4, and PART of why they switched in the first place

3. Cable as a video provider is dying. It may be a slow death, but in the meantime they need to prioritize services that will keep customers, faster internet, security, and phones are those services

3B. Internet competition is heating up, especially in major markets. Phone companies and other providers are rolling out Fiber to the home and providing 1+gbps bandwidth along with it. While Comcast backbone is fibre, the last mile is still copper. So, either they figure out how to deliver 1-2gbps over copper, or they replace the last mile with Fibre. Which one of those options sounds cheaper?

4. More and more, they want to control the entire experience, and to be honest, X1 is pretty amazing (sluggish yes, but ahead of the UI of Tivo by a large margin)

As a current Tivo customer, who has been one for over 14 years, I am sad to see it end this way, if it indeed does. But, Tivo is not without blame here either. While the software and hardware were never perfect, it seems like they have gone downhill even more in the last 5 years or so. I still have a working Series 2 single tuner, but I am on my 3rd Roamio (and the ethernet port has already pretty much died). Software bugs have become more and more with every release, and the guide data is lazy at best, and unusable at worst. The UI has only gotten a can of paint or two over the past 3 models, and the SD UI isn't even completely gone yet, despite HD being mainstream for almost a decade now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Let me first say that I think some things got lost in translation in this article. Running IPTV and QAM at the same time, while theoretically possible, would make Comcast's bandwidth problems worse, not better. I think what Comcast will be doing is installing all new customers as IP-enabled, meaning no DTAs or legacy boxes, and only X1. Further, it would make no sense to be sending linear video as IP in parallel with QAM to the current generation of XG1 boxes, as they can do both, so it would make sense to install all new subs as IP, and then cut channels over in blocks from QAM to IP, which is seamless to X1 boxes, and would enable a mish-mash of QAM and IP channels during a transition period (that may last many years, as moving local broadcast channels to IP makes zero sense, and keeping a bunch of HD channels that almost no one ever watches on QAM makes zero sense).

My sense is that most or all cable HD QAM and digital-tier QAM is going to gone within a couple of years, but from a bandwidth and equipment perspective, expanded basic SD and local broadcast HD will probably stay on QAM for quite a while, albeit possible recompressed into MPEG-4 for broadcast HD.



slowbiscuit said:


> Tivo was working with Comcast a few years ago for IPTV delivery but we've heard nothing since.


Although not required by law, I have heard from a reliable source at Comcast that they are working on something to support TiVo via IP- whether that ever sees the light of day is anyone's guess.



lpwcomp said:


> Not without changing the packages.


They don't need to change packages to offer some channels on IP, and others via QAM. They are already running some VOD on MPEG-2 QAM, and some on MPEG-4 IP.



atmuscarella said:


> Picture quality is a function of what Comcast sends down the wire not if they are sending via a QAM delivery system or an IPTV delivery system. If the same stream is sent via both systems there would be no difference in quality to the end user.


It's a crap shoot. Knowing Comcast, they will take the same crappy 3.6-3.8mbps CBR MPEG-4 stream and dump it to IP. However, they could, in theory, do a VBR encode with some variation in bitrate, or at a different CBR or VBR than what QAM gets. We just don't know.



mae said:


> So FIOS users will it probably be able to use TiVos for longer than on Comcast if what has been posted above is true. The handwriting is on the wall that the days of TiVo working on FIOS are numbered as well.


FiOS has little to do with Comcast. Since they don't need to share space in their QAM bandwidth for internet, phone, VOD, security, and whatever other crap Comcast has running in their QAM bandwidth, Verizon can leave QAM on with MPEG-2 basically indefinitely. They will be running IPTV in parallel with virtually no incentive to get rid of their full QAM system. Comcast needs to reclaim bandwidth for QAM, as there will likely be instantaneous, or near-instantaneous cutovers of blocks from channels from QAM to IP.



NashGuy said:


> As for OTA retail devices, it will be interesting to see how the upcoming TiVo Mavrik fares and, even more so, how the adoption of ATSC 3.0 over the next several years changes things.


I think there will still be a market for OTA DVRs. Tablo currently has a centralized network-based ATSC 1.0 device, but I think an all-in-one STB is still an appealing thing, especially with the UI of TiVo.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Let me first say that I think some things got lost in translation in this article. Running IPTV and QAM at the same time, while theoretically possible, would make Comcast's bandwidth problems worse, not better. I think what Comcast will be doing is installing all new customers as IP-enabled, meaning no DTAs or legacy boxes, and only X1. Further, it would make no sense to be sending linear video as IP in parallel with QAM to the current generation of XG1 boxes, as they can do both, so it would make sense to install all new subs as IP, and then cut channels over in blocks from QAM to IP, which is seamless to X1 boxes, and would enable a mish-mash of QAM and IP channels during a transition period (that may last many years, as moving local broadcast channels to IP makes zero sense, and keeping a bunch of HD channels that almost no one ever watches on QAM makes zero sense).
> 
> My sense is that most or all cable HD QAM and digital-tier QAM is going to gone within a couple of years, but from a bandwidth and equipment perspective, expanded basic SD and local broadcast HD will probably stay on QAM for quite a while, albeit possible recompressed into MPEG-4 for broadcast HD.


Not sure why you think it makes "zero sense" to move local broadcast channels to IP. In fact, Comcast has already done it! Every single linear channel that Comcast carries is already available in IP. That's how they serve up those live channels to web browsers as well as their mobile apps. The big thing happening this year is that they'll begin serving up all those IP streams as the only form of video to TV-connected boxes too, both their own X1s they issue to new subs (if the rumor is true) as well as to subs who use their own Roku or other similar streaming TV box.

Once all those TV-connected devices (newly issued X1s + Rokus) begin accessing video by IP, that's of course going to result in a spike in network traffic for Comcast. Meanwhile, as long as all those same channels continue to flow over QAM, Comcast hasn't realized any benefits to network congestion/user speeds -- instead, the situation has actually gotten worse. That's why I don't foresee a multi-year transition. It makes sense for Comcast to shut down QAM (or the vast majority of it) as soon as is practical in order to reclaim that bandwidth. I agree that all cable HD QAM channels will be gone within a couple of years, but I'm not sure why it won't go further than that. If 85% of their subs will have naturally transitioned to IP capable boxes (X1 or Roku, etc.) by the end of 2018, why not force the remaining few to trade in their old box, either for an X1 (bundled with services at a promo rate) or a cheap Roku that Comcast will sell you at the local office for $20? (And how many of those remaining stragglers who weren't already on IP-capable boxes -- outside of the relatively few on TiVos -- do you think are high-margin customers who subscribe to big channels packages? Not many.) Perhaps locals in SD (or maybe MPEG-4 HD) will still be broadcast over QAM for awhile to serve poorer elderly customers who don't have the inclination to deal with a strange new box they'll have to learn. That may help Comcast avoid a PR problem with the FCC or local authorities at a low cost, since the bandwidth necessary to broadcast ~20 channels in SD over QAM can't be that much.

EDIT: If you click through to the article referenced in the OP, check out the single comment someone posted under it. He/she says that a top Comcast exec stated at an investor conference in late 2016 that Comcast's transition to IP would be complete within "a couple of years".


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

how is this different from how Comcast and cox allow ondemand on the TiVo via ipbackchannel.?


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

ajwees41 said:


> how is this different from how Comcast and cox allow ondemand on the TiVo via ipbackchannel.?


I may be wrong, so someone correct me if I am, but I believe it works like this:

Tivo sends request to Comcast headend (over IP) for on-demand content, Comcast says "OK, your content will be presented starting now on channel xxx (or alternatively, maybe even just "on frequency 724.3 or whatever). Tivo tunes to channel or frequency, and somewhat consistently talks via backchannel to let Comcast know what position you are at and whether you are still actively watching. When you send a FF command, this is sent over IP, but the video itself is over QAM.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

mntvjunkie said:


> I may be wrong, so someone correct me if I am, but I believe it works like this:
> 
> Tivo sends request to Comcast headend (over IP) for on-demand content, Comcast says "OK, your content will be presented starting now on channel xxx (or alternatively, maybe even just "on frequency 724.3 or whatever). Tivo tunes to channel or frequency, and somewhat consistently talks via backchannel to let Comcast know what position you are at and whether you are still actively watching. When you send a FF command, this is sent over IP, but the video itself is over QAM.


That's pretty much how it works. The only difference between it and regular cable boxes is that regular cable boxes communicate with the head end using DOCSIS over the coax, and TiVo does it via the public internet. Otherwise they're using the same protocol.

Cox on the otherhand uses a pure IP system, that essentially works like Netflix.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

I have little doubt that none of the bandwidth Comcast will free up by eliminating QAM will go to improved video quality or more HD channels (they already have the smallest HD lineup of the majors). It seems the only thing Comcast wants to do with their bandwidth is brag about Internet speeds, with ever diminishing marginal utility. I also fear that with the demise of QAM we would start seeing mandatory non-skippable commercials even on DVR recordings.

As for X1, I don't understand why anybody would think it superior to TiVo's UI. Yes it's prettier, but actually accomplishing anything is a chore. Too many hoops/menus to go through, and annoying lag on inputs. Some things are just plain terrible. Try figuring out how to delete a season pass on X1. It's a nightmare.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> Not sure why you think it makes "zero sense" to move local broadcast channels to IP. In fact, Comcast has already done it! Every single linear channel that Comcast carries is already available in IP. That's how they serve up those live channels to web browsers as well as their mobile apps. The big thing happening this year is that they'll begin serving up all those IP streams as the only form of video to TV-connected boxes too, both their own X1s they issue to new subs (if the rumor is true) as well as to subs who use their own Roku or other similar streaming TV box.
> 
> Once all those TV-connected devices (newly issued X1s + Rokus) begin accessing video by IP, that's of course going to result in a spike in network traffic for Comcast. Meanwhile, as long as all those same channels continue to flow over QAM, Comcast hasn't realized any benefits to network congestion/user speeds -- instead, the situation has actually gotten worse. That's why I don't foresee a multi-year transition. It makes sense for Comcast to shut down QAM (or the vast majority of it) as soon as is practical in order to reclaim that bandwidth. I agree that all cable HD QAM channels will be gone within a couple of years, but I'm not sure why it won't go further than that. If 85% of their subs will have naturally transitioned to IP capable boxes (X1 or Roku, etc.) by the end of 2018, why not force the remaining few to trade in their old box, either for an X1 (bundled with services at a promo rate) or a cheap Roku that Comcast will sell you at the local office for $20? (And how many of those remaining stragglers who weren't already on IP-capable boxes -- outside of the relatively few on TiVos -- do you think are high-margin customers who subscribe to big channels packages? Not many.) Perhaps locals in SD (or maybe MPEG-4 HD) will still be broadcast over QAM for awhile to serve poorer elderly customers who don't have the inclination to deal with a strange new box they'll have to learn. That may help Comcast avoid a PR problem with the FCC or local authorities at a low cost, since the bandwidth necessary to broadcast ~20 channels in SD over QAM can't be that much.
> 
> EDIT: If you click through to the article referenced in the OP, check out the single comment someone posted under it. He/she says that a top Comcast exec stated at an investor conference in late 2016 that Comcast's transition to IP would be complete within "a couple of years".


Couldn't Comcast just make a Roku like device that on boot up only runs one app, the X1 app?
Or maybe they could carry a couple of other apps like the X1 does? You would think that would work and be very cheap.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

randian said:


> I have little doubt that none of the bandwidth Comcast will free up by eliminating QAM will go to improved video quality or more HD channels (they already have the smallest HD lineup of the majors). It seems the only thing Comcast wants to do with their bandwidth is brag about Internet speeds, with ever diminishing marginal utility. I also fear that with the demise of QAM we would start seeing mandatory non-skippable commercials even on DVR recordings.
> 
> As for X1, I don't understand why anybody would think it superior to TiVo's UI. Yes it's prettier, but actually accomplishing anything is a chore. Too many hoops/menus to go through, and annoying lag on inputs. Some things are just plain terrible. Try figuring out how to delete a season pass on X1. It's a nightmare.


Use the voice control. It will get you to anywhere with 1 button press. No need at all to drill through menus.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

randian said:


> As for X1, I don't understand why anybody would think it superior to TiVo's UI. Yes it's prettier, but actually accomplishing anything is a chore. Too many hoops/menus to go through, and annoying lag on inputs. Some things are just plain terrible. Try figuring out how to delete a season pass on X1. It's a nightmare.


Voice control for everything. I don't have to use the kludgy old method of typing in a show name to find out where it is, I can just speak it into the remote and 99% of the time it shows up on my TV. I don't need to know channel numbers to tune to a channel, again that's done by voice now. And, since everything is integrated right in, when I find a show I want to watch, I find the episode I want to see and it's 1 click away, regardless of whether it's DVR or on demand (its 2 clicks with Tivo, so not really that much worse there, it's mostly about the voice control)

Yes, other than that, it's slower and still has less storage, I'm not dismissing that. I'm just disappointed that the former "innovator" in DVR's (Tivo) got out innovated by a cable company because they were too busy suing over patents to even invest in the development and R&D to finally give us a FULL HD interface. Tivo ought to be terrified of that right now, especially since Xfinity has announced they will lease the X1 platform to smaller cable companies. And maybe the next generation of stuff from Tivo will be amazing, I really hope it is because I like having a third party option with more storage.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mschnebly said:


> Couldn't Comcast just make a Roku like device that on boot up only runs one app, the X1 app?
> Or maybe they could carry a couple of other apps like the X1 does? You would think that would work and be very cheap.


Yeah, I had been thinking the same thing. Comcast could make something like a cheap Roku that only runs the Xfinity app (always starting up/waking in live TV mode) and comes with a really simple remote with channel and volume up/down buttons plus a four-way directional button. And the box would have analog connectors (as well as HDMI) so that it could connect to old SD TV sets. That could be something to offer certain folks (e.g. the elderly, low-tech folks, etc.) to help them transition from their existing QAM boxes to an IP-capable box. But when you stop and think about it, that's really just an X1 box with a cheaper remote, and without the QAM tuners or hard drive. So not that much different than, say, their Xi3 box used for secondary TVs. Once Comcast begins making new subs IP-only, they'll likely no longer be issuing those larger X1 boxes with QAM tuners and hard drives anyhow (which will be a big cost-savings for them, I'd imagine).



mntvjunkie said:


> Tivo ought to be terrified of that right now, especially since Xfinity has announced they will lease the X1 platform to smaller cable companies. And maybe the next generation of stuff from Tivo will be amazing, I really hope it is because I like having a third party option with more storage.


There probably won't be a next generation of TiVo retail devices for use with US cable companies. Bolt is likely the last hurrah. As cable moves from QAM to IP to transmit TV, CableCARD becomes useless, and there's no reason to believe (after what played out at the FCC last year) that there will be some sort of next-gen IP version of CableCARD that will allow TiVo to make retail devices that work with a range of different companies. It's possible (though I think unlikely) that Comcast will work with TiVo to support a future retail TiVo device that could work with their IP system. But then such a device probably wouldn't work with another provider's IP system (unless perhaps that provider was also using X1, such as Cox or Rogers). Would it be worthwhile for TiVo to develop different DVR platforms to work with different providers? The new TiVo, after having merged with Rovi, appears to me even less interested in pursuing that sort of arrangement. They see their future as providing solutions (licensing patents, UIs, data, etc.) to pay TV providers rather than making retail hardware that can work with those providers' services.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

When Comcast goes all-IP I can see buying faster tier Internet (which currently has little value over my already quite sufficient 75mb plan) if they offered 1080 streams for higher tiers, but I'm sure they won't do that. I was considering a Bolt but this news makes that moot, probably why TiVo just started offering a cheap lifetime transfer deal.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

randian said:


> When Comcast goes all-IP I can see buying faster tier Internet (which currently has little value over my already quite sufficient 75mb plan) if they offered 1080 streams for higher tiers, but I'm sure they won't do that. I was considering a Bolt but this news makes that moot, probably why TiVo just started offering a cheap lifetime transfer deal.


Your internet plan shouldn't have any effect on your TV service (picture quality or otherwise), even after Comcast switches from QAM to IPTV. In fact, you'll still be able to subscribe to Comcast's TV service without getting internet service from them. Yes, the TV signal will be in IP format, but Comcast will treat it differently than "regular" internet traffic, such as Netflix streams, webpages, emails, etc. If you subscribe to, say, 100 Mbps internet, you *should* still get that kind of speed even if you're watching their IPTV service on several different TVs at the same time. They have enough bandwidth in their system to let you watch HD shows on several TVs at the same time without "eating into" the allotted bandwidth for your regular internet service.

If will be interesting to see what, if anything, changes in terms of TV service picture quality when Comcast finally does away with QAM and reclaims that bandwidth.


----------



## garyprud (Jan 13, 2017)

All the major MSO's are moving to some level of IP service. With TV Everywhere and an IP interface it would theoretically allow service to be provided to out-of-footprint customers. Although their villing systems are tailored to the local franchise areas, they can and do support a billing-only account...it's the outage monitoring and servicing thats the sticky piece for them....but if you are only IP...the local servicing becones just a data tech at the toll-free number...otherwise call your internet provider.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

garyprud said:


> All the major MSO's are moving to some level of IP service. With TV Everywhere and an IP interface it would theoretically allow service to be provided to out-of-footprint customers. Although their villing systems are tailored to the local franchise areas, they can and do support a billing-only account...it's the outage monitoring and servicing thats the sticky piece for them....but if you are only IP...the local servicing becones just a data tech at the toll-free number...otherwise call your internet provider.


All broadcast IPTV delivery is not the same. Managed IPTV delivery systems (AT&T Uverse, Google fiber, etc.) provide and manage the delivery system hardware and Over the top (OTT) (PlayStation Vue, Sling TV, etc.) do not. How the tech works behind the scenes for a managed IPTV delivery system is different than it is for an OTT one.

While all the major MSO's maybe moving to a managed IPTV delivery system that doesn't mean they will be providing the same service via an OTT IPTV delivery system. In the end MSOs will still be providing pretty much the same service for their managed IPTV delivery systems that they do now. While I am fairly sure OTT IPTV services will become more popular it is nearly impossible for those services to provide the same level of service as a managed IPTV delivery service. So I really don't see OTT services significantly replacing local MSO QAM or managed IPTV services. I guess time will tell.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

garyprud said:


> All the major MSO's are moving to some level of IP service. With TV Everywhere and an IP interface it would theoretically allow service to be provided to out-of-footprint customers. Although their villing systems are tailored to the local franchise areas, they can and do support a billing-only account...it's the outage monitoring and servicing thats the sticky piece for them....but if you are only IP...the local servicing becones just a data tech at the toll-free number...otherwise call your internet provider.


Yep, that's true. As atmuscarella notes, there are two types of IP service: managed IP transmitted wholly within an MSO's own network and OTT IP across the open internet, traveling through lines and servers that don't belong to the service provider. It looks like more and more MSOs are moving toward playing in both arenas. Verizon will this year begin a long-term transition of its own FiOS TV service from QAM to managed IP and will also launch their own OTT streaming TV service to compete nationwide against DISH's Sling TV, AT&T DirecTV Now, etc. (I'm betting Verizon will also offer a managed IPTV service through the hybrid fiber/wireless 5G network they'll launch in a number of areas in 2018.) Meanwhile, Comcast says they have no plans to offer a nationwide OTT service but they're apparently lining up plans to do so, just in case they change their mind.

I wonder if, several years from now, the big players (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter) won't all offer a single set of TV services nationwide. If you live in an area where they have internet infrastructure to serve your address, the service will be managed IPTV on their own network for an arguably more reliable experience. If you live outside that area, you can simply get the same service OTT (although without the benefit of internet + TV bundle pricing). Pretty much all of the smaller broadband providers would just strike a deal with one or more of the big players (whether AT&T, Comcast, etc. or pure OTT services like Hulu, PS Vue, etc.) to run that TV service as managed IPTV on their own network, getting out of the business of negotiating content carriage rights, provisioning their own TV STBs, etc.

In the end, I think the legacy of these OTT "streaming cable TV" services won't be that they eliminate the bundle but simply that they force the pay TV industry toward offering smaller, less expensive bundles while offering consumers more choices in terms of channel packages, price points, UIs and feature sets.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Well that is somewhat of a different question than the post I responded to. Theoretically completely switching from a QAM delivery system to a IPTV delivery system should free up some band width as an IPTV delivery system acts like having switched digital video (QAM systems that need tuning adapters) on a QAM system.
> 
> But as other responding to your post have said no one knows what Comcast is planning on doing with that bandwidth. Comcast is currently switch from MPEG 2 streams to h.264 streams on their QAM system which also frees up band width, instead of providing better or even as good video quality Comcast decided to lower the video quality instead and use the band width for other things.
> 
> In the end video quality is up to Comcast and of course also limited to the what ever the max quality Comcast is provided by the content providers.


The extra bandwidth will be used for DOCSIS 3.1
That is typical for any cable system planning to switch to 3.1. It needs a ton of bandwidth to get the gigabit speeds to people.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> The extra bandwidth will be used for DOCSIS 3.1
> That is typical for any cable system planning to switch to 3.1. It needs a ton of bandwidth to get the gigabit speeds to people.


What's annoying is Comcast not offering any option for 1080 video in lieu of faster Internet. Instead of, for example, a 125mb/720p plan I could get 75mb/1080p.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> The extra bandwidth will be used for DOCSIS 3.1
> That is typical for any cable system planning to switch to 3.1. It needs a ton of bandwidth to get the gigabit speeds to people.


Well, yeah, all of the bandwidth reclaimed from QAM will be used for internet, but DOCSIS 3.1 doesn't necessarily require that reclaimed bandwidth to operate. Comcast has already launched DOCSIS 3.1 here in Nashville, as well as Atlanta and Chicago, with 1 Gbps downstream speeds over coax, and of course they're still operating QAM in all those places. That said, the more bandwidth within their coax available for IP, the faster speeds they can deliver, I guess, whether the user's modem is DOCSIS 3.0 or 3.1.

DOCSIS 3.1 is the next big improvement that Comcast will rollout to their network nationally, followed by Full Duplex DOCSIS 3.1, which will allow fiber-like 1 Gbps (or higher) speeds in both directions. Both of those things, I'm sure, will be accompanied by upgrades to the network infrastructure, like pushing fiber out closer to the end user.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Here's a new article I saw today about how far Comcast has already come in transitioning to IP. Other cablecos, however, have much further to go.

IP Video Not Yet a Slam-Dunk for Cable | Light Reading


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Here's a new article I saw today about how far Comcast has already come in transitioning to IP. Other cablecos, however, have much further to go.
> 
> IP Video Not Yet a Slam-Dunk for Cable | Light Reading


There's a whole heck of a lot more interesting stuff in that article beyond "how far Comcast has already come", including this (emphasis mine):

"With the exception of X1 and Spectrum [Comcast and Charter services, respectively] STBs, _*TiVo is the only IP-capable set-top box out there*_,"

and this:

"Some smaller cable operators have chosen to get into the digital video arena by partnering with TiVo Inc."


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lpwcomp said:


> There's a whole heck of a lot more interesting stuff in that article beyond "how far Comcast has already come", including this (emphasis mine):
> 
> "With the exception of X1 and Spectrum [Comcast and Charter services, respectively] STBs, _*TiVo is the only IP-capable set-top box out there*_,"
> 
> ...


I'm sure what Smith is referring to in that quote, when he describes TiVo as an "IP-capable" STB, is his company's (Evolution Digital) new generation of "eVue TV" IP-capable boxes that sport the TiVo UI. The TiVo boxes we know -- Bolt, Roamio, etc. -- won't be rolled out by any MSO to provide IP services other than the streaming apps they offer, e.g. Netflix, HBO Go, etc.

Right now, it looks like the options available to an MSO looking to transition from their QAM TV network to either full IPTV or hybrid QAM/IPTV while still managing the service themselves and issuing their own STBs are to license either Comcast's X1 (as Cox has done), Charter's Spectrum Worldbox (assuming they're even offering it to other MSOs), or Evolution Digital's eVue TV (which can be had with the TiVo UI). Or, of course, build their own solution from scratch, but that seems pretty unlikely for those smaller-scale operators.

If they want to completely chuck QAM as well as running their own TV service, they can choose to outsource TV to Layer3 TV (which will run their IPTV service through the MSO's broadband network and take care of the customer STBs). Or they can simply be a reseller for an OTT "streaming cable TV" service like DirecTV Now or the upcoming offering from Hulu and let customers deal with hardware by using Rokus, Fire TVs, etc.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

You may be right, but in point of fact a TiVo _*is *_a cable STB that is IP capable.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Not sure why you think it makes "zero sense" to move local broadcast channels to IP. In fact, Comcast has already done it! Every single linear channel that Comcast carries is already available in IP. That's how they serve up those live channels to web browsers as well as their mobile apps. The big thing happening this year is that they'll begin serving up all those IP streams as the only form of video to TV-connected boxes too, both their own X1s they issue to new subs (if the rumor is true) as well as to subs who use their own Roku or other similar streaming TV box.


I'm talking about delivery to a box. The local broadcast channels are very commonly watched, so every with an IP multicast system, they would virtually always be multicast and using bandwidth. I suppose if they want to go to using boxes without QAM tuners, then it would matter. I still can't figure out how they are going to do IP multicast over DOCSIS, since the current boxes like the XG1 can only grab 8 channels, which is not enough for all of the video on a node. If they required everyone to put a 34-channel (D3.1) gateway in that would get, say 1.5gbps+ of combined bandwidth, then I could see IP multicast working. At that point, the XG1s would just be MoCA clients, and the QAM tuners would sit unused.



> Once all those TV-connected devices (newly issued X1s + Rokus) begin accessing video by IP, that's of course going to result in a spike in network traffic for Comcast. Meanwhile, as long as all those same channels continue to flow over QAM, Comcast hasn't realized any benefits to network congestion/user speeds -- instead, the situation has actually gotten worse. That's why I don't foresee a multi-year transition. It makes sense for Comcast to shut down QAM (or the vast majority of it) as soon as is practical in order to reclaim that bandwidth.


I disagree. I think that's why they are not going to offer an all-IP service within a year. I think they are going to install all new customers as IP-capable by the end of the year. I think something got lost in translation there. I think that they will initially offer a few channels as IP-only, maybe new channels that they don't have now in HD or 4k, and then from there, they will cut over a few channels at a time from QAM to IP, since X1 can handle either seamlessly. That's what they did with analog, I don't see why it would be different for QAM to IP. I think by 2020, there will be no cable HD channels left on QAM, and maybe some SDs will be gone as well. I think that expanded basic SD and local HDs will last a few years beyond that on QAM, due to their popularity and DTAs.



> Perhaps locals in SD (or maybe MPEG-4 HD) will still be broadcast over QAM for awhile to serve poorer elderly customers who don't have the inclination to deal with a strange new box they'll have to learn. That may help Comcast avoid a PR problem with the FCC or local authorities at a low cost, since the bandwidth necessary to broadcast ~20 channels in SD over QAM can't be that much.


They are planning to move local channels over to MPEG-4 using their absurd levels of compression, so they could put most markets on a single QAM, with subchannels that no one watches anyway moved over to IP. Expanded basic SD in MPEG-2 is about 70 channels, or 7 QAMs, which isn't that bad on a 135 QAM system.

I'm not convinced that they will have much incentive to move that stuff off of QAM, as we're talking 8 or 9 QAMs. Even a full 34-channel D3.1 setup uses 32 QAMs plus 2x200mhz OFDM blocks, that's 592mhz of HSI/IP, leaving 218mhz or 36 QAMs left over with no apparent use. If that's the plan, they really have little incentive to move HDs off of MPEG-2, and just leave them using 4-6 QAMs like they do now.

Maybe some lower frequency systems will move all-IP, but the 860mhz systems have little incentive to do so IMO.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I disagree. I think that's why they are not going to offer an all-IP service within a year. I think they are going to install all new customers as IP-capable by the end of the year. I think something got lost in translation there.


So you're thinking maybe the article in the OP got it wrong -- rather than all new customers starting later this year getting all their TV services delivered via IP, you think that all new customers will be issued IP-capable STBs, which will continue to access at least some channels via QAM. That may be correct, although I'd say it doesn't track with the aggressive pace that Comcast has set in creating a fully IPTV-capable network. They've clearly been planning to go all-IP for a long time.

But here's what we do know: later this year Comcast will launch nationwide a fully IPTV-only service called Xfinity Instant TV that will be accessed by an app on Roku, Samsung smart TVs and maybe other devices which do not have QAM tuners. So all of those new customers will for sure be IP-only, for all of their channels, including locals. They'll apparently also allow subscribers to their "traditional" TV packages to use Rokus, etc. instead of Comcast-issued STBs, so one might have an X1 box on one TV and a Roku on a second TV. That will add quite a bit of IPTV usage to the impressive amount already delivered by Comcast.

Given that Comcast expects to see a significant number of TVs (not to mention phones and tablets) fully served by IPTV through apps, I'm skeptical that they're continuing to spend money on more expensive X1 STBs that contain QAM tuners and hard drives. Why not begin issuing cheaper, smaller IP-only STBs (like the Xi3) to all new subscribers?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I'm not convinced that they will have much incentive to move that stuff off of QAM, as we're talking 8 or 9 QAMs. Even a full 34-channel D3.1 setup uses 32 QAMs plus 2x200mhz OFDM blocks, that's 592mhz of HSI/IP, leaving 218mhz or 36 QAMs left over with no apparent use. If that's the plan, they really have little incentive to move HDs off of MPEG-2, and just leave them using 4-6 QAMs like they do now.


Must all D3.1 (or 3.0, for that matter) modems across Comcast's network in a given area use the *same* QAMs, i.e. the same set of frequencies, for IP traffic? Or can they dynamically switch the combo of QAMs they use for IP among the entire range available on the network? (Or, if not that, can Comcast assign different static combos of QAMs for different modems on the same neighborhood node?) If the answer is either of the latter two options, then there would still be bandwidth value in completely shutting down QAM TV and clearing those frequencies for IP traffic.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> So you're thinking maybe the article in the OP got it wrong -- rather than all new customers starting later this year getting all their TV services delivered via IP, you think that all new customers will be issued IP-capable STBs, which will continue to access at least some channels via QAM. That may be correct, although I'd say it doesn't track with the aggressive pace that Comcast has set in creating a fully IPTV-capable network. They've clearly been planning to go all-IP for a long time.


This is Comcast we're talking about, but it would defy all logic to have IP and QAM broadcasting the same thing at the same time, as it just uses that much more bandwidth. X1 running on the XG1 is the transition path to IPTV, as they can cut over one or five or ten channels at a time, and never have overlap between the two. With X1, the users won't know the difference, other than maybe faster channel changes on IP channels.



> But here's what we do know: later this year Comcast will launch nationwide a fully IPTV-only service called Xfinity Instant TV that will be accessed by an app on Roku, Samsung smart TVs and maybe other devices which do not have QAM tuners. So all of those new customers will for sure be IP-only, for all of their channels, including locals. They'll apparently also allow subscribers to their "traditional" TV packages to use Rokus, etc. instead of Comcast-issued STBs, so one might have an X1 box on one TV and a Roku on a second TV.


A couple of things. They said they are preparing an OTT service, but haven't made firm plans to actually launch it yet. They are doing the Roku thing for Comcast TV subscribers, but technologically, OTT and getting your TV through Roku are the same thing, even though the rights to carry certain channels would be wildly different between the two. A technologically OTT system like Roku has little to do with feeding an XG1 a managed IPTV stream. The in-home Roku streaming is basically an OTT video service that just happens to be tied to the content they can offer as an MSO, and thus is IP-locked to your house, and zero rated against their caps.



> Given that Comcast expects to see a significant number of TVs (not to mention phones and tablets) fully served by IPTV through apps, I'm skeptical that they're continuing to spend money on more expensive X1 STBs that contain QAM tuners and hard drives. Why not begin issuing cheaper, smaller IP-only STBs (like the Xi3) to all new subscribers?


If Comcast is expecting any significant number of app subscribers, they are going to have to get rid of their utterly inexplicable and nonsensical $7.45/mo outlet fee to run an app on a Roku. If they keep the bogus fee on there, very few people will want it. I think that's the long term plan, but for now, they've got humongous volume on the XG1, so their per unit costs probably aren't that bad, and it's going to enable them to smoothly transition to IP while offering their X1 experience in a seamless fashion. They've already started creeping towards IPTV, as of December, the Xi3 was getting VOD via IP, and the XG1 may be getting IP VOD by now too.

All that being said, this is going to be a long, slow transition, like anything else. It took years to get rid of analog, years to rebuild plants, and now years to downgrade to MPEG-4, with many systems still running MPEG-2 at the moment.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> So you're thinking maybe the article in the OP got it wrong -- rather than all new customers starting later this year getting all their TV services delivered via IP, you think that all new customers will be issued IP-capable STBs, which will continue to access at least some channels via QAM. That may be correct, although I'd say it doesn't track with the aggressive pace that Comcast has set in creating a fully IPTV-capable network. They've clearly been planning to go all-IP for a long time.
> 
> But here's what we do know: later this year Comcast will launch nationwide a fully IPTV-only service called Xfinity Instant TV that will be accessed by an app on Roku, Samsung smart TVs and maybe other devices which do not have QAM tuners. So all of those new customers will for sure be IP-only, for all of their channels, including locals. They'll apparently also allow subscribers to their "traditional" TV packages to use Rokus, etc. instead of Comcast-issued STBs, so one might have an X1 box on one TV and a Roku on a second TV. That will add quite a bit of IPTV usage to the impressive amount already delivered by Comcast.
> 
> Given that Comcast expects to see a significant number of TVs (not to mention phones and tablets) fully served by IPTV through apps, I'm skeptical that they're continuing to spend money on more expensive X1 STBs that contain QAM tuners and hard drives. Why not begin issuing cheaper, smaller IP-only STBs (like the Xi3) to all new subscribers?


Because they can get around $20 a month for each of those X1 boxes for many, many years(vs $10 for the smaller ones). They are a huge money generator.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Bigg said:


> If Comcast is expecting any significant number of app subscribers, they are going to have to get rid of their utterly inexplicable and nonsensical $7.45/mo outlet fee to run an app on a Roku. If they keep the bogus fee on there, very few people will want it.


There's not only that fee, but if you aren't paying the HD Technology Fee, Comcast disables all the HD channels in their Roku app even though HD works fine with cablecard devices without that fee. That's already $17.45 for what should be included with their service.

Basically the move to IPTV will be one big money grab.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

morac said:


> ...
> Basically the move to IPTV will be one big money grab.


Well everything a company like Comcast does is designed to make them more money. If any of it ends up benefiting the consumer more than it benefits Comcast it is only because either perceived/actual competition or Government regulation forced it.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Well everything a company like Comcast does is designed to make them more money. If any of it ends up benefiting the consumer more than it benefits Comcast it is only because either perceived/actual competition or Government regulation forced it.


I don't see why it can't help both. In this case Comcast's Roku app beta forum is full of people basically stating they'll never use the service once Comcast starts charging for it. That means Comcast won't see a lot of revenue from it, so either they are design it specifically to fail so they can claim no one wants a "box free" home or they don't know what they are doing.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

morac said:


> I don't see why it can't help both. In this case Comcast's Roku app beta forum is full of people basically stating they'll never use the service once Comcast starts charging for it. That means Comcast won't see a lot of revenue from it, so either they are design it specifically to fail so they can claim no one wants a "box free" home or they don't know what they are doing.


Well one has to remember when Comcast started this they were pushing apps as a replacement for cable cards and wanted to stop the FCC from forcing a new standard for third party STBs/DVRs. So my guess is it was designed to do that and that Comcast really doesn't want people using Rokus instead of Comcast STBs/DVRs on their managed IPTV system. If Comcast decides to offer a nation wide OTT IPTV solution then it will be another matter and of course there will be no fees for third party STBs.

Things like this do benefit both the company and the consumer, the only question is who gets the most benefit. Again I can assure you that without competition or regulation Comcast will make sure they benefit more.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

They cannot arbitrarily move a channel from QAM to IP w/o modifying the package(s) that contain those channels.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> They cannot arbitrarily move a channel from QAM to IP w/o modifying the package(s) that contain those channels.


Are you sure? Their equipment would make the move unnoticeable. I doubt the current FCC would see a problem.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

And they had been allowed to drop clear QAM a while ago, with the previous FCC(no idea if Comcast actually did though). As long as the user doesn't see a difference, or they give them the hardware to make it capable, it would not be an issue.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Are you sure? Their equipment would make the move unnoticeable. I doubt the current FCC would see a problem.


From *CableCARD: Know Your Rights*



> Receive all "linear" channels (channels other than "on-demand") in your subscription package. This includes premium channels and specialty channels. For some channels delivered using a technique called "switched digital video," you may need a second device called a "tuning adapter." This device is typically provided at no additional charge to CableCARD customers. FCC Rule 76.1205(b)(4). CableCARD-ready devices currently cannot receive your cable operator's Video on Demand services.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> A couple of things. They said they are preparing an OTT service, but haven't made firm plans to actually launch it yet. They are doing the Roku thing for Comcast TV subscribers, but technologically, OTT and getting your TV through Roku are the same thing, even though the rights to carry certain channels would be wildly different between the two. A technologically OTT system like Roku has little to do with feeding an XG1 a managed IPTV stream. The in-home Roku streaming is basically an OTT video service that just happens to be tied to the content they can offer as an MSO, and thus is IP-locked to your house, and zero rated against their caps.


I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Maybe you already know and agree with all this, but let me clarify: Comcast already runs a full-scale managed IPTV service, offering up all of their linear channels everywhere to mobile apps and web browsers, as a bonus "TV everywhere" feature for subscribers to their regular (QAM-based) TV service. (VOD and cloud DVR for at least some X1 STBs is also managed IPTV.) They've been testing that managed IPTV service as a standalone skinny TV subscription product called "Xfinity Stream TV" in a few different locations for over a year now. Reuters reported just a few days ago that that product will be taken out of beta and rebranded as "Xfinity Instant TV" and available nationwide this year in 3Q. It will differ from the beta Xfinity Stream service in that Xfinity Instant TV will be accessible not just from mobile apps and browsers but also from TV-connected devices such as Roku. It won't be an OTT service, it will continue to be managed IPTV available only on Comcast's network. Using a Roku app to access those IP streams relies on the same network architecture that X1 boxes currently do to an extent (for VOD and cloud DVR) and at some point in the future probably will completely (if/when QAM linear channels get shut down). You say that serving up TV to a Roku has "little to do with feeding an XG1 a managed IPTV stream" but I say it's exactly the same; both rely on an in-home Comcast IP gateway and both are fed the same IP video streams from the same Comcast servers over the same Comcast pipes.

If you look at the various levels of TV service available right now from Comcast, you'll see that the pricier ones include the X1 platform while lower tier ones (such as the Internet Plus package I have -- broadband plus local channels plus Showtime or HBO) do not. The lower tier packages come with a non-IP-capable janky old-school QAM cable box. (I've never even bothered to take mine out of the package.) What I believe will happen when Xfinity Instant TV rolls out is that it becomes the TV service offered in those lower tier packages. The Internet Plus package I have will probably be replaced with a package named something like "Xfinity Instant TV plus Internet" -- essentially the same stuff (although maybe with cloud DVR included), except they'll no longer issue the user a cable box, you'll just use your own devices, including Rokus, to watch TV. As you say, it doesn't make sense long-term for Comcast to duplicate the same linear channels between QAM and IPTV, which is why I think we won't see a really slow transition. All those Xfinity Instant TV customers WILL be getting ALL their channels, including HD locals, solely as managed IPTV (regardless of whether or not Comcast also begins serving all or any linear channels as IPTV to new X1 customers later this year too, as the rumor in the OP alleges).

Now, apart from the standalone managed IPTV service described above, Comcast *may* be planning to offer a separate OTT TV service outside their network footprint, as AT&T is doing with DirecTV Now and Verizon will reportedly begin doing this summer. While they've negotiated the network carriage rights to offer an OTT service, Comcast insists they have no plans to do so, as the economics don't make sense for them.



Bigg said:


> If Comcast is expecting any significant number of app subscribers, they are going to have to get rid of their utterly inexplicable and nonsensical $7.45/mo outlet fee to run an app on a Roku. If they keep the bogus fee on there, very few people will want it. I think that's the long term plan, but for now, they've got humongous volume on the XG1, so their per unit costs probably aren't that bad, and it's going to enable them to smoothly transition to IP while offering their X1 experience in a seamless fashion. They've already started creeping towards IPTV, as of December, the Xi3 was getting VOD via IP, and the XG1 may be getting IP VOD by now too.
> 
> All that being said, this is going to be a long, slow transition, like anything else. It took years to get rid of analog, years to rebuild plants, and now years to downgrade to MPEG-4, with many systems still running MPEG-2 at the moment.


Yeah, I don't see a ton of X1 customers choosing to use a Roku or smart TV app on secondary TVs rather than an X1 box, but some will. It's not really about paying $7.45 to use your own Roku, it's about a potentially more convenient or, for some users, more desirable way of getting full-scale Comcast TV service on an additional TV, something that typically costs an extra $9.95 a month per TV. So you using your own device instead of another X1 box saves you $2.50.

The main reason Comcast is embracing Roku and other TV-connected apps for their full-scale TV service isn't so much for their X1 customers, it's to offer a lower cost, flexible service tier for would-be cord cutters: Xfinity Instant TV. (Oh, and it also gets the FCC off their back because they can say they're catering to consumer demands to be able to use own's own hardware rather than having to pay cable box rental fees, which was arguably the main rationale for the adoption of CableCARD in the first place.)

As for those many systems still running MPEG-2 QAM linear channels, I suspect some of them won't ever transition to MPEG-4 QAM. They'll just go straight to full IPTV (which will be served up as MPEG-4 streams for most devices and HEVC streams for the next generation of X1 boxes, as well as capable Rokus, etc.).


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Maybe you already know and agree with all this, but let me clarify: Comcast already runs a full-scale managed IPTV service, offering up all of their linear channels everywhere to mobile apps and web browsers, as a bonus "TV everywhere" feature for subscribers to their regular (QAM-based) TV service. (VOD and cloud DVR for at least some X1 STBs is also managed IPTV.)


Yes, but the horror is that TV Everywhere has non-skippable ads without fast-forward, just like their VOD. It's a horrible experience. Ads aren't just mandatory, they're far too long on each segment and stupidly repetitive. If they're going to make their live IP based service and cloud DVR just like TV Everywhere it's going to suck big time.

And here's a great blurb from Comcast Corporate:
"Providing a full service solution for digital ad insertion across both linear and on demand is a valuable improvement for television advertising," said Matt McConnell, Senior Vice President and General Manager Comcast Wholesale. "This brings the advertising community closer to its vision for an 'Advertising Everywhere' ad management solution for reaching TV audiences across all TV and Internet-based platforms and markets."


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

randian said:


> Yes, but the horror is that TV Everywhere has non-skippable ads without fast-forward, just like their VOD. It's a horrible experience. Ads aren't just mandatory, they're far too long on each segment and stupidly repetitive. If they're going to make their live IP based service and cloud DVR just like TV Everywhere it's going to suck big time.
> 
> And here's a great blurb from Comcast Corporate:
> "Providing a full service solution for digital ad insertion across both linear and on demand is a valuable improvement for television advertising," said Matt McConnell, Senior Vice President and General Manager Comcast Wholesale. "This brings the advertising community closer to its vision for an 'Advertising Everywhere' ad management solution for reaching TV audiences across all TV and Internet-based platforms and markets."


This +1000 is one of the reasons I am watching less and less ad supported programming (including OTA). Netflix/Amazon/HBO/... are my primary vehicles ad supported is under 20% now.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

randian said:


> Yes, but the horror is that TV Everywhere has non-skippable ads without fast-forward, just like their VOD. It's a horrible experience. Ads aren't just mandatory, they're far too long on each segment and stupidly repetitive. If they're going to make their live IP based service and cloud DVR just like TV Everywhere it's going to suck big time.
> 
> And here's a great blurb from Comcast Corporate:
> "Providing a full service solution for digital ad insertion across both linear and on demand is a valuable improvement for television advertising," said Matt McConnell, Senior Vice President and General Manager Comcast Wholesale. "This brings the advertising community closer to its vision for an 'Advertising Everywhere' ad management solution for reaching TV audiences across all TV and Internet-based platforms and markets."


No, I don't see anything changing from the viewer perspective in terms of ads. When you're watching a live linear channel, regardless of whether that's delivered via a traditional QAM frequency or as an IPTV stream, you can't skip ads because, well, it's live TV and we can't travel into the future. When playing back a recording of live TV from Comcast's cloud DVR, you CAN fast-forward past the ads. That's true now whether you're playing back the recording on your X1 TV STB or if you're playing it back using the Xfinity app on your iPad. It will also be true in a few months when you're playing it back using the Xfinity app on a Roku. However, yes, you are forced to watch ads on a lot of Comcast non-premium VOD content, whether you're watching that content on a mobile device, an X1 STB, or, in the future, a Roku. That's not going to change either. (Any TV provider, Comcast included, does have the power to disable fast-forwarding during commercials for shows stored on their cloud DVR but so far none of them have done this. Instead, they've sought to make usage of their cloud DVR indistinguishable from usage of a traditional local DVR.)

That blurb you quoted is talking about Comcast's ability to insert customized ads into their IPTV streams. That includes VOD as well as their live linear channel IPTV streams. Let's say you and I are watching the same live show on AMC right now. I'm watching at my house using the Xfinity app on a tablet and you're watching through the Xfinity website in a browser on your laptop. (A few months from now, we might both be watching the show live using the Xfinity app on a Roku.) When the live show cuts to a commercial break, I see one ad (targeted toward me based on my location, demographic data, etc.) and you see a different one targeted toward you. Comcast's IPTV platform allows for the dynamic insertion of user-addressable ads. This is the same thing that Hulu does. (And it's the same thing that Google does on webpages.) I would bet that their system also allows for the dynamic insertion of different ads when a show is played back from cloud DVR versus what was inserted when it aired live. Let's say you're just now watching a show you recorded to cloud DVR three months ago. Why show you stale three-month-old ads that may be of no relevance now? Better from the advertiser's perspective to show you fresh, current ads.

You can see how those capabilities make Comcast's IPTV offerings a more valuable proposition for advertisers. It's another reason why it's in Comcast's interests to eventually jettison QAM TV and fully switch over to IPTV.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I'm not sure about X1, but on TiVo some on demand programming (e.g. Fox) now allows fast forwarding outside of ads. Missing the last few minutes of a show used to be a major pain because fast forwarding in general was disabled. This change at least makes it tolerable.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

morac said:


> There's not only that fee, but if you aren't paying the HD Technology Fee, Comcast disables all the HD channels in their Roku app even though HD works fine with cablecard devices without that fee. That's already $17.45 for what should be included with their service.


Wow, I didn't even think that the stupidity could get that deep! And on top of it, their HD channels are basically DVD quality at this point with the over-compression. At least when DirecTV charge you an arm, a leg, and your firstborn for service, you good good picture quality and top-notch technology with a metric buttload of bandwidth.



atmuscarella said:


> Well one has to remember when Comcast started this they were pushing apps as a replacement for cable cards and wanted to stop the FCC from forcing a new standard for third party STBs/DVRs.


Part of it is that, and part of it is that they want to seem "cool" and "hip", but epically fail at doing so. If they took off the HD fee and the box fee, and allowed a couple of Rokus per account on top of the other boxes you have, it would actually be kind of cool. I don't think they are worried about revenue generation so much as protecting their existing revenue streams off of the Xi3s that are on secondary TVs. If the average household that got these replaced 1 or 2 Xi3s at $10/mo with Rokus and they didn't charge a monthly fee, that would drive their ARPU down.



atmuscarella said:


> Are you sure? Their equipment would make the move unnoticeable. I doubt the current FCC would see a problem.


Correct. CableCard only applies to linear QAM, not IP. Hence U-Verse not needing CableCard. As channels go to IP, if Comcast chooses not to support TiVo (they claim they will, but no one has seen any evidence of this), then TiVos will slowly lose channels as they move to IP, and eventually only have the channel lineup that the DTAs have, i.e. what's on linear QAM. I'd imagine the sticking point to just handing the APIs over to TiVo for implementing linear IPTV would be their encryption system, since they're kind of giving them the keys to the kingdom.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Maybe you already know and agree with all this, but let me clarify: Comcast already runs a full-scale managed IPTV service, offering up all of their linear channels everywhere to mobile apps and web browsers, as a bonus "TV everywhere" feature for subscribers to their regular (QAM-based) TV service.


We're talking about two different things. That's basically like an OTT internet streaming service, since it will run on any network anywhere (many channels are IP blocked to the home network, but that has no technical reason, it's just curmudgeonly channel owners requiring it). When I'm talking about the IPTV transition, I'm talking a closed, managed, IPTV system that does not use the public internet and streams to XG1, XG2, Xi3, and similar devices.



> You say that serving up TV to a Roku has "little to do with feeding an XG1 a managed IPTV stream" but I say it's exactly the same; both rely on an in-home Comcast IP gateway and both are fed the same IP video streams from the same Comcast servers over the same Comcast pipes.


The Roku app is a weird middle ground between the apps and a fully managed platform. I'm not sure that Roku can handle IP multicast, I think it's a unicast system, more akin to the apps, just IP locked to the user's house.



> If you look at the various levels of TV service available right now from Comcast, you'll see that the pricier ones include the X1 platform while lower tier ones (such as the Internet Plus package I have -- broadband plus local channels plus Showtime or HBO) do not. The lower tier packages come with a non-IP-capable janky old-school QAM cable box. (I've never even bothered to take mine out of the package.) What I believe will happen when Xfinity Instant TV rolls out is that it becomes the TV service offered in those lower tier packages.


That's an interesting theory. But what if it's the other way around, and they are going to keep HBO, Showtime, and local channels on QAM, and move that big middle of ~100 HD channels over to IP to squeeze some more life out of that QAM equipment?



> The main reason Comcast is embracing Roku and other TV-connected apps for their full-scale TV service isn't so much for their X1 customers, it's to offer a lower cost, flexible service tier for would-be cord cutters: Xfinity Instant TV.


That's definitely an interesting idea. It would keep "cable tv" sub numbers up, and CPE costs down for lower ARPU customers.



> As for those many systems still running MPEG-2 QAM linear channels, I suspect some of them won't ever transition to MPEG-4 QAM. They'll just go straight to full IPTV (which will be served up as MPEG-4 streams for most devices and HEVC streams for the next generation of X1 boxes, as well as capable Rokus, etc.).


That's an interesting take. Maybe that's why they have stalled on MPEG-4, and seem to only be converting lower-frequency systems over to MPEG-4 (in order to from 8 to 16 DOCSIS channels). The 860mhz systems can already run 24x3 D3 plus 100mhz of OFDM on top of their MPEG-2 digital video load. I think they will stick to all MPEG-4 for HD, however, since they can IP multicast, and don't have to set up two sets of streams.



NashGuy said:


> Let's say you and I are watching the same live show on AMC right now. I'm watching at my house using the Xfinity app on a tablet and you're watching through the Xfinity website in a browser on your laptop. (A few months from now, we might both be watching the show live using the Xfinity app on a Roku.) When the live show cuts to a commercial break, I see one ad (targeted toward me based on my location, demographic data, etc.) and you see a different one targeted toward you. Comcast's IPTV platform allows for the dynamic insertion of user-addressable ads.


BLEH! I did like the local insertion ads back when I had Comcast, because some of them are hilariously low-budget and kind of cute, but those are cut it for the whole cable plant, which covers an area that's roughly 30 miles corner to corner. However, I HATE the idea of customized ads. The reason I like TV ads on sporting events (ok I don't really like them, but I can tolerate them) is because they expose me to products and services I wouldn't otherwise think about, or aren't targeted at me. I guess if I keep pay TV, I'll have to have DBS, since that's one single ad for the entire CONUS.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> We're talking about two different things. That's basically like an OTT internet streaming service, since it will run on any network anywhere (many channels are IP blocked to the home network, but that has no technical reason, it's just curmudgeonly channel owners requiring it). When I'm talking about the IPTV transition, I'm talking a closed, managed, IPTV system that does not use the public internet and streams to XG1, XG2, Xi3, and similar devices.
> 
> The Roku app is a weird middle ground between the apps and a fully managed platform. I'm not sure that Roku can handle IP multicast, I think it's a unicast system, more akin to the apps, just IP locked to the user's house.


I enjoy these back-and-forths with you because I learn stuff, both from you and from the additional Google rabbit trails I wander down in order to respond to you. (It's all useless info, mind you, but I find it interesting for some reason.)

When it comes to Comcast's IP-delivered on-demand content (i.e. VOD and cloud DVR), I'm not sure there's really much difference between OTT and "managed IPTV"; in either case, we're necessarily talking about encrypted unicast streams, except that with the latter all of the bits are delivered completely on Comcast's network and they probably get some sort of QoS prioritization (which non-Comcast networks and routers may or may not heed). Although I guess it's possible that there's some sort of more efficient non-standard (non-HTTP) protocol that Comcast's CDN uses for their "managed IPTV" unicast streams, I really don't know.

Now, when it comes to live linear channels, Comcast would want to use some sort of multicast stream, as you say, because if lots of folks are tuning in to the same content at the same time, it greatly reduces network bandwidth demands to send a single multicast stream to everyone as opposed to thousands or millions of unicast streams of the same live channel. And Rokus (or probably any popular streaming device) cannot access traditional multicast (UDP) streams. But what I imagine Comcast will do is employ existing proprietary technology in their current-gen internet gateways (modem/router units) to translate multicast streams sent across their network into standard HLS (HTTP Live Streaming) streams for consumption by various devices in the home, whether X1 boxes, Rokus, iOS, Android, etc. (Or perhaps the X1 boxes can accept the native multicast streams and don't need the gateway to act as a "translator".) This is why Comcast says that using the Roku app will require a Comcast-issued "IP gateway". If you sign up for Xfinity Instant TV and don't have a rented Comcast gateway in your home for internet service, they'll need to give you an IP-video-only gateway that performs that multicast-to-HLS function for live channels.

I didn't dream up what I just described. (I'm not that smart.) I read about it in a three-year-old article titled CableLabs, Vendors Prepare to Solve Multicast Problem. Here's the key quote (emphasis mine):

_Operating in a somewhat similar proprietary framework, Broadpeak's nanoCDN technology is designed to convert ABR unicast streams from origin servers into single multicast streams for delivery to *broadband gateways* and *IP-enabled set-tops*, where the Broadpeak Agent converts content to unicast ABR streams in either the Apple *HLS (HTTP Live Streaming)* or Microsoft Smooth streaming modes without requiring the gateways to perform transcoding. This reduces bandwidth consumption over the broadband connections to the home gateways while minimizing the amount of processing performed by those devices._​
If you read the article I linked, you'll see that there were other potential solutions discussed of how to incorporate multicast streaming into a world of routers and end-point devices that don't support that protocol. Whether Comcast will use Broadpeak's solution or someone else's, I don't know, but my point is that I doubt there will be any difference in the way they serve up managed IPTV (whether live linear channels, VOD or cloud DVR) to any of their subscriber homes, regardless of which devices within the home are actively used at the moment: X1 boxes, Rokus, mobile devices, etc.



Bigg said:


> That's an interesting theory. But what if it's the other way around, and they are going to keep HBO, Showtime, and local channels on QAM, and move that big middle of ~100 HD channels over to IP to squeeze some more life out of that QAM equipment?


Well, they will be keeping all their channels on QAM for awhile longer. (I'm _guessing_ about a year, but yes, it could be quite a bit longer than that, especially for the most popular channels like locals, HBO, Showtime, etc.) But, even now, none of their linear channels are exclusively available on QAM -- you can already access them as IPTV using the Xfinity Stream TV app on your Android or iOS device. (I just installed it today on my Nexus 9 tablet. It's pretty slick. And they're running a promo event called "Watchathon" this week that gives me in-app access to a bunch of seasons of cable and premium shows that I don't subscribe to. Not that I want to binge-watch stuff on a 9-inch screen.) The upcoming Xfinity Instant TV service, which will exclusively use Rokus and other non-Comcast-issued devices for viewing, will likely start out at about $15/mo for locals plus one premium channel but they'll also offer more expensive tiers with more channels (just like DirecTV Now and PS Vue offer), so I imagine in a few months, there will be quite a few Rokus through Comcast's footprint accessing the entire spectrum of their linear channels. Meanwhile, they have a large and growing base of X1 boxes that can be seamlessly switched over to use full IPTV at any time. How long will they keep those QAM channels flowing to a dwindling base of non-X1 boxes they gave to cheapskates like me on low-cost plans prior to the 3Q17 introduction of Xfinity Instant TV (the IP-only cheapskate plan)?



Bigg said:


> BLEH! I did like the local insertion ads back when I had Comcast, because some of them are hilariously low-budget and kind of cute, but those are cut it for the whole cable plant, which covers an area that's roughly 30 miles corner to corner. However, I HATE the idea of customized ads. The reason I like TV ads on sporting events (ok I don't really like them, but I can tolerate them) is because they expose me to products and services I wouldn't otherwise think about, or aren't targeted at me. I guess if I keep pay TV, I'll have to have DBS, since that's one single ad for the entire CONUS.


Get used to it. Dynamically inserted customized ads are the future of TV, whether through traditional providers like Comcast, OTT services like Hulu, or even through OTA broadcast TV with ATSC 3.0.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

I have a question about Comcast X1 system, if I watch say *The Americans* can I set up a SP on the X1 and see that a new show (of *The Americans)* came on even if that show is delivered via IPTV, will I even know if the show came from QAM or IPTV ?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

The FCC cablecard rule defines "linear channels" as all programming that isn't OnDemand. That rule would have to change before Comcast could put channels exclusively on IPTV, IMO.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> As long as they are still broadcasting QAM they are required by law to offer CableCARDs. The only way this would effect TiVo users is if they completely stopped broadcasting QAM, which they're not going to do because they have too many devices in the field that need it.
> 
> Although they could start moving specific channels to IP only and there is nothing we could do about that.


Bingo! You win. Those guys spend all their time figuring out how they will push everyone along, and while the last Administrations's "hands-off" FCC was galacial in response, this Administration's FCC is completely on the side of supporting Comcast, et al. in letting them do ANYTHING they want, and this FCC along with those in control in Congress can repeal or change the CableCard requirements or revoke them or do anything they want becaue they make the rules. So the "safeguards" you've cited mean nothing.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

pdhenry said:


> The FCC cablecard rule defines "linear channels" as all programming that isn't OnDemand. That rule would have to change before Comcast could put channels exclusively on IPTV, IMO.


With this FCC and this Congress, that is EASY to accomplish. In fact, count on it. Net Neutrality is already buried and now the ISP's can track us and sell info about us without our consent, and they don't even offer a penney's saving on the bill for the priviledge.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

pdhenry said:


> The FCC cablecard rule defines "linear channels" as all programming that isn't OnDemand. That rule would have to change before Comcast could put channels exclusively on IPTV, IMO.


If you believe the current FCC would take action against Comcast, sure. I don't.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lessd said:


> I have a question about Comcast X1 system, if I watch say *The Americans* can I set up a SP on the X1 and see that a new show (of *The Americans)* came on even if that show is delivered via IPTV, will I even know if the show came from QAM or IPTV ?


No you won't just like you don't know if the recording is stored in the cloud or locally. It will be seamless whether recorded over IP or QAM.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

So in Comcast's IP implementation how is DVR functionality intended to work? Will you still be able to record the IP stream and store on your local box? Or is it cloud based access only where essentially you add a bookmark in the cloud for later access to the program via IP? Because if it's the latter then could well end up with situation where access via IP can arbitrarily be taken away as is currently the case with VOD implementations.

If it's the former, over the years I've seen IP be less reliable compared to QAM - i.e. Situations where channels still tune via QAM but internet service is out.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> The FCC cablecard rule defines "linear channels" as all programming that isn't OnDemand. That rule would have to change before Comcast could put channels exclusively on IPTV, IMO.


Why? Uverse is already delivering linear via iptv and is not included in the cablecard rule.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> Why? Uverse is already delivering linear via iptv and is not included in the cablecard rule.


Good question, but I'm quoting directly from the FCC consumer FAQ.

At first Google it appears that AT&T is classified as an information company and not a cable service. Would it be as easy for Comcast to be reclassified? (With this FCC? Who am I kidding?)


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> Why? Uverse is already delivering linear via iptv and is not included in the cablecard rule.


Ya that is the way I see it cable card rules apply to QAM delivered broadcast TV nothing else. If Comcast doesn't deliver a channel via QAM it is outside of the rules. I also agree with those that believe the FCC will not do anything to upset Comcast or protect consumers in anyway.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Ya that is the way I see it cable card rules apply to QAM delivered broadcast TV nothing else. If Comcast doesn't deliver a channel via QAM it is outside of the rules. I also agree with those that believe the FCC will not do anything to upset Comcast or protect consumers in anyway.


The reason the rules don't apply to U-Verse is because they aren't considered to be a cable TV company. Maybe they should be but nothing we can do about it. The rules do apply to Comcast and they say nothing about QAM.

Now it's entirely possible that the FCC won't enforce the rules or will give Comcast a waiver, but the rules weren't created on a whim. They implement the applicable law.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> The reason the rules don't apply to U-Verse is because they aren't considered to be a cable TV company. Maybe they should be but nothing we can do about it. The rules do apply to Comcast and they say nothing about QAM.
> 
> Now it's entirely possible that the FCC won't enforce the rules or will give Comcast a waiver, but the rules weren't created on a whim. They implement the applicable law.


And the difference between AT&T and Version is what? QAM versus IPTV delivery, the past FCC has already waived these regulation for any Pay TV provider who uses any delivery tech other than QAM. In any event this administration has clearly stated they are against regulation of nearly any type and are moving rapidly to reverse and dismantle as much regulation in all areas as possible. So it is really simple they will interpret the law in a way that allows Comcast to do whatever they want to do.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Reading the applicable law on *multichannel video programming systems *is interesting.

Here's the law that invokes the cable card requirement. It requires suppliers of multichannel video programming to provide equipment that incorporates only the conditional access functions used by the supplier in delivering programming. *But *there's an exception:


> The foregoing requirement shall not apply to a multichannel video programming distributor that supports the active use by subscribers of Navigation Devices that:
> 
> (i) Operate throughout the continental United States, and
> 
> (ii) Are available from retail outlets and other vendors throughout the United States that are not affiliated with the owner or operator of the multichannel video programming system.​


To me this says that if Comcast has a workable method for subscribers to receive programming via devices like Rokus (or AppleTVs, or Fire TVs) _they don't have to supply or support CableCards_.

So it would seem that the Beta testing of the Roku app (and we can probably assume, other device apps) is an integral part of Comcast's plan to roll out all-IP distribution this year (and the likely discontinuation of QAM distribution in the near future).

EDIT: And I wish I had figured out the above before ordering a Bolt this week. I guess I could still cancel...


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

I still don't see how they would be able to move *some* channels to IP.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> I still don't see how they would be able to move *some* channels to IP.


Not sure if it matters much one way or the other. If Comcast's goal is to move off QAM delivery and switch to IPTV delivery, a gradual or all at once move is only likely to change the time frame by a few months.

In the end I still think all that matters is what Comcast wants to do. Given what is going on in other agencies (like EPA & Justice) not to mention what is already happening in the FCC anyone who expects this administration to prevent a company like Comcast from doing what they want just because of some regulation/law really isn't paying attention. Comcast could decide to support the use of TiVos in their IPTV delivery system, I am sure Series 4 and above could work with IPTV just fine, who knows.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Please keep your opinion about what's happening at other government agencies out of this discussion. It's been a long time since the FCC did much of anything to enforce the regulations on MSOs.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> Comcast could decide to support the use of TiVos in their IPTV delivery system, I am sure Series 4 and above could work with IPTV just fine, who knows.


If they did, there's still no reason to expect that you could record a local copy. OnDemand nominally satisfies any desire on your part to time shift from their perspective, and recording the stream isn't a feature of any other streaming option on a TiVo.

In other words, what you're likely to end up with is an expensive streaming box.

EDIT: But also note that there's no enforcement action against this from the FCC's perspective. It's permissible under current law (read the link in my post above).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lpwcomp said:


> I still don't see how they would be able to move *some* channels to IP.


They could gradually, over time, shut down their QAM network block by block. This is what Bigg envisions Comcast doing. They'd start with the highest tier of channels (which are typically the least popular) and remove them from QAM, making them IP-only. As long as you have an X1 box or are using the Xfinity app on a supported streaming device (e.g. Roku), you would see no difference, because those devices are IP-capable. But for anyone using an older pre-X1 Comcast box or a CableCARD device (e.g. TiVo), you would lose access to that tier of channels since your device cannot access Comcast's IPTV system. Presumably, this would nudge those folks with non-IP devices to voluntarily switch to a newer IP-capable device. Perhaps every 6 or 12 months, another block of channels would go until eventually, folks on unsupported devices like TiVos would only have access to a very basic set of channels or perhaps no channels at all if Comcast were to completely shut down QAM.

I, on the other hand, tend to think Comcast may be a bit quicker in winding down their QAM network if they do in fact switch over to having all new subscribers later this year be 100% served by IPTV. Perhaps around the same time they'd announce to customers that they'll have one year to switch out their old pre-X1 boxes and CableCARD devices for new X1 and/or certain streaming app devices (e.g. Roku). At the end of that year, they'd either shut down QAM completely or indefinitely leave up a greatly reduced QAM legacy network that only carries maybe local channels (e.g. Limited Basic or "lifeline" service tier).



pdhenry said:


> EDIT: And I wish I had figured out the above before ordering a Bolt this week. I guess I could still cancel...


I guess it depends on your risk tolerance. My guess is that the worst-case scenario is your new Bolt would become completely useless for Comcast TV about 18 months from now. A mid-level scenario is that it loses access to certain higher tier channels over time until, maybe 36 months from now, it can only access a very basic package of channels. A best-case scenario (but very unlikely in my opinion) is that Comcast works together with TiVo to engineer a massive software update for the Bolt that will allow it to work with their IPTV system (linear channels, cloud DVR, VOD) using the upcoming TiVo Hydra UI.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

When my TiVos lose record/timeshift capability from Comcast is when I'll seriously consider other methods of getting programming such as SlingTV and canceling all Comcast video (I'll still pay for internet access because FiOS seems to be a long way off here).


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

OD does not now and will probably never provide access to all of the programming available today via the linear channels.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> Please keep your opinion about what's happening at other government agencies out of this discussion. It's been a long time since the FCC did much of anything to enforce the regulations on MSOs.


What they have done in other government agencies is not an opinion it is fact. Also what this administration's stated goals are, is not opinion, it has been clearly stated many times. Both of which are highly relative when we are making predictions about how the FCC will continue to react to regulation interpretation and enforcement.

If I agree with what they have done or what the results of their stated goals will be is an opinion which I have pretty much stayed away from.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

No need to look any further than the FCC for evidence of what the FCC may do.

But it doesn't matter when Comcast's plans don't violate any laws.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

pdhenry said:


> When my TiVos lose record/timeshift capability from Comcast is when I'll seriously consider other methods of getting programming such as SlingTV and canceling all Comcast video (I'll still pay for internet access because FiOS seems to be a long way off here).


For any given channel, it will an all-or-nothing thing; either your TiVo will still be able to tune into that channel, watch it live, record it and timeshift it OR your TiVo will no longer be able to access that channel at all because the channel is no longer on QAM.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Right. When my TiVo becomes essentially a Roku with a hard drive (one that doesn't store any streamed content) I'll look away from Comcast as a source of video programming.


----------



## kbmb (Jun 22, 2004)

pdhenry said:


> When my TiVos lose record/timeshift capability from Comcast is when I'll seriously consider other methods of getting programming such as SlingTV and canceling all Comcast video (I'll still pay for internet access because FiOS seems to be a long way off here).


That's going to be the biggest problem with the shift to IP streaming. Comcast will never offer an ad free experience. We've had Tivos for 15 years - that's a long time to get used to no commercials. Best thing right now for that is Hulu Ad Free, which sadly doesn't have all the networks/shows yet. I'm really looking forward to their new Hulu Live platform to see if that expands the shows available on the non live service.

I tried the Roku app mainly to see if the picture quality was better than the over-compressed crap they are sending now. It wasn't. It was just as bad. We still try to watch most of our Fox and ABC shows on Hulu for the 1080p and ad free, even though I've already recorded it with TiVo. A 4K TV + Comcast = bad picture.

-Kevin


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I can't even get HD from Comcast on my Roku (according to the support forum they look for an HD programming fee which I've never had to pay since all my devices are TiVos).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

kbmb said:


> That's going to be the biggest problem with the shift to IP streaming. Comcast will never offer an ad free experience. We've had Tivos for 15 years - that's a long time to get used to no commercials. Best thing right now for that is Hulu Ad Free, which sadly doesn't have all the networks/shows yet. I'm really looking forward to their new Hulu Live platform to see if that expands the shows available on the non live service.
> 
> I tried the Roku app mainly to see if the picture quality was better than the over-compressed crap they are sending now. It wasn't. It was just as bad. We still try to watch most of our Fox and ABC shows on Hulu for the 1080p and ad free, even though I've already recorded it with TiVo. A 4K TV + Comcast = bad picture.
> 
> -Kevin


I got a 4K TV last fall and was shocked at how much better Saturday Night Live looked on the TV's built-in Hulu app versus watching it from my local OTA NBC station. ABC shows look a lot better on Hulu as well. However, my local Fox OTA station has pretty good HD PQ, so their shows look about the same as they do on Hulu. Hulu has always said their HD is 720p but some people say they offer some content in 1080p. Which may well be true, given how it looks. But they don't label anything one way or the other, 720p vs. 1080p, so it's hard to say for sure.

While I don't plan on upgrading to the more expensive upcoming live TV tier from Hulu, I'm looking forward to it because they're supposed to roll out an updated app at the same time with a revamped UI. Hopefully we'll also see 4K roll out to more Hulu apps too. Right now it's only available in the Hulu apps for Xbox One and PS4. (Hulu original series and a handful of movies are available in 4K.)

It's worth paying the extra $4 a month for ad-free, IMO. Because of Hulu, I don't even use my Roamio OTA that much any more. But it's still handy for a couple things I watch on CBS, as well as American Crime on ABC (which, for some reason, isn't available on Hulu this season).


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> I can't even get HD from Comcast on my Roku (according to the support forum they look for an HD programming fee which I've never had to pay since all my devices are TiVos).


Can it even access all of the SD channels in your package?


----------



## kbmb (Jun 22, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> I got a 4K TV last fall and was shocked at how much better Saturday Night Live looked on the TV's built-in Hulu app versus watching it from my local OTA NBC station. ABC shows look a lot better on Hulu as well. However, my local Fox OTA station has pretty good HD PQ, so their shows look about the same as they do on Hulu. Hulu has always said their HD is 720p but some people say they offer some content in 1080p. Which may well be true, given how it looks. But they don't label anything one way or the other, 720p vs. 1080p, so it's hard to say for sure.
> 
> While I don't plan on upgrading to the more expensive upcoming live TV tier from Hulu, I'm looking forward to it because they're supposed to roll out an updated app at the same time with a revamped UI. Hopefully we'll also see 4K roll out to more Hulu apps too. Right now it's only available in the Hulu apps for Xbox One and PS4. (Hulu original series and a handful of movies are available in 4K.)
> 
> It's worth paying the extra $4 a month for ad-free, IMO. Because of Hulu, I don't even use my Roamio OTA that much any more. But it's still handy for a couple things I watch on CBS, as well as American Crime on ABC (which, for some reason, isn't available on Hulu this season).


Comcast is butchering even their locals here. CBS is by far the best and that's good since they aren't on Hulu. I don't really have any interest in the live service since I have Comcast, but I'm hoping that some of the live deals will add shows to the normal on-demand part of Hulu. They have stated that they aren't going to be abandoning the on-demand part once live comes out. I also pay for Hulu ad free via iTunes using gift cards that I bought at least 15% off (sometimes 20%).

Hulu doesn't state per show, but they do have 1080p streams: Hulu Help

I imagine that my days of TiVo's on Comcast as numbered as they push more and more into IP and the X1 system. Problem I see with anything IP/stream based is they move further and further away from traditional recordings which allow us to skip ads.

-Kevin


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> Can it even access all of the SD channels in your package?


All the ones I've tried, yes. HD channels start at 799 here and I can tune up as high as seven eighty-something including all the Music Choice channels in the 400s. But the online guide in the app doesn't extend into the HD range for me. Others, many (most? All?) of whom have the HD Programming Fee in their bill can tune all the channels.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

The problem is streaming isn't really a substitute for Comcast, Comcast's quality downgrades notwithstanding. I'm not sure I could actually get all the shows I watch weekly via streaming, there would probably be 1 or more days delay for me to watch anything, and it would likely be more expensive in total than Comcast.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> All the ones I've tried, yes. HD channels start at 799 here and I can tune up as high as seven eighty-something including all the Music Choice channels in the 400s. But the online guide in the app doesn't extend into the HD range for me. Others, many (most? All?) of whom have the HD Programming Fee in their bill can tune all the channels.


Yep, if you don't have the HD Tech fee, Comcast won't serve you HD channels in the Roku app. I'm assuming that will also be true once they switch to IP TV. I'm not sure why they currently allow cableCard users to tune HD channels without paying the fee. It took me a long time to get the fee removed from my account and the guy who finally did it told me I'd lose HD channels, but I didn't. I've read somewhere that as of January 1st, anyone who signs up with a CableCard won't get HD channels unless they pay that fee. Old users are just grandfathered in. I wouldn't be surprised if the HD fee suddenly becomes required just like the Sports and Local fees are. That would be $22 in fees to get channels you are already paying for.

http://forums.xfinity.com/t5/Stream-TV-App/XFINITY-TV-on-Roku/m-p/2881567#M6593


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

While they would probably get away with requiring the fee, it would technically be a violation of the CableCARD regulations.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

pdhenry said:


> All the ones I've tried, yes. HD channels start at 799 here and I can tune up as high as seven eighty-something including all the Music Choice channels in the 400s. But the online guide in the app doesn't extend into the HD range for me. Others, many (most? All?) of whom have the HD Programming Fee in their bill can tune all the channels.


Funny, I have a very basic plan (Internet Plus, which gives me pretty much just locals and Showtime) and I do not pay the HD technology fee. I'm not using a CableCARD. I haven't tried the Roku app (I think the old disconnected Roku I have lying around is too old for their app) but I have used their new Android app and it does give me access to HD versions of the channels I have. I can also watch those HD channels via the Xfinity website in a browser.

That said, Comcast clearly treats TV-connected devices differently than other devices (computers, phones, tablets). Which is why you can access your full TV service on as many different "other" devices as you want for no additional charge but you'll have to pay an additional TV outlet fee for each TV-connected device you use (whether that's an X1 box, a Roku, etc.).


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

morac said:


> I'm not sure why they currently allow cableCard users to tune HD channels without paying the fee.


Because the HD channels, including the HD versions of the local channels, are defined as included in a given programming tier in Comcast's advertised lineup without mention of the fee. See the FCC requirements re: tuning "all" linear channels in a particular lineup via cablecard without additional fees.

It's one thing to charge a higher rental fee for equipment capable of outputting an HD signal (at least it was back in 2010) but not to charge more merely to receive the HD channels defined within the lineup.

If only the FCC hadn't been sold to business interests...


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Because the HD channels, including the HD versions of the local channels, are defined as included in a given programming tier in Comcast's advertised lineup without mention of the fee. See the FCC requirements re: tuning "all" linear channels in a particular lineup via cablecard without additional fees.
> 
> It's one thing to charge a higher rental fee for equipment capable of outputting an HD signal (at least it was back in 2010) but not to charge more merely to receive the HD channels defined within the lineup.
> 
> If only the FCC hadn't been sold to business interests...


Then how does Comcast get away with applying separate Sport and Local channel fees? Those aren't geared to specific channels based on what I've read.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> ...I do not pay the HD technology fee. I'm not using a CableCARD. I haven't tried the Roku app but I have used their new Android app and it does give me access to HD versions of the channels I have. I can also watch those HD channels via the Xfinity website in a browser.


Same here.

Either the Roku rollout is botched in this regard or they're slowly tightening the terms of service for cable card users.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

morac said:


> Then how does Comcast get away with applying separate Sport and Local channel fees? Those aren't geared to specific channels based on what I've read.


Unrelated, IMO. Everyone pays those fees as a condition of subscription. It's not a condition of receiving certain channels vs others.

I don't understand why the locals need compensation for carrying their signal (you'd think a wider audience form their programming would be to their benefit) but there you go. And then Comcast had to recoup that cost on their books...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

kbmb said:


> Hulu doesn't state per show, but they do have 1080p streams: Hulu Help


Interesting that the Hulu help page you linked to is sporting their new UI design. If they've already rolled that design out to part of their live website, I'm thinking their new live TV service -- accompanied by a resigned app with the UI for at least some devices -- will be rolling out any day now. (BTW, I saw that a new competitor with a similar live TV offering, YouTube TV from Google, launched in five major cities today.)



kbmb said:


> I imagine that my days of TiVo's on Comcast as numbered as they push more and more into IP and the X1 system. Problem I see with anything IP/stream based is they move further and further away from traditional recordings which allow us to skip ads.
> -Kevin


Yeah, I think a lot of longtime TiVo users fear that the advent of cloud DVR will eventually mean that TV providers will take away the ability to fast forward through or skip over ads in recordings. And while that's definitely technologically possible, I think it would be a difficult thing to do from a business perspective. Viewers have been conditioned for nearly two decades now that the DVR (and the VCR before it) offers them two main benefits: timeshifting content and skipping ads. If a TV provider took away that latter benefit, customers would be up in arms. And, remember, this isn't 1985. You have multiple choices for pay TV service and they're growing nearly every day. (Again, YouTube TV launched today, Hulu live TV will launch soon, Verizon's OTT live TV service will reportedly launch this summer, etc. And that's on top of DirecTV, DISH, Verizon FiOS, Sling TV, etc.) So if Comcast took away the ability to FF through ads in recordings, it would give a HUGE marketing benefit to their competitors who would welcome them with open arms.

The economic structure of cable TV has developed over the years with the understanding that DVRs exist and that many people use them to skip a lot of the ads. That's priced in. The only way I'd see a major MSO disable FFing through ads on DVR recordings is if they offered that kind of cloud DVR as a no-additional-cost basic feature with every TV package. And then you would pay an extra $10 - 15 to get "ad-free cloud DVR" with all of the ads automatically removed for you.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Comcast in my area now offers VOD from network shows AD free for $2.99/show, you can still get the same show with ADs for free.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I enjoy these back-and-forths with you because I learn stuff, both from you and from the additional Google rabbit trails I wander down in order to respond to you. (It's all useless info, mind you, but I find it interesting for some reason.)


Yeah, this is a pretty interesting discussion. I'll try to respond to most of your points here, but I don't have a lot of time today as I was visiting relatives in DTW We-Fri, and didn't get back until today because of #deltameltdown.



> When it comes to Comcast's IP-delivered on-demand content (i.e. VOD and cloud DVR), I'm not sure there's really much difference between OTT and "managed IPTV"; in either case, we're necessarily talking about encrypted unicast streams, except that with the latter all of the bits are delivered completely on Comcast's network and they probably get some sort of QoS prioritization (which non-Comcast networks and routers may or may not heed). Although I guess it's possible that there's some sort of more efficient non-standard (non-HTTP) protocol that Comcast's CDN uses for their "managed IPTV" unicast streams, I really don't know.


To me, it's a totally different animal, as X1 boxes have the DSG modem built in, or could communicate with an XFinity gateway, as opposed to working over the users's home network like Roku (sort of) or the website.



> Now, when it comes to live linear channels, Comcast would want to use some sort of multicast stream, as you say, because if lots of folks are tuning in to the same content at the same time, it greatly reduces network bandwidth demands to send a single multicast stream to everyone as opposed to thousands or millions of unicast streams of the same live channel. And Rokus (or probably any popular streaming device) cannot access traditional multicast (UDP) streams. But what I imagine Comcast will do is employ existing proprietary technology in their current-gen internet gateways (modem/router units) to translate multicast streams sent across their network into standard HLS (HTTP Live Streaming) streams for consumption by various devices in the home, whether X1 boxes, Rokus, iOS, Android, etc. (Or perhaps the X1 boxes can accept the native multicast streams and don't need the gateway to act as a "translator".) This is why Comcast says that using the Roku app will require a Comcast-issued "IP gateway". If you sign up for Xfinity Instant TV and don't have a rented Comcast gateway in your home for internet service, they'll need to give you an IP-video-only gateway that performs that multicast-to-HLS function for live channels.


That's entirely possible, although if Comcast put that much thought into it, they are assuming the Roku is actually going to be a popular option, and if they keep charging $7.45/mo for it, they are delusional about that. If they need the gateway for anything, it's to replace the 8-channel DSG modem with at least a 24x8 modem, as that makes it a lot easier to set up DOCSIS channels with IP multicast, which is a rather tricky logical issue.



> I didn't dream up what I just described. (I'm not that smart.) I read about it in a three-year-old article titled CableLabs, Vendors Prepare to Solve Multicast Problem. Here's the key quote (emphasis mine):
> 
> _Operating in a somewhat similar proprietary framework, Broadpeak's nanoCDN technology is designed to convert ABR unicast streams from origin servers into single multicast streams for delivery to *broadband gateways* and *IP-enabled set-tops*, where the Broadpeak Agent converts content to unicast ABR streams in either the Apple *HLS (HTTP Live Streaming)* or Microsoft Smooth streaming modes without requiring the gateways to perform transcoding. This reduces bandwidth consumption over the broadband connections to the home gateways while minimizing the amount of processing performed by those devices._​
> If you read the article I linked, you'll see that there were other potential solutions discussed of how to incorporate multicast streaming into a world of routers and end-point devices that don't support that protocol. Whether Comcast will use Broadpeak's solution or someone else's, I don't know, but my point is that I doubt there will be any difference in the way they serve up managed IPTV (whether live linear channels, VOD or cloud DVR) to any of their subscriber homes, regardless of which devices within the home are actively used at the moment: X1 boxes, Rokus, mobile devices, etc.


That's a rather interesting idea. I'm still not convinced that they are going to push X1 to all-IP all at once, but this type of technology would certainly make it possible. I still think that STBs will be migrated over slowly, and a few random Rokus here and there isn't going to mess them up too badly if they are streaming channels that are also available on QAM for STBs.



> Well, they will be keeping all their channels on QAM for awhile longer. (I'm _guessing_ about a year, but yes, it could be quite a bit longer than that, especially for the most popular channels like locals, HBO, Showtime, etc.) But, even now, none of their linear channels are exclusively available on QAM -- you can already access them as IPTV using the Xfinity Stream TV app on your Android or iOS device. (I just installed it today on my Nexus 9 tablet. It's pretty slick. And they're running a promo event called "Watchathon" this week that gives me in-app access to a bunch of seasons of cable and premium shows that I don't subscribe to. Not that I want to binge-watch stuff on a 9-inch screen.) The upcoming Xfinity Instant TV service, which will exclusively use Rokus and other non-Comcast-issued devices for viewing, will likely start out at about $15/mo for locals plus one premium channel but they'll also offer more expensive tiers with more channels (just like DirecTV Now and PS Vue offer), so I imagine in a few months, there will be quite a few Rokus through Comcast's footprint accessing the entire spectrum of their linear channels. Meanwhile, they have a large and growing base of X1 boxes that can be seamlessly switched over to use full IPTV at any time. How long will they keep those QAM channels flowing to a dwindling base of non-X1 boxes they gave to cheapskates like me on low-cost plans prior to the 3Q17 introduction of Xfinity Instant TV (the IP-only cheapskate plan)?


I think they could cut over a block of upper-tier cable non-premium channels pretty quickly, as those subs are very likely to already have X1, so the amount of equipment to be replaced is pretty small. Yes, you can stream through the app or the website, but that's not scaled up to the point that IPTV delivered to boxes is. If everyone on a node tried to use it to replace their X1 box, I have a feeling that using IP unicast would cause the whole node to bog down on the HSI side, even if they put in a CDN that could handle it.



> Get used to it. Dynamically inserted customized ads are the future of TV, whether through traditional providers like Comcast, OTT services like Hulu, or even through OTA broadcast TV with ATSC 3.0.


Bleh. I hope I can avoid it as long as possible. For pay tv, DBS will be the refuge from this, simply because they dont' have the technology to go it (you may have to just unplug the Ethernet jack so it doesn't stream over the internet).



atmuscarella said:


> Ya that is the way I see it cable card rules apply to QAM delivered broadcast TV nothing else. If Comcast doesn't deliver a channel via QAM it is outside of the rules. I also agree with those that believe the FCC will not do anything to upset Comcast or protect consumers in anyway.


I agree. Although I've heard Comcast saying that they will support TiVo on IPTV, I'll believe it when I see it. Either that, or they will throw a bunch of APIs and security stuff over the wall at TiVo, and they will take 5 years to implement it in software, at which point, most of the users will have moved on.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lessd said:


> Comcast in my area now offers VOD from network shows AD free for $2.99/show, you can still get the same show with ADs for free.


That's the same price as buying it from Vudu, Amazon and other sources.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> That's a rather interesting idea. I'm still not convinced that they are going to push X1 to all-IP all at once, but this type of technology would certainly make it possible. I still think that STBs will be migrated over slowly, and a few random Rokus here and there isn't going to mess them up too badly if they are streaming channels that are also available on QAM for STBs.


Yes, I agree with you there. In the hypothetical scenario I envision, Comcast begins serving all new TV customers via IPTV starting this Sept. All new customers must get either X1 or Xfinity Instant TV (to be accessed via Roku and other owned devices). Meanwhile, they're still serving QAM linear channels to prior X1 customers, as well as to legacy STBs and CableCARD devices. Then, at the start of 2018, they notify customers on those legacy STBs and CableCARD devices that they have until the end of the year to switch to either X1 or Xfinity Instant TV (with special promo offers to incentivize them to do so). Throughout 2018, they slowly transition more and more X1 customers off of QAM and over to full IPTV (which happens seamlessly and is invisible to the customer), so that their engineers can see how the network handles the change in network traffic and make necessary adjustments. At the end of 2018, QAM is shut down and Comcast's network is fully digital and fully IP.

I admit that's a pretty aggressive scenario and things may not play out that quickly. But I don't really see any reason why they can't. Comcast has been methodically laying the pieces to allow for a QAM-to-IP transition for years and the end point is now in sight.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I just hope Comcast has an IPTV solution for TiVo customers. If they do implement something and FiOS doesn't I will switch my TV from FiOS to Comcast if I have to.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> I just hope Comcast has an IPTV solution for TiVo customers. If they do implement something and FiOS doesn't I will switch my TV from FiOS to Comcast if I have to.


I wish I had that choice. Nothing but Comcast here. Dish too, but the frequent rainouts we get in FL make it less appealing, and I'd still have to have Comcast for Internet service.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> I just hope Comcast has an IPTV solution for TiVo customers. If they do implement something and FiOS doesn't I will switch my TV from FiOS to Comcast if I have to.


TiVo owners on Verizon FiOS will probably be fine for years to come as Verizon has significantly less incentive than Comcast to shut down QAM. (Shutting down QAM affords more bandwidth for internet on Comcast's network but would not do so on FiOS.) That said, Verizon must have their reasons for switching from QAM to IPTV (e.g. greater flexibility in rolling out system upgrades, less expensive equipment, etc.), so their long-range goal will also be to get all their TV subscribers on the newer IP platform. But they'll likely just allow it to gradually happen through customer attrition. If, like Comcast, they begin allowing customer-owned devices like Rokus to access their IPTV service, perhaps they'll get a waiver from the FCC to avoid having to issue CableCARDs to new installations, so that they can force all new subs to be IP-only. That's just speculation, of course. But for those FiOS customers already using a TiVo, I'd bet you'll be fine for a few more years anyhow.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, I agree with you there. In the hypothetical scenario I envision, Comcast begins serving all new TV customers via IPTV starting this Sept. All new customers must get either X1 or Xfinity Instant TV (to be accessed via Roku and other owned devices). Meanwhile, they're still serving QAM linear channels to prior X1 customers, as well as to legacy STBs and CableCARD devices. Then, at the start of 2018, they notify customers on those legacy STBs and CableCARD devices that they have until the end of the year to switch to either X1 or Xfinity Instant TV (with special promo offers to incentivize them to do so). Throughout 2018, they slowly transition more and more X1 customers off of QAM and over to full IPTV (which happens seamlessly and is invisible to the customer), so that their engineers can see how the network handles the change in network traffic and make necessary adjustments. At the end of 2018, QAM is shut down and Comcast's network is fully digital and fully IP.


I still don't think that is going to happen either. Why would they serve an IP stream of ESPN to an X1 customer if it's still available on QAM? That's a waste of bandwidth. I think they are going to install all new customers as *IP-capable* this year, and start moving channels over in blocks, never having stuff duplicated between the two systems, other than for the occasional Roku customer as needed.



NashGuy said:


> TiVo owners on Verizon FiOS will probably be fine for years to come as Verizon has significantly less incentive than Comcast to shut down QAM.


Agreed. QAM has a decade plus on Verizon. They have no incentive to shut it down. My guess is that QAM will end up "frozen" in time, so you'd have to switch or add a Verizon IP-capable box if you want new channels that are added to IP only.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I still don't think that is going to happen either. Why would they serve an IP stream of ESPN to an X1 customer if it's still available on QAM? That's a waste of bandwidth. I think they are going to install all new customers as *IP-capable* this year, and start moving channels over in blocks, never having stuff duplicated between the two systems, other than for the occasional Roku customer as needed.


Well, I'm basing my predictions on the premise that the rumor in the OP is correct -- that all new subs will be IP-only, not simply IP-capable. (Although, as I've said, that rumor may not prove to be correct.) Yes, it would be a waste of bandwidth to serve an IP stream to an X1 box when that channel still exists on QAM, although I don't think Comcast would want to switch over ALL those X1 boxes from QAM to IP at the same time (i.e. when the QAM network is shut down) -- too much change in the network all at once -- which is why I could see them gradually transitioning over groups of boxes at a time.

And I think there will be more than just a few customers accessing TV through Rokus and other TV-connected app platforms. As I say, Xfinity Instant TV will become their lower-tier TV offering, meant to compete with live streaming services like Sling TV, PS Vue, DirecTV Now, YouTube TV, etc. (And, keep in mind, in addition to those TV-connected devices that will be allowed later this year, Comcast already claims 12 million IP video customers, consuming 13,000 linear channels and 150,000 hours of on-demand content, all in IP.)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, I'm basing my predictions on the premise that the rumor in the OP is correct -- that all new subs will be IP-only, not simply IP-capable. (Although, as I've said, that rumor may not prove to be correct.) Yes, it would be a waste of bandwidth to serve an IP stream to an X1 box when that channel still exists on QAM, although I don't think Comcast would want to switch over ALL those X1 boxes from QAM to IP at the same time (i.e. when the QAM network is shut down) -- too much change in the network all at once -- which is why I could see them gradually transitioning over groups of boxes at a time.
> 
> And I think there will be more than just a few customers accessing TV through Rokus and other TV-connected app platforms. As I say, Xfinity Instant TV will become their lower-tier TV offering, meant to compete with live streaming services like Sling TV, PS Vue, DirecTV Now, YouTube TV, etc. (And, keep in mind, in addition to those TV-connected devices that will be allowed later this year, Comcast already claims 12 million IP video customers, consuming 13,000 linear channels and 150,000 hours of on-demand content, all in IP.)


I think they will cut blocks of channels over, like they did with analog, so that not everyone will get cut over as once, as not everyone watches or subscribes to certain sets of channels. They can start with some of the sports and Preferred tier channels, and move down from there.

Those services are inherently all-IP, so we'll see how they work out in the marketplace. Accessing traditional Comcast cable via Roku, however, is pretty much DOA based on the "box fee" that they are charging Roku users. Nuts.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

moyekj said:


> So in Comcast's IP implementation how is DVR functionality intended to work? Will you still be able to record the IP stream and store on your local box? Or is it cloud based access only where essentially you add a bookmark in the cloud for later access to the program via IP? Because if it's the latter then could well end up with situation where access via IP can arbitrarily be taken away as is currently the case with VOD implementations.
> 
> If it's the former, over the years I've seen IP be less reliable compared to QAM - i.e. Situations where channels still tune via QAM but internet service is out.


You also have to worry that some point in the future they are going to start forcing you to watch commercials on cloud based DVR recordings. Once they get away from QAM and can lock you into whatever system they choose we're at their mercy.

Only option for local recording at that point will be some sort of capture device.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Accessing traditional Comcast cable via Roku, however, is pretty much DOA based on the "box fee" that they are charging Roku users. Nuts.


Not to mention the HD technology fee. I get HD channels on my TiVo and I can watch HD channels on Comcast OnDemand but because I don't pay the HD technology fee (never had to) I can't tune the HD channels in the Roku app


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> You also have to worry that some point in the future they are going to start forcing you to watch commercials on cloud based DVR recordings. Once they get away from QAM and can lock you into whatever system they choose we're at their mercy.


I definitely see the concern, but I don't think that cloud DVR can be materially much different than a local DVR for the sole reason that other providers, in particular AT&T/DirecTV, have local DVRs that allow FF'ing. Could you imagine the bloodbath it would be for Comcast if they blocked commercial FF'ing on DVR'ed recordings and AT&T launched a marketing campaign about it?



pdhenry said:


> Not to mention the HD technology fee. I get HD channels on my TiVo and I can watch HD channels on Comcast OnDemand but because I don't pay the HD technology fee (never had to) I can't tune the HD channels in the Roku app


While you are technically correct about Comcast's bizarre billing system, TiVo users are a tiny minority, so the use case here is Roku vs. Xi3/XiD in a household that already has an XG1/XG2. This is why Comcast is charging for the Roku, as they don't want to lose that $10/mo on a <$100 box. Also, other than being tech nerds and wanting to try new technology, we don't have any reason to use a Roku for an additional TV, as we already have IP-based boxes with no monthly fee in the TiVo Mini.


----------



## kbmb (Jun 22, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> You also have to worry that some point in the future they are going to start forcing you to watch commercials on cloud based DVR recordings. Once they get away from QAM and can lock you into whatever system they choose we're at their mercy.
> 
> Only option for local recording at that point will be some sort of capture device.


Yup, look at what YouTube TV just did with certain networks - even if you DVR a show, once it goes to OnDemand (typically after 24 hours) you can't FF anymore. The networks are going to do whatever they can to force ads at us. One reason for now I like Hulu where you can pay extra for no ads.

I can see the networks dying to get rid of local DVRs for the exact reason.

-Kevin


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

kbmb said:


> I can see the networks dying to get rid of local DVRs for the exact reason.


Non-Nielsen viewers don't matter in ratings (and thus ad prices) whether they skip commercials or not. I'd expect a lot more Nielsen viewers to report "left room during commercial" if mandatory ads commence. Ergo, I'd bet mandatory ads don't increase ad viewership.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Bigg said:


> While you are technically correct about Comcast's bizarre billing system, TiVo users are a tiny minority, so the use case here is Roku vs. Xi3/XiD in a household that already has an XG1/XG2. This is why Comcast is charging for the Roku, as they don't want to lose that $10/mo on a <$100 box. Also, other than being tech nerds and wanting to try new technology, we don't have any reason to use a Roku for an additional TV, as we already have IP-based boxes with no monthly fee in the TiVo Mini.


You understand that I'm not grousing about the $7.45 outlet fee.

Arguably I can see their justification for a version of the Additional Outlet fee but the $10 HD fee is a bridge too far.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

pdhenry said:


> You understand that I'm not grousing about the $7.45 outlet fee.
> 
> Arguably I can see their justification for a version of the Additional Outlet fee but the $10 HD fee is a bridge too far.


Do X1 users have the $10 HD fee? Or is it simply packaged in as part of X1 service? Because I can't imagine Comcast offering X1 without HD. I would imagine that eventually there will be no additional HD fee at all, it will simply be priced in as part of all TV service. Their Xfinity Stream TV service (a mobile-only streaming service that is the forerunning of the upcoming Xfinity Instant TV service for Roku, etc.) includes HD channels at no extra cost, so that may be the case with Xfinity Instant TV too. I guess we'll know come late summer...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

kbmb said:


> Yup, look at what YouTube TV just did with certain networks - even if you DVR a show, once it goes to OnDemand (typically after 24 hours) you can't FF anymore. The networks are going to do whatever they can to force ads at us. One reason for now I like Hulu where you can pay extra for no ads.
> 
> I can see the networks dying to get rid of local DVRs for the exact reason.
> 
> -Kevin


I think the future of TV probably looks a lot like Hulu. Either pay less and have forced ads that are targeted to your profile, or pay more and have no ads (or be able to skip over the ads). Which is fair.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> I think the future of TV probably looks a lot like Hulu. Either pay less and have forced ads that are targeted to your profile, or pay more and have no ads (or be able to skip over the ads). Which is fair.


That's probably true but if all networks decide to take the CBS route and do their own app/fee for just their content then it could be a cluster f*ck of apps that when combined end up costing just as much as cable.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> That's probably true but if all networks decide to take the CBS route and do their own app/fee for just their content then it could be a cluster f*ck of apps that when combined end up costing just as much as cable.


Except no one will subscribe to each of those individual apps because, yes, of course there's a volume discount when subscribing to a large bundle of channels versus each one a la carte. And I don't see all of these separate streaming services ultimately surviving anyhow. There will eventually be a winnowing, with certain new media titans, such as Amazon, Google and Apple, acting as aggregators. Amazon is already doing it with their Amazon Channels initiative. I look for that to continue developing.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Do X1 users have the $10 HD fee? Or is it simply packaged in as part of X1 service?


I had always associated it with being essentially a fee to get an HD-capable box which is why it's been possible (very difficult, but possible) for a TiVo-only customer to get it removed from their bill. It seems that it only gets applied if at some point you've had a Comcast-provided HD box on your account.

But here's the thing - go to the Comcast website and look up the channel listings for the various lineups:Limited Basic, Digital Starter, Digital Preferred, etc. IME both the SD and HD versions of channels will appear in each kid who without any mention that an HD programming fee is required to be able to receive the HD channels.

Also note that the FCC CableCard mandate requires that CableCard users (such as TiVo owners) be able to tune *all* linear (I.e., non-OnDemand) channels in the lineup.


> Receive all "linear" channels (channels other than "on-demand") in your subscription package. This includes premium channels and specialty channels. For some channels delivered using a technique called "switched digital video," you may need a second device called a "tuning adapter." This device is typically provided at no additional charge to CableCARD customers. FCC Rule 76.1205(b)(4). CableCARD-ready devices currently cannot receive your cable operator's Video on Demand services.


But over on the Comcast/Xfinity help forum Comcast employees are saying that the Roku app looks for the HD fee on your bill to enable HD channels in the app.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> I had always associated it with being essentially a fee to get an HD-capable box which is why it's been possible (very difficult, but possible) for a TiVo-only customer to get it removed from their bill. It seems that it only gets applied if at some point you've had a Comcast-provided HD box on your account.


It originally was a fee to get a HD-capable box, but morphed into a fee to get HD channels. Similarly to how the outlet fee used to be a fee for an additional cable box rental, but slowly morphed into fee to get programming on another TV (the rental part of the fee dropped down to next to nothing).

Many years ago, Comcast waived the HD Technology fee for triple play subscribers, but I think now even they have to pay the fee unless they are grandfathered in under the old plan.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> That's probably true but if all networks decide to take the CBS route and do their own app/fee for just their content then it could be a cluster f*ck of apps that when combined end up costing just as much as cable.


No, they'll cost a lot more than cable and have less variety, plus they won't be zero-rated against your data cap.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

morac said:


> Many years ago, Comcast waived the HD Technology fee for triple play subscribers, but I think now even they have to pay the fee unless they are grandfathered in under the old plan.


I first got HD when I got an HD TiVo in 2010. Never been charged an HD fee and never had other than Double Play.

I'd react negatively if they tried to impose it at this stage. As it is I won't pay it for the Roku app.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

There are plenty of indications that commercial free tv is increasing in popularity. More people watch Netflix and Amazon Prime, Hulu now has commercial free, much of video on demand has few commercials and more people have DVRs.

CableTV on the other hand is a virtual wasteland of repeats and infomercials. TNT USA SYFY, how much new material are they producing each year, it doesn't seem like much. 

At a certain point, the increase in the price of cable will encourage more people to leave. If the companies are at all worried about bandwidth, they can stop pretending and consolidate channels into ones where there something is worthwhile watching most of the time, instead of practically never.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

pdhenry said:


> I first got HD when I got an HD TiVo in 2010. Never been charged an HD fee and never had other than Double Play.
> 
> I'd react negatively if they tried to impose it at this stage. As it is I won't pay it for the Roku app.


It all depends on where you live in Comcast's footprint, their plans and fees vary. I was unable to get HD without that HD fee back in 2008 when I bought my first HDTV (Philly suburbs). Still paying it today. Same with a friend in Delaware.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Some of my neighbors have recently been contacted by Comcast about exchanging their current STB for an X1 for no additional fee or risk losing some of their channels. They said Comcast was very insistent that they do it as soon as possible. Two said they have been contacted multiple times in the last couple of weeks. This is for the Twin Cities area.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

jth tv said:


> There are plenty of indications that commercial free tv is increasing in popularity. More people watch Netflix and Amazon Prime, Hulu now has commercial free, much of video on demand has few commercials and more people have DVRs.
> 
> *CableTV on the other hand is a virtual wasteland of repeats and infomercials.* TNT USA SYFY, how much new material are they producing each year, it doesn't seem like much.
> 
> At a certain point, the increase in the price of cable will encourage more people to leave. If the companies are at all worried about bandwidth, they can stop pretending and consolidate channels into ones where there something is worthwhile watching most of the time, instead of practically never.


While I do not disagree with your basic premise, the "wasteland" you reference is in fact studded with cable TV channels that have been producing worthwhile, creative original programming. Just a few examples include AMC (Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Better Call Saul), FX (Fargo, Better Things), and FXX (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Archer, Man Seeking Woman). Even if they are not your cup of tea, these are exceptional shows that rise well above the mindless mediocrity of typical TV programming--whether broadcast or cable.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Agreed, calling cable a wasteland demonstrates basic ignorance as to what comprises great TV. There's plenty of it on cable.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> While I do not disagree with your basic premise, the "wasteland" you reference is in fact studded with cable TV channels that have been producing worthwhile, creative original programming. Just a few examples include AMC (Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Better Call Saul), FX (Fargo, Better Things), and FXX (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Archer, Man Seeking Woman). Even if they are not your cup of tea, these are exceptional shows that rise well above the mindless mediocrity of typical TV programming--whether broadcast or cable.


I think the point he was trying to make is that many of these networks on cable only have a handful of new shows and all day long show reruns of old shows/movies. That's not inaccurate.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mschnebly said:


> Some of my neighbors have recently been contacted by Comcast about exchanging their current STB for an X1 for no additional fee or risk losing some of their channels. They said Comcast was very insistent that they do it as soon as possible. Two said they have been contacted multiple times in the last couple of weeks. This is for the Twin Cities area.


Yeah, Comcast has been aggressively working to increase their X1 install base. I think it was around 30% at the start of 2016 and over 50% by the end of the year.

I wonder what the "risk losing some channels if they don't switch to X1" is about though. Has your area already transitioned over to MPEG4 QAM for most cable channels or is that something that's about to happen? If that's about to happen, maybe that's what the Comcast rep was referring to.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I think the point he was trying to make is that many of these networks on cable only have a handful of new shows and all day long show reruns of old shows/movies. That's not inaccurate.


And *I *think the "point" he was trying to make was that *he* finds little if any value in the cable channels.

There are a whole bunch of cable channels producing original programming, and a lot of them haven't yet been mentioned.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

lpwcomp said:


> And *I *think the "point" he was trying to make was that *he* finds little if any value in the cable channels.
> 
> There are a whole bunch of cable channels producing original programming, and a lot of them haven't yet been mentioned.


So true. I record more of TNT and USA than ABC or Fox. But then there is the CW. I'm not sure if vampires and teens count as original programming.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

JoeKustra said:


> So true. I record more of TNT and USA than ABC or Fox. But then there is the CW. I'm not sure if vampires and teens count as original programming.


The CW is broadcast and is not *all *"vampires and teens", just mostly (or at least sometimes it seems that way, especially if you throw in "comic books").

Actually, I think "The Originals" is the only vampire show left.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I think the point he was trying to make is that many of these networks on cable only have a handful of new shows and all day long show reruns of old shows/movies. That's not inaccurate.


You quoted me but seem not to have read my post. I started out by saying that I supported his basic premise, but then pointed out the fallacy of going so far as to call the entirety of cable TV a wasteland.

As far as rerunning old shows/movies goes, is there ANY entertainment channel in this era of 24/7 programming that does not repeat the same shows over and over and over again? Even arguably the premier creative outlet for cable programming, HBO, reruns their programs and feature films ad nauseum.



lpwcomp said:


> And *I *think the "point" he was trying to make was that *he* finds little if any value in the cable channels.
> 
> There are a whole bunch of cable channels producing original programming, and a lot of them haven't yet been mentioned.


Which is why I made the distinction between personal taste and what could be deemed exceptional by any objective criteria.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

JoeKustra said:


> So true. I record more of TNT and USA than ABC or Fox. But then there is the CW. I'm not sure if vampires and teens count as original programming.





lpwcomp said:


> The CW is broadcast and is not *all *"vampires and teens", just mostly (or at least sometimes it seems that way, especially if you throw in "comic books").
> 
> Actually, I think "The Originals" is the only vampire show left.


The CW is 40% Super Hero. Ten shows each week during Prime Time with four of them being the Super Hero type.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> While I do not disagree with your basic premise, the "wasteland" you reference is in fact studded with cable TV channels that have been producing worthwhile, creative original programming. Just a few examples include AMC (Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Better Call Saul), FX (Fargo, Better Things), and FXX (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Archer, Man Seeking Woman). Even if they are not your cup of tea, these are exceptional shows that rise well above the mindless mediocrity of typical TV programming--whether broadcast or cable.


I don't have non-premium cable and, for the most part, don't miss it. But I agree that FX/FXX and AMC have emerged as sources of high-quality scripted series and mini-series. They really stand out from the rest of the basic cable line-up (which is bloated with lots of channels few people watch). Fortunately, just about all their stuff comes to Hulu or Netflix somewhere from a few months to a year after it premieres on cable.

I think those two companies could pool their channels (FX, FXX & FXM from Fox; and AMC, IFC, BBC America & Sundance TV from AMC Networks) and offer it as an OTT premium service to compete with HBO Now, Showtime and Starz. Offer lives streams of all the linear channels and provide ad-free VOD for their current and past-season originals. $10 - 12 would be a fair price for that.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Even if were only including "scripted series and mini-series" ( I removed "high-quality" as that is a subjective evaluation) and excluding animated there's:

TBS
WGN America
Esquire
History
Freeform
Hallmark
Lifetime


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

How much value cable/satellite offers depends on how many people are in a household, home much TV each person wants to watch, how varied each person's interests are and I am sure other factors unique to that particular family. For many families cable/satellite is a very good value, for others not so much.

In the past you really didn't have much choice, either OTA or cable/satellite, know we have a middle ground with all the streaming services, so those who want more than what OTA offers can have it, while not having to go all the way to a full blown cable/satellite sub. 

There is no need to make broad all encompassing statements on behalf of all humanity about the value of any Pay TV offering or the quality of any programing. In fact to do so is fairly foolish as they are both individual determinations based on personal circumstances and preferences, unless of course one is arrogant enough to believe that their circumstances and preferences should dictate everyone else's opinions.

As an example I personally do not find enough value in pretty much any form of Pay TV to sub to it and I don't find sports program very compelling, but I understand why other people do. On the other hand I enjoy going to see movies in the movie theater and do so regularly again that doesn't mean I think everyone should go to the movies or that I don't see the value to some families in renting movies instead. 

When it comes to video entertainment there really is no right or wrong only what is right for oneself at this moment in time.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

The big thing I like about PayTV be it HBO style or Netflix style is the lack of commercials and I an willing to pay for that. I think the thing that bothers people about some of the channels is that the recycled movies have more than the standard 18 minutes of commercials per hour or that the whole thing is basically an infomercial.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lpwcomp said:


> Even if were only including "scripted series and mini-series" ( I removed "high-quality" as that is a subjective evaluation) and excluding animated there's:
> 
> TBS
> WGN America
> ...


Yeah. Pretty much all cable nets are trying to do some amount of scripted originals in this age of peak TV, although I'm not sure how well they're succeeding. It's an effort to make a brand for themselves, stand out, and survive the coming culling. IMO, those channels are not in the same category as FX and AMC; with the exception of UnREAL at Lifetime, I don't think any have had original content nominated in major Emmy or Golden Globe categories, nor do they have shows like The Walking Dead that rank highly in ratings. Shows like The Americans, Atlanta, Fargo, Better Call Saul, Breaking Bad and Mad Men have gotten the sort of critical acclaim and pop-culture buzz once dominated by content from HBO and Showtime. The only other basic cable show not from the FX or AMC groups of networks I can think of lately in that league is Mr. Robot on USA.

(BTW, Esquire is going off the air soon. More of those marginal nets will follow as the age of the big cable bundle slowly fades away...)


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

I don't give a rodent's posterior about "critical acclaim'.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lpwcomp said:


> I don't give a rodent's posterior about "critical acclaim'.


Fair enough. You're not the target demo of premium networks then. HBO cares so much that they reportedly used to tie their execs' compensation levels to the number of Emmy nominations they got! That sort of recognition for quality allows them to charge $15 per month. Meanwhile, TBS gets under $1 per subscriber from cable companies.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Doesn't critical acclaim mean the shows don't suck? Why wouldn't that take precedence over sheer number of crap channels?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Fair enough. You're not the target demo of premium networks then. HBO cares so much that they reportedly used to tie their execs' compensation levels to the number of Emmy nominations they got! That sort of recognition for quality allows them to charge $15 per month. Meanwhile, TBS gets under $1 per subscriber from cable companies.


It has nothing to do with "critical acclaim".


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I'm amused, people outside of Hollywood actually pay attention to the awards that Hollywood gives themselves?  Why?  All award shows are is back door advertising. 

I mean really if people need someone else to tell them if a TV shows is entertaining there must be allot bodies at the bottom of the cliff. I understand trying to figure out ahead of time if you might like a movie they are a one time thing, but scripted TV? Just watch an episode or two and decide.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> It has nothing to do with "critical acclaim".


Could you be more specific so we understand you better. Are you saying that ratings, critical acclaim, and viewing habits are 3 totally independent vectors?
Is price point the measurement that is most important?

Up till now, I would imagine there was a short term profit mentality that said reality is cheaper so lets do more of that. Some channels just added more advertisements time and some did more informercials.
I think the problem with that was there was so much competition they were not getting the payback and we are seeing more and more shows do something that is original.

Channels like IFC, Sundance, AMC used to just rebroadcast movies within their identity. They changed the game and went original and got the buzz, and the ratings bump.
Other channels like SyFy have waffled around between those worlds. Bravo went from arty to reality.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> I'm amused, people outside of Hollywood actually pay attention to the awards that Hollywood gives themselves?  Why?  All award shows are is back door advertising.
> 
> I mean really if people need someone else to tell them if a TV shows is entertaining there must be allot bodies at the bottom of the cliff. I understand trying to figure out ahead of time if you might like a movie they are a one time thing, but scripted TV? Just watch an episode or two and decide.


Nah. There are SO many series available for viewing (455 scripted original US shows in 2016), I'm not interested in wasting time sampling multiple shows from sources that I don't have much confidence in. If there's something new from Showtime or HBO, yes, I'm likely to give it a try because I've watched enough stuff from them to know that they put out quality original programming. But from other sources, I'm much more likely to check out stuff that I've read positive critical reviews for (see Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes) and/or which received Emmy or Golden Globe noms and/or for which I've happened to see an ad/preview that looked intriguing.

Granted, if your tastes in TV don't much coincide with the critics or the awards shows, then it doesn't make sense to look to those folks as guides in this sea of peak TV. But for some folks, they are a good indicator of where to spend your viewing time. (And frankly, I'm much more interested in that sort of guidance for TV shows than movies. Movies are over in 1.5 to 2 hours but a single season of a TV series lasts much longer.)


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

zalusky said:


> Could you be more specific so we understand you better. Are you saying that ratings, critical acclaim, and viewing habits are 3 totally independent vectors?


Yes, that is what I'm saying. Anyone who watches something and continues to watch it simply because it is "critically acclaimed' is a fool as is any executive who buys something for that reason alone. The Emperors new clothes (I'm talking about the actual "garments", not the story) were acclaimed.

Comparing the price of having TNT vs. HBO and touting that as proof that HBO is thereby superior is ludicrous. There are a number of reasons for the price difference, two of the main ones being - HBO is multiple channels, not just one and TNT is advertiser supported so they want to maximize their viewership.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lpwcomp said:


> Yes, that is what I'm saying. Anyone who watches something and continues to watch it simply because it is "critically acclaimed' is a fool as is any executive who buys something for that reason alone. The Emperors new clothes (I'm talking about the actual "garments", not the story) were acclaimed.
> 
> Comparing the price of having TNT vs. HBO and touting that as proof that HBO is thereby superior is ludicrous. There are a number of reasons for the price difference, two of the main ones being - HBO is multiple channels, not just one and TNT is advertiser supported so they want to maximize their viewership.


It's not about one outlet being "superior" to the other. That is obviously up to personal taste. All I'm saying is that getting acclaim from cultural tastemakers -- critics as well as fellow industry participants -- is a key business methodology for building interest and perceived value in a network's original programming. Yes, HBO and TNT are two different kinds of channels with two different business models, somewhat like Nordstrom and Target are two different kinds of retailers. Both have a place but they have different strategies to ensuring profitability and justifying the very different prices they charge consumers.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> You understand that I'm not grousing about the $7.45 outlet fee.
> 
> Arguably I can see their justification for a version of the Additional Outlet fee but the $10 HD fee is a bridge too far.


I'm just saying that they aren't concerned about the HD technology fee, since the vast majority of their users have to pay it to get HD on their XG1s anyway.

I'll grouse about it, since it's a ridiculous and useless fee, other than to protect their revenue streams of $10/mo that's based on the big, old expensive boxes that they're still charging for dirt cheap Xi3 and XiDs.



slowbiscuit said:


> Agreed, calling cable a wasteland demonstrates basic ignorance as to what comprises great TV. There's plenty of it on cable.


I've found there to be little on cable except news and sports. Most of the good channels have turned into wastelands. There are probably a few good things out there on channels like VICELAND, but with so many other content sources, who has the time for it all?


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, Comcast has been aggressively working to increase their X1 install base. I think it was around 30% at the start of 2016 and over 50% by the end of the year.
> 
> I wonder what the "risk losing some channels if they don't switch to X1" is about though. Has your area already transitioned over to MPEG4 QAM for most cable channels or is that something that's about to happen? If that's about to happen, maybe that's what the Comcast rep was referring to.


I'm guessing they are about to switch over to MPEG4. My neighbor said they talked about loosing HD channels.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Nah. There are SO many series available for viewing (455 scripted original US shows in 2016), I'm not interested in wasting time sampling multiple shows from sources that I don't have much confidence in. If there's something new from Showtime or HBO, yes, I'm likely to give it a try because I've watched enough stuff from them to know that they put out quality original programming. But from other sources, I'm much more likely to check out stuff that I've read positive critical reviews for (see Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes) and/or which received Emmy or Golden Globe noms and/or for which I've happened to see an ad/preview that looked intriguing.
> 
> Granted, if your tastes in TV don't much coincide with the critics or the awards shows, then it doesn't make sense to look to those folks as guides in this sea of peak TV. But for some folks, they are a good indicator of where to spend your viewing time. (And frankly, I'm much more interested in that sort of guidance for TV shows than movies. Movies are over in 1.5 to 2 hours but a single season of a TV series lasts much longer.)


Well actually Movies are more important to me as they are usually 1/2 day events as I am driving 30-35 miles to the movie theater (I watch most movies in a movie theater). Scripted TV is just an evening cool down for me - I like 2ish hr. shows most nights and I am good to go. I just record anything that I might find entertaining from OTA and that foots the bill. Now and then I will run into a show I really like but mostly I am in the camp of its "just TV" and don't put to much importance on it.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

mschnebly said:


> I'm guessing they are about to switch over to MPEG4. My neighbor said they talked about loosing HD channels.


I've been getting notices from Comcast for @ 6 months telling me I needed to upgrade and they converted to H.264 in 2015.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> It all depends on where you live in Comcast's footprint, their plans and fees vary. I was unable to get HD without that HD fee back in 2008 when I bought my first HDTV (Philly suburbs). Still paying it today. Same with a friend in Delaware.


Is yours listed as an HD Technology Fee?

Scott


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

HerronScott said:


> Is yours listed as an HD Technology Fee?
> 
> Scott


Yes, it is no longer a separate line item with a charge as it was when I first got HD, it's now listed as part of the charges in my bundle as noted below:

_*Includes Digital Premier, TMC, Streampix, HD Technology Fee, HD/DVR Converter, 2-3 Additional Outlets, Blast! Internet, XFINITY Voice Unlimited And Wireless Gateway. PA State Taxable Amount For Equipment And Premium Service Is $$$*_


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I just hopped into my Comcast account and was surprised to see that they do offer X1 TV service without HD; if you want HD channels (despite the fact that you get the same STB either way), they still tack on the $10 HD Technology Fee. Which seems a little nuts in 2017. Who's getting X1 but doesn't want HD channels? I thought that Comcast would have rolled HD into the baseline charge for their better TV packages (making it non-optional), like DirecTV and DISH both did some time ago.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I just hopped into my Comcast account and was surprised to see that they do offer X1 TV service without HD; if you want HD channels (despite the fact that you get the same STB either way), they still tack on the $10 HD Technology Fee. Which seems a little nuts in 2017. Who's getting X1 but doesn't want HD channels? I thought that Comcast would have rolled HD into the baseline charge for their better TV packages (making it non-optional), like DirecTV and DISH both did some time ago.


What? And raise their advertised rate?


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Yes, it is no longer a separate line item with a charge as it was when I first got HD, it's now listed as part of the charges in my bundle as noted below:
> 
> _*Includes Digital Premier, TMC, Streampix, HD Technology Fee, HD/DVR Converter, 2-3 Additional Outlets, Blast! Internet, XFINITY Voice Unlimited And Wireless Gateway. PA State Taxable Amount For Equipment And Premium Service Is $$$*_


That's different when it's part of the bundle versus a discrete line item that you should be able to get removed if you have no Comcast equipment. I'm curious if you indeed have turned in all of your Comcast equipment even though it's part of the bundle. If not then you do have to have the HD Technology Fee.

Scott


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

HerronScott said:


> That's different when it's part of the bundle versus a discrete line item that you should be able to get removed if you have no Comcast equipment. I'm curious if you indeed have turned in all of your Comcast equipment even though it's part of the bundle. If not then you do have to have the HD Technology Fee.
> 
> Scott


I did give them back all of my equipment but they wouldn't remove it back in 2009 when I bought my Moxi DVR. At some point over the years I moved to a bundle, I don't really remember when to be honest.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I just hopped into my Comcast account and was surprised to see that they do offer X1 TV service without HD; if you want HD channels (despite the fact that you get the same STB either way), they still tack on the $10 HD Technology Fee. Which seems a little nuts in 2017. Who's getting X1 but doesn't want HD channels? I thought that Comcast would have rolled HD into the baseline charge for their better TV packages (making it non-optional), like DirecTV and DISH both did some time ago.


Considering DVDs still outsell BDs , I would think a large percentage of people aren't concerned about HD.

And if it saves them $10 a month, I can see the cost conscious people sticking with SD.

Sent from my Galaxy S6 using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> Considering DVDs still outsell BDs , I would think a large percentage of people aren't concerned about HD.
> 
> And if it saves them $10 a month, I can see the cost conscious people sticking with SD.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S6 using Tapatalk


Oh sure, I realize there are people who don't care about HD, particularly folks who aren't big TV watchers, those who are cost-conscious, etc. But I wouldn't think they would constitute that large of a percentage of the X1 user base -- remember, X1 is part of Comcast's more expensive TV packages. I'm just a little surprised that having HD is even an option for X1 users. I figured HD would have been an automatic part of the service, the way it apparently is for all new Charter Spectrum TV subscribers, as well as all new subscribers to Verizon FiOS TV, DISH and DirecTV satellite (and, AFAIK, all the new OTT live streaming TV services like PS Vue and Sling TV).

At any rate, it's another reason why I don't bother with full-blown Comcast cable TV service. I wonder if this next time year there they'll also be charging a "UHD Technology Fee" (assuming they ever get UHD deployed in any meaningful way, something they keep delaying).


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Comcast SD is nowhere near DVD quality.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

I have a Comcast SD box. Not much point in upgrading it as it is feeding an S2 that is connected to an analog TV.

Comcast actually has a lot of channels that are SD only.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

On that topic, I don't know of any Comcast channels that are in HD without also having an SD version. So if SD meets your needs in terms of picture quality, you're not missing any programming.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The only case I can think of for SD on Comcast would be someone who just doesn't use it much, if at all, and is on a bulk deal with their HOA/complex. Comcast's *HD* is barely DVD quality at this point.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> *The only case I can think of for SD on Comcast would be someone who just doesn't use it much, if at all, and is on a bulk deal with their HOA/complex.* Comcast's *HD* is barely DVD quality at this point.


Even in this case, all you need is a basic TiVo DVR and the free CableCARD from Comcast and you've got all the HD channels plus a $2.50 credit on your individual subscriber's account.


----------



## cowboys2002 (Jun 15, 2001)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Yes, it is no longer a separate line item with a charge as it was when I first got HD, it's now listed as part of the charges in my bundle as noted below:
> 
> _*Includes Digital Premier, TMC, Streampix, HD Technology Fee, HD/DVR Converter, 2-3 Additional Outlets, Blast! Internet, XFINITY Voice Unlimited And Wireless Gateway. PA State Taxable Amount For Equipment And Premium Service Is $$$*_


I have the X1 DVR and pay an additional $9.95 for each additional box ($19.90) plus $10 for the wireless gateway. Tripe play base charge is $159.99.

HD Fee is included/buried/bundled.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

You've got to love all those fees. Depending on what is already buried in the package, some of the lower Double and Triple Play packages can easily tack on another $30/mo for a single TV with HD DVR and their gateway contraption.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Broadcast and RSN fees alone are something like $15/mo. here now, which should be illegal under fair business practices wrt advertising. I.e. they should be disclosed upfront as part of the service, not hidden in the bill. Not that our state will do anything about it.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

cowboys2002 said:


> I have the X1 DVR and pay an additional $9.95 for each additional box ($19.90) plus $10 for the wireless gateway. Tripe play base charge is $159.99.
> 
> HD Fee is included/buried/bundled.


I got the X1 DVR plus another non DVR box for the bedroom and HD fees included in the bundle. Took a bunch of whining but they did it.


----------



## cowboys2002 (Jun 15, 2001)

mschnebly said:


> I got the X1 DVR plus another non DVR box for the bedroom and HD fees included in the bundle. Took a bunch of whining but they did it.


I'm up for renewal in June/July. I'm already receiving offers for the Quad-Play (Home security). I'm thinking of dropping down to double pay (getting rid of voice and using ooma) to save some $$$ and buying my own modem.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Forgive me is this has been mentioned earlier, but I didn't spot it: Where is Comcast getting the bandwidth for IP delivery? They need to keep the QAM bandwidth going for all the legacy equipment out in the field, so they will have to squeeze the IPTV traffic into the current DOCSIS bandwidth. Even with broadcast-IP, they are going to need a lot of routers segmenting the physical network so that they never have too many channels running over any given cable segment at a time. Otherwise, either general internet service or IPTV picture quality will suffer.

Verizon has the same plan, but they have fiber to the home...they have a LOT more bandwidth to play with right down to customer's ONT.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> Forgive me is this has been mentioned earlier, but I didn't spot it: Where is Comcast getting the bandwidth for IP delivery? They need to keep the QAM bandwidth going for all the legacy equipment out in the field, so they will have to squeeze the IPTV traffic into the current DOCSIS bandwidth. Even with broadcast-IP, they are going to need a lot of routers segmenting the physical network so that they never have too many channels running over any given cable segment at a time. Otherwise, either general internet service or IPTV picture quality will suffer.
> 
> Verizon has the same plan, but they have fiber to the home...they have a LOT more bandwidth to play with right down to customer's ONT.


Comcast is currently rolling out DOCSIS 3.1, which allows for gigabit+ download speeds. In about a year, they'll begin rolling out Full Duplex DOCSIS 3.1, which will allow for symmetrical gigabit+ speeds, both upstream and downstream. DOCSIS 3.1 is basically why market analysts foresee cable companies taking a greater share of the ISP market in the coming years. Fiber doesn't really offer anything all that compelling for consumers versus HFC on Full Duplex DOCSIS 3.1. (That said, Altice is skipping 3.1 and transforming their network from HFC to full FTTH; I guess they see fiber ultimately offering speeds that cable won't be able to match, although I'm not sure what the consumer use-case for such speeds would be -- 8K virtual reality?)

As for legacy equipment in the field, yeah, there's still quite a bit, but Comcast is probably on track to hit about 2/3 of their TV subs being on X1 by the end of this year. (They were at about 30% start of last year and got to about 50% by start of this year.) My understanding is that all X1 boxes are fully IP-capable (regardless of whether they contain QAM tuners). And then if, as the rumor in the OP states, Comcast ceases to supply non-IP-capable boxes later this year (perhaps moving to a two-tier system of either X1 or bring-your-own app-based devices, e.g. Roku, smart TV, etc.), I could see them get to a point not too far in the future in which they force the last 10% of so of subs on legacy non-IP boxes to do a trade in (they way they've forced trade-ins in markets undergoing the MPEG2 to MPEG4 transition).


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Forgive me is this has been mentioned earlier, but I didn't spot it: Where is Comcast getting the bandwidth for IP delivery? They need to keep the QAM bandwidth going for all the legacy equipment out in the field, so they will have to squeeze the IPTV traffic into the current DOCSIS bandwidth. Even with broadcast-IP, they are going to need a lot of routers segmenting the physical network so that they never have too many channels running over any given cable segment at a time. Otherwise, either general internet service or IPTV picture quality will suffer.


Comcast has been converting their channels to MPEG4 which would normally take up half the space, but at the same time they are also converting all 1080i channels to 720p and compressing the hell out of those channels; 9 channels per QAM (~3.8 Mbps each) from what I've read. That's where they are getting the initial bandwidth.

Comcast's X1 platform can work with IPTV and QAM, so if Comcast simply turned off QAM and switched to IPTV, X1 users wouldn't notice. Comcast could simply leave their basic channels on QAM and switch everything else over to IPTV which would free up even more bandwidth.

Also Comcast is starting to rollout DOCSIS 3.1 which is capable of 10 Gbps downstream speeds (at least 35% more efficient than DOCSIS 3.0).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Forgive me is this has been mentioned earlier, but I didn't spot it: Where is Comcast getting the bandwidth for IP delivery? They need to keep the QAM bandwidth going for all the legacy equipment out in the field, so they will have to squeeze the IPTV traffic into the current DOCSIS bandwidth. Even with broadcast-IP, they are going to need a lot of routers segmenting the physical network so that they never have too many channels running over any given cable segment at a time. Otherwise, either general internet service or IPTV picture quality will suffer.
> 
> Verizon has the same plan, but they have fiber to the home...they have a LOT more bandwidth to play with right down to customer's ONT.


Verizon can run both at the same time, since they're on physically separate wavelengths, which is why I believe Verizon will "freeze" their QAM system in time around 2017 or 2018, only add new channels to IPTV, but allow QAM to run for at least 10 more years.

Comcast, on the other hand, like you say, has competing bandwidth needs on their cable system. This is why I do not find the claim that they will start deliving 100% IPTV while QAM is still running to be credible. I think what the article means is that 100% of new customers will be IP-capable, not that they will actually be using IPTV as the delivery mechanism.

Comcast converted from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, and in the process went from anywhere from 2 to 4 HDs a QAM to 9 or 10 HDs a QAM, and took a massive quality hit in the process. They are also now using CBR encoding, and not a stat mux, as they want to be able to "slot in" different channels on a given QAM on different systems without having to make stat muxes for each system or "lose" bandwidth due to channels that are stuck in a stat mux, but aren't actually available on that system. While this saves bandwidth, it also causes significant degradation of the picture quality.

So, to do the math out, Comcast basically converted anywhere from 60 to 110 HDs, depending on the system, from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, going effectively from ~20 QAMs to ~7 QAMs on the lower frequency systems, and ~36 QAMs to ~12 QAMs on the higher frequency systems. Locals have not been converted yet.

I believe Comcast will move over to IP gradually, cutting a block of channels at a time, and forcing those users over to X1. X1 is IP-capable, so channels could move from QAM to IP, and the user would never know the difference. X1 will allow Comcast to slowly cut blocks of channels over just like they did for analog to MPEG-2, and MPEG-2 to MPEG-4.

If you look at an 860mhz system, it will still have 216mhz of usable bandwidth left even after deploying 32 channels D3 plus two 200mhz OFDM blocks for D3.1, so I believe that they will leave HD locals and SD expanded basic for DTAs for the forseeable future, and all boxes will use those QAM signals for those particular channels. Locals need about 5 QAMs for the typical market, while expanded basic SD would need around 7 QAMs, so that still would leave 24 QAMs empty.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

The end effect is the same, they need to get around the CableCard requirement in order to cut out any QAM transmission.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> This is why I do not find the claim that they will start deliving 100% IPTV while QAM is still running to be credible. I think what the article means is that 100% of new customers will be IP-capable, not that they will actually be using IPTV as the delivery mechanism.


Well, as I've said before, we know that their Xfinity Instant TV service (a lower-priced self-install product aimed at cord-nevers and would-be cord-cutters) will be purely IPTV-based, as it will use Rokus and other app-based retail devices as STBs. (Those devices, of course, don't have QAM tuners or hard drives, so must rely on IPTV for linear, VOD and cloud DVR.)

As for other new customers signing up this year -- for instance, those getting the traditional X1 TV service -- you may be right, perhaps they will continue to get their linear channels via QAM rather than IPTV. Although, on the other hand, it's possible too that Comcast will stop issuing those bigger, more expensive X1 boxes that contain QAM tuners and hard drives and solely rely on smaller, cheaper STBs like the Xi3 to give to new X1 customers. If that were the case, then, yeah, those new customers would be served exclusively via IPTV just like the new Xfinity Instant TV customers will be. We'll see...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> The end effect is the same, they need to get around the CableCard requirement in order to cut out any QAM transmission.


CableCard only applies to QAM, so when they move to IPTV, the CableCard requirement is gone. If they have only locals and SD on QAM, then that's all you'll be able to get with a TiVo, since CableCard requirements don't apply to IPTV.



NashGuy said:


> Well, as I've said before, we know that their Xfinity Instant TV service (a lower-priced self-install product aimed at cord-nevers and would-be cord-cutters) will be purely IPTV-based, as it will use Rokus and other app-based retail devices as STBs. (Those devices, of course, don't have QAM tuners or hard drives, so must rely on IPTV for linear, VOD and cloud DVR.)


That's a fair assessment, but the vast majority of their customers are still going to be on the X1 platform, and I can pretty much guarantee that isn't just going to cut over to IPTV. They are either going to start cutting blocks of high-tier HD channels to IPTV, or possibly even add a few new channels in HD that are IPTV-only to start the transition.



> As for other new customers signing up this year -- for instance, those getting the traditional X1 TV service -- you may be right, perhaps they will continue to get their linear channels via QAM rather than IPTV. Although, on the other hand, it's possible too that Comcast will stop issuing those bigger, more expensive X1 boxes that contain QAM tuners and hard drives and solely rely on smaller, cheaper STBs like the Xi3 to give to new X1 customers. If that were the case, then, yeah, those new customers would be served exclusively via IPTV just like the new Xfinity Instant TV customers will be. We'll see...


AFAIK, they don't have a full cloud DVR system running either, so the XG2 boxes, which in theory would rely on cloud DVR, are only being used for installations that don't have a DVR, and commercial installations where you can't have a DVR, and the vast majority of subs are still using an XG1. They have so many XG1s out there that they don't have a huge need to offer an all-IP solution in the immediate future. I am sure that is on the roadmap, probably 5 years down the line, but they need 100% IPTV conversion AND cloud DVR in place for that to work at scale.

My guess is that they need to get all of the cable HD channels moved over to IPTV before pushing out IP-only hardware, as that will free up a lot of IP bandwidth. They do want to move local channels over to MPEG-4, so that tells me that they do eventually want to go all-IP, since sending MPEG-2 over IP is terribly inefficient. From a bandwidth and content acquisition perspective, it would make sense to keep locals on MPEG-2 QAM indefinitely, but I think they will want to move to MPEG-4 IPTV eventually so that they can move to an all-IP equipment platform.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Most of the Storage for the X1 is in the cloud now. At least in my area.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> AFAIK, they don't have a full cloud DVR system running either, so the XG2 boxes, which in theory would rely on cloud DVR, are only being used for installations that don't have a DVR, and commercial installations where you can't have a DVR, and the vast majority of subs are still using an XG1. They have so many XG1s out there that they don't have a huge need to offer an all-IP solution in the immediate future. I am sure that is on the roadmap, probably 5 years down the line, but they need 100% IPTV conversion AND cloud DVR in place for that to work at scale.


No, Comcast already has cloud DVR in full effect for all X1 customers, at least in certain markets. (And I'd guess it's rolled out nationwide by now.) If you're on X1 and you pay for DVR service, you've got cloud DVR. Which is how you can watch the last 60 hours of stuff you've recorded via the Xfinity Stream app or web portal. You can read about it here. Cloud DVR will also be a (possibly optional) feature of the upcoming Xfinity Instant TV service delivered via Roku.



Bigg said:


> My guess is that they need to get all of the cable HD channels moved over to IPTV before pushing out IP-only hardware, as that will free up a lot of IP bandwidth.


Again, EVERY SINGLE CHANNEL that Comcast carries in every single market they serve, both HD and SD, is ALREADY available via IPTV. You can stream every channel live through the Xfinity Stream app or web portal. So it's just a question going forward of how many additional devices will be served by those IPTV streams and how many additional hours of viewing they will account for (or, in other words, how much additional IP traffic those streams will create on Comcast's network). Right now, only computers and mobile devices can access those linear channels via IPTV rather than QAM (except for a few exceptions, like beta testers and college campus subscribers). But later this year, Comcast will begin serving linear channels via IPTV to TV-connected devices in significant numbers. The question is whether that will only be to app-based devices (e.g. Rokus, smart TVs, etc.) or also to at least some X1 boxes.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Bigg said:


> CableCard only applies to QAM, so when they move to IPTV, the CableCard requirement is gone. If they have only locals and SD on QAM, then that's all you'll be able to get with a TiVo, since CableCard requirements don't apply to IPTV.


Well, the way the regulation is written, that's sort of true but not really.

CableCard is the mechanism by which they perform conditional access for QAM, correct, so QAM and CableCard are linked. But the regulation never says CableCard. It says if a multichannel video programming distributor uses a *device* to perform the *conditional access functions* then it shall be possible for a subscriber to rent just a component that performs the conditional access function (i.e., the concept of separable security).

If they yanked QAM and used only proprietary boxes to deliver programming over IP they'd still have to provide a separable security device (which may be completely incompatible with CableCards and TiVos) that consumer devices could be designed to integrate with.

But if they support allowing consumers to use a commercially available device (like a Roku) to watch programming without need for a security device, they don't have to support or provide the security devices at all.

So if they move to IPTV the CableCard requirement is gone *as long as *I can buy a device on the open market that doesn't use a CableCard and that receives the programming tiers.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> So if they move to IPTV the CableCard requirement is gone *as long as *I can buy a device on the open market that doesn't use a CableCard and that receives the programming tiers.


And that device is the Roku, which is one of the reasons Comcast is planning on providing programming on it.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

How is it that AT&T Uverse IPTV has never been subject to this law? They're not operating throughout the Continental US (the loophole that exempts satellite). And they don't allow access through any retail devices, e.g. Roku.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Because they are a telco information services provider, not a cable company under the law.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> No, Comcast already has cloud DVR in full effect for all X1 customers, at least in certain markets. (And I'd guess it's rolled out nationwide by now.) If you're on X1 and you pay for DVR service, you've got cloud DVR. Which is how you can watch the last 60 hours of stuff you've recorded via the Xfinity Stream app or web portal. You can read about it here. Cloud DVR will also be a (possibly optional) feature of the upcoming Xfinity Instant TV service delivered via Roku.


The FAQ there has a telling statement about swapping boxes, that the recordings are only viewable on computers if you swap boxes. That is the early iteration of Cloud DVR that creates a mirror of everything you record locally in the cloud, but is not delivering cloud DVR content to the XG1s. Eventually, when they have the IP bandwidth, and everything is MPEG-4, they want to move everything to the cloud for STBs *and* mobile.



> Again, EVERY SINGLE CHANNEL that Comcast carries in every single market they serve, both HD and SD, is ALREADY available via IPTV. You can stream every channel live through the Xfinity Stream app or web portal. So it's just a question going forward of how many additional devices will be served by those IPTV streams and how many additional hours of viewing they will account for (or, in other words, how much additional IP traffic those streams will create on Comcast's network). Right now, only computers and mobile devices can access those linear channels via IPTV rather than QAM (except for a few exceptions, like beta testers and college campus subscribers). But later this year, Comcast will begin serving linear channels via IPTV to TV-connected devices in significant numbers. The question is whether that will only be to app-based devices (e.g. Rokus, smart TVs, etc.) or also to at least some X1 boxes.


There are two different, but related topics here.

1. Delivery of video using OTT technology (some IP restricted to home for rights reasons, some available nationwide) to computers and mobile devices.

2. Managed delivery of IP video to Comcast hardware using IP.

You're talking about 1, whereas we're talking about 2, since that's what matters to TiVos. The transition to 2 has already begun in baby steps with VOD to some boxes, but not for linear channels.

Their existing HSI infrastructure can handle people streaming unicast IPTV to phones and browsers and even Rokus all day long, as it's a relatively small proportion of traffic, and uses no specific new technology beyond the same HSI capacity in the last mile that is already used for Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc, etc. The big question is when the much larger viewership on XG1, XG2, Xi3, and XiD devices moves to IP, which requires significant engineering efforts to use IP multicast effectively, and manage a large amount of IP traffic in the last mile that doesn't currently exist in any form.



pdhenry said:


> Well, the way the regulation is written, that's sort of true but not really.
> 
> CableCard is the mechanism by which they perform conditional access for QAM, correct, so QAM and CableCard are linked. But the regulation never says CableCard. It says if a multichannel video programming distributor uses a *device* to perform the *conditional access functions* then it shall be possible for a subscriber to rent just a component that performs the conditional access function (i.e., the concept of separable security).
> 
> ...


IPTV has no requirement to allow consumer equipment to connect to the network. Look at AT&T U-Verse and Google Fiber TV. You have to use their hardware, there is no user owned hardware or separable security.

Comcast is not using Roku to get through some loophole in the law, rather it appears to be some bizarre and misguided attempt to look cool and modern until someone reads the fine print and sees that it's a scam, and they are charging $7.45/mo for something that should be included with the original programming package.



slowbiscuit said:


> Because they are a telco information services provider, not a cable company under the law.


They are franchised as a cable company.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Franchises are local while the FCC is federal.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> The FAQ there has a telling statement about swapping boxes, that the recordings are only viewable on computers if you swap boxes. That is the early iteration of Cloud DVR that creates a mirror of everything you record locally in the cloud, but is not delivering cloud DVR content to the XG1s. Eventually, when they have the IP bandwidth, and everything is MPEG-4, they want to move everything to the cloud for STBs *and* mobile.
> .


The cloud storage amount is several times what can be stored locally in the DVR. AT least that is the case in my area. So instead of the storage space being 100% with only the local hard drive. Once cloud storage was implemented the storage space used dropped to around 20%


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

The reality is simple: 

All companies that delivery cable TV via a technology other than QAM have been exempted from cable card requirements.

Verizon who is not a traditional cable company and no different than AT&T but used QAM was not exempted. 
Any one who thinks Comcast could not get the FCC to exempt them from cable card requirements if they dumped QAM delivery is living a fantasy land. What the regulations say or what any of us think they say is irrelevant.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I don't have an X1 just our friendly Roamio. Does the cloud storage on X1 DVR cause a situation like OnDemand does on Tivo where some providers can prevent fast forwarding to skip commercials and such?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> The FAQ there has a telling statement about swapping boxes, that the recordings are only viewable on computers if you swap boxes. That is the early iteration of Cloud DVR that creates a mirror of everything you record locally in the cloud, but is not delivering cloud DVR content to the XG1s. Eventually, when they have the IP bandwidth, and everything is MPEG-4, they want to move everything to the cloud for STBs *and* mobile.


I'm not even sure if what you're saying here is relevant to the earlier question or, given aaronwt's experience, whether your assessment of how Comcast's cloud DVR service functions is correct. At any rate, it would appear that Comcast is poised to offer an all-IP cloud DVR service that involves no local hard drives for use with the Roku-based Xfinity Instant TV service later this year. Whether they'll also begin issuing their own X1 hardware that functions in basically the same way for all services (linear, VOD and cloud DVR), we don't know, but that would seem to be the case IF the rumor in the OP is true. (And as I've said many times, it may not prove to be accurate.)



Bigg said:


> There are two different, but related topics here.
> 
> 1. Delivery of video using OTT technology (some IP restricted to home for rights reasons, some available nationwide) to computers and mobile devices.
> 
> ...


Well, I touched on this a bit back in post 84 when I wrote about technology that has existed for some time now that would allow Comcast to efficiently issue multicast IPTV streams for their linear channels to a home gateway, where those streams are then converted into unicast streams that can be accepted by Rokus and all sorts of consumer devices. Since Comcast has confirmed that use of their app for Roku will require a Comcast-issued gateway (either their combined HSI modem/router or a separate piece of hardware for those who use their own modems), I imagine that is what will happen for Xfinity Instant TV subs.

Here's an article from 9/1/16 about a white paper on cable's transition to IP, primarily focused on the use of multicast adaptive bit rate (M-ABR) for transmission of linear channels as managed multicast IPTV streams. On the page where you can purchase the white paper, you see this (emphasis mine):

Multicast ABR promises to be of particular benefit to Comcast, which is out front in migrating to all-IP delivery and *conducting trials of M-ABR*.

So Comcast was already trialling "significant engineering efforts to use IP multicast effectively" (to use your words) last summer, maybe earlier. Read the stuff I linked to back in post 84, as well as the two links just above; I don't see any reason to think that this kind of solution (M-ABR) wouldn't be what Comcast will _at some point_ embrace for delivery of linear channels to ALL in-home devices, including their own STBs (which, unlike Rokus, may be able to natively accept multicast IPTV streams anyhow, without relying on a gateway) as they get rid of QAM.

Again, the question is whether they'll begin using such technology to send linear channels as IPTV to ALL new subs later this year (per the rumor in the OP) or only those new subs who get Xfinity Instant TV.

We keep going round and round on this and, frankly, there's nothing more to say, other than you think that the rumor in the OP is untrue for various reasons, while I don't know if it's true or not but have laid out info to suggest that it _could_ be true.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Since Comcast has confirmed that use of their app for Roku will require a Comcast-issued gateway (either their combined HSI modem/router or a separate piece of hardware for those who use their own modems), I imagine that is what will happen for Xfinity Instant TV subs.


I can tell you that there is no such requirement if you have Xfinity Internet service. I was able to sign up for and use the Roku beta and I do not use any Comcast equipment save the cablecards used in two TiVos. My modem is owned by me. The requirement for a gateway only applies if your Internet is not provided by Comcast.

XFINITY TV on Roku - Xfinity Help and Support Forums


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Any one who thinks Comcast could not get the FCC to exempt them from cable card requirements if they dumped QAM delivery is living a fantasy land. What the regulations say or what any of us think they say is irrelevant.


That's a good point. U-Verse and other systems have already set the precedent, no matter how you interpret it.



NashGuy said:


> I'm not even sure if what you're saying here is relevant to the earlier question or, given aaronwt's experience, whether your assessment of how Comcast's cloud DVR service functions is correct. At any rate, it would appear that Comcast is poised to offer an all-IP cloud DVR service that involves no local hard drives for use with the Roku-based Xfinity Instant TV service later this year. Whether they'll also begin issuing their own X1 hardware that functions in basically the same way for all services (linear, VOD and cloud DVR), we don't know, but that would seem to be the case IF the rumor in the OP is true. (And as I've said many times, it may not prove to be accurate.)


What the FAQ referred to is clearly not cloud DVR on an XG1/2. That being said, I don't doubt what aaronwt is saying, and since everything varies market to market, what he is seeing is something different and more advanced than what the FAQ covers (or the FAQ is outdated, and was made before cloud DVR was implemented for the XG1/2 boxes). There are also a few pieces of that puzzle missing to us, like how they handle MPEG-2 local channels on Cloud DVR.



> Well, I touched on this a bit back in post 84 when I wrote about technology that has existed for some time now that would allow Comcast to efficiently issue multicast IPTV streams for their linear channels to a home gateway, where those streams are then converted into unicast streams that can be accepted by Rokus and all sorts of consumer devices.


I think you're way overthinking the Roku thing. It's going to be a tiny part of their overall market, and I don't think it's anything different than running Netflix or Amazon on your Roku, it just comes out of Comcast's datacenter, not someone else's.



> So Comcast was already trialling "significant engineering efforts to use IP multicast effectively" (to use your words) last summer, maybe earlier. Read the stuff I linked to back in post 84, as well as the two links just above; I don't see any reason to think that this kind of solution (M-ABR) wouldn't be what Comcast will _at some point_ embrace for delivery of linear channels to ALL in-home devices, including their own STBs (which, unlike Rokus, may be able to natively accept multicast IPTV streams anyhow, without relying on a gateway) as they get rid of QAM.


Agreed.



> Again, the question is whether they'll begin using such technology to send linear channels as IPTV to ALL new subs later this year (per the rumor in the OP) or only those new subs who get Xfinity Instant TV.


The question is whether they are going to duplicate bandwidth for linear QAM and IPTV multicast, with some XG1/2 boxes using the former, and some the latter on the same system, and I think the answer to that is absolutely not. There is no logical reason to do that. What I think will be happening is a move later this year to install all subs as IPTV-ready, and possibly start using IP-VOD for all X1 customers.



> We keep going round and round on this and, frankly, there's nothing more to say, other than you think that the rumor in the OP is untrue for various reasons, while I don't know if it's true or not but have laid out info to suggest that it _could_ be true.


I don't think it's completely untrue, but I think it's extremely misleading, because it's highly illogical to suggest that the same content will be duplicated on QAM and IPTV for XG1/2 boxes, and will also vary system to system to a certain extent. A few Rokus being all-IP? Sure.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I don't think it's completely untrue, but I think it's extremely misleading, because it's highly illogical to suggest that the same content will be duplicated on QAM and IPTV for XG1/2 boxes, and will also vary system to system to a certain extent. A few Rokus being all-IP? Sure.


Well, semantics. Not completely true = untrue.

At any rate, no, it wouldn't make sense to duplicate channels on QAM and IPTV for a long, indefinite period of time on lots of X1 hardware. But if a complete transition weren't too far off, it would make sense. When the day eventually comes to shut down QAM (or parts of it) and replace it with IPTV, I can't imagine Comcast would, in one fell swoop, switch 100% of their X1 boxes in a given market over from QAM. It would make more sense to do it somewhat gradually, over a number of months (as they seem to have done in the transition from local to cloud DVR for X1), so that network engineers could optimize the system for 5% of boxes, then maybe 10%, then 20%, before switching the rest over and freeing up all that QAM bandwidth for IP traffic. If the rumor in the OP is true -- that ALL new TV subs will be serviced via IPTV beginning later this year -- that would be one way to start the transition. But, as I say, I wouldn't see the point in moving some X1 boxes to IPTV if QAM was going to stay in place for another two or three years. But if it was going away in, say, 12 months, I could see it happening.

As for whether or not there will only be a "few" Rokus in use, it's too soon to tell. That depends on how Comcast markets the Xfinity Instant TV service. If, as I expect, they cease to offer any non-X1 hardware, and only offer lower cost TV and TV+internet packages through Xfinity Instant TV, I imagine that Rokus and other IPTV-app-based retail hardware will come to account for a lot of TVs on Comcast's network after a year or so.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, semantics. Not completely true = untrue.
> 
> At any rate, no, it wouldn't make sense to duplicate channels on QAM and IPTV for a long, indefinite period of time on lots of X1 hardware. But if a complete transition weren't too far off, it would make sense. When the day eventually comes to shut down QAM (or parts of it) and replace it with IPTV, I can't imagine Comcast would, in one fell swoop, switch 100% of their X1 boxes in a given market over from QAM. It would make more sense to do it somewhat gradually, over a number of months (as they seem to have done in the transition from local to cloud DVR for X1), so that network engineers could optimize the system for 5% of boxes, then maybe 10%, then 20%, before switching the rest over and freeing up all that QAM bandwidth for IP traffic. If the rumor in the OP is true -- that ALL new TV subs will be serviced via IPTV beginning later this year -- that would be one way to start the transition. But, as I say, I wouldn't see the point in moving some X1 boxes to IPTV if QAM was going to stay in place for another two or three years. But if it was going away in, say, 12 months, I could see it happening.
> 
> As for whether or not there will only be a "few" Rokus in use, it's too soon to tell. That depends on how Comcast markets the Xfinity Instant TV service. If, as I expect, they cease to offer any non-X1 hardware, and only offer lower cost TV and TV+internet packages through Xfinity Instant TV, I imagine that Rokus and other IPTV-app-based retail hardware will come to account for a lot of TVs on Comcast's network after a year or so.


I don't see a justification for any period of time. If they're worried about glitches and problems, cut over 9 or 10 channels (one QAM) at a time, basically like they did with analog. If they put a channel up on IP and take the QAM down at basically the same time at 4 in the morning or something, no one will know the difference. They tune to channel xyz, and an XG1 or XG2 will display it just the same. They can start with channels that have very low viewership, and move upwards to higher viewership channels towards the end when they have things down.

The Roku thing is DOA unless they get rid of the $7.45/mo fee, which isn't going to happen, as Comcast wants to protect the $10/mo fee they are charging for every additional Xi3/XiD that costs them <$100 to buy, and will probably last on average 5 years. Do that the math on that one, it's a MASSIVE cash cow. It's possible that they will do some low-cost packages through Roku, and likely a lot of them will never even install the app, it just saves space on their shelf from having to have an unused cable box sitting there so that they could get the bundle price on internet.

At some point, Comcast and others are going to have to acknowledge that it's not as profitable to be propping up TV sub numbers with subscribers who aren't even watching TV or don't care about it, and will more aggressively market internet-only package where the ARPU is lower, but the margins are much higher. Plus, with a near-monopoly, they are charging $75/mo for a $40/mo service, and close to $90/mo for a $50/mo service. Their TV packages, OTOH, are somewhat competitive, since they have to actually compete, and is very expensive to provide. I believe that Comcast alone is hiding between one and three million would-be cord cutters in their teaser rate bundles, and when those wash out, the cord cutting numbers are going to look even worse than they already do.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I don't see a justification for any period of time. If they're worried about glitches and problems, cut over 9 or 10 channels (one QAM) at a time, basically like they did with analog. If they put a channel up on IP and take the QAM down at basically the same time at 4 in the morning or something, no one will know the difference. They tune to channel xyz, and an XG1 or XG2 will display it just the same. They can start with channels that have very low viewership, and move upwards to higher viewership channels towards the end when they have things down.


Yes, the changeover should be invisible to the consumer. But again, I don't see Comcast doing a major technological changeover from QAM to IPTV for linear channels all at once, given the potential problems that could introduce to the network. Comcast is easing into it by replacing low-end legacy STBs with Rokus and other IP-only retail STBs. And once they decide to switch X1 boxes over from QAM to IPTV for linear channels, I would expect them to do it with some, not all, at first. We'll see.



Bigg said:


> The Roku thing is DOA unless they get rid of the $7.45/mo fee, which isn't going to happen, as Comcast wants to protect the $10/mo fee they are charging for every additional Xi3/XiD that costs them <$100 to buy, and will probably last on average 5 years. Do that the math on that one, it's a MASSIVE cash cow. It's possible that they will do some low-cost packages through Roku, and likely a lot of them will never even install the app, it just saves space on their shelf from having to have an unused cable box sitting there so that they could get the bundle price on internet.
> 
> At some point, Comcast and others are going to have to acknowledge that it's not as profitable to be propping up TV sub numbers with subscribers who aren't even watching TV or don't care about it, and will more aggressively market internet-only package where the ARPU is lower, but the margins are much higher. Plus, with a near-monopoly, they are charging $75/mo for a $40/mo service, and close to $90/mo for a $50/mo service. Their TV packages, OTOH, are somewhat competitive, since they have to actually compete, and is very expensive to provide. I believe that Comcast alone is hiding between one and three million would-be cord cutters in their teaser rate bundles, and when those wash out, the cord cutting numbers are going to look even worse than they already do.


Folks get hung up on the $7.45/mo fee for using your own Roku but that's to extend TV service to additional TVs not already served. Service to the first TV is obviously included with any TV package. I don't see tons of X1 customers exchanging their Xi3/XiD boxes for Rokus, or using Rokus rather than X1 boxes to add service to additional TVs in their house (although some will, to save $2.50/mo or because they already use their Roku a lot). Rather, Rokus, smart TV apps, and other retail devices will mainly be used by folks like me who have non-X1 TV service. I had standalone broadband from Comcast but when my rate went up earlier this year, it was actually less expensive to switch to Comcast's "Internet Plus" package that gave me the same internet service but with local channels and either HBO or Showtime. That level of TV service is pretty much what the new Xfinity Instant TV will offer as a baseline, except I believe it will be in HD and also have cloud DVR. (The beta offers about 20 hours of HD cloud DVR storage.) That base package, in beta, costs $15 and that's the expected standalone price for it when it rolls out officially in a few months. So even if Comcast doesn't package Xfinity Instant TV in with broadband at a low intro price, I can still see lots of broadband subs paying an additional $15 for it. HBO Now by itself costs $15. Local channels with cloud DVR and VOD replicates a lot of the functionality of Hulu, which costs $8 to 12. Heck, if Comcast rolls out their app for my LG smart TV or Apple TV, I'd probably just forget about using my Roamio OTA (which is susceptible to the vagaries of OTA reception) and depend on Comcast (as well as Hulu, which I like) for major broadcast network content.

I don't think Comcast is giving up on TV service, so I don't see them taking your advice to stop propping up TV sub numbers and aggressively market internet-only. They see Xfinity Instant TV as a way to keep and/or attract subs to their TV product. Instant TV will also offer higher levels of service with more channels/features, so they see it as a gateway to X1-like levels of profitability.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

If they make a linear channel unavailable to CableCARD users, they must remove it from the package. How do you propose they do that "invisible to the consumer"?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, the changeover should be invisible to the consumer. But again, I don't see Comcast doing a major technological changeover from QAM to IPTV for linear channels all at once, given the potential problems that could introduce to the network. Comcast is easing into it by replacing low-end legacy STBs with Rokus and other IP-only retail STBs. And once they decide to switch X1 boxes over from QAM to IPTV for linear channels, I would expect them to do it with some, not all, at first. We'll see.


The Roku thing is basically a distraction from the rest of their services. That just doesn't add up. They need the additional DOCSIS bandwidth from the current QAM channels in order to scale up IPTV. Maybe they could keep a handful of channels on both at the same time, but they are going to need some of that bandwidth back before they can offer the whole lineup in IP. In order to accommodate that, I believe they will cut over blocks of channels, take those QAMs back, and use them for DOCSIS bandwidth, getting up to the full 32 channels of D3, and then adding more D3.1 bandwidth from there. Even though the XG1 boxes can only do DOCSIS 3, adding D3.1 bandwidth will, over time, move HSI traffic over to that.



> Folks get hung up on the $7.45/mo fee for using your own Roku but that's to extend TV service to additional TVs not already served.


Which makes absolultey zero sense, since they are not providing any equipment to that TV. They are doing it to protect the reveunue from the Xi3/XiD boxes. I don't think they expect to ever have very many of them in service.



> Rather, Rokus, smart TV apps, and other retail devices will mainly be used by folks like me who have non-X1 TV service. I had standalone broadband from Comcast but when my rate went up earlier this year, it was actually less expensive to switch to Comcast's "Internet Plus" package that gave me the same internet service but with local channels and either HBO or Showtime. That level of TV service is pretty much what the new Xfinity Instant TV will offer as a baseline, except I believe it will be in HD and also have cloud DVR. (The beta offers about 20 hours of HD cloud DVR storage.) That base package, in beta, costs $15 and that's the expected standalone price for it when it rolls out officially in a few months. So even if Comcast doesn't package Xfinity Instant TV in with broadband at a low intro price, I can still see lots of broadband subs paying an additional $15 for it. HBO Now by itself costs $15. Local channels with cloud DVR and VOD replicates a lot of the functionality of Hulu, which costs $8 to 12. Heck, if Comcast rolls out their app for my LG smart TV or Apple TV, I'd probably just forget about using my Roamio OTA (which is susceptible to the vagaries of OTA reception) and depend on Comcast (as well as Hulu, which I like) for major broadcast network content.


They bundle X1 with almost all of their packages now. If there are some without it, they will eventually bundle it there as well. I'd keep the Roamio OTA around, since Comcast may start compressing locals with MPEG-4 as well, and they definitely will on the Roku, since it doesn't support MPEG-2, and is IP-only anyway. At some point, OTA quality may go down if channels share post-repack or when they start moving to ATSC 3.0, but that's a couple of years down the road.



> I don't think Comcast is giving up on TV service, so I don't see them taking your advice to stop propping up TV sub numbers and aggressively market internet-only. They see Xfinity Instant TV as a way to keep and/or attract subs to their TV product. Instant TV will also offer higher levels of service with more channels/features, so they see it as a gateway to X1-like levels of profitability.


I didn't say they'd give up on TV service entirely, but I think that they will eventually give up on trying to leverage broadband to drive TV sub numbers. They aren't making any money on these bundles that are $10/mo or $15/mo more than broadband only, so why bother? Right now they are only doing it for Wall Street subscriber numbers, not to make money. It makes no business sense. Let 2 or 3 or 5 million TV customers go, most of them will stick around for broadband only that has incredibly high margins, and then offer the big fat bundles for the remaining 15 or 18 or 20 million subs that really want to pay for tv. They can continue to offer skinny bundles, but pushing them with ridiculously low teaser rates just isn't profitable compared to doing discounts on internet-only that costs them almost nothing to provide.



lpwcomp said:


> If they make a linear channel unavailable to CableCARD users, they must remove it from the package. How do you propose they do that "invisible to the consumer"?


Change the packages around before the transition happens?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Which makes absolultey zero sense, since they are not providing any equipment to that TV. They are doing it to protect the reveunue from the Xi3/XiD boxes. I don't think they expect to ever have very many of them in service.


Makes the same amount of sense as the ADO fee. Remember, officially the cost for a CableCARD is $0.



Bigg said:


> Change the packages around before the transition happens?


And how is that "invisible"?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> Remember, officially the cost for a CableCARD is $0.


Where are you getting that? I thought the cost of the cable card was the ADO fee minus the COE discount, both in practice and on paper.

Per 47 CFR 76.1205


> 5) Separately disclose to consumers in a conspicuous manner with written information provided to customers in accordance with § 76.1602, with written or oral information at consumer request, and on Web sites or billing inserts;
> 
> (i) Any assessed fees for the rental of single and additional CableCARDs and the rental of operator-supplied navigation devices; and,
> 
> ...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> The Roku thing is basically a distraction from the rest of their services.


Nope. Xfinity Instant TV is going to become their low-end, no-truck-roll, BYO device video service. It won't be a distraction, it will be an important part of their service line-up.



Bigg said:


> They bundle X1 with almost all of their packages now. If there are some without it, they will eventually bundle it there as well.


Nope. Not here in Nashville. I can log into my account and shop for different services and I see two standalone TV options that are non-X1 (in fact, they're they only standalone TV options, as X1 requires you to also bundle internet). There are also five double-play options, including the one I'm currently on (Internet Plus for $29.99 plus taxes and fees = $39), that include non-X1 TV.

Comcast regularly advertises promo rates for internet plus TV packages that start at low prices like $19.99 or $29.99 a month for the first year. That low pricing is an important marketing strategy for them. I doubt they're going to stop doing that but, beginning later this year, I predict that the TV part of those packages will be Xfinity Instant TV, a pure IPTV service.



Bigg said:


> I didn't say they'd give up on TV service entirely, but I think that they will eventually give up on trying to leverage broadband to drive TV sub numbers. They aren't making any money on these bundles that are $10/mo or $15/mo more than broadband only, so why bother? Right now they are only doing it for Wall Street subscriber numbers, not to make money. It makes no business sense. Let 2 or 3 or 5 million TV customers go, most of them will stick around for broadband only that has incredibly high margins, and then offer the big fat bundles for the remaining 15 or 18 or 20 million subs that really want to pay for tv. They can continue to offer skinny bundles, but pushing them with ridiculously low teaser rates just isn't profitable compared to doing discounts on internet-only that costs them almost nothing to provide.


I dunno, they seem to be doing pretty well with their current strategy.
Comcast Continues Video Growth | Multichannel


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> Where are you getting that? I thought the cost of the cable card was the ADO fee minus the COE discount, both in practice and on paper.


Excerpt from What is a CableCARD?



> _*Will I be charged to use a CableCARD?*_
> The first CableCARD in a retail CableCARD device is free to Comcast customers. If a second CableCARD is needed for the same device (as is the case with certain older model TiVo devices), a charge will apply.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

That just means that it's rolled into the subscription charge, as is an STB. It doesn't man the allocated rental charge for one within the integrated STB is $0.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> That just means that it's rolled into the subscription charge, as is an STB. It doesn't man the allocated rental charge for one within the integrated STB is $0.


It has nothing to do with "one within the integrated STB".


> _If a second CableCARD is needed for the same device (as is the case with certain older model *TiVo* devices), a charge will apply._


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

What's the fee for the second CableCard in a device nowadays? It used to be a dollar or two, didn't it?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> What's the fee for the second CableCard in a device nowadays? It used to be a dollar or two, didn't it?


I think it's a $1.50/mo, but I never needed more than one per device. Doesn't matter. The point is , there is no charge for the first CableCARD in a device. Comcast made the actual charge you would incur as clear as mud.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> I think it's a $1.50/mo, but I never needed more than one per device. Doesn't matter. The point is , there is no charge for the first CableCARD in a device. Comcast made the actual charge you would incur as clear as mud.


It dropped down to 0.80 cents here before they started charging the additional outlet fee here and I turned in the CableCARDS from our old S3 OLED's which had 2 CableCARD's each. The ADO fee change coincided with the billing system getting updated to what Comcast is using elsewhere (We were a legacy Adelphia system).

Scott


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> Makes the same amount of sense as the ADO fee. Remember, officially the cost for a CableCARD is $0.
> 
> And how is that "invisible"?


True, the ADO fee is where the whole thing goes sideways, the Roku just highlights the absurdity of it. I guess they want to be consistent with CableCard. At least with CableCard, you get their actual card. With Roku you get diddly squat.

The actual transition is invisible after they align the packaged to match. I'm not really sure why they would have to align the packages though, as they can just say "xyz channels are only available to X1 customers on xyz date".



NashGuy said:


> Nope. Xfinity Instant TV is going to become their low-end, no-truck-roll, BYO device video service. It won't be a distraction, it will be an important part of their service line-up.


You don't need a truck roll to plug the cable into an X1 box either. I am firmly convinced that this is a distraction to go "oh look we're cool", and "oh look government, we support choice of devices" and almost immediately after launch, they will bury that thing so deep that no one except a handful of Roku super users will even be able to find the thing.



> Nope. Not here in Nashville. I can log into my account and shop for different services and I see two standalone TV options that are non-X1 (in fact, they're they only standalone TV options, as X1 requires you to also bundle internet). There are also five double-play options, including the one I'm currently on (Internet Plus for $29.99 plus taxes and fees = $39), that include non-X1 TV.


Interesting. They have some old crap out there then. It must vary based on what legacy equipment they have available in a given area. You'd think that they would just be doing 100% X1 now, but I guess not.



> Comcast regularly advertises promo rates for internet plus TV packages that start at low prices like $19.99 or $29.99 a month for the first year. That low pricing is an important marketing strategy for them. I doubt they're going to stop doing that but, beginning later this year, I predict that the TV part of those packages will be Xfinity Instant TV, a pure IPTV service.


They do occasionally have super cheap internet-only promos. The TV promos generally start at $54.95 for skinny bundles and $79.95 or $89.95 for regular bundles. For a while, however, they had no promos on internet only, so 25/5 was $74.95/mo, while 100/5 with a skinny bundle was $54.95/mo for I think two years. Figure that one out.



> I dunno, they seem to be doing pretty well with their current strategy.
> Comcast Continues Video Growth | Multichannel


It doesn't matter how many video subscribers they have. It doesn't matter if they lose 5 million of them. What matters is if they are making money off of them. The airlines a few years back had a couple of record years for number of pax, and they finally figured out that they had competed each other into the ground, they weren't making much money, and they finally smartened up, reduced capacity, raised prices, and carried fewer passengers, and made a lot more money doing it.

It's not exactly the same, but similar with Comcast. Giving away a TV bundle that costs money for programming rights, costs money for CPE, and costs money for installation and support is not a good business model. Selling TV bundles for $5/mo over internet only regular price and then giving a promo that makes them *cheaper* than internet only is not going to make as much profit compared to just milking the internet only market. They are generating subscriber numbers for Wall Street, and in the process making themselves *less* profitable. It's insanity.

If I were them, I would stop pushing these promos, and offer new subscriber deals across the board that don't incentivize people to get TV who don't want it, and just bleed off a few million TV subscribers. I'd rather have a slightly lower ARPU and fewer TV customers if the margins and profits are higher. Part of the issue here is that Comcast has a big incentive to keep funneling money towards pay TV, since they own a chunk of the pay tv providers in NBCU.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> True, the ADO fee is where the whole thing goes sideways, the Roku just highlights the absurdity of it. I guess they want to be consistent with CableCard. At least with CableCard, you get their actual card. With Roku you get diddly squat.
> 
> The actual transition is invisible after they align the packaged to match. I'm not really sure why they would have to align the packages though, as they can just say "xyz channels are only available to X1 customers on xyz date".


Because the CableCARD regulations are still in force and one of the provisions is that you:



> Receive all "linear" channels (channels other than "on-demand") in your subscription package. This includes premium channels and specialty channels. For some channels delivered using a technique called "switched digital video," you may need a second device called a "tuning adapter." This device is typically provided at no additional charge to CableCARD customers. FCC Rule 76.1205(b)(4). CableCARD-ready devices currently cannot receive your cable operator's Video on Demand services.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> Because the CableCARD regulations are still in force and one of the provisions is that you:


If Comcast is moving to IPTV delivery they must believe there is a way to do so that works with their existing infrastructure or works with what ever upgrades they are going to do during the transition. Part of their transition plan has to be how to deal with FCC/cable card regulations. Given that planning for this transition must have started before last November, one can hope that Comcast has found away to continue fully supporting (provide all the channels) people's TiVos and isn't banking on being able to obtain exemptions. Guess we will find out.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

If Comcast supports a customer obtaining programming via an OTC device that doesn't use a Cable Card, they're exempt from having to support CableCards. It's in the regulation.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> If Comcast supports a customer obtaining programming via an OTC device that doesn't use a Cable Card, they're exempt from having to support CableCards. It's in the regulation.


By your interpretation of that clause, they could have dropped support of CableCARDs as soon as customers could access their programming using a computer, pad, or phone.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't, and legally it would be tough for TiVo owners.

Making it available on a consumer device intended to function as a TV programming set-top box only strengthens their case, if you read the regulation at 47 CFR 76.1204 and not just the consumer-facing FAQ

You may choose to nit-pick "Operate throughout the continental United States" in the regulation but no one here is sure what that means in Comcast's opinion, and others are reporting here that Comcast reps have told them Cable Card support will be phased out in 18 months.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't, and legally it would be tough for TiVo owners.
> 
> Making it available on a consumer device intended to function as a TV programming set-top box only strengthens their case, if you read the regulation at 47 CFR 76.1204 and not just the consumer-facing FAQ


I have read the relevant parts of the regulation, and IMHO, the Roku doesn't qualify since it is useless w/o the app *which Comcast controls.*



pdhenry said:


> You may choose to nit-pick "Operate throughout the continental United States" in the regulation but no one here is sure what that means in Comcast's opinion, and others are reporting here that Comcast reps have told them Cable Card support will be phased out in 18 months.


Yeah, because everyone knows that CSRs are a reliable source for accurate information.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> If Comcast is moving to IPTV delivery they must believe there is a way to do so that works with their existing infrastructure or works with what ever upgrades they are going to do during the transition. Part of their transition plan has to be how to deal with FCC/cable card regulations. Given that planning for this transition must have started before last November, one can hope that Comcast has found away to continue fully supporting (provide all the channels) people's TiVos and isn't banking on being able to obtain exemptions. Guess we will find out.


I don't see how the CableCARD law could be applied to an MSO that no longer uses QAM (or applied to linear channels that are no longer transmitted via QAM, should Comcast shut down only part of their QAM network). It's technologically incompatible, obviously. The FCC's "Unlock the Box" initiative was an effort to replace CableCARD with an updated IP-based standard but that failed. Seems clear to me that, so long as Comcast provides all their channels and services via their IPTV app for retail TV-connected hardware, they can say that they're offering replacement technology that fulfills the spirit of the original CableCARD law while working with IPTV. So once a TiVo or other CableCARD device can no longer receive certain or all channels, Comcast can just say "it's because our underlying technology is changing, so you'll either need to switch to our X1 box or to your own app-based device". I just don't see any way that the federal government would challenge such a policy. I guess if FCC lawyers determine that an act of Congress is necessary to truly kill CableCARD for QAM-based MSOs transitioning to IPTV, then I expect that will happen -- just a few lines slipped into a larger bill, the same way that the requirement for separable security was eliminated with the STELAR Act in 2014.

As for Comcast reps saying that CableCARD support will be phased out in 18 months (by about the end of 2018), well, obviously take that with a huge grain of salt as CSRs at any of these big companies tend to be fairly clueless. But, IF what they're saying is correct, it wouldn't surprise me given everything else I've read about Comcast's plans.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

If the Roku + app qualifies as an alternative (debatable but possible), then they could drop support for CableCARD immediately. If it doesn't, then they shouldn't be able to move channels piecemeal, but who knows what the FCC will approve. They were allowed to start encrypting locals based on a bogus claim of massive loss of revenue due to theft of service, when the truth was they wanted the additional ADO revenue.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It doesn't matter how many video subscribers they have. It doesn't matter if they lose 5 million of them. What matters is if they are making money off of them. The airlines a few years back had a couple of record years for number of pax, and they finally figured out that they had competed each other into the ground, they weren't making much money, and they finally smartened up, reduced capacity, raised prices, and carried fewer passengers, and made a lot more money doing it.
> 
> It's not exactly the same, but similar with Comcast. Giving away a TV bundle that costs money for programming rights, costs money for CPE, and costs money for installation and support is not a good business model. Selling TV bundles for $5/mo over internet only regular price and then giving a promo that makes them *cheaper* than internet only is not going to make as much profit compared to just milking the internet only market. They are generating subscriber numbers for Wall Street, and in the process making themselves *less* profitable. It's insanity.
> 
> If I were them, I would stop pushing these promos, and offer new subscriber deals across the board that don't incentivize people to get TV who don't want it, and just bleed off a few million TV subscribers. I'd rather have a slightly lower ARPU and fewer TV customers if the margins and profits are higher. Part of the issue here is that Comcast has a big incentive to keep funneling money towards pay TV, since they own a chunk of the pay tv providers in NBCU.


Comcast isn't just an MSO, as you point out, they're also in the content business with Universal and NBC networks. Comcast has no interest in becoming a dumb broadband-only pipe. And they're not willing, at this very early stage of cord-cutting, to raise the white flag. They know that cord-cutting, as well as skinny live streaming services like Sling TV, are threats. They're going to try to keep those folks (who obviously are going to need broadband anyway) within their pay TV ecosystem too with Xfinity Instant TV. They're betting that some of them, as they age, will stick with Comcast for their pay TV needs and eventually spend more on TV. Rather than fight cord-cutting/cord-shaving, Comcast is aiming to co-opt it. We can already see that with their new attitude toward Netflix, which is now integrated into X1. It was once seen as a potential pay TV competitor but now seen as another add-on service that Comcast can distribute.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> I don't see how the CableCARD law could be applied to an MSO that no longer uses QAM (or applied to linear channels that are no longer transmitted via QAM, should Comcast shut down only part of their QAM network). It's technologically incompatible, obviously. The FCC's "Unlock the Box" initiative was an effort to replace CableCARD with an updated IP-based standard but that failed. Seems clear to me that, so long as Comcast provides all their channels and services via their IPTV app for retail TV-connected hardware, they can say that they're offering replacement technology that fulfills the spirit of the original CableCARD law while working with IPTV. So once a TiVo or other CableCARD device can no longer receive certain or all channels, Comcast can just say "it's because our underlying technology is changing, so you'll either need to switch to our X1 box or to your own app-based device". I just don't see any way that the federal government would challenge such a policy. I guess if FCC lawyers determine that an act of Congress is necessary to truly kill CableCARD for QAM-based MSOs transitioning to IPTV, then I expect that will happen -- just a few lines slipped into a larger bill, the same way that the requirement for separable security was eliminated with the STELAR Act in 2014.
> 
> As for Comcast reps saying that CableCARD support will be phased out in 18 months (by about the end of 2018), well, obviously take that with a huge grain of salt as CSRs at any of these big companies tend to be fairly clueless. But, IF what they're saying is correct, it wouldn't surprise me given everything else I've read about Comcast's plans.


Comcast is already providing a Tivo app for their VoD so my thoughts were more along the line that they could provide an app for TiVos that allowed access to any channels that moved to IPTV. Perhaps it is to far of a stretch to think Comcast would provide that level of customer service to TiVo users. In any event I am sure the IPTV channels would not be recordable.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> In any event I am sure the IPTV channels would not be recordable.


Why not?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Comcast is already providing a Tivo app for their VoD so my thoughts were more along the line that they could provide an app for TiVos that allowed access to any channels that moved to IPTV. Perhaps it is to far of a stretch to think Comcast would provide that level of customer service to TiVo users. In any event I am sure the IPTV channels would not be recordable.





lpwcomp said:


> Why not?


I think the "best-case yet still _realistic"_ scenario is that Comcast makes the same Stream TV app they're putting on Roku also available for recent model TiVos, which would allow for linear channels, VOD and cloud DVR, but all within the Stream TV app's (very X1-like) UI, nothing in the native TiVo UI.

Throughout this thread I've repeatedly referred to that app being on Roku but it's also going to be available on some Samsung smart TVs this year. Comcast also demo'd a beta version of it running on the Nvidia Shield Android TV back at CES 2016, I think it was. They definitely intend to bring the app to more TV-connected platforms through their "Xfinity TV Partner Program". So it's not unreasonable to think that they would port it to TiVo IF there wasn't much cost involved for Comcast. Making it available for TiVo would help mitigate the temporary bad press over pulling the rug out from under TiVo owners. But I honestly wonder how many active TiVo households Comcast has at this point?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Turning a TiVo into a dumb STB won't "mitigate" anything.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Unless the hypothetical Comcast TiVo app is integrated with TiVo's scheduler and cloud DVR I don't see the point, and you can be certain Comcast would never do that, because it wouldn't put pressure on TiVo users to switch to X1.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

randian said:


> Unless the hypothetical Comcast TiVo app is integrated with TiVo's scheduler and cloud DVR I don't see the point, and you can be certain Comcast would never do that, because it wouldn't put pressure on TiVo users to switch to X1.


I have zero interest in a cloud DVR from anyone.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

lpwcomp said:


> I have zero interest in a cloud DVR from anyone.


Neither do I, but I doubt Comcast wants its IP streams to be recordable by anything but an X1. They've always wanted total lockdown.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> Why not?


Just cause I would think a view only app would be easier to do and be in line with the rest of Comcast's apps on third party platforms. For space sake I am just quoting this post but my comments also go to several other posts since this one.

First it is good thing that Comcast is looking at Samsung TV support as that is what TiVo's app platform is based on. So between that and the fact that Comcast has already built a TiVo app for VoD I think that gives some hope they will build an IPTV app for TiVo.

However I am fairly sure Comcast has no desire to support anything that they don't see as financially advantageous unless they are forced to by the FCC. So I do not see them supporting building an app that gives TiVo control over the IPTV streams and allows the TiVo to function the same as if the channels where being delivered via QAM.

If people would find any of this acceptable or not I am guessing depends on their options. Some may decide to move to other providers if they have that option but for those that don't being able to continue to use their TiVos would be better than not.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> Because the CableCARD regulations are still in force and one of the provisions is that you:


I don't think CableCard ever covered IPTV in the first place. It covers SDV in particular, but I believe "linear" in this case means ATSC-QAM.



atmuscarella said:


> If Comcast is moving to IPTV delivery they must believe there is a way to do so that works with their existing infrastructure or works with what ever upgrades they are going to do during the transition. Part of their transition plan has to be how to deal with FCC/cable card regulations. Given that planning for this transition must have started before last November, one can hope that Comcast has found away to continue fully supporting (provide all the channels) people's TiVos and isn't banking on being able to obtain exemptions. Guess we will find out.


Comcast could give TiVo access to the API for their IPTV, although I kind of doubt they're actually going to do that. Then TiVo can sit on it for five years, and by the time they update for it, all the users will have gone to DirecTV or gotten X1 or cut the cord.



NashGuy said:


> I don't see how the CableCARD law could be applied to an MSO that no longer uses QAM (or applied to linear channels that are no longer transmitted via QAM, should Comcast shut down only part of their QAM network).


I agree. The other angle is that they may be forced to keep CableCard in some capacity, but not for all packages. That's easy to do, just keep locals on QAM.

I don't think Comcast has any particular interest in getting rid of CableCard, but they will let it die when they transition to IPTV, and I don't think they are going to bend over backwards to give TiVo access to their IPTV system.



NashGuy said:


> Comcast isn't just an MSO, as you point out, they're also in the content business with Universal and NBC networks. Comcast has no interest in becoming a dumb broadband-only pipe. And they're not willing, at this very early stage of cord-cutting, to raise the white flag. They know that cord-cutting, as well as skinny live streaming services like Sling TV, are threats. They're going to try to keep those folks (who obviously are going to need broadband anyway) within their pay TV ecosystem too with Xfinity Instant TV. They're betting that some of them, as they age, will stick with Comcast for their pay TV needs and eventually spend more on TV. Rather than fight cord-cutting/cord-shaving, Comcast is aiming to co-opt it. We can already see that with their new attitude toward Netflix, which is now integrated into X1. It was once seen as a potential pay TV competitor but now seen as another add-on service that Comcast can distribute.


True. The content is a conflict of interest, and causes them to do things that aren't in the best interest of Comcast the cable company, but are in the best interest of Comcast the media company. Everything I see is increasing revenue and building a fortress around older users to keep them connected to the cord, like Netflix on X1, and Triple Play, Quadruple Play, and soon Quintuple Play bundles. Comcast wants to make as much stickiness as they can, so Netflix on X1, caller ID on screen, etc, are all little things that make a service more sticky. X1 has increased retention rates, and they are quickly moving to a flat, all-IP system. The benefits of having everything IP-connected, even with QAM video delivery have been apparent since the beginning of X1.



atmuscarella said:


> Comcast is already providing a Tivo app for their VoD so my thoughts were more along the line that they could provide an app for TiVos that allowed access to any channels that moved to IPTV. Perhaps it is to far of a stretch to think Comcast would provide that level of customer service to TiVo users. In any event I am sure the IPTV channels would not be recordable.


It's a possibility. Just how deep the integration would be remains to be seen. Their current XoD app is pretty awful.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Just cause I would think a view only app would be easier to do and be in line with the rest of Comcast's apps on third party platforms. For space sake I am just quoting this post but my comments also go to several other posts since this one.
> 
> First it is good thing that Comcast is looking at Samsung TV support as that is what TiVo's app platform is based on. So between that and the fact that Comcast has already built a TiVo app for VoD I think that gives some hope they will build an IPTV app for TiVo.
> 
> ...


Yep, I agree with all the above. Of course a lot of TiVo users wouldn't be happy with simply using their TiVo boxes as a gateway to access the Xfinity Stream TV app, but at least it would save folks a few bucks from having to buy a Roku or other supported device (assuming they stayed with Comcast and didn't want to get an X1 box).

As for the possibility of Comcast working with TiVo to actually make their back-end IPTV systems work in both directions with the native TiVo OS and UI so that things continue on the same for Comcast TiVo users after the IPTV transition as they were before it, I just highly, highly doubt that will happen. Why would Comcast go to that expense and trouble to satisfy such a tiny percentage of their customers? And given that TiVo is now emerging as a competitor to Comcast's X1 as a licensed OS for small-to-midsized MSOs, it makes even less strategic sense for Comcast to willingly cooperate. "Here, let's spend resources to show support for a competing next-gen STB OS/solutions provider!" And then on top of all that is the ongoing lawsuit/bad blood between Comcast and Rovi (now TiVo). Comcast no longer even uses Rovi metadata. Although, maybe the lawsuit is a wildcard. Perhaps part of the negotiated settlement would be that Comcast willing chooses to support retail TiVos with their next-gen IPTV service. But I doubt it.

(And assuming that Comcast did end up agreeing to give TiVo full access to their IPTV system, do we even think that TiVo at this point wants to play that game? Are they interested at this point in rolling out an "Xfinity Edition" retail TiVo Bolt? I kinda think they're just about done with making their own retail hardware, except perhaps for OTA stuff...)


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I don't think CableCard ever covered IPTV in the first place. It covers SDV in particular, but I believe "linear" in this case means ATSC-QAM.


It specifically states that "linear" means anything other than On Demand.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yep, I agree with all the above. Of course a lot of TiVo users wouldn't be happy with simply using their TiVo boxes as a gateway to access the Xfinity Stream TV app, but at least it would save folks a few bucks from having to buy a Roku or other supported device (assuming they stayed with Comcast and didn't want to get an X1 box).
> 
> As for the possibility of Comcast working with TiVo to actually make their back-end IPTV systems work in both directions with the native TiVo OS and UI so that things continue on the same for Comcast TiVo users after the IPTV transition as they were before it, I just highly, highly doubt that will happen. Why would Comcast go to that expense and trouble to satisfy such a tiny percentage of their customers? And given that TiVo is now emerging as a competitor to Comcast's X1 as a licensed OS for small-to-midsized MSOs, it makes even less strategic sense for Comcast to willingly cooperate. "Here, let's spend resources to show support for a competing next-gen STB OS/solutions provider!" And then on top of all that is the ongoing lawsuit/bad blood between Comcast and Rovi (now TiVo). Comcast no longer even uses Rovi metadata. Although, maybe the lawsuit is a wildcard. Perhaps part of the negotiated settlement would be that Comcast willing chooses to support retail TiVos with their next-gen IPTV service. But I doubt it.
> 
> (And assuming that Comcast did end up agreeing to give TiVo full access to their IPTV system, do we even think that TiVo at this point wants to play that game? Are they interested at this point in rolling out an "Xfinity Edition" retail TiVo Bolt? I kinda think they're just about done with making their own retail hardware, except perhaps for OTA stuff...)


I'm not sure that Comcast would want to work with TiVo to get full IP integration, but TiVo is only a competitor to X1 on Comcast itself, and a tiny one at that. For other MSOs, X1 and TiVo target a different segment of the market, with X1 targeting large MSOs, and TiVo targeting small MSOs and RCN, who is a Comcast competitor. Further, Comcast has publicly stated that they are making a negligible profit on licensing X1, they just want the additional usage data, and want to help the cable industry as a whole.

Comcast could be missing out on a potential revenue source here. They could box out user owned TiVos, and then rent TiVos for an extra $10/mo. TiVo software already runs on the XG1, but it would suck, because you're limited to a 500GB hard drive.

If Comcast wanted to give TiVo access to their IPTV system, they just need to have TiVo push a software update, and figure out what the approved configuration is (i.e. do you have to plug the TiVo directly into an XB3? Have an XB3 on the network? MoCA? Ethernet?). That's another angle they could use is to charge an extra fee to enable TiVo connectivity through the XB3. Once all the channels are moved over to IP, I think the CableCards would just go dead? Unless they can somehow use the cryptography on the CableCard to decrypt IPTV?

So here is the problem. TiVo is a tiny fraction of Comcast users, meaning it is little competitive threat to them, but at the same time, it's a tiny fraction of Comcast users, so they probably don't really care if they bleed some of those subs off to DirecTV, as they know they will keep half of them on overpriced standalone HSI anyway, so their actual sub/profit loss is pretty small. I think we figured out there are around 300k TiVos on Comcast? I'd be surprised if more than 150k of those users dropped Comcast for TV, and more than 75k dropped Comcast completely, and it could be even less than that.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> However I am fairly sure Comcast has no desire to support anything that they don't see as financially advantageous unless they are forced to by the FCC. So I do not see them supporting building an app that gives TiVo control over the IPTV streams and allows the TiVo to function the same as if the channels where being delivered via QAM.
> 
> If people would find any of this acceptable or not I am guessing depends on their options. Some may decide to move to other providers if they have that option but for those that don't being able to continue to use their TiVos would be better than not.


If Comcast decides to replace Cablecard with an app-based approach and the FCC lets them get away with it (entirely plausible to me) then I don't know what I'll do. I'm not renting Comcast's crap in every room and I think I'll be stuck with the same rental-happy nonsense with either DirecTV or Dish, plus I'll lose the good double-play bundle I get with Comcast for HSI and TV if I switch to sat. It would be a lot more expensive to go that route.

Sigh.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I'm not sure that Comcast would want to work with TiVo to get full IP integration, but TiVo is only a competitor to X1 on Comcast itself, and a tiny one at that. For other MSOs, X1 and TiVo target a different segment of the market, with X1 targeting large MSOs, and TiVo targeting small MSOs and RCN, who is a Comcast competitor. Further, Comcast has publicly stated that they are making a negligible profit on licensing X1, they just want the additional usage data, and want to help the cable industry as a whole.
> 
> Comcast could be missing out on a potential revenue source here. They could box out user owned TiVos, and then rent TiVos for an extra $10/mo. TiVo software already runs on the XG1, but it would suck, because you're limited to a 500GB hard drive.
> 
> ...


Not sure I buy the idea that TiVo isn't in competition with X1 as a next-gen platform for cable MSOs. (See list by subscriber numbers here.) Basically, you have Comcast and Charter in the top tier (around 25M+ TV subs), then way down to Cox and Altice USA (4-5M subs), then all other US cable MSOs are under 1M. Cox has already licensed X1. Altice USA is going to deploy "The Box," a platform they've already deployed in France.

Once you drop below that 1M sub level is when you get into MSOs who already have deployed current-gen QAM-based TiVo STBs, like Mediacom and Atlantic Broadband, as well as WOW!, which has recently licensed Evolution Digital's TiVo-powered QAM/IPTV transitional platform. I don't buy that Comcast won't license X1 to any US cable MSO smaller than Cox and Altice; they've already licensed it to western Canadian MSO Shaw, which only has around 2M subs. And while TiVo has found inroads in the US with smaller MSOs, they are used by Virgin in the UK with around 3.5M TV subs. And Tivo/Rovi have data and patent licensing relationships in place with the entire range of providers. So again, not sure I see TiVo and X1 operating as potential platform choices in completely different market segments, either in the US or internationally.

As for Comcast choosing to license the TiVo UI/OS and offer it as an alternative sort of leased STB (like DirecTV did years ago), I don't see that ever happening. In order to maintain the same margins while also paying TiVo to license the platform, they'd need to charge a premium to rent a TiVo system versus their own X1, which of course sends the message that TiVo is the premium choice. Comcast believes very strongly in X1, which seems to be performing pretty well for them in terms of customer satisfaction and reduced churn. X1 has emerged as a very important part of Comcast's brand and marketing message. They're not going to blur or betray that message by offering TiVo as an alternative STB platform.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> If Comcast is moving to IPTV delivery they must believe there is a way to do so that works with their existing infrastructure or works with what ever upgrades they are going to do during the transition. Part of their transition plan has to be how to deal with FCC/cable card regulations. Given that planning for this transition must have started before last November, one can hope that Comcast has found away to continue fully supporting (provide all the channels) people's TiVos and isn't banking on being able to obtain exemptions. Guess we will find out.


I'd apply for an FCC waiver at the start of the transition to IPTV. They're terminating all of their linear channels so they'll be exempt next year anyway. They can say the law is stifling innovation and progress. It only affects 0.5% of their customers -- it'll be seamless to the other 99.5%. Those 0.5% can use their other third-party hardware to watch the content. Seems like a slam dunk waiver approval.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> They're terminating all of their linear channels so they'll be exempt next year anyway.


What the heck are you talking about?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Not sure I buy the idea that TiVo isn't in competition with X1 as a next-gen platform for cable MSOs. (See list by subscriber numbers here.) Basically, you have Comcast and Charter in the top tier (around 25M+ TV subs), then way down to Cox and Altice USA (4-5M subs), then all other US cable MSOs are under 1M. Cox has already licensed X1. Altice USA is going to deploy "The Box," a platform they've already deployed in France.
> 
> Once you drop below that 1M sub level is when you get into MSOs who already have deployed current-gen QAM-based TiVo STBs, like Mediacom and Atlantic Broadband, as well as WOW!, which has recently licensed Evolution Digital's TiVo-powered QAM/IPTV transitional platform. I don't buy that Comcast won't license X1 to any US cable MSO smaller than Cox and Altice; they've already licensed it to western Canadian MSO Shaw, which only has around 2M subs. And while TiVo has found inroads in the US with smaller MSOs, they are used by Virgin in the UK with around 3.5M TV subs. And Tivo/Rovi have data and patent licensing relationships in place with the entire range of providers. So again, not sure I see TiVo and X1 operating as potential platform choices in completely different market segments, either in the US or internationally.


I didn't realize Shaw was that small, but at the same time, for the US market, you are proving my point. Cox is on X1, the small players are on TiVo. Comcast also is not making much money off of licensing X1, they are doing it for other reasons. What I do find strange is that they don't seem to let anyone else call X1 X1. Cox has to call it Countour even though it's the exact same thing that someone down the street in a Comcast town has with X1, just with different branding.



> As for Comcast choosing to license the TiVo UI/OS and offer it as an alternative sort of leased STB (like DirecTV did years ago), I don't see that ever happening. In order to maintain the same margins while also paying TiVo to license the platform, they'd need to charge a premium to rent a TiVo system versus their own X1, which of course sends the message that TiVo is the premium choice. Comcast believes very strongly in X1, which seems to be performing pretty well for them in terms of customer satisfaction and reduced churn. X1 has emerged as a very important part of Comcast's brand and marketing message. They're not going to blur or betray that message by offering TiVo as an alternative STB platform.


I agree. I was just sort of throwing it out there as food for thought, since technically it would be relatively trivial to actually do, since TiVo runs on the XG1, but I doubt we'd see it. They tried doing that on Motorola boxes years ago, and never wanted to give it the support it needed to succeed. Yeah, I was thinking of it in terms of just revenue, but that's true, they want to position X1 as their premium offering.



BobCamp1 said:


> I'd apply for an FCC waiver at the start of the transition to IPTV. They're terminating all of their linear channels so they'll be exempt next year anyway. They can say the law is stifling innovation and progress. It only affects 0.5% of their customers -- it'll be seamless to the other 99.5%. Those 0.5% can use their other third-party hardware to watch the content. Seems like a slam dunk waiver approval.


You think Comcast can do anything that quickly? I have a bridge to sell you... Yes, Comcast will eventually go all-IP, but I think we're a decade from that. I wouldn't be surprised to see some systems have some channels, either new or existing that are IP-only in 2017, but not whole mainstream english language packages switched over.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> You think Comcast can do anything that quickly? I have a bridge to sell you... Yes, Comcast will eventually go all-IP, but I think we're a decade from that.


A decade? Hahaha, no. Comcast will have converted all their QAM bandwidth over to IP well before 2027.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> A decade? Hahaha, no. Comcast will have converted all their QAM bandwidth over to IP well before 2027.


They could easily start this year. But:

1. The conversions are going to have to happen in phases. Not only are they doing an unprecedented conversion in scale and scope, but they will have to swap out CPE in each step as more and more people are affected.

2. It typically takes Comcast 3 or more years from the first system to get a certain upgrade or conversion to when all their systems are converted. I don't expect this to be any different for IPTV, partially because of the amount of CPE that has to be purchased, and partially because they just don't do large-scale conversions all at once.

3. While they have a big incentive to get a lot of stuff over to IPTV to free up bandwidth, they have little, if any incentive to get local HD content, because it's almost always being watched, and Expanded Basic SD, because DTAs can tune it that aren't IP capable. Also, once they get the initial few rounds of national HD and some of the higher package SD over to IPTV, they will have plenty of bandwidth, and not need to move as quickly towards pushing the rest of the stuff over to IP.

I would say that be 2022, I think most or all systems will have no national HD on QAM, and probably only have a limited subset of SD and local HD still on QAM.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> What the heck are you talking about?


I'll clarify the post by enormously expanding on it. On second look it is confusing:

When Comcast decides to fully switch to IPTV, they'll eventually terminate all of their linear channels so they'd be exempt from any MSO regulations in the following year anyway. They would no longer be an MSO according to the law, just an ISP. (Even if they somehow are still considered an MSO, my argument still applies).

If they do this transition a few channels at a time, they'll technically be violating the law during this transition. The cable packages won't be changing yet not all of the channels would be available to CableCard users. This transition would be barely noticeable or trivial to everybody else who is using Comcast equipment, which is probably around 99.5% of their customers. They may need new equipment, but Comcast will be more than happy to exchange it. Or Comcast will tell them to use their Rokus or Fire TVs or whatever.

(Eventually, Comcast will probably change the cable packages and/or fees and at that point everybody's bill will change. That part will be noticeable.)

But Comcast can make the argument that they're transitioning to a new technology and file a waiver when they're ready to start it. They can argue that they're complying with the *spirit* (and maybe even the letter) of the law, as third-party boxes would have access. They can file as many waivers for as many laws and regulations as they need to until the transition is complete. And they can also continue to file waivers indefinitely. It's pretty obvious that they have no way to get CableCards to work correctly in their new system.

Several Comcast employees have given a CableCard death time of 18 months from now. Yes, they can be misinformed and their can be delays, but if SEVERAL of them have been told the same time then I'm more inclined to believe it. IMO, it'll happen sooner rather than later. The first phase has already started, over-compressing QAM to make more room for IPTV. I think the next phase is the IPTV-compatible equipment exchange and/or software upgrades to existing boxes.

As a side note, Verizon FIOS does not allow IPTV and QAM in the same house. You must choose one or the other. And I have to believe new customers will get IPTV by default. I wonder how Verizon is getting around the FCC regulations? Would the CableCard regulations apply on a dwelling-by-dwelling basis? And this brings up odd cases which I've asked questions of and haven't received answers. For example, if the previous house owner had IPTV (or you tried IPTV and don't like it), but you have a Tivo, would Verizon downgrade their equipment to support QAM? Would they be *required* to downgrade it by law? Verizon's plans have been announced and appear to be legally more challenging than Comcast's. I assume Verizon found a way, so Comcast should as well.

Maybe the 18 month death of CableCard refers to when Comcast will start filing these waivers.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> If they do this transition a few channels at a time, they'll technically be violating the law during this transition. The cable packages won't be changing yet not all of the channels would be available to CableCard users. This transition would be barely noticeable or trivial to everybody else who is using Comcast equipment, which is probably around 99.5% of their customers. They may need new equipment, but Comcast will be more than happy to exchange it. Or Comcast will tell them to use their Rokus or Fire TVs or whatever.


The law only applies to QAM-based channels. If they transition channels to IPTV, they are no longer covered by the CableCard law.



> I think the next phase is the IPTV-compatible equipment exchange and/or software upgrades to existing boxes.


Most/all pre-X1 boxes are not IP capable and will never be IP capable. They will be swapped out for X1 boxes as tiers of channels get cut over to IPTV, just like they did for MPEG-4. SD-only users and skinny bundle/Basic Cable users may retain older equipment longer, as those are the last groups of channels that will eventually migrate to IPTV.



> As a side note, Verizon FIOS does not allow IPTV and QAM in the same house. You must choose one or the other. And I have to believe new customers will get IPTV by default. I wonder how Verizon is getting around the FCC regulations? Would the CableCard regulations apply on a dwelling-by-dwelling basis? And this brings up odd cases which I've asked questions of and haven't received answers. For example, if the previous house owner had IPTV (or you tried IPTV and don't like it), but you have a Tivo, would Verizon downgrade their equipment to support QAM? Would they be *required* to downgrade it by law? Verizon's plans have been announced and appear to be legally more challenging than Comcast's. I assume Verizon found a way, so Comcast should as well.


IPTV still isn't covered by the CableCard mandate. I don't know if Verizon would install a QAM-based ONT in a house that had a new IPTV-only ONT put in. Most IPTV users, at least initially, will still be using their current ONTs that support QAM.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I never believe any time frame I'm given by CSRs. When Comcast was first rolling out cable modem support I was told by multiple CSR that it would be able in a few months. Several years later it finally was available.

18 months, is probably much longer than that.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Comcast may argue it otherwise, but despite what some people have stated, delivery by IPTV does not mean it's not "linear".


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> The law only applies to QAM-based channels. If they transition channels to IPTV, they are no longer covered by the CableCard law.


There's nothing in the law about "QAM based channels".


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Comcast already has a few IPTV channels in some markets, right? Is there any information as to whether Comcast is overcompressing its IPTV channels like it's doing for QAM?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> ... they'll eventually terminate all of their linear channels .


Actually I think this line is what is confusing. Comcast will not be terminating their linear channels. They will still have them, they will just be delivered via IPTV. What they will be terminating are linear channels delivered via QAM.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

BobCamp1 said:


> Several Comcast employees have given a CableCard death time of 18 months from now. Yes, they can be misinformed and their can be delays, but if SEVERAL of them have been told the same time then I'm more inclined to believe it. IMO, it'll happen sooner rather than later. The first phase has already started, over-compressing QAM to make more room for IPTV. I think the next phase is the IPTV-compatible equipment exchange and/or software upgrades to existing boxes.
> 
> As a side note, Verizon FIOS does not allow IPTV and QAM in the same house. You must choose one or the other. And I have to believe new customers will get IPTV by default. I wonder how Verizon is getting around the FCC regulations? Would the CableCard regulations apply on a dwelling-by-dwelling basis? And this brings up odd cases which I've asked questions of and haven't received answers. For example, if the previous house owner had IPTV (or you tried IPTV and don't like it), but you have a Tivo, would Verizon downgrade their equipment to support QAM? Would they be *required* to downgrade it by law? Verizon's plans have been announced and appear to be legally more challenging than Comcast's. I assume Verizon found a way, so Comcast should as well.
> 
> Maybe the 18 month death of CableCard refers to when Comcast will start filing these waivers.


An interesting thing about the 18-months-from-now timeframe is that it coincides with the lone comment made by an industry professional under the article I linked to in the OP at the top of this thread:

"Last fall, in an investor conference after 3rd quarter financial results, I remember hearing a Comcast exec (CFO, I think?) say Comcast would have its IP transition - presumably including existing customers - complete "in a couple of years."

So this guy is claiming that Comcast's IP transition will be done by late 2018, while sources within Comcast are supposedly saying that CableCARD support will be phased out by late 2018. Of course, a full transition to IPTV would necessitate dropping support for CableCARDs, so those two points line up nicely. It's all rumor and hearsay, of course, but interesting.

If the rumor in the above linked article is true, that all new TV subs will be served as IP-only starting later this year, that would imply that Comcast will stop issuing new CableCARDs at that time. But, of course, the rumor may not be true. Maybe they'll simply stop issuing non-IP-capable STBs this year and around 18 months from now stop issuing new CableCARDs. Or neither. Who knows.

At any rate, I would agree that both Comcast and Verizon would seem to need an FCC waiver if they were to stop issuing CableCARDs to new subs so long as they still had a single TV channel delivered by QAM over their network in a subscriber's neighborhood.

As for the Q about forcing Verizon to switch out equipment (ONT/gateway) at a residence so that the subscriber could revert to the older QAM-based system, someone brought that up in this thread over at DSL Reports. At least under current law, it looks like Verizon might have to.



Bigg said:


> Most/all pre-X1 boxes are not IP capable and will never be IP capable. They will be swapped out for X1 boxes as tiers of channels get cut over to IPTV, just like they did for MPEG-4.


I still don't see why your mind is so fixed on the idea that the IPTV transition will be done in blocks of channels, simply because that's what was done with the changeover to MPEG-4. Once Comcast gets to a point where the number of legacy non-IP STBs in use has fallen below a certain threshold, I don't see why they would want to drag out the transition by first taking away one bunch of channels, then another, then another, effectively staggering the STB trade-in windows. May as well tell that final 20% of folks that they all must trade in their old boxes within the next X months and be done with the whole thing, allowing Comcast to shut down QAM, which will produce advantages that go beyond just added bandwidth for internet usage.

In reality, the transition to MPEG-4 was really part of the transition to IPTV, as I'm sure a large percentage of folks who had to trade in their old non-MPEG-4 boxes chose to upgrade to X1. Of course, switching all linear channels to 720p was also about the IPTV transition, because retail streaming devices like Rokus, iPhones, etc. cannot handle interlaced channels (e.g. 1080i). Comcast has been slowly plotting out this transition for years -- at least since they decided to take a pass on switched digital video a few years back -- and they're now lining up the final moves.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> Actually I think this line is what is confusing. Comcast will not be terminating their linear channels. They will still have them, they will just be delivered via IPTV. What they will be terminating are linear channels delivered via QAM.


I agree. The term "Linear" is in the FCC FAQ, but not in the actual regulation, IIRC.

And where they do use it the FCC defines Linear to mean "other than on-Demand."


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> So this guy is claiming that Comcast's IP transition will be done by late 2018, while sources within Comcast are supposedly saying that CableCARD support will be phased out by late 2018. Of course, a full transition to IPTV would necessitate dropping support for CableCARDs, so those two points line up nicely. It's all rumor and hearsay, of course, but interesting.


If they are going to be all-IP for all channel delivery by the end of 2018, they would have to ramp up the speed of change significantly. It looks them years to go all-digital, and MPEG-4 isn't done yet, and that's been going on for several years.



> I still don't see why your mind is so fixed on the idea that the IPTV transition will be done in blocks of channels, simply because that's what was done with the changeover to MPEG-4. Once Comcast gets to a point where the number of legacy non-IP STBs in use has fallen below a certain threshold, I don't see why they would want to drag out the transition by first taking away one bunch of channels, then another, then another, effectively staggering the STB trade-in windows. May as well tell that final 20% of folks that they all must trade in their old boxes within the next X months and be done with the whole thing, allowing Comcast to shut down QAM, which will produce advantages that go beyond just added bandwidth for internet usage.


It's quite possible that they will go system by system and just cut over all HD channels that aren't included in Limited Basic or HBO/SHO bundles. There will still have to be some transition period for DTAs and skinny bundles however, unless they do the staggers system by system and take several years to convert all systems to IP, but convert each system all at once.



> In reality, the transition to MPEG-4 was really part of the transition to IPTV, as I'm sure a large percentage of folks who had to trade in their old non-MPEG-4 boxes chose to upgrade to X1. Of course, switching all linear channels to 720p was also about the IPTV transition, because retail streaming devices like Rokus, iPhones, etc. cannot handle interlaced channels (e.g. 1080i). Comcast has been slowly plotting out this transition for years -- at least since they decided to take a pass on switched digital video a few years back -- and they're now lining up the final moves.


MPEG-4 is an important part of IP from a bandwidth perspective, as MPEG-2 isn't practical to push over IP. 1080i vs. 720p really has nothing to do with, that was simply a way to cram more channels into less space at the expense of quality, as U-Verse, Google Fiber, and others do 1080i channels over IPTV, and it works fine. Heck, FiOS even does 1080i MPEG-2 over IP for VOD, but they have a lot of bandwidth to do it.

I think they really screwed up by not doing SDV, as proved successful for Charter, TWC, BHN, Cox, and others. But once they committed to not doing SDV, they pretty much sealed their fate to race towards IPTV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> If they are going to be all-IP for all channel delivery by the end of 2018, they would have to ramp up the speed of change significantly. It looks them years to go all-digital, and MPEG-4 isn't done yet, and that's been going on for several years.
> 
> It's quite possible that they will go system by system and just cut over all HD channels that aren't included in Limited Basic or HBO/SHO bundles. There will still have to be some transition period for DTAs and skinny bundles however, unless they do the staggers system by system and take several years to convert all systems to IP, but convert each system all at once.


The transition processes of going all-digital or from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 really have nothing to do with taking the final step of doing away with QAM and going all-IP. As I've said before, they have a complete IPTV infrastructure already in place, built over the past several years by their VIPER division. Every bit of what they offer, linear channels, VOD and cloud DVR, can be and is currently available purely through IP. What more, exactly, do you think the end of QAM and the total changeover to IPTV will require, other than the trade-in of remaining non-IP capable boxes (a process that's already well underway thanks to the MPEG-4 switchover that has prompted a lot of upgrades to X1)? The mix of deployed STBs is really the final hurdle remaining in Comcast's way. By the time they get those STBs switched over (which depends on how aggressively Comcast wants to push the remaining holdouts), additional bandwidth-enhancing network advancements will have been rolled out in many markets: full duplex DOCSIS 3.1, deeper fiber, and distributed access architectures. But even without those further enhancements, an IPTV-only system would probably be feasible if all current QAM bandwidth was converted to IP.

Those low-margin TV customers on small bundles, as well as ones who need digital-to-analog adapters (DTAs), can be served through retail devices like Rokus (there's still a model with analog outputs). Maybe Comcast will also offer their own small non-X1 wireless IPTV STB with HDMI and analog outputs for customers who don't want to use something like a Roku. It could be a little box or stick based on open-source Android that only runs the Xfinity Stream app (same app used on Roku, Fire TV, Android TV, Apple TV, etc.) and that comes with a more traditional remote control with numerical keypad, volume and channel up/down, etc. Once the full IPTV switchover happens, all TV subs who don't have Comcast internet service will require the recently announced IPTV gateway (essentially a modem + wifi router that only provides access to Comcast's IPTV).



Bigg said:


> MPEG-4 is an important part of IP from a bandwidth perspective, as MPEG-2 isn't practical to push over IP. 1080i vs. 720p really has nothing to do with, that was simply a way to cram more channels into less space at the expense of quality, as U-Verse, Google Fiber, and others do 1080i channels over IPTV, and it works fine.


No, switching to solely progressive scan for their HD channels (all 720p) absolutely was part of the move toward a unified IPTV system that could serve all sorts of devices. See this quote posted by a Comcast employee on the Comcast customer help forum (emphasis mine):

_In regards to 720p delivery, some of your HD Channels have transitioned from 1080i to 720p60. As part of our ongoing work to improve and modernize the way we deliver HD channels, we are transitioning all of our HD streams to "progressive" format. We are making this change in conjunction with the transition to MPEG-4. This means that some channels that were delivered in 1080i will now be delivered in 720p60._

_*The progressive format offers a number of advantages, and is an important component of the transition to IP video delivery.*_

_In addition, *the transition to progressive format allows us to offer a uniform HD experience across all devices, apps and screens, ensuring a consistently excellent experience.*_

_The interlaced format reduces the effective resolution of 1080i significantly. Most video delivery is moving toward progressive formats. Many leading HD channels already deliver video in 720p60, and the progressive format renders motion more effectively. *Progressive formats are necessary for advanced IP video delivery.*_

_Based on extensive testing and research, we're confident the combination of MPEG-4 encoding and the progressive format will allow us to deliver superior video performance to our customers._


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> The transition processes of going all-digital or from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 really have nothing to do with taking the final step of doing away with QAM and going all-IP.


It's a similar transition requiring new CPE for some customers, and transitioning the plants over to have more DOCSIS channels.



> The mix of deployed STBs is really the final hurdle remaining in Comcast's way. By the time they get those STBs switched over (which depends on how aggressively Comcast wants to push the remaining holdouts), additional bandwidth-enhancing network advancements will have been rolled out in many markets: full duplex DOCSIS 3.1, deeper fiber, and distributed access architectures. But even without those further enhancements, an IPTV-only system would probably be feasible if all current QAM bandwidth was converted to IP.


Their fiefdoms are in totally different stages of upgrades, and some have a lot more bandwidth than others. They have to managed all that IP traffic specifically for IPTV, which no one has ever done at scale on a DOCSIS-based system.



> Those low-margin TV customers on small bundles, as well as ones who need digital-to-analog adapters (DTAs), can be served through retail devices like Rokus (there's still a model with analog outputs). Maybe Comcast will also offer their own small non-X1 wireless IPTV STB with HDMI and analog outputs for customers who don't want to use something like a Roku. It could be a little box or stick based on open-source Android that only runs the Xfinity Stream app (same app used on Roku, Fire TV, Android TV, Apple TV, etc.) and that comes with a more traditional remote control with numerical keypad, volume and channel up/down, etc. Once the full IPTV switchover happens, all TV subs who don't have Comcast internet service will require the recently announced IPTV gateway (essentially a modem + wifi router that only provides access to Comcast's IPTV).


You're looking 5-10 years out for a total IPTV transition. Out of the several hundred SD channels, only about 70 need to be available for DTAs, so they are going to keep QAM for those channels for quite a long time. Once they move cable HD channels to IPTV, they don't need to reclaim more bandwidth, and the crunch will be over. The customers using DTAs are unsophisticated, and need MSO-provided equipment, so they have to swap the DTAs out for something, and the only thing out there right now that can directly access IPTV is the XG1/XG2, which is a full featured box. Devices like the Xi3 and XiD need an XG1 or XG2 to act as a gateway, whether for QAM or DSG.



> No, switching to solely progressive scan for their HD channels (all 720p) absolutely was part of the move toward a unified IPTV system that could serve all sorts of devices. See this quote posted by a Comcast employee on the Comcast customer help forum (emphasis mine):


What Comcast said is complete bull****. They moved everything to 720p in order to save bandwidth, as you can compress it much harder than 1080i. The concept of a "uniform experience" across all devices is a ridiculous notion, as it means that inherently you are bringing a 65" UHDTV down to the same level that a smartphone or tablet gets in terms of video quality. There is no good technical reason to do this, except that Comcast wanted to save as much bandwidth as possible, so delivering inferior quality 720p to their STBs allowed them to do that. They very well could have delivered 1080i in MPEG-4 to their STBs, and had a separate 720p stream for phones and tablets.

It's all complete nonsense. They make it sound like you can't do 1080i over MPEG-4 or IPTV, which of course we know is patently false. There is no technical reason that you need a single, unified system to do video delivery. DirecTV has everything available streaming, presumably in 720p, and it's a totally different encode and system that what is transmitted via DBS. The DBS system has more bandwidth, stat muxing, and other advantages for the big screen, and the streaming system is adapted for small screens.

Part of this transition was also to CBR encodes, and the end of stat muxing, which is unfortunate, as it further degrades the quality. Comcast did not want to encode various stat muxes regionally or locally for different sets of channels, so they encoded everything CBR so that they could just plop together 8 or 9 or 10 CBR channels into a QAM based off of a national encode. They could have gotten much better quality by locally or regionally stat muxing directly from the master C-band feeds.


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

Do Comcast HD DTA's use QAM? They don't appear to be large enough for a cable card?


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Of course they use QAM.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It's a similar transition requiring new CPE for some customers, and transitioning the plants over to have more DOCSIS channels.
> 
> Their fiefdoms are in totally different stages of upgrades, and some have a lot more bandwidth than others. They have to managed all that IP traffic specifically for IPTV, which no one has ever done at scale on a DOCSIS-based system.
> 
> You're looking 5-10 years out for a total IPTV transition. Out of the several hundred SD channels, only about 70 need to be available for DTAs, so they are going to keep QAM for those channels for quite a long time. Once they move cable HD channels to IPTV, they don't need to reclaim more bandwidth, and the crunch will be over. The customers using DTAs are unsophisticated, and need MSO-provided equipment, so they have to swap the DTAs out for something, and the only thing out there right now that can directly access IPTV is the XG1/XG2, which is a full featured box. Devices like the Xi3 and XiD need an XG1 or XG2 to act as a gateway, whether for QAM or DSG.


Yes, different parts of Comcast's network have different amounts of bandwidth, but that's changing quickly. Before they began the DOCSIS 3.1 rollout that allows gigabit download speeds last year, Comcast said they planned to have it implemented across their entire 39-state footprint coast-to-coast within two, possibly three, years. I'm not quite sure at what point that 2-3 year timespan should begin. At it's latest point, I guess, would be when D3.1 gigabit service actually began to be commercially offered in the first round of markets (Nashville, Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit) in 4Q16. So, if things go to plan, at some point between 4Q18 and 4Q19, the entire network should be capable of gigabit download speeds and therefore should have no problem handling full IPTV if Comcast so chooses. (Although there's no reason why Comcast couldn't switch from QAM to full IPTV on a market-by-market basis before D3.1 is fully implemented nationwide.)

The next major network upgrade rollout is full duplex DOCSIS 3.1, which will allow gigabit speeds in both directions. I believe they're planning to begin rolling that out in initial markets in early 2018. I would imagine that the bandwidth freed up from eliminating QAM would come in handy in affording them the bandwidth for full duplex D3.1.

So again, I don't think improvements to network architecture is the sticking point for implementing full IPTV within the next couple of years. It's really about getting those deployed STBs switched out to IP-capable ones (X1, Roku, whatever yet-unseen models Comcast may start offering, etc.). As for STBs that would allow unsophisticated customers to access IPTV, there's no reason why Comcast couldn't roll out their new, cheap STB for that. Or for that matter, why an Xi3 couldn't possibly act as a standalone STB once QAM is gone.

Again, I'm not saying that Comcast will shut down QAM and go all-IP within the aggressive timeframe sketched out above, I'm just saying that it definitely appears feasible, and such a timeframe would jibe with various rumors floating around.

I see no reason why Comcast would want to hang onto a sliver of QAM for several more years to serve up SD channels to, frankly, the least desirable (lowest margin) segment of their customer base. Granted, the bandwidth necessary for such a truncated QAM network isn't much, but reclaiming bandwidth for IP isn't the only reason to get rid of QAM. I would bet that moving to all-IP would allow for a simpler, more efficient network architecture that costs less to maintain and can be more easily upgraded going forward. It's not just about bandwidth, it's also about the other benefits that come with modernizing their network.



Bigg said:


> What Comcast said is complete bull****. They moved everything to 720p in order to save bandwidth, as you can compress it much harder than 1080i. The concept of a "uniform experience" across all devices is a ridiculous notion, as it means that inherently you are bringing a 65" UHDTV down to the same level that a smartphone or tablet gets in terms of video quality. There is no good technical reason to do this, except that Comcast wanted to save as much bandwidth as possible, so delivering inferior quality 720p to their STBs allowed them to do that. They very well could have delivered 1080i in MPEG-4 to their STBs, and had a separate 720p stream for phones and tablets.
> 
> It's all complete nonsense. They make it sound like you can't do 1080i over MPEG-4 or IPTV, which of course we know is patently false. There is no technical reason that you need a single, unified system to do video delivery. DirecTV has everything available streaming, presumably in 720p, and it's a totally different encode and system that what is transmitted via DBS. The DBS system has more bandwidth, stat muxing, and other advantages for the big screen, and the streaming system is adapted for small screens.
> 
> Part of this transition was also to CBR encodes, and the end of stat muxing, which is unfortunate, as it further degrades the quality. Comcast did not want to encode various stat muxes regionally or locally for different sets of channels, so they encoded everything CBR so that they could just plop together 8 or 9 or 10 CBR channels into a QAM based off of a national encode. They could have gotten much better quality by locally or regionally stat muxing directly from the master C-band feeds.


There you go again with the DirecTV talk. My, you do love DirecTV. I'm not defending what Comcast did in terms of down-rezzing 1080i to 720 for their STBs -- I'm sure PQ took a hit -- I'm only pointing out that it's in line with the goal of creating a single unified nationwide system for serving up linear TV to all devices. (Meanwhile, the move to all-720p of course also provided them with bandwidth savings, a step I guess they found necessary since they took a pass on SDV in lieu of holding out for full IPTV in the future.) Yes, Comcast could have gone the same route as DirecTV and maintained a totally different encoding system for STBs vs. consumer-owned devices (phones, tablets, etc.). The difference is that DirecTV doesn't have an end goal of providing IPTV across all devices, including through their satellite dishes to STBs. They will forever have two separate video delivery systems (as long as they stay in the satellite TV business.) Comcast, OTOH, does have such an end goal: one system providing IPTV to all devices, including their own X1 STBs, retail streaming STBs (Roku, etc.), computers and mobile devices.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, different parts of Comcast's network have different amounts of bandwidth, but that's changing quickly. Before they began the DOCSIS 3.1 rollout that allows gigabit download speeds last year, Comcast said they planned to have it implemented across their entire 39-state footprint coast-to-coast within two, possibly three, years. I'm not quite sure at what point that 2-3 year timespan should begin. At it's latest point, I guess, would be when D3.1 gigabit service actually began to be commercially offered in the first round of markets (Nashville, Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit) in 4Q16. So, if things go to plan, at some point between 4Q18 and 4Q19, the entire network should be capable of gigabit download speeds and therefore should have no problem handling full IPTV if Comcast so chooses. (Although there's no reason why Comcast couldn't switch from QAM to full IPTV on a market-by-market basis before D3.1 is fully implemented nationwide.)


There are still 625mhz and 650mhz systems out there. Those have to be rebuilt before they can do gigabit. They could have a smaller amount of D3.1 enabled, but not enough for gigabit.



> The next major network upgrade rollout is full duplex DOCSIS 3.1, which will allow gigabit speeds in both directions. I believe they're planning to begin rolling that out in initial markets in early 2018. I would imagine that the bandwidth freed up from eliminating QAM would come in handy in affording them the bandwidth for full duplex D3.1.


FDX is a whole different animal. It's going to require a *LOT* of work to roll out, and only works in relatively dense areas that are N+0. N+4 areas could go to a higher split, but either way they have to put new drop amps in, as the current drop amps are 5-42 split. It's a nightmare. Based on what I've seen from Comcast in terms of physical plant upgrades, where they stall for years and years on end, I'd be surprised to see more than a couple of markets outside of Colorado using FDX anytime soon.



> So again, I don't think improvements to network architecture is the sticking point for implementing full IPTV within the next couple of years. It's really about getting those deployed STBs switched out to IP-capable ones (X1, Roku, whatever yet-unseen models Comcast may start offering, etc.). As for STBs that would allow unsophisticated customers to access IPTV, there's no reason why Comcast couldn't roll out their new, cheap STB for that. Or for that matter, why an Xi3 couldn't possibly act as a standalone STB once QAM is gone.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying that Comcast will shut down QAM and go all-IP within the aggressive timeframe sketched out above, I'm just saying that it definitely appears feasible, and such a timeframe would jibe with various rumors floating around.


I don't think they need DOCSIS 3.1 or plant rebuilds to offer IPTV, like they do for gigabit. Not sure how we got sidetracked on that discussion.



> I see no reason why Comcast would want to hang onto a sliver of QAM for several more years to serve up SD channels to, frankly, the least desirable (lowest margin) segment of their customer base. Granted, the bandwidth necessary for such a truncated QAM network isn't much, but reclaiming bandwidth for IP isn't the only reason to get rid of QAM. I would bet that moving to all-IP would allow for a simpler, more efficient network architecture that costs less to maintain and can be more easily upgraded going forward. It's not just about bandwidth, it's also about the other benefits that come with modernizing their network.


Flip the question around. Why would Comcast want to swap out a massive number of boxes to recover the last 7 QAMs when they can keep HD locals and Expanded Basic in SD on QAM and still have enough room for 32 D3 QAMs plus 2 200mhz OFDM blocks on an 860mhz 5-42 system? Yes, Comcast will eventually be all-IP, but I think we're still 10 years out from that, and probably even farther out from the whole plant just turning into one giant OFDM block or set of OFDM blocks.



> There you go again with the DirecTV talk. My, you do love DirecTV. I'm not defending what Comcast did in terms of down-rezzing 1080i to 720 for their STBs -- I'm sure PQ took a hit -- I'm only pointing out that it's in line with the goal of creating a single unified nationwide system for serving up linear TV to all devices. (Meanwhile, the move to all-720p of course also provided them with bandwidth savings, a step I guess they found necessary since they took a pass on SDV in lieu of holding out for full IPTV in the future.) Yes, Comcast could have gone the same route as DirecTV and maintained a totally different encoding system for STBs vs. consumer-owned devices (phones, tablets, etc.). The difference is that DirecTV doesn't have an end goal of providing IPTV across all devices, including through their satellite dishes to STBs. They will forever have two separate video delivery systems (as long as they stay in the satellite TV business.) Comcast, OTOH, does have such an end goal: one system providing IPTV to all devices, including their own X1 STBs, retail streaming STBs (Roku, etc.), computers and mobile devices.


That logic doesn't make any sense. There is no reason why the X1 boxes should get the same video stream that an iPad does when stuff is moved over to IP. It's nonsense logic. Just because Comcast is going to use IPTV for their STBs doesn't mean it needs to be the same IPTV system that their app/site uses with the same encodes. AT&T has the website/DirecTV NOW (maybe the same?), U-Verse, which is also IPTV, and DirecTV, which is DBS, and they all use different encodes. That whole thing is a bunch of BS that Comcast spouted in order to justify degrading the PQ going from 1080i to 720p and heavily compressing. There is no sound logic to support when an X1 should get the same encode as an iPad. NONE.


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

Communities and associations often make bulk deals with Comcast that include a couple of DTA boxes. Since current DTA's use QAM, what will replace them as inexpensive boxes?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

DigitalDawn said:


> Communities and associations often make bulk deals with Comcast that include a couple of DTA boxes. Since current DTA's use QAM, what will replace them as inexpensive boxes?


I am assuming you are asking what happens if/when Comcast goes 100% IPTV? At that point Comcast will likely have some cheap Roku type device, or just decide to provide/rent one to customers made by Roku/Amazon/Google etc. A low end streaming device is likely as cheap for Comcast to buy/have built at this point as a DTA, maybe cheaper. Might be a little more costly if the device has to work with MPEG 2 QAM and IPTV streams but still doable.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> I am assuming you are asking what happens if/when Comcast goes 100% IPTV? At that point Comcast will likely have some cheap Roku type device, or just decide to provide/rent one to customers made by Roku/Amazon/Google etc. A low end streaming device is likely as cheap for Comcast to buy/have built at this point as a DTA, maybe cheaper. Might be a little more costly if the device has to work with MPEG 2 QAM and IPTV streams but still doable.


Yup. Cheaper STB hardware (with software that can be upgraded far more quickly/easily/cheaper) is one of the reasons to switch away from more expensive QAM-based STBs with their heat-producing tuners (and local DVRs with their eventually failing hard drives). In a couple years, when Comcast gets down to the last chunk of subscribers who haven't already voluntarily switched to either X1 or their own Roku/Fire TV/Apple TV, etc. device, it wouldn't cost Comcast all that much to replace those remaining legacy QAM STBs in the field with their own little cheap Roku-type device, as you say. (My guess, though, is that the device would always operate within the Xfinity Stream app, so that it only provides access to the services that Comcast distributes.) The cost to replace those remaining STBs with cheap IPTV boxes (the basic Roku costs $29 retail, so Comcast could buy something similar in bulk for much less) would be more than offset by the network efficiencies that Comcast would gain by shutting down QAM and going all-IP.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I can't see Comcast distributing Rokus. They want to control their own hardware. Eventually, they may use XiDs or Xi3s with gateways providing MoCA connectivity, and doing DVR in the cloud. That being said, I don't see Expanded Basic QAM disappearing for quite some time. I think their 10-year goal is for most houses to have entirely Comcast-controlled equipment from the gateway to the new Wi-Fi repeaters to the STBs on an all-IP quad play platform (or quin play if they can get Wi-Fi calling working on their wireless service).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

No one said they'd distribute actual Rokus. But I could see Comcast distributing a small box/stick with similar guts that costs them less to buy in bulk than the cheapest Rokus cost consumers at retail. All it would need is the ability to stream MPEG-4, with built-in wifi, an HDMI output and, for some at least, analog outputs that downscale content to SD. Pair it with a cheap remote that, in addition to the four-way directional button, has chan up/down and vol up/down buttons. Such a box would provide the exact same experience you'd get using a Roku, etc. with their Xfinity Instant TV service, except this box would only run the Xfinity Stream app and the remote would have buttons dedicated for that specific app. Charge customers a $10 "self-install fee" to ship them one of those boxes (or more if a truck roll is required to set it up for them), followed by a $2.50/mo hardware rental fee. The cost of the little box would be recouped in half a year or less.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> No one said they'd distribute actual Rokus. But I could see Comcast distributing a small box/stick with similar guts that costs them less to buy in bulk than the cheapest Rokus cost consumers at retail. All it would need is the ability to stream MPEG-4, with built-in wifi, an HDMI output and, for some at least, analog outputs that downscale content to SD.


So an XiD or Xi3 with Wi-Fi? Why would it run the Stream app if it can just run X1?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> So an XiD or Xi3 with Wi-Fi? Why would it run the Stream app if it can just run X1?


I'm imagining cheaper, standard hardware with a simple non-voice remote. It could run AOSP and the same version of the Stream app as Fire TV and Android TV.

Their marketing strategy may change but until now X1 has been Comcast's upper-tier service. The lower-tier strategy will soon be covered, perhaps exclusively, by Xfinity Instant TV. But while that service will be billed as BYO device, I think they'll need to rent some kind of STB to people who don't want to use their own if they hope to get all those old QAM-only boxes traded in. They wouldn't want to give X1 hardware to lower-tier subs, hence the cheap hardware I imagine. (Of course, non-HSI subs would also need a gateway in addition to the STB.)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

You're literally describing an Xi5. I don't see why the Xi3, XiD, or Xi5 needs an XG1 or XG2 once everything is available IP with cloud DVR, and they can connect to an XB3 gateway.

Why would they re-invent the wheel with some new device when they already have the X1 platform that they are heavily invested in? Once they don't need an XG1/2, the costs go way down for deploying. However, I see a phased transition, meaning that current non-IP boxes will be swapped out for an XG1/2. Non-DVR customers could be given an XiD, which can do QAM and IP over MoCA.

There aren't many subs with Comcast TV who have other broadband options. Maybe a few in places in SF, or in condo towers with Webpass that can't put up a dish for DirecTV or DISH. It's easy to just disable the internet and use the game gateways. Cost isn't really much of a concern there, since those are fringe cases.

They started with X1 on Triple Plays only, now it's available on most of their packages. I think they are cycling out old boxes, and eventually want everyone on the X1 platform, as they have seen good results from it.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> You're literally describing an Xi5. I don't see why the Xi3, XiD, or Xi5 needs an XG1 or XG2 once everything is available IP with cloud DVR, and they can connect to an XB3 gateway.
> 
> Why would they re-invent the wheel with some new device when they already have the X1 platform that they are heavily invested in? Once they don't need an XG1/2, the costs go way down for deploying. However, I see a phased transition, meaning that current non-IP boxes will be swapped out for an XG1/2. Non-DVR customers could be given an XiD, which can do QAM and IP over MoCA.
> 
> ...


Well, not quite. The Xi5 is HDR-capable. I'm imagining something a bit more downscale, something cheaper, something with analog outputs for those folks with old SD TVs who would be among the last to migrate from legacy QAM hardware. But, at any rate, these are minor details. I agree that Comcast wants to encourage customers to migrate to X1, but my guess is they also want it to remain positioned as a premium TV "experience". As of now, X1 has only been offered to, at a minimum level, double-play customers who sign up for fat TV packages with at least 140 channels.

What I see happening across the major pay TV providers is the emergence of a two-prong strategy. The upper prong is the higher-priced, full-freight cable TV experience, with fat bundles of HD (and soon UHD) channels, plus DVR and VOD, running on the provider's own updated STBs. The lower prong is meant to compete with lower cost live streaming services like Sling TV, PS Vue and Hulu Live, which are served to the customer's own retail devices. In some cases, like AT&T and soon Verizon and CenturyLink, this lower prong service is OTT and available nationwide. In other cases, like Comcast's upcoming Xfinity Instant TV, it's available only in-footprint and is IPTV rather than OTT.

I don't think Comcast anticipates a future any time soon in which all their video customers are using X1 hardware. They see Xfinity Instant TV as being an important part of their future product mix, serving customers who want to spend less on TV. (See a recent interview with a Comcast exec here pumping Instant TV.) But if Comcast shuts down QAM (or simply if they cease to distribute non-IP-capable STBs, which may happen later this year), what will they do about customers who want lower-priced TV packages (and no other service, such as HSI, home phone, or mobile phone)? Will they give them X1 hardware for "lifeline" TV service consisting of just local channels? Or force them to use their own Roku or other streaming device as a STB if they want such a basic TV package? Or might they offer to rent them a cheap (non-X1-branded) box to access Xfinity Instant TV?


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

The problem with "fat bundles of HD", at least with respect to Comcast, is that neither its video quality nor its channel lineup are "fat". Comcast has, so far as I can tell, the smallest HD lineup out there (or so it appears in the relevant DSL Reports thread), and its smashed to bits quality is well known.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, not quite. The Xi5 is HDR-capable. I'm imagining something a bit more downscale, something cheaper, something with analog outputs for those folks with old SD TVs who would be among the last to migrate from legacy QAM hardware. But, at any rate, these are minor details. I agree that Comcast wants to encourage customers to migrate to X1, but my guess is they also want it to remain positioned as a premium TV "experience". As of now, X1 has only been offered to, at a minimum level, double-play customers who sign up for fat TV packages with at least 140 channels.


The first thing I get for my area on their site is an HBO skinny bundle with X1. They don't need 20 different boxes to serve every niche of everything, they need a couple of versatile boxes. It ends up costing more to stock and train techs for a bazillion different types of equipment than they save on the manufacturing costs of having exactly the right thing.



> What I see happening across the major pay TV providers is the emergence of a two-prong strategy.


I see how you're classifying them, but I think that's oversimplifying it. Comcast has Double- and Triple-Play, with skinny bundles on the Double-Play, and some seriously bloated Triple Play bundles that are half again as much as some of the base-level "fat" Double-play bundles.



> I don't think Comcast anticipates a future any time soon in which all their video customers are using X1 hardware.


I disagree. X1 is the center of their TV branding and product offering. They are trickling X1 down into more and more packages. It started off for only Triple Play customers, now it's gotten into skinny bundles. I think they're just re-using old hardware and making it extra on some packages so that their capex on the X1 hardware didn't go through the roof in one quarter, but I think their vision is that virtually all of their customers are on X1. The Roku thing is a pathetic attempt to be "cool", and I think that will be a complete and total flop, and will eventually become so hard to find that only a tiny minority of people will have it at all. In 10 years, post-IPTV transition, assuming no support for TiVo, I think they will have over 99% of their customers on X1.



randian said:


> The problem with "fat bundles of HD", at least with respect to Comcast, is that neither its video quality nor its channel lineup are "fat". Comcast has, so far as I can tell, the smallest HD lineup out there (or so it appears in the relevant DSL Reports thread), and its smashed to bits quality is well known.


That's what not adopting SDV and not upgrading every plant gets you.


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

I think I may have some good news regarding this issue.

My community of 600 plus homes is in the process of negotiating with several companies for bulk cable and internet. Comcast is one of those companies. I am on the committee that will choose a provider.

I spoke to the Comcast area rep and asked about QAM and cable-cards. They said that they have recently negotiated other 10 year bulk cable deals with stipulations that they provide cable cards to residents who request them. He said that they are not getting rid of QAM and cable-cards. 

In addition, for you folks who have clear QAM and cannot use your Roamio's and Bolts, I just found out that TiVo will be updating the software (on the Bolt for sure) to allow clear QAM. It should happen within 6 months to a year.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

DigitalDawn said:


> I just found out that TiVo will be updating the software (on the Bolt for sure) to allow clear QAM. It should happen within 6 months to a year.


I found this out several months ago when it was rolled out and TiVoMargret announced it.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

DigitalDawn said:


> In addition, for you folks who have clear QAM and cannot use your Roamio's and Bolts, I just found out that TiVo will be updating the software (on the Bolt for sure) to allow clear QAM. It should happen within 6 months to a year.


Comcast started encrypting everything a while back, so no clear QAM. At least here and most if not all of its locales.


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

I didn't mean that Comcast was going to have clear QAM. Also did not know that Margret announced support for clear QAM. Good news for some folks.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Comcast wants to switch out old boxes for new ones

This is an article that talks about trading in old boxes for X1 in order to keep HD channels. An interesting paragraph is:



> Initially, several hundred channels were pumped simultaneously through cable lines to a set-top box, where customers tuned in to the ones they wanted. Now, with the X1 platform and a far more refined MPEG-4 digital compression scheme, *only the channel you've selected is streamed* to the cable box as a much smaller file.


That basically describes either SDV or IPTV.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

SDV is basically a poorman's IPTV. SDV basically uses the same bandwidth as multicast IP would, but using QAM and VOD style frequency assignment. IPTV would be better long term because it would allow them to convert the system to DOCSIS 3.1 which uses smaller frequency blocks and different modulation to squeeze more bandwidth from the same pipe.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Yes, but SDV was around a long time before IPTV could be used at scale. I'm a little skeptical that everything will be available on CableCard in 10 years. I 100% believe you will be able to get one- but there might not be much left to see there.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Yeah, Comcast flirted with SDV, testing it in limited markets late last decade before apparently giving up on it altogether in 2011. They decided to go with other means to conserve video bandwidth on the way to an eventual future transition to IPTV.

Comcast Back-Burners SDV (Again) | Light Reading


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Yes, but SDV was around a long time before IPTV could be used at scale. I'm a little skeptical that everything will be available on CableCard in 10 years. I 100% believe you will be able to get one- but there might not be much left to see there.


I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast moved all their HD over to IPTV by next year. At that point CableCARD will basically be useless, even if you can technically get one.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast moved all their HD over to IPTV by next year. At that point CableCARD will basically be useless, even if you can technically get one.


You'd pretty much be forced into renting an X1 at that point, however terrible that product is. I doubt Comcast would let TiVo access their IPTV streams since doing so means loss of X1 subscription revenue. The loss of so many current and potential future customers (since they can't use a TiVo if they're in a Comcast area even if they wanted to) presumably would kill TiVo as a retail product


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think TiVo sees the writing on the wall when it comes to CableCARD. I think that's why they abandoned the Bolt Pro that Ira told us they were working on last year and why they're now focused on the Mavrik, which is an OTA only product.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast moved all their HD over to IPTV by next year. At that point CableCARD will basically be useless, even if you can technically get one.


Maybe in some markets. It will take longer for all markets to be converted, but yes, that's the direction we're going.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> I think TiVo sees the writing on the wall when it comes to CableCARD. I think that's why they abandoned the Bolt Pro that Ira told us they were working on last year and why they're now focused on the Mavrik, which is an OTA only product.


What the black Bolt called ??


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lessd said:


> What the black Bolt called ??


It's called the Bolt+. That's what TiVo came out with instead of the more ambitious product that their head marketing guy had said they were working on. I guess they decided it just wouldn't be profitable to roll out a whole new product design with a huge feature list and a price tag to match.

I'd be very surprised if TiVo ever releases another model CableCARD retail DVR. Bolt+ is the end of the line. But it would be nice for their longstanding fan base if they'd put out an updated UHD-capable Mini.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Maybe in some markets. It will take longer for all markets to be converted, but yes, that's the direction we're going.


And the main problem is that once the transition starts in a market, they'll be filing waivers to the FCC and dropping CableCard support. Tivo users will be impacted at that point. Even if the final transition is completed in a year or two or three, Tivo users will feel the impact immediately.

I'm sure the first act will be to stop issuing new CableCards. But the key question is when do they drop CableCard technical support? Will they stop fixing problems and re-pairing older ones (i.e. pray your Tivo doesn't die)? If the transition does happen in chunks of channels at a time, will they charge Tivo users the same price even though they're getting far fewer and/or no HD channels?


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

randian said:


> I'm sure the first act will be to stop issuing new CableCards. But the key question is when do they drop CableCard technical support? Will they stop fixing problems and re-pairing older ones (i.e. pray your Tivo doesn't die)? If the transition does happen in chunks of channels at a time, will they charge Tivo users the same price even though they're getting far fewer and/or no HD channels?


Heck, are they even going to tell you they're dropping QAM channels before they do? As for "charge the same price", of course they will. This is Comcast we're talking about.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

randian said:


> You'd pretty much be forced into renting an X1 at that point, however terrible that product is.


Instead of using TiVo as a retail device to access Comcast TV, you'll have the option of using other (more popular) retail streaming devices, the first ones being Roku and Samsung smart TVs. I expect that within a year or so, you'll be able to use all the popular TV-connected devices/platforms (Apple TV, Fire TV, Android TV, Xbox, LG smart TV).

Of course, that won't really be a substitute for using a TiVo. You'll save a little money by using your own retail streaming devices vs. X1, but not as much as you would over time with a TiVo + Minis if you connect multiple TVs. (Using streaming devices will save you $2.50 per TV vs. using X1 hardware, while using Minis save you the entire $10 additional TV outlet fee.)

And the Xfinity Stream app on those streaming devices has a very X1-like UI, so it's not going to be that much different accessing Comcast TV via a Roku vs. X1. (In fact, it will also certainly not be as good on a Roku, since that hardware, particularly the remote, wasn't specifically designed for cable TV+DVR usage.) One of the appeals of TiVo vs. the cable co DVR has always been that TiVo offers a better UI/UX. Once CableCARD goes away, there probably won't be a way to layer a different UI atop a TV provider's video signals. But at least there are now an increasing number of pay TV providers available, each with their own UI (which they use as a differentiating marketing point). TiVo users may not like any of those providers' UIs as much as TiVo, but there are choices available (more choices now than the early days of TiVo back at the turn of the century).



randian said:


> I doubt Comcast would let TiVo access their IPTV streams since doing so means loss of X1 subscription revenue. The loss of so many current and potential future customers (since they can't use a TiVo if they're in a Comcast area even if they wanted to) presumably would kill TiVo as a retail product


Yeah, pretty much. Although not allowing TiVo to access their IPTV streams is about more than just losing X1 rental revenues. (Given the far greater ubiquity of streamers like Roku, etc. vs. CableCARD devices like TiVo, I'm not sure they won't actually lose just as much STB rental fees from usage of retail streaming devices than from CableCARDs.) It's also about extending trust and spending resources on developing an interface between the TiVo OS and Comcast's IPTV systems when there's just no strategic upside for Comcast in doing that. Comcast wants full control of the UI they present their customers, regardless of which device the customer uses.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> Instead of using TiVo as a retail device to access Comcast TV, you'll have the option of using other (more popular) retail streaming devices, the first ones being Roku and Samsung smart TVs. I expect that within a year or so, you'll be able to use all the popular TV-connected devices/platforms (Apple TV, Fire TV, Android TV, Xbox, LG smart TV).


Sure, but streaming is no substitute for a DVR. I never watch live tv, and Comcast's On Demand feature is both delayed at least one day from broadcast and infected with ads + no fast forward. I know some people like services like Hulu, but none of the streaming providers have nearly the lineup size Comcast does, and trying to replicate Comcast's channel lineup through streaming services is a lot more expensive than just buying TV service from Comcast.

As an aside, I wonder if Comcast's IPTV will be 720p + super-compressed like QAM is now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> And the main problem is that once the transition starts in a market, they'll be filing waivers to the FCC and dropping CableCard support. Tivo users will be impacted at that point.


No. Yes. They will continue CableCard support until the bitter end, but a few years down the road, you might not be getting much in HD on TiVo. In most markets, they don't charge TiVos the HD fee, so they don't have to deliver HD channels to them.



NashGuy said:


> It's also about extending trust and spending resources on developing an interface between the TiVo OS and Comcast's IPTV systems when there's just no strategic upside for Comcast in doing that. Comcast wants full control of the UI they present their customers, regardless of which device the customer uses.


Yeah, I can't see Comcast wanting to allow TiVo access to their encryption scheme, and spending the effort to integrate the systems. Especially given TiVo's track record for supporting things and doing software updates. The Roku thing is DOA, it's a misguided attempt to be "cool". The future for Comcast is the X1 platform with the XG1, XG2, Xi3, XiD, Xi5, and Xi6 boxes.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> The Roku thing is DOA, it's a misguided attempt to be "cool". The future for Comcast is the X1 platform with the XG1, XG2, Xi3, XiD, Xi5, and Xi6 boxes.


I think it's more about trying to technically conform to the law without actually giving the user any flexibility. The 1996 telecommunications act still requires them to offer access to their service on 3rd party devices via separable security. The STELLAR act from a few years ago repealed the requirement for them to use the same separable security in their own boxes, but the requirement for them to provide it to 3rd party devices still exists. By writing an app for Roku, Samsun, etc... they are essentially providing access to 3rd party devices, albeit specific devices running their UI, and hoping that the FCC, and ultimately the courts, will decide that is good enough to comply with the law.

Based on where even Wheeler was going even before the election I think it's a forgone conclusion that this is where we are heading. But they have to make a show of it to try and limit regulations that might force them to conform to some sort of standard, like DLNA, that would allow access from other apps running different UIs.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> I'm sure the first act will be to stop issuing new CableCards. But the key question is when do they drop CableCard technical support? Will they stop fixing problems and re-pairing older ones (i.e. pray your Tivo doesn't die)? If the transition does happen in chunks of channels at a time, will they charge Tivo users the same price even though they're getting far fewer and/or no HD channels?


It's somewhat ironic that they are going to kill CableCard support when they finally got a CableCard self-activation web page set up last year, years after other providers offered the same thing.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> By writing an app for Roku, Samsun, etc... they are essentially providing access to 3rd party devices, albeit specific devices running their UI, and hoping that the FCC, and ultimately the courts, will decide that is good enough to comply with the law.


The current regulation specifically says it would be good enough. I.e., if they offer programming on a commercially available device that doesn't use a Cable Card they are exempt from having to support Cable Cards in user-owned equipment.



> (1) A multichannel video programming distributor that utilizes Navigation Devices to perform conditional access functions shall make available equipment that incorporates only the conditional access functions of such devices.
> 
> (2) The foregoing requirement shall not apply to a multichannel video programming distributor that supports the active use by subscribers of Navigation Devices that:
> 
> ...


47 CFR 76.1204 - Availability of equipment performing conditional access or security functions.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Those provisions were intended to exempt DSS providers. I'm not sure that just because an app is offered that runs on a 3 party device it qualifies under subsection 2. Since the entire thing depends on an app that is developed and controlled by the operator I'd think that that part could at least be challenged in court.

Edit: Actually subsection 1 disqualifies them from the whole provision. It says that they have to operate "throught the continental united states". Comcast only services about 1/3 of the US.

That provision was really intended to cover DSS providers, since at the time the law was written they were nationwide and their equipment could be purchased at retail outlets. The STELLAR act clarified tht more.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

The FCC "Know Your Rights" webpage references 47 CFR 76.1205 ("Cable Card Support") which in turn references 47 CFR 76.1204.

I didn't pick that webpage out of thin air.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

pdhenry said:


> The FCC "Know Your Rights" webpage references 47 CFR 76.1205 ("Cable Card Support") which in turn references 47 CFR 76.1204.
> 
> I didn't pick that webpage out of thin air.


I didn't say you did, I just don't think it means what you think it means. Back in 2013 Charter petitioned the FCC for a waiver to CableCARD. They agreed with a few conditions. Basically the hadrware they used for decryption must be readily available to other 3rd party manufacturers. It must use an opensource download/decryption scheme that anyone could use without license. And there had to be at least one device available at retail, made by someone other then them.

Comcast was never given such a waiver. So they would need to petition the FCC for a similar waiver AND convince the FCC that their Roku app met their requirements. I don't believe it would because it's not using an open system for decryption that anyone could deploy.

Now this os the direction the FCC was thinking about going for a CableCARD replacement, but they haven't actually passed anything there yet. And even if they do companies like TiVo and Google will likely fight it in court because it doesn't really meet the intention of the original 1996 law, that's still on the books.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

randian said:


> Sure, but streaming is no substitute for a DVR. I never watch live tv, and Comcast's On Demand feature is both delayed at least one day from broadcast and infected with ads + no fast forward. I know some people like services like Hulu, but none of the streaming providers have nearly the lineup size Comcast does, and trying to replicate Comcast's channel lineup through streaming services is a lot more expensive than just buying TV service from Comcast.
> 
> As an aside, I wonder if Comcast's IPTV will be 720p + super-compressed like QAM is now.


The Xfinity Stream app available for Roku is for use with Comcast's own TV service, not Hulu or other OTT services. The app will provide full cloud DVR capability (in addition to live and On Demand TV). It won't really operate any differently than an X1 DVR, except that X1 DVRs, at least in some cases (I think), still save recordings to a local hard drive rather than Comcast's cloud servers. The Stream app will only use cloud server storage.

Comcast allows users to FF through ads in their cloud recordings. That could change at some point but, as I've said before, I think it's unlikely because they'd just be giving their customers a reason to flee to competitors.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> I didn't say you did, I just don't think it means what you think it means. Back in 2013 Charter petitioned the FCC for a waiver to CableCARD. They agreed with a few conditions. Basically the hadrware they used for decryption must be readily available to other 3rd party manufacturers. It must use an opensource download/decryption scheme that anyone could use without license. And there had to be at least one device available at retail, made by someone other then them.
> 
> Comcast was never given such a waiver. So they would need to petition the FCC for a similar waiver AND convince the FCC that their Roku app met their requirements. I don't believe it would because it's not using an open system for decryption that anyone could deploy.
> 
> Now this os the direction the FCC was thinking about going for a CableCARD replacement, but they haven't actually passed anything there yet. And even if they do companies like TiVo and Google will likely fight it in court because it doesn't really meet the intention of the original 1996 law, that's still on the books.


Perhaps through legislative inertia (given that the law has been on the books so long), CableCARD will continue to be the law of the land for QAM-based MSOs indefinitely, until QAM eventually ceases to exist. But I really don't expect Congress or the FCC, at this point in time, to unfairly force some kind of STB law only on previously-QAM-but-now-IPTV MSOs (as Comcast will at some point become) while allowing other MSOs who never used QAM (e.g. AT&T Uverse TV, DirecTV, DISH, Google Fiber TV, CenturyLink TV, etc.) to do whatever they want. That doesn't seem fair at all.

Whether the FCC will have the power alone to grant a waiver to Comcast to cease supporting CableCARD as they transition to IPTV or whether that will require an act of Congress, I don't know, but my bet is it will happen.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> The Xfinity Stream app available for Roku is for use with Comcast's own TV service, not Hulu or other OTT services. The app will provide full cloud DVR capability (in addition to live and On Demand TV). It won't really operate any differently than an X1 DVR, except that X1 DVRs, at least in some cases (I think), still save recordings to a local hard drive rather than Comcast's cloud servers. The Stream app will only use cloud server storage.


X1s usually have tiny hard drives, though you can hardly tell sometimes because of the UIs lag in fast-forward/rewind.

I wonder what video quality Stream is going to deliver. Hopefully better than the crap they're delivering on QAM. I'd hate to have to get a Roku though, I'd prefer if they had an app for Apple TV.


NashGuy said:


> Comcast allows users to FF through ads in their cloud recordings. That could change at some point but, as I've said before, I think it's unlikely because they'd just be giving their customers a reason to flee to competitors.


What competitors? Unless I can buy a similar service from a cableco outside my area I can't flee anywhere, since Comcast has a monopoly on cable service in my area (as it does in most areas it serves).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I think it's more about trying to technically conform to the law without actually giving the user any flexibility.


CableCard doesn't apply to IPTV. Comcast will support CableCard for whatever is on QAM as long as QAM exists.



NashGuy said:


> Whether the FCC will have the power alone to grant a waiver to Comcast to cease supporting CableCARD as they transition to IPTV or whether that will require an act of Congress, I don't know, but my bet is it will happen.


Not going to happen. There is no downside to supporting CableCard on QAM as long as any QAM exists. It will be like analog TVs. Channels will disappear over time until there are only a handful left, then they will kill those off, and kill off CableCard completely.



randian said:


> X1s usually have tiny hard drives


You're talking about the Xi3 and maybe other non-XG1 boxes that have flash storage for pause/rewind. The XG1 has a 500GB hard drive.



> What competitors? Unless I can buy a similar service from a cableco outside my area I can't flee anywhere, since Comcast has a monopoly on cable service in my area (as it does in most areas it serves).


DirecTV. DISH. They serve the whole CONUS.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I think TiVo sees the writing on the wall when it comes to CableCARD. I think that's why they abandoned the Bolt Pro that Ira told us they were working on last year and why they're now focused on the Mavrik, which is an OTA only product.


I've yet to hear an explanation of how they are going to do that w/o either modifying existing packages or violating the CableCARD regulations *which are still in force!*


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Not going to happen. There is no downside to supporting CableCard on QAM as long as any QAM exists. It will be like analog TVs. Channels will disappear over time until there are only a handful left, then they will kill those off, and kill off CableCard completely.


You misunderstood what I meant (although I wasn't too clear) when I referenced companies such as Comcast getting exempted from the CableCARD law as (or after) they transition to QAM (whether that be all channels at once, or successive blocks of channels; either across the entire footprint all at once or various regions at a time). I made that assertion after reading Dan203's quote below, in which he seems to propose that, in such a scenario, Comcast may still be legally required to uphold some aspects of the CableCARD law (i.e. the intent of the law) through technological means other than CableCARD (e.g. apps) since CableCARD would cease to be compatible with their new means of transmission, i.e. IPTV.

My guess is that there will be some sort of clarification or guidance (from the FCC or Congress) about what IPTV providers must do. Maybe nothing -- maybe they will be completely free and clear of all aspects of CableCARD regulation (just as satellite has always been). Or maybe they will be required to offer access via apps from the most popular retail devices. If the latter is made law, I would think it would apply not just to a formerly QAM-based MSO (e.g. Comcast) but also to IPTV providers like Google Fiber TV, AT&T Uverse, etc.



Dan203 said:


> I didn't say you did, I just don't think it means what you think it means. Back in 2013 Charter petitioned the FCC for a waiver to CableCARD. They agreed with a few conditions. Basically the hadrware they used for decryption must be readily available to other 3rd party manufacturers. It must use an opensource download/decryption scheme that anyone could use without license. And there had to be at least one device available at retail, made by someone other then them.
> 
> Comcast was never given such a waiver. So they would need to petition the FCC for a similar waiver AND convince the FCC that their Roku app met their requirements. I don't believe it would because it's not using an open system for decryption that anyone could deploy.
> 
> Now this os the direction the FCC was thinking about going for a CableCARD replacement, but they haven't actually passed anything there yet. And even if they do companies like TiVo and Google will likely fight it in court because it doesn't really meet the intention of the original 1996 law, that's still on the books.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Do you people believe that when (and if) Comcast goes to all IPTV over the next say 4 years the TiVo product will be DOA in Comcast areas (except OTA) ?, or will TiVo have an answer for this IPTV, as an add-on or new box ?


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

lessd said:


> Do you people believe that when (and if) Comcast goes to all IPTV over the next say 4 years the TiVo product will be DOA in Comcast areas (except OTA) ?, or will TiVo have an answer for this IPTV, as an add-on or new box ?


It's kind of funny the endless amount of speculation about this but no one knows what will happen.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lessd said:


> Do you people believe that when (and if) Comcast goes to all IPTV over the next say 4 years the TiVo product will be DOA in Comcast areas (except OTA) ?, or will TiVo have an answer for this IPTV, as an add-on or new box ?


My guess is that TiVos will be incompatible with Comcast TV service if/when Comcast abandons QAM and goes all-IPTV. But, like pretty much everything else on this thread, that's speculation based on currently available info.

One reason to hope that isn't the case is that a few years back TiVo and Comcast disclosed in an FCC filing that they were working together on a software-based security platform that would serve as a successor to CableCARD. Such a solution could presumably work with IPTV as well as QAM. But nothing further on that development has come to light in the three years since and nothing that played out in last year's "Unlock the Box" battle at the FCC indicated that this was still the direction Comcast was heading. They appear to be committed to an app-based approach for serving all retail devices.

Beyond that, TiVo has since been acquired by Rovi, a company engaged in a legal battle with Comcast, who recently switched from Rovi to Gracenote as their guide data provider. And Rovi/TiVo has expressed a desire to get away from manufacturing retail devices anyhow, as their emphasis on now on serving as a B2B solutions provider for MSOs.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> My guess is that there will be some sort of clarification or guidance (from the FCC or Congress) about what IPTV providers must do. Maybe nothing -- maybe they will be completely free and clear of all aspects of CableCARD regulation (just as satellite has always been). Or maybe they will be required to offer access via apps from the most popular retail devices. If the latter is made law, I would think it would apply not just to a formerly QAM-based MSO (e.g. Comcast) but also to IPTV providers like Google Fiber TV, AT&T Uverse, etc.


Yeah, I agree. I think that's why the FCC won't try to apply any equivalent to CableCard to Comcast's IPTV. My point is that as long as one channel is left on QAM, Comcast will have to issue CableCards to access whatever is available on QAM.



NashGuy said:


> My guess is that TiVos will be incompatible with Comcast TV service if/when Comcast abandons QAM and goes all-IPTV. But, like pretty much everything else on this thread, that's speculation based on currently available info.


Yeah, I would agree. I've heard claims that Comcast is going to support TiVo somehow, but I'm personally skeptical. It wouldn't be rocket science to give TiVo an API/method to access IPTV, but I'm still skeptical, especially given TiVo's rather slow response to updating anything anywhere in the software.

I have a whole bunch of weird/wild/fantastic scenarios of how TiVo survives on Comcast, but I don't see any of them as likely/plausible.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Some have repeatedly stated that the CableCARD regulations only apply to QAM. Is there anything in the actual law or the implementing regulations that say this? If there is, I sure can't find it.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> Some have repeatedly stated that the CableCARD regulations only apply to QAM. Is there anything in the actual law or the implementing regulations that say this? If there is, I sure can't find it.


I have had some pretty extensive experience in interpretation and implementation of federal regulations, all I can say is, people rarely agree on what they mean and all that matters in the end is what the regulating agency or a court say they mean. The fact we can not find something word for word doesn't mean much, what matters is what the interpretation has been. So far the FCC has decided any delivery tech other than QAM is exempt-able from the Cable Card regulations.

In this case Comcast will ask the FCC to agree to what Comcast wants, either by saying the regulations allows it directly or buy granting Comcast some kind of waver. In any event my guess is Comcast ends up doing whatever they want to do.

So what really matters is what does Comcast really want to do?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I've heard claims that Comcast is going to support TiVo somehow, but I'm personally skeptical. It wouldn't be rocket science to give TiVo an API/method to access IPTV, but I'm still skeptical, especially given TiVo's rather slow response to updating anything anywhere in the software.
> 
> I have a whole bunch of weird/wild/fantastic scenarios of how TiVo survives on Comcast, but I don't see any of them as likely/plausible.


If all they wanted to do was to provide TiVo with access to IP linear channels so that they could be viewed and recorded on the TiVo's own hard drive, probably not that big of a deal. If they wanted to go the full monty and have a TiVo that could fully match X1 feature-wise, with cloud DVR and VOD all integrated in with linear, that would probably be more challenging, especially considering that TiVo would presumably want to display Rovi guide data and program IDs while Comcast's system uses Gracenote. So you'd be attempting two-way interaction between the TiVo and Comcast's IPTV servers with mismatched metadata/program IDs.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> So far the FCC has decided any delivery tech other than QAM is exempt-able from the Cable Card regulations.


On what do you base this? U-verse? The law and implementing regulations only apply to MVPDs. AT&T isn't classified as such.

Do you have an actual cite for this FCC ruling?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> Do you people believe that when (and if) Comcast goes to all IPTV over the next say 4 years the TiVo product will be DOA in Comcast areas (except OTA) ?, or will TiVo have an answer for this IPTV, as an add-on or new box ?


A couple things we do know...

1) CableCARDs wont work with IPTV.
2) There is currently no open standard for IPTV

So unless TiVo strikes a deal with Comcast or the government gets involved to force them to use some sort of open standard TiVo will no longer work once the transition to IPTV happens.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> On what do you base this? U-verse? The law and implementing regulations only apply to MVPDs. AT&T isn't classified as such.
> 
> Do you have an actual cite for this FCC ruling?


I based it on what we have seen. Satellite exempted, AT&T Uverse exempted, Google exempted, Frontier IPTV exempted. Who has not been exempted, Version FIOS & Frontier FIOS which both use QAM.

What is the difference between AT&T and Version? Nothing or better yet what is the difference between Frontier IPTV and Frontier FIOS TV? Nothing except FIOS uses QAM and of course IPTV doesn't.

However you are correct we have not seen what happens when a traditional cable company switch from QAM to IPTV. I see nothing that indicates the FCC will not give Comcast a waiver, if they need one.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Is there any technical reason why CableCARDS couldn't work with IPTV? The only relationship they have to QAM is the channel map. They decrypt the output of the TiVo tuners, not the QAM stream.

I am not saying that Comcast et al will not get away with it, I just object to the statements that the law and regulations are limited to delivery via QAM.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

IMO its not about whether they'd work, but is it the best method of providing conditional access for an IPTV stream? Given that every other streaming provider uses other (simpler?) methods of access control than a bit of provider-owned hardware installed in the customer's hardware, it seems like pushing the technology unnecessarily.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The CableCARD spec uses a QAM OOB signal for conditional access. Basically the cable company sends a special signal to the card over an unused frequency that tells it which channels you're allowed to tune. That wouldn't be compatible with IPTV.

Also the tuners in TiVo are only QAM. I don't know the exact technology that Comcast uses for their IPTV system, but if it's not QAM then TiVo wont be able to use it. I guess they could stream over your local network using your internet connection, but that's not very efficient. A real IPTV system uses multi-cast IP so that it doesn't waste bandwidth sending the same channel to multiple users.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> ...
> I am not saying that Comcast et al will not get away with it, I just object to the statements that the law and regulations are limited to delivery via QAM.


I don't actually think the regulations were limited to delivery via QAM, however starting with Satellite, the FCC has, for reasons I don't actually agree with, exempted any provider that isn't using QAM. If we were in some liberal super pro consumer administration, I might buy that the FCC could change course, but lets be really we are in a very pro-large corporation administration. Expecting the FCC to move away from a pro-large corporations (Comcast) position seems very unlikely.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> If all they wanted to do was to provide TiVo with access to IP linear channels so that they could be viewed and recorded on the TiVo's own hard drive, probably not that big of a deal. If they wanted to go the full monty and have a TiVo that could fully match X1 feature-wise, with cloud DVR and VOD all integrated in with linear, that would probably be more challenging, especially considering that TiVo would presumably want to display Rovi guide data and program IDs while Comcast's system uses Gracenote. So you'd be attempting two-way interaction between the TiVo and Comcast's IPTV servers with mismatched metadata/program IDs.


It's not technologically that big of a deal. Whether Comcast allows it is a whole different story, and one that I am very skeptical will end well for TiVo and TiVo users on Comcast. VOD is actually the easy part, Cox already does IP-VOD for TiVo, while Comcast still uses QAM, but switching that to IP is trivial, since it's entirely On Demand. Using the TiVo frontend to control Comcast's cloud DVR would be a total nightmare, and I don't think that's what anyone really wants anyway. We want local disk-based recording.



Dan203 said:


> Also the tuners in TiVo are only QAM. I don't know the exact technology that Comcast uses for their IPTV system, but if it's not QAM then TiVo wont be able to use it. I guess they could stream over your local network using your internet connection, but that's not very efficient. A real IPTV system uses multi-cast IP so that it doesn't waste bandwidth sending the same channel to multiple users.


Not any worse than Rokus streaming live TV, although presumably there are a lot more TiVos on Comcast than there ever will be Rokus. I wouldn't think it would be too hard to make some sort of gateway to do IP multicast and then hand it off as unicast over the home network to a TiVo? Or better yet, you have to rent an X1 box anyway, and that acts as a gateway for TiVo. Comcast would get the last laugh on that one. Hello HD fee!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Roku = 1 "tuner". TiVo users expect 4-6, per box. 

I seriously doubt they would do a gateway, that's what TiVo was pushing for with "AllVid" and the MSOs were fighting back against that tooth and nail.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Roku = 1 "tuner". TiVo users expect 4-6, per box.


If you're recording, yes, but I expect the only DVR will be a cloud DVR.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

pdhenry said:


> If you're recording, yes, but I expect the only DVR will be a cloud DVR.


In my opinion the best case scenario for TiVo owners is that Comcast provides an app that provide the same functionality that Comcast's Roku app does. If Comcast does a gradual switch to IPTV (meaning they switch some channels but not all) providing TiVo users with such an app solves lots of potential FCC issues with not providing cable card users with a full line up. It also allows Comcast to start charging for each TV again and cloud DVR usage. Not a very good solution for TiVo owners but if someone has lifetimed equipment it would be better than nothing.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Comcast already does more than "charge for each TV".


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Comcast (edit: not TiVo) stands to make a lot of money off of IPTV. Currently if someone wants to watch on 4 different TVs, they can get a Bolt or Roamio Plus 3 Minis and pay Comcast for one outlet. 

After the switch, users will need multiple cable boxes or Rokus and pay Comcast per TV.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

morac said:


> TiVo stands to make a lot of money off of IPTV. Currently if someone wants to watch on 4 different TVs, they can get a Bolt or Roamio Plus 3 Minis and pay Comcast for one outlet.
> 
> After the switch, users will need multiple cable boxes or Rokus and pay Comcast per TV.


I assume you meant to say Comcast stands to make a lot of money, and not TiVo? TiVo will be lucky if they can stay in business after the switch to IPTV.


----------



## schatham (Mar 17, 2007)

morac said:


> TiVo stands to make a lot of money off of IPTV. Currently if someone wants to watch on 4 different TVs, they can get a Bolt or Roamio Plus 3 Minis and pay Comcast for one outlet.
> 
> After the switch, users will need multiple cable boxes or Rokus and pay Comcast per TV.


The result will be more users ditching Comcast. Comcast won't care because they will keep raising internet costs.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Agreed, if Comcast shuts out Tivo there's not going to be much of Tivo left given the Comcast footprint.

I'm still curious as to what happened after that article about Tivo working with Comcast for IPTV delivery.

Future of CableCARD - TiVo Blog

Pertinent para:
_Longer term, we want to transition with the cable industry to a more modern, IP-based cardless security solution. *As part of our agreement, Comcast has agreed to work with TiVo on a two-way non-CableCARD security solution that will enable retail devices to access the full Comcast lineup of linear and VOD programming, whether QAM- or IP-delivered.* Furthermore, the legislation that repealed the integration ban requires the FCC to form a technical advisory committee by mid-January 2015 to identify and recommend a software-based downloadable security system to promote the competitive availability of retail devices to receive cable programming. On December 4, 2014, the FCC released a public notice seeking nominations for the Downloadable Security Technical Advisory Committee (DSTAC). See details HERE.
_
Of course the FCC is out of the loop for this now, but what happened with Tivo and Comcast?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I assume you meant to say Comcast stands to make a lot of money, and not TiVo? TiVo will be lucky if they can stay in business after the switch to IPTV.


Yes, I meant Comcast. I think TiVo will simply get out of the hardware business, which is why they sold themselves to Rovi. With IPTV and TiVo's patents expiring next year, the writing is on the wall.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

There's probably not enough like me to matter, but TiVo is why I'm with Comcast... if I cannot use TiVo I'll probably go back to DiecTV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

morac said:


> Comcast (edit: not TiVo) stands to make a lot of money off of IPTV. Currently if someone wants to watch on 4 different TVs, they can get a Bolt or Roamio Plus 3 Minis and pay Comcast for one outlet.
> 
> After the switch, users will need multiple cable boxes or Rokus and pay Comcast per TV.


If you're a Comcast customer with a TiVo plus three Minis, yeah, you'd pay a lot more if you had to switch away from TiVo to stay with Comcast TV. But I'm skeptical that it would make much difference to Comcast's bottom line. Best I can figure using publicly available figures, only about 1% of Comcast TV subscribers likely use a CableCARD-powered device.

If, after a full switch to IPTV, somewhere around 7% of subscribers' TVs access Comcast via retail streaming devices (Roku, smart TV, etc.) with a $2.50 per TV discount, that might equate to about the same amount of lost hardware rental fees for Comcast as they're currently losing from TiVo usage.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

SullyND said:


> There's probably not enough like me to matter, but TiVo is why I'm with Comcast... if I cannot use TiVo I'll probably go back to DiecTV.


If TiVo stops working I'll probably switch to DirecTV too


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> Future of CableCARD - TiVo Blog
> 
> Pertinent para:
> _...
> *As part of our agreement, Comcast has agreed to work with TiVo on a two-way non-CableCARD security solution that will enable retail devices to access the full Comcast lineup of linear and VOD programming, whether QAM- or IP-delivered.* _


 The functionality of the Roku app, if ported to a TiVo, accomplishes what's stated there ("access" without mention of TiVo DVR functionality).


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Without being able to record and fast fwr through what you don't want to watch, the whole TV experience goes back to the 60s before VCRs. IE: (I record all three network news programs and get through them in about 45 to 50 minutes, don't need to see repeat news on most things.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TiVo isn't big enough to be hurting Comcast's box revenues, but conversely, TiVo isn't big enough for Comcast to really worry about losing a ton of subs if they don't support TiVo. Most TiVo users in FiOS markets are already on FiOS, maybe they lose a few to RCN or other overbuilders in a few places, but they're tiny numbers in the whole scheme of things. In total, there are probably only a few hundred thousand TiVo users on Comcast at most, and some of those users will go to X1, and some of the users who switch to DirecTV or streaming services will still have Comcast for internet, so Comcast will still make their money there.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Agreed, if Comcast shuts out Tivo there's not going to be much of Tivo left given the Comcast footprint.


Much of their footprint in the northeast has FiOS available, some has another overbuilder, and there is still Charter, Cox, and OTA users. Plus, the retail market is already a small thing for TiVo compared to MSOs.



> _Longer term, we want to transition with the cable industry to a more modern, IP-based cardless security solution. *As part of our agreement, Comcast has agreed to work with TiVo on a two-way non-CableCARD security solution that will enable retail devices to access the full Comcast lineup of linear and VOD programming, whether QAM- or IP-delivered.* Furthermore, the legislation that repealed the integration ban requires the FCC to form a technical advisory committee by mid-January 2015 to identify and recommend a software-based downloadable security system to promote the competitive availability of retail devices to receive cable programming. On December 4, 2014, the FCC released a public notice seeking nominations for the Downloadable Security Technical Advisory Committee (DSTAC). See details HERE.
> _
> Of course the FCC is out of the loop for this now, but what happened with Tivo and Comcast?


I'm skeptical, but if they really do come up with something, it would be great. Presumably, it would be fairly easy to do via MoCA through an XB3/XB6 with some minor software updates to TiVo, but Comcast has to want it to happen.... I would think Comcast wants everyone to be on the X1 platform....



SullyND said:


> There's probably not enough like me to matter, but TiVo is why I'm with Comcast... if I cannot use TiVo I'll probably go back to DiecTV.


Do you have decent AT&T internet speeds available in your area? If you do, then Comcast does lose. If you don't, and you have to keep Comcast internet, then they make almost as much money anyway.



NashGuy said:


> If, after a full switch to IPTV, somewhere around 7% of subscribers' TVs access Comcast via retail streaming devices (Roku, smart TV, etc.) with a $2.50 per TV discount, that might equate to about the same amount of lost hardware rental fees for Comcast as they're currently losing from TiVo usage.


7%? Maybe 7 customers lol. The Roku thing is DOA.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> 7%? Maybe 7 customers lol. The Roku thing is DOA.


I can't figure out why you think so. There's every indication so far that Comcast will actively market Xfinity Instant TV, a service which hasn't hit the market yet but is already getting noticed on cord-cutter blogs and message boards around the internet. It will reportedly cost about $15/mo + tax (but without an additional broadcast TV fee). For that, you can use the Roku (and, in the future, other devices) you already have to watch all your local broadcast nets (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, The CW, etc.) live, plus either HBO or Showtime, all in HD, with VOD and about 20 hours of cloud DVR storage. Do you realize that there's literally nothing on the market right now that's priced competitively to that? HBO Now all by itself costs $15/mo + tax (and doesn't even offer the live linear HBO channels). The base Hulu service (which covers recent eps -- but no sports -- from ABC, NBC and Fox) costs $8; ad-free it's $12. CBS All Access costs $6, or $10 ad-free. So, again, $15 for this Comcast package looks pretty compelling to me. Customers will also be able to add additional cable channels through various add-on tiers for more money, if they want to create something to rival the likes of streaming cable services like PS Vue, YouTube TV, etc., none of which currently offer all the locals in every market.

Comcast has at least 1 million broadband subscribers who don't subscribe to TV from them and I would imagine a lot of them will find Xfinity Instant TV to be a great deal. By 2020, there will be significantly more retail streaming devices (Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV, smart TVs, etc.) accessing Comcast TV service than there are TiVos doing so today.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The Roku thing makes no sense. Adding an Xi3 to your system is $10/mo, adding a Roku is $7.25/mo. People are just going to get the Xi3 instead. There's no way it's going to be $15/mo and include all that. $15/mo plus a broadcast fee might just get you locals. I don't think the Comcast Roku thing will ever take off.

Most of those 1 million, plus a few million more in aggressive bundles either have DirecTV, or don't want pay TV. Also, at some point, someone is going to count the beans at Comcast and realize that offering aggressive bundle prices just to keep subscribers makes no sense. The Charter model makes the most economic sense: set the prices where you want, and let the lower value customers walk. When Comcast figures this out, they have about 1-3 million video subs that will walk, and that's fine. They are making no money off them now compared to what they would make if they were broadband-only.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

pdhenry said:


> The functionality of the Roku app, if ported to a TiVo, accomplishes what's stated there ("access" without mention of TiVo DVR functionality).


Sure, but why in the world would Tivo want to do that? I seriously doubt that this is what Tivo is talking about wrt Comcast.

Unfortunately we've heard nothing since then, and it's been over two years now since that blog post. And given the complete capitulation by the FCC I can see where Comcast has zero incentive to make nice with Tivo for IPTV access.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> There's no way it's going to be $15/mo and include all that. $15/mo plus a broadcast fee might just get you locals. I don't think the Comcast Roku thing will ever take off.


Do you ever click on any links in these posts and read what they say? Here's Comcast's official FAQ that lays out EXACTLY what's currently included in the beta version of Xfinity Instant TV (named "Xfinity Stream package" as beta). It's all the stuff I said, for $15/mo (which Comcast breaks down as "$10 per month plus a Broadcast TV Fee of up to $5 and other taxes and fees"). This has been in beta in Boston and other areas for about 18 months now.

Everything that's been reported so far indicates that Xfinity Instant TV, when it exits beta and rolls out across the entire Comcast footprint sometime in 3Q, will start at about the same $15 price point and offer the same channels (HBO + locals in HD) and features (including cloud DVR), except that instead of just being available via mobile apps, it will also be accessible through their app for Roku and Samsung smart TVs.

You can choose not to believe lots of publicly available info, up to you. And, yes, it's possible that Comcast will decide to change pricing at the last moment before rolling out the final product. But part of the point of running a beta for well over a year in various places is to conduct a marketing experiment to see what sort of response they get. I'm not sure why they'd offer all that for $15 during the entire course of the beta only to ultimately roll out a significantly different package or price point.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Do you ever click on any links in these posts and read what they say? Here's Comcast's official FAQ that lays out EXACTLY what's currently included in the beta version of Xfinity Instant TV (named "Xfinity Stream package" as beta). It's all the stuff I said, for $15/mo (which Comcast breaks down as "$10 per month plus a Broadcast TV Fee of up to $5 and other taxes and fees"). This has been in beta in Boston and other areas for about 18 months now.
> 
> Everything that's been reported so far indicates that Xfinity Instant TV, when it exits beta and rolls out across the entire Comcast footprint sometime in 3Q, will start at about the same $15 price point and offer the same channels (HBO + locals in HD) and features (including cloud DVR), except that instead of just being available via mobile apps, it will also be accessible through their app for Roku and Samsung smart TVs.
> 
> You can choose not to believe lots of publicly available info, up to you. And, yes, it's possible that Comcast will decide to change pricing at the last moment before rolling out the final product. But part of the point of running a beta for well over a year in various places is to conduct a marketing experiment to see what sort of response they get. I'm not sure why they'd offer all that for $15 during the entire course of the beta only to ultimately roll out a significantly different package or price point.


Sounds like a teaser rate to me. It hasn't existed for that long, so they haven't had to tell anyone what the rack rate will be. I'm very skeptical when someone tells me that historically has been worth over $30/mo is suddenly going to be offered for $10/mo on a long-term basis. $10/mo for a year? Two years? Yeah, that's what Comcast has always done with cable bundles, this would just be a twist on a skinny bundle. Also, it doesn't sound like a cable box is included in this, and if that is the case, then adding a Roku will be $7.25/mo plus the $10/mo HD fee, as opposed to an XG1/2, which would be $20/mo, based on their historical pricing.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Sounds like a teaser rate to me. It hasn't existed for that long, so they haven't had to tell anyone what the rack rate will be. I'm very skeptical when someone tells me that historically has been worth over $30/mo is suddenly going to be offered for $10/mo on a long-term basis. $10/mo for a year? Two years? Yeah, that's what Comcast has always done with cable bundles, this would just be a twist on a skinny bundle. Also, it doesn't sound like a cable box is included in this, and if that is the case, then adding a Roku will be $7.25/mo plus the $10/mo HD fee, as opposed to an XG1/2, which would be $20/mo, based on their historical pricing.


I'm sure we'll meet back here to discuss what gets unveiled later this summer.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Comcast's 2-tuner 20 hour cloud DVR is a joke.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

randian said:


> Comcast's 2-tuner 20 hour cloud DVR is a joke.


unfortunately not to some people (non TiVo owners) etc.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

randian said:


> Comcast's 2-tuner 20 hour cloud DVR is a joke.


Well, assuming that it's really just for local channels (since you can watch the included HBO/SHO content as soon as it airs via VOD commercial-free), 20 hours would be enough for some folks who tend to watch stuff pretty soon after they record, then delete. If you want to save up whole seasons and binge watch, no, wouldn't work. But if there's only, say, 10 hours worth of stuff on the major broadcast nets that you really care about not missing each week and you don't get more than two weeks behind, on average, then you're OK. Might work for me, not sure. Even before getting Hulu, I almost never recorded more than two shows simultaneously with my Roamio OTA.

At any rate, my guess is that Comcast will let you have more hours of cloud storage for an additional fee.

I think the rationale for offering such an aggressively priced offering as Xfinity Instant TV is two-fold:
1. Get customers in the door and then upsell them with add-on channel tiers and enhanced features (e.g. extra cloud storage)
2. Squash emerging OTT competitors like Sling TV, YouTube TV and PS Vue before they become too popular.

P.S. In 35 minutes, "it is happening again".


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> Well, assuming that it's really just for local channels (since you can watch the included HBO/SHO content as soon as it airs via VOD commercial-free), 20 hours would be enough for some folks who tend to watch stuff pretty soon after they record, then delete.


Even if the 20 hours was enough, the 2 "tuners" certainly isn't. It's a cloud dvr, the entire concept of tuners and simultaneity is meaningless and should be discarded.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

randian said:


> Even if the 20 hours was enough, the 2 "tuners" certainly isn't. It's a cloud dvr, the entire concept of tuners and simultaneity is meaningless and should be discarded.


IIRC, while "tuners' may be meaningless, simultaneity is not. This is not OD, where everyone is sharing a recording. Every account must have it's own copy of any particular program and it must be made at the time of transmission. IOW, it must work just like a local DVR.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

lpwcomp said:


> IIRC, while "tuners' may be meaningless, simultaneity is not. This is not OD, where everyone is sharing a recording. Every account must have it's own copy of any particular program and it must be made at the time of transmission. IOW, it must work just like a local DVR.


Which I think misunderstands my point. Why have any limit, let alone 2, on the number of simultaneous recordings? Cloud DVRs do not have tuners as such and so need not be limited in that way like a real DVR is.

Who is requiring every account has its own copy? That's a silly way to design a cloud DVR.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

randian said:


> Which I think misunderstands my point. Why have any limit, let alone 2, on the number of simultaneous recordings? Cloud DVRs do not have tuners as such and so need not be limited in that way like a real DVR is.


There's a limit to how many simultaneous streams can be handled by a server.



randian said:


> Who is requiring every account has its own copy? That's a silly way to design a cloud DVR.


It's the law.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

By law, you have to have individual copies unless the contract with the content provider specifically allowed de-duplication in the cloud, which for Comcast, probably will happen over the next few years, as they are a massive company with a lot of pull in negotiations.

That being said, they should up the limit to 4 or 6 or more simultaneous recordings, as a server can handle a *lot* of 3.8mbps MPEG-4 streams at once. With a big RAID array and multiple 10gbps Ethernet interfaces in the datacenter, a server should be able to handle hundreds or thousands of recordings at once. I wonder where the duplication starts too, since their backbone and nationally encoded programs are all done with IP-multicast, and send to the headends to be modulated onto QAM. With Cloud DVR, they are duplicated at some point, since there are no physical tuners for anything downstream of the C-band feeds, and before encoding. It's all IP from there.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Bigg said:


> By law, you have to have individual copies unless the contract with the content provider specifically allowed de-duplication in the cloud, which for Comcast, probably will happen over the next few years, as they are a massive company with a lot of pull in negotiations.
> 
> That being said, they should up the limit to 4 or 6 or more simultaneous recordings, as a server can handle a *lot* of 3.8mbps MPEG-4 streams at once. With a big RAID array and multiple 10gbps Ethernet interfaces in the datacenter, a server should be able to handle hundreds or thousands of recordings at once. I wonder where the duplication starts too, since their backbone and nationally encoded programs are all done with IP-multicast, and send to the headends to be modulated onto QAM. With Cloud DVR, they are duplicated at some point, since there are no physical tuners for anything downstream of the C-band feeds, and before encoding. It's all IP from there.


I think Comcast now records the top 20/50/100 (I forget the number) and you can watch them without having to set your DVR on X1.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I think Comcast now records the top 20/50/100 (I forget the number) and you can watch them without having to set your DVR on X1.


No guarantee you can skip over the commercials though? I just know my co-workers are constantly complaining about not being able to skip over commercials if they don't actually setup a recording for something.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> No guarantee you can skip over the commercials though? I just know my co-workers are constantly complaining about not being able to skip over commercials if they don't actually setup a recording for something.


I am not sure on that part--it may be a "sort of similar" to their On Demand for most shows or just a way of marketing On Demand for network TV--as I am sure they get a cut of of those ads. I didn't keep my X1 box more than a few hours so never tested it out.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Looks like Comcast has begun rolling out a UHD HDR-capable DVR, the XG4. A smaller non-DVR box which can also handle UHD HDR, the Xi6, is pending. Most pertinent to this thread, the article states that, while Comcast had previously been considering distributing UHD content via QAM, they have now settled on an IP-only approach for the next-gen format.

Comcast Appears to Soft Launch First 4K DVR | Light Reading


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> All companies that delivery cable TV via a technology other than QAM have been exempted from cable card requirements


I don't really see that in the FCC definitions.

*Cable television* is a video delivery service provided by a cable operator to subscribers via a coaxial cable or fiber optics. Programming delivered without a wire via satellite or other facilities is not "cable television" under the Commission's definitions.

A *cable television system operator* is any person or group of persons who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system.

*Cable service* is the transmission to subscribers of video programming, or other programming service. This definition includes any subscriber selection required in choosing video programming or other programming service.

A *cable system *is a facility, consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide cable service which includes video programming and which is provided to multiple subscribers within a community. This term does not include:

(1) a facility that serves only to retransmit the television signals of one or more television broadcast stations;

(2) a facility that serves subscribers without using any public right-of-way;

(3) a facility of a common carrier which is subject in whole or in part, to the provisions of Title II of the Communications Act, except that such facility shall be considered a cable system to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers, unless the extent of such use is solely to provide interactive on demand services;

(4) an open video system; or

(5) any facilities of any electric utility used solely for operating its electric utility system.

Cable services are often provided in *tiers*. A tier is a category of cable service or services provided by a cable operator for which a separate rate is charged by the cable operator. There are three types of cable service: basic service, cable programming service, and per-channel or per-program (sometimes called pay-per-view) service.

*Basic service* is the lowest level of cable service a subscriber can buy. It includes, at a minimum, all over-the-air television broadcast signals carried pursuant to the must-carry requirements of the Communications Act, and any public, educational, or government access channels required by the system's franchise agreement. It may include additional signals chosen by the operator. Basic service is generally regulated by the local franchising authority (the local or state entity empowered by Federal, State, or local law to grant a franchise to a cable company to operate in a given area).

*Cable programming service* includes all program channels on the cable system that are not included in basic service, but are not separately offered as per-channel or per-program services. Pursuant to a 1996 federal law, the rates charged for cable programming services tiers provided after March 31, 1999 are not regulated. There may be one or more tiers of cable programming service.

*Per-channel or per-program service* includes those cable services that are provided as single-channel tiers by the cable operator, and individual programs for which the cable operator charges a separate rate Neither of these services is regulated by the local franchising authorities or the Commission.

A *local exchange carrier (LEC)* is a telephone company which provides local telephone service.

A *multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD)* is any person such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, or a television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

People will argue that AT&T was not covered by this while Verizon seemingly was, the only difference between them being IPTV vs. QAM. In all likelihood, Comcast et al. will either get a waiver or find some way to "comply" with the _*letter*_ of the law. But the fact is that no one on this forum really _*knows*_ a damn thing at this point.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> People will argue that AT&T was not covered by this while Verizon seemingly was, the only difference between them being IPTV vs. QAM. In all likelihood, Comcast et al. will either get a waiver or find some way to "comply" with the _*letter*_ of the law. But the fact is that no one on this forum really _*knows*_ a damn thing at this point.


Well I would hope that it is self evident that no one knows the future. But we do know plenty - it is called history. I don't know if speculation based on past events is more accurate than speculation based on something else, but I am guessing it is.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Pacomartin said:


> I don't really see that in the FCC definitions.
> ...


My statement has nothing to do with interpretation of any FCC regulation. It is the actual reality as things stand today. No company that delivers pay TV with any tech other than QAM has been or is being required to support cable cards/compile with the cable card regulations. This is a simple fact, no guessing, no speculation.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Pay TV != Cable TV.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> Pay TV != Cable TV.


While I would agree with that and have used cable TV interchangeably in the past to cover traditional cable TV, Satellite TV, FIOS, broadcast IPTV, and OTT broadcast IPTV. I have gotten a little push back on what should be considered "cable TV" so I am just call it Pay TV and then get more specific if I am only taking about one of the above. Guess it could even cover the VoD services (Netflix etc.), without changing much.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Other than U-Verse, is there any other cable TV service that is using IPTV rather than QAM?

Do we actually have an example of a cable TV company that _*switched*_ from QAM to IPTV?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> Other than U-Verse, is there any other cable TV service that is using IPTV rather than QAM?
> 
> Do we actually have an example of a cable TV company that _*switched*_ from QAM to IPTV?


I believe that Google's fiber TV service also uses IPTV, and I remember people asking about anther smaller fiber provider and using TiVos and I think it was determined they were using IPTV not QAM so the TiVos wouldn't work.

How the FCC is going to look at a cable provider who switches from QAM to IPTV is a good question, as I do not believe this has happened yet. If you asked me 2 years ago I would have said it appeared they were going to have to continue to support third party STBs by whatever was going to replace cable cards and wouldn't be allowed to switch until the cable card replacement was ready and could be implemented. Now with no cable card replacement coming I have adjusted my guess. Some think the Roku app will be enough for the FCC to allow cable card support to be dropped. I am in the camp that if Comcast pushes it the FCC will find someway to allow the switch without future cable card support.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lpwcomp said:


> Other than U-Verse, is there any other cable TV service that is using IPTV rather than QAM?


CenturyLink, Google Fiber, and C-Spire (all fiber or DSL) have IPTV services. And Layer3 TV is, in most cases, something in between OTT and first-party managed IPTV. There are probably other examples of small IPTV providers. AT&T Uverse has definitely been the biggest so far.



lpwcomp said:


> Do we actually have an example of a cable TV company that _*switched*_ from QAM to IPTV?


Don't think so yet. Regardless of what Comcast does, though, it looks like Verizon is set to soon begin offering a premium version of their FiOS TV service (including 4K) via new STBs that only support IPTV, not QAM. But they'll be offering IPTV alongside QAM on their wired networks for years to come, so that won't really be a "switch," per se.

I'm betting that they'll also offer the new IPTV service in conjunction with 5G fixed wireless home internet service to homes outside the current FiOS-wired footprint.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

randian said:


> Which I think misunderstands my point. Why have any limit, let alone 2, on the number of simultaneous recordings? Cloud DVRs do not have tuners as such and so need not be limited in that way like a real DVR is.
> 
> Who is requiring every account has its own *copy*? That's a silly way to design a cloud DVR.


Perhaps, copyright law.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Anybody know about Cinici Bell? I believe they are switching fiber customers from QAM to IPTV, in order to unify the platform with their FTTN customers. If a Cinci Bell FTTH customer wants to use TiVo, and they are currently on IPTV, are they forced to move them *back* to QAM? Not quite the Comcast case, but still an interesting comparison.


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

Hotwire


----------



## randyb359 (Jan 3, 2009)

schatham said:


> The result will be more users ditching Comcast. Comcast won't care because they will keep raising internet costs.


They should care because SpaceX is going into the internet Business. The Satellites will be in low earth orbit so they will have a ping time similar to Cable and it will be available everywhere in the U.S. 
Elon Musk's SpaceX to send the first of its 4,425 super-fast internet satellites into space in 2019


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

randyb359 said:


> They should care because SpaceX is going into the internet Business. The Satellites will be in low earth orbit so they will have a ping time similar to Cable and it will be available everywhere in the U.S.
> Elon Musk's SpaceX to send the first of its 4,425 super-fast internet satellites into space in 2019


Isn't competition a nice thing. And interesting that beings are wired evolutionarily so that it so often is needed.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> CenturyLink, Google Fiber, and C-Spire (all fiber or DSL) have IPTV services. And Layer3 TV is, in most cases, something in between OTT and first-party managed IPTV. There are probably other examples of small IPTV providers. AT&T Uverse has definitely been the biggest so far.
> 
> Don't think so yet. Regardless of what Comcast does, though, it looks like Verizon is set to soon begin offering a premium version of their FiOS TV service (including 4K) via new STBs that only support IPTV, not QAM. But they'll be offering IPTV alongside QAM on their wired networks for years to come, so that won't really be a "switch," per se.
> 
> I'm betting that they'll also offer the new IPTV service in conjunction with 5G fixed wireless home internet service to homes outside the current FiOS-wired footprint.


With FiOS it will only be one or the other. IPTV or QAM. And once you switch to IPTV, you won't be able to go back to QAM.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> With FiOS it will only be one or the other. IPTV or QAM.


Do you mean that, within a particular household, all TVs will either be served by the existing QAM-based system or by the new IPTV system? That sounds right, based on the leaked info I've read so far.



aaronwt said:


> And once you switch to IPTV, you won't be able to go back to QAM.


I've wondered about this and, last I checked, there didn't seem to be a definitive opinion about it over on the relevant thread at DSL Reports. The guy leaking the info there says that existing ONTs will work with the new IPTV STBs, so it would seem like those homes, should they switch to IPTV and not like it, could technically switch back, assuming Verizon allows it. But homes getting newly connected to FiOS with the new IPTV system, though, will have new ONTs in place that can't access the old QAM-based TV. But if I wonder if they (or a future owner) later decided they wanted to use a TiVo or other CableCARD device, would Verizon be forced to switch out their ONT and let them revert to QAM? Without some kind of action from the FCC/Congress, it seems like Verizon might be forced to grant the customer's request, at least if the QAM network was still running in that neighborhood.

Verizon doesn't have as much incentive as cable companies like Comcast to do away with QAM and go all-IP, since QAM TV does not eat into Verizon's overall bandwidth that might otherwise be available for IP. But there must be other plausible reasons why Verizon is choosing to migrate customers to IPTV (e.g. 4K UHD, lower equipment costs, greater ease in quickly rolling out system updates, etc.), so you may be right that once a customer adopts it, they won't allow them to go back. It will be a long, slow transition but ultimately Verizon will want all their TV subscribers on the same, modern platform.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Do you mean that, within a particular household, all TVs will either be served by the existing QAM-based system or by the new IPTV system? That sounds right, based on the leaked info I've read so far.
> 
> I've wondered about this and, last I checked, there didn't seem to be a definitive opinion about it over on the relevant thread at DSL Reports. The guy leaking the info there says that existing ONTs will work with the new IPTV STBs, so it would seem like those homes, should they switch to IPTV and not like it, could technically switch back, assuming Verizon allows it. But homes getting newly connected to FiOS with the new IPTV system, though, will have new ONTs in place that can't access the old QAM-based TV. But if I wonder if they (or a future owner) later decided they wanted to use a TiVo or other CableCARD device, would Verizon be forced to switch out their ONT and let them revert to QAM? Without some kind of action from the FCC/Congress, it seems like Verizon might be forced to grant the customer's request, at least if the QAM network was still running in that neighborhood.
> 
> Verizon doesn't have as much incentive as cable companies like Comcast to do away with QAM and go all-IP, since QAM TV does not eat into Verizon's overall bandwidth that might otherwise be available for IP. But there must be other plausible reasons why Verizon is choosing to migrate customers to IPTV (e.g. 4K UHD, lower equipment costs, greater ease in quickly rolling out system updates, etc.), so you may be right that once a customer adopts it, they won't allow them to go back. It will be a long, slow transition but ultimately Verizon will want all their TV subscribers on the same, modern platform.


I guess the info changed? The last thing I read was that you wouldn't be able to switch back. If you will be able to that would be great. I just wish you could use both QAM and IPTV at the same time. That way I could still use my Bolts with QAM and also have a box for the UHD programming they will have with the IPTV.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

I wonder how many out of market customers Verizon thinks it's going to get for its IPTV service. Comcast and Cox aren't going to zero-rate Verizon's service against their data caps like they will for their own IPTV services.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> I guess the info changed? The last thing I read was that you wouldn't be able to switch back. If you will be able to that would be great. I just wish you could use both QAM and IPTV at the same time. That way I could still use my Bolts with QAM and also have a box for the UHD programming they will have with the IPTV.


Well, who knows. As per usual, we're just having fun with rumors + speculation. We'll have to see what Verizon announces whenever the service finally rolls out.



randian said:


> I wonder how many out of market customers Verizon thinks it's going to get for its IPTV service. Comcast and Cox aren't going to zero-rate Verizon's service against their data caps like they will for their own IPTV services.


Yeah, good question. Just to clarify, though, Verizon has two different IP-based TV services in the pipeline: the one I've referenced above is managed IPTV over their own network, delivered to their own next-gen STBs. (It will presumably be marketed as a premium option under the FiOS TV brand.) The second service, which you're talking about, is an OTT TV service delivered over any internet connection to retail streaming devices (e.g. Roku, Fire TV, etc.) nationwide. No word yet on what it will called. And, yes, data used for streaming this Verizon OTT service will count against your data cap (just like with PS Vue, Sling TV, etc.), although perhaps Verizon will zero-rate it for their own internet customers.

As I've said before, it seems like all the major players are moving toward a two-prong high/low service strategy, with a more expensive, fuller featured (and more reliable) traditional pay TV service and a now a new lower cost, skinny service for streaming devices. We've seen this from Dish with Sling TV, from AT&T with DirecTV Now, and soon from Verizon and CenturyLink; all of those are or will be nationwide OTT services. Comcast's pending lower-tier service, Xfinity Instant TV, will be managed IPTV offered only over their network footprint; they say the economics don't make sense for them to try to offer that service OTT nationwide.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I think Verizon wants to go to IPTV to be able to expand their lineup, as they are at capacity on QAM. I think they figured that slowly moving over to IPTV over the course of a decade or more is more economical than forcing box replacements to go MPEG-4 on QAM. Although looking at it that way, I'm not sure why they didn't go hybrid, with new channels on MPEG-4 IP, and old channels on QAM, as that would save bandwidth on the IP side.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I think Verizon wants to go to IPTV to be able to expand their lineup, as they are at capacity on QAM. I think they figured that slowly moving over to IPTV over the course of a decade or more is more economical than forcing box replacements to go MPEG-4 on QAM. Although looking at it that way, I'm not sure why they didn't go hybrid, with new channels on MPEG-4 IP, and old channels on QAM, as that would save bandwidth on the IP side.


Well, as I said with Comcast, I think that there are benefits in moving to all-IP that go beyond just bandwidth considerations. An all-IP network, with IPTV, reportedly allows for greater flexibility, greater nimbleness in rolling out new features, lower equipment costs, a single platform for serving all sorts of devices, and perhaps a degree of network virtualization that cannot be done while supporting legacy QAM TV.


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

Mikeguy said:


> Isn't competition a nice thing. And interesting that beings are wired evolutionarily so that it so often is needed.


Yes, it is, which is why all the whining about cable TV providers who are also ISPs increasing their rates to combat the switching to streaming services is just that, whining. This whining typically includes even more whining about the FCC and how the government needs to step in. Competition works.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

idksmy said:


> Competition works.


Sometimes. But sometimes entry barriers can affect matters.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

idksmy said:


> Yes, it is, which is why all the whining about cable TV providers who are also ISPs increasing their rates to combat the switching to streaming services is just that, whining. This whining typically includes even more whining about the FCC and how the government needs to step in. Competition works.





Mikeguy said:


> Sometimes. But sometimes entry barriers can affect matters.


Certainly competition works better than no competition for the consumer, which is why every CEO worth a sh** does everything possible to eliminate it. The only possible long term counterbalance to that is Government (tech breakthroughs can increase competition short term).

It if fairly clear that Comcast has no or very little concerns about any competition that currently exists. If they did they would be extremely concerned with their customer satisfaction numbers - which they clearly are not. No company with any real competition could survive with Comcast's numbers so until you see them taking aggressive actions to improve customer satisfaction, any talk of real competition is just a joke.

We are in several major battles right now that center around competition - one is called net neutrality that we (the consumers) are about to loose and the other is the consolidations of the companies in these industries and unfortunately it appears we (the consumers) are going to loose those battles also. The only real hope for consumers right now is that new tech like 5G or better satellite internet forces some temporary competition and improves this market place.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> We are in several major battles right now that center around competition - one is called net neutrality that we (the consumers) are about to loose and the other is the consolidations of the companies in these industries and unfortunately it appears we (the consumers) are going to loose those battles also. The only real hope for consumers right now is that new tech like 5G or better satellite internet forces some temporary competition and improves this market place.


It's an interesting "coincidence" that Comcast has implemented broadband caps in all areas except where they compete with FIOS.

A side note on your second "battle" is the news that Verizon is interested in merging with Comcast. Despite being in direct competition on the ISP side, Comcast and Verizon have been buddying it up on the mobile platform with Verizon providing Comcast's new LTE service, so it's not that far-fetched.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, as I said with Comcast, I think that there are benefits in moving to all-IP that go beyond just bandwidth considerations. An all-IP network, with IPTV, reportedly allows for greater flexibility, greater nimbleness in rolling out new features, lower equipment costs, a single platform for serving all sorts of devices, and perhaps a degree of network virtualization that cannot be done while supporting legacy QAM TV.


It makes a lot of sense on an HFC system. With FiOS, they have to keep QAM going for a long time anyway for the equipment that's out there. I guess it's just cheaper equipment for IPTV customers. Hopefully the PQ holds up on IPTV compared to what they are doing on QAM.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Guess what, this didn't happen. Gotta love rumors.

I'm not believing anything about a shift to IPTV (i.e., a migration of channels not a replication) until Comcast says it's going to happen.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Guess what, this didn't happen. Gotta love rumors.
> 
> I'm not believing anything about a shift to IPTV (i.e., a migration of channels not a replication) until Comcast says it's going to happen.


They're way behind on everything, MPEG-4, IPTV, etc, but they're eventually going to go that way. With cord-cutting, they can't keep most of the bandwidth on a system tied up in linear QAM for a constantly shrinking proportion of customers forever.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

slowbiscuit said:


> Guess what, this didn't happen. Gotta love rumors.
> 
> I'm not believing anything about a shift to IPTV (i.e., a migration of channels not a replication) until Comcast says it's going to happen.


Nope, you're right. The original rumor that I posted to start this thread -- that, before the end of 2017, Comcast would begin delivering TV service to all new subscribers exclusively via IPTV -- proved to be false. But hey, without rumors and speculation about what's going to happen, message boards would generally be a lot less entertaining!

I do still think that Comcast will eventually switch over from QAM to IPTV. I still think 2020, as I've said before, seems like a realistic timeframe for that. But, I fully admit, that's just (somewhat informed) speculation.

As you say, before making the switch, Comcast will announce when they're going to end QAM and shift exclusively to IPTV. (They're currently doing both QAM _and_ IPTV across their entire footprint.) Whether they'll make the announcement far enough in advance for a new TiVo owner to break even on a $550 all-in lifetime service plan, who knows...


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

Remember Comcast can do this on a market by market basis, no need to switch the whole country all at once. ( assuming they actually do it)


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

longrider said:


> Remember Comcast can do this on a market by market basis, no need to switch the whole country all at once. ( assuming they actually do it)


They won't have a choice. To go to DOCSIS 3.1 they need a bunch of bandwidth. A!though I guess they did save a bunch of bandwidth by switching their channels to low bitrate 720p, h.264. So maybe that did buy them some breathing room to switch to DOCSIS 3.1?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> They won't have a choice. To go to DOCSIS 3.1 they need a bunch of bandwidth. A!though I guess they did save a bunch of bandwidth by switching their channels to low bitrate 720p, h.264. So maybe that did buy them some breathing room to switch to DOCSIS 3.1?


If they want to do widespread gigabit service, they won't have a choice. They seem to be hell-bent on the IPTV path, and like Verizon skipping UMTS and going directly to LTE, Comcast skipped SDV, and now needs to push harder than ever to go all-IP. Maybe their VQ won't suck as much when they go all-IP, but the pay TV market is collapsing in on itself. While it will take a decade to cause a large-scale collapse of pay-tv channels, time is limited for pay TV in it's current bloated form.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> Nope, you're right. The original rumor that I posted to start this thread -- that, before the end of 2017, Comcast would begin delivering TV service to all new subscribers exclusively via IPTV -- proved to be false. But hey, without rumors and speculation about what's going to happen, message boards would generally be a lot less entertaining!
> 
> I do still think that Comcast will eventually switch over from QAM to IPTV. I still think 2020, as I've said before, seems like a realistic timeframe for that. But, I fully admit, that's just (somewhat informed) speculation.
> 
> As you say, before making the switch, Comcast will announce when they're going to end QAM and shift exclusively to IPTV. (They're currently doing both QAM _and_ IPTV across their entire footprint.) Whether they'll make the announcement far enough in advance for a new TiVo owner to break even on a $550 all-in lifetime service plan, who knows...


Sounds like they would rolling out X1's ( or something along that line) throughout their whole system, if that's the case it could take awhile, there are a lot of legacy boxes out there.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> They won't have a choice. To go to DOCSIS 3.1 they need a bunch of bandwidth. A!though I guess they did save a bunch of bandwidth by switching their channels to low bitrate 720p, h.264. So maybe that did buy them some breathing room to switch to DOCSIS 3.1?


Yeah, Comcast has already gone D3.1 in a lot of markets. They did so in the first round of markets, including Nashville and Atlanta, about a year ago, I think. So, even though it still looks to me like Comcast will eventually go IPTV-only, I'm not sure they'll do so because of a super-pressing need for more bandwidth.

(BTW, next up for Comcast's IP network is full duplex D3.1, which will allow the same multi-gig speeds upstream as downstream. That should start getting implemented within the next year or so, I think.)



tenthplanet said:


> Sounds like they would rolling out X1's ( or something along that line) throughout their whole system, if that's the case it could take awhile, there are a lot of legacy boxes out there.


Yep, lots of legacy QAM-only STBs still out in the field and that's the biggest (only?) hindrance to Comcast dumping QAM and going IPTV-only. But they have been deploying X1 STBs -- which are compatible with both QAM and IPTV -- pretty aggressively throughout their entire footprint for a few years now. As of the middle of last year, they reported the X1 penetration rate was 55% of their TV subscriber base (with the other 45% using only legacy QAM STBs and/or CableCARD/TiVos) and they projected that would rise to the low 60s by year-end. So if they're averaging about a 1 percentage point increase in X1 use per month, that would get them to 73% by the end of 2018. (Keep in mind that the X1 penetration rate ticks up not as only more users flock to the X1 platform but also as their total TV subscriber base shrinks with some lower-end non-X1 TV subs cutting the cord or switching to vMPVDs like DirecTV Now and YouTube TV.)

Comcast has stated that broadband internet has really become the "epicenter" of their relationship with customers, which is pretty obvious given that there are lots of choices for pay TV but often only one local choice for broadband. And also given that the profit margins on broadband are high but quite thin for pay TV (especially among subs who don't have add-ons like multiple STBs, DVR service, premium channels, etc.). I think Comcast's goal is for TV service to simply to be an add-on to broadband, which is the star of the show. You can't get the X1 TV platform without also having broadband from Comcast.

Comcast is now aiming to convert the low-end non-X1 portion of their TV subscriber base over to their new IPTV service called Xfinity Instant TV, introduced last fall. I think that, for now anyhow, it also requires you to be a Comcast broadband sub. Instant TV is accessed via Rokus, with other retail TV devices to be supported in the future.

Their best, most advertised low price promos for new subs now feature Instant TV. I've seen TV ads for it and when I visit Comcast.com here, the main graphic advertises "Internet Plus Instant TV" with the headline "Streaming Has Never Been So Simple". First 12 months, the price is $29.99/mo (if on autopay with a one-year contract) -- although that probably doesn't include the $8 broadcast fee. But it gets you 25 Mbps internet, your local TV channels in HD, plus Showtime, Starz, and Cinemax, 20 hours of cloud DVR storage, and two simultaneous streams on your own devices. Additional genre-focused blocks of cable channels can be added for more money. For the same price, you can still get a similar deal with a legacy QAM STB but it's SD-only, has only one premium channel (not three), no DVR service, and lets you watch on only one TV.

I wonder what percentage of their TV subscriber base may be on Instant TV by the end of this year (which would be ~15 months post-launch). Even if it's just 7% -- which seems possible given the pricing and advertising they're doing -- that means they could feasibly have 80% of their total TV subscriber base on non-QAM hardware by the end of 2018. And keep in mind that a decent slice of the remainder -- those on neither X1 or Instant TV -- are low-margin TV-only subs who don't have broadband service from Comcast. While having those folks be counted does help puff up Comcast's numbers to report to Wall Street, they do very, very little in terms of contributing to the company's profits. How long until Comcast forces them to convert to either X1 or Instant TV? (They've indicated that Instant TV will be open at some point to non-broadband subs with the use of an in-home converter box.) Yes, a forced conversion would risk some defections but if those subs aren't really profitable, what's the big risk? And once that conversion happens, there's nothing stopping Comcast from pulling the plug on QAM and going IPTV-only.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

My cable company, SECV Hydra coming to local cable company will be D3.1 next month.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Comcast is now aiming to convert the low-end non-X1 portion of their TV subscriber base over to their new IPTV service called Xfinity Instant TV, introduced last fall. I think that, for now anyhow, it also requires you to be a Comcast broadband sub. Instant TV is accessed via Rokus, with other retail TV devices to be supported in the future.


I loaded a Beta version last year but didnt know it had formally rolled out. Due to my not having an HD service line on my Comcast bill (because TiVos) it resulted in a less than satisfactory experience for me (since I could only "tune" to SD channels on my Roku.). It would end up raisng my bill to add HD unless they (a) don't charge per device and (b) incorporate some form of DVR service into the app.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> You can't get the X1 TV platform without also having broadband from Comcast.


If you need X1 to get their IPTV and they go IPTV only, how exactly is that legal?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> If you need X1 to get their IPTV and they go IPTV only, how exactly is that legal?


You can also use a Roku. That's how they get around any CableCard mandate.

I don't know what would prohibit them from requiring Comcast broadband to have Xfinity programming. It's not a technical limitation (but Comcast is the only game in town here for broadband).


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> You can also use a Roku. That's how they get around any CableCard mandate.
> 
> I don't know what would prohibit them from requiring Comcast broadband to have Xfinity programming. It's not a technical limitation (but Comcast is the only game in town here for broadband).


It's not the CableCARD mandate, it's the leveraging that (at least to this layman) appears to constitute an anti-trust violation.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> (BTW, next up for Comcast's IP network is full duplex D3.1, which will allow the same multi-gig speeds upstream as downstream. That should start getting implemented within the next year or so, I think.)


Will full duplex require new modems?

BTW D3.1 is in my area. I originally replaced my SB6141 with a SB8200 (D3.1), but returned it and got a CM600 (D3.0) when I couldn't get the same speeds with that using D3.1 as I could with a D3.0 modem. Plus I don't subscribe to the speeds that require D3.1.

Comcast actually provides speeds 20% higher than what they advertise, so for example I can get 300/12 Mbps down on my 250/10 Mbps speed. With the SB8200, I was only getting about 260/11 Mbps. I've been told that the extra 20% doesn't work for D3.1 in some areas for some reason.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> You can also use a Roku. That's how they get around any CableCard mandate.
> 
> I don't know what would prohibit them from requiring Comcast broadband to have Xfinity programming. It's not a technical limitation (but Comcast is the only game in town here for broadband).


Comcast can also charge their HD fee for HD channels on Roku, which they do. Really there should be regulations preventing Comcast from throwing all these fees on top of their service. Especially considering it allows them a loop hole to increase prices for people under contract.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lpwcomp said:


> It's not the CableCARD mandate, it's the leveraging that (at least to this layman) appears to constitute an anti-trust violation.


You CAN get cable TV service from Comcast without also getting broadband internet service. But I don't *think* you can get their flagship X1 TV service (i.e. their fancier DVR/on-demand box with voice remote and optional 4K HDR, etc.) without also getting broadband internet service. Basically, they're saying "If you want our best possible TV experience, you need to also subscribe to our internet service." As I say above, Comcast isn't that interested in having you as a customer who only subs to cable TV. They just don't make that much off of you.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

I'm perfectly aware of the situation as it currently exists since I have Comcast cable and U-verse Internet. I'm talking about after they go all IPTV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

pdhenry said:


> I loaded a Beta version last year but didnt know it had formally rolled out. Due to my not having an HD service line on my Comcast bill (because TiVos) it resulted in a less than satisfactory experience for me (since I could only "tune" to SD channels on my Roku.). It would end up raisng my bill to add HD unless they (a) don't charge per device and (b) incorporate some form of DVR service into the app.





morac said:


> Comcast can also charge their HD fee for HD channels on Roku, which they do. Really there should be regulations preventing Comcast from throwing all these fees on top of their service. Especially considering it allows them a loop hole to increase prices for people under contract.


My understanding is that anyone who has cable TV service from Comcast can access and watch the current channel line-up they pay for (whether HD and/or SD) through the Xfinity Stream app on mobile devices as well as Roku. I don't think there's ever a fee to use the mobile app for X1 customers (although there may be a maximum number of mobile devices that can simultaneously use the app). While the Roku app is/was in beta (which was the case last fall when I tried it, not sure about now), there was no charge to use it either. However, when the Roku app is finalized, using it will count as another outlet of TV service, just the same as getting an additional CableCARD (which is, what, another $7.50/mo?). The Xfinity Stream app also lets you access on-demand as well as your cloud DVR (if that feature is part of the TV package you pay for).

Like pdhenry, when I tried the Roku app, I wasn't paying the HD technology fee, so my local CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. were all in SD. But I did have Showtime as part of my promo package and two or three of the Showtime channels were in HD. (But bad HD -- I can't see how folks pay good money to Comcast to put up with that amount of compression.) I wasn't all that impressed with the app. It was functional, and the UI wasn't ugly, but it was a bit sluggish and I didn't like having to pull up the grid guide every time I wanted to change channels. That was definitely the worst part. I can tell you that the experience was nowhere near as slick and pleasant as DirecTV Now.

As for charging the HD fee for the Roku app, morac, well, that app just delivers whatever it is that you're already paying for in your TV package. Now, if you sign up for the new Xfinity Instant TV service, which is delivered _exclusively_ through the Xfinity Stream app on Roku and mobile devices, that comes with HD built-in. There's no extra fee for HD channels. It also comes with 20 hours of cloud DVR built-in. (I don't know if you can pay more to upgrade the number of hours or not.) It also comes with the ability to watch on two devices simultaneously, so you could watch on two different TVs with Rokus, or one TV and one phone, etc. Lastly, it also comes with all the on-demand content (in HD, if available) that Comcast offers associated with whatever channels you subscribe to.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I can tune HD on my TiVo and watch On-Demand programming in HD and I don't pay an HD fee (which IMO is really an equipment fee, to rent the higher end boxes than the SD STBs that probably aren't even available any more [not talking about DTAs which don't tune > channel 100]). The one thing I can't do with my current lineup and equipment is tune HD in the Roku app. So I don't use the Roku app.

Arguing that I'm getting something that I'm not paying for is disingenuous. There is no Xfinity lineup that only consists of SD channels & no HD channels at my programming level. Even Limited Basic includes locals in HD. That's why I believe it started as an equipment fee but since I don't rent equipment from them other than cable cards I have never been charged an HD fee. If I pay the price in the rate card and bring my own equipment I'm entitled and paying for all channels in the lneup.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lpwcomp said:


> I'm perfectly aware of the situation as it currently exists since I have Comcast cable and U-verse Internet. I'm talking about after they go all IPTV.


Ah, so you're asking if/when Comcast dumps QAM and goes IPTV-only, will they require folks to purchase internet service in order to also get TV service? No, I don't so. Comcast has already stated that they will offer Xfinity Instant TV (which is a bring-your-own device IPTV service) to customers who don't have Comcast internet, but it will require a piece of Comcast-issued equipment to keep in your home.

I'm sure what they will do is issue those customers an Xfinity gateway (combo modem/router) that they must connect the coaxial cable to. If they don't have internet service from another company, then the customer will connect his Rokus and other devices to the pre-configured wifi network that the gateway blasts out. If they do have internet service from a different company (which seems unlikely), then maybe they'll be able to connect the Xfinity gateway via ethernet into the existing router, so that the Xfinity IPTV streams can travel through the customer's existing ethernet and wifi networks to his devices.

I'm sure Comcast won't like having to stick a gateway in a home just to allow you to use Instant TV, although maybe they'll charge a $10 rental fee for it (if they can get away with that). Plus, it'll give Comcast yet another wifi hotspot for their paying broadband customers. Those hotspots are *everywhere* and were a nice bonus back when I had Comcast broadband...


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> It's not the CableCARD mandate, it's the leveraging that (at least to this layman) appears to constitute an anti-trust violation.


I accept your argument that required bundling is probably anti-competitive.

The connection to the Cable Card mandate is that when they offer a way to receive programming on (any) customer owned equipment without a Cable Card they aren't required to provide or support Cable Cards. This is necessary if they intend to withdraw programming that can be received on a TiVo.

It doesn't need to be an equivalent user experience to the X1 boxes to void the mandate, and it may or may not be in Comcast's best interest to make it an equivalent experience.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Ah, so you're asking if/when Comcast dumps QAM and goes IPTV-only, will they require folks to purchase internet service in order to also get TV service? No, I don't so. Comcast has already stated that they will offer Xfinity Instant TV (which is a bring-your-own device IPTV service) to customers who don't have Comcast internet, but it will require a piece of Comcast-issued equipment to keep in your home.


I'm curious whether you have a link to that. It's been ~a year since I looked into the IPTV requirements.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

pdhenry said:


> I can tune HD on my TiVo and watch On-Demand programming in HD and I don't pay an HD fee (which IMO is really an equipment fee, to rent the higher end boxes than the SD STBs that probably aren't even available any more [not talking about DTAs which don't tune > channel 100]). The one thing I can't do with my current lineup and equipment is tune HD in the Roku app. So I don't use the Roku app.
> 
> Arguing that I'm getting something that I'm not paying for is disingenuous. There is no Xfinity lineup that only consists of SD channels & no HD channels at my programming level. Even Limited Basic includes locals in HD. That's why I believe it started as an equipment fee but since I don't rent equipment from them other than cable cards I have never been charged an HD fee. If I pay the price in the rate card and bring my own equipment I'm entitled and paying for all channels in the lneup.


Well, we can quibble over semantics but right now I'm looking at the official "Xfinity Services & Pricing" pamphlet for Middle Tennessee effective Jan. 1, 2018. Under Xfinity TV Services, they have several line items listed, including the following:


HD Technology Fee: $9.95
DVR Service: $10.00
AnyRoom DVR Service: $10.00
Service to Additional TV: $9.95
The only footnote for the HD Technology Fee states "Not available to Limited Basic only Customers."

Here is the full list of items under "Xfinity TV Equipment":

TV Box Limited Basic: $1.00
TV Box: $2.50
Remote: $0.20
HD TV Box Limited Basic: $2.50
TV Adapter (Limited Basic, primary TV up to 3rd additional TV): $0.00
CableCARD (first card in device): $0.00
CableCARD (second card in same device): $1.50
In addition, the new Xfinity Instant TV has its own separate pricing section. Also, all references to X1 service are in the Bundled Packages section (which seems to validate my assertion that you can't get X1 without also getting internet service).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> So, even though it still looks to me like Comcast will eventually go IPTV-only, I'm not sure they'll do so because of a super-pressing need for more bandwidth.


It's not only the bandwidth, it's the channel lineup. Other cable companies went to SDV, so they can add far more channels than Comcast can. Comcast is stuck at an industry-trailing 120, although they don't seem to care about video quality or channel selection, so who knows. MPEG-4 locals would be the next logical step, although I doubt they will ever actually do them, as there are almost no bandwidth savings, especially with many locals sharing transmitters now, which does from 2 OTA channels per QAM to 3-4 per QAM.



> (BTW, next up for Comcast's IP network is full duplex D3.1, which will allow the same multi-gig speeds upstream as downstream. That should start getting implemented within the next year or so, I think.)


Maybe a test system, but implementing FDX is going to be a crapload of work, as they have to remove all of the existing drop amps in addition to completely rebuilding the plant itself. I would doubt that any widescale deployments will happen anytime soon. If they do a few systems with FDX, my bet would be on Metro DC/NoVA or Metro Boston, since those are densely developed FiOS markets, but who knows.



> (Keep in mind that the X1 penetration rate ticks up not as only more users flock to the X1 platform but also as their total TV subscriber base shrinks with some lower-end non-X1 TV subs cutting the cord or switching to vMPVDs like DirecTV Now and YouTube TV.)


Yup. They also have hidden about 1-3 million would-be cord cutters in bundle deals to effectively fake their TV numbers to Wall Street. Once the financial people wake up and realize that Comcast is losing money on those people, Comcast can easily cut them loose from TV, and just do internet only, which has a lower ARPU, and loses TV subs, but has much better overall margins and profits, which are all that really matter.



> Comcast is now aiming to convert the low-end non-X1 portion of their TV subscriber base over to their new IPTV service called Xfinity Instant TV, introduced last fall.


Yes, and it's probably going to be a flop. Comcast is better at just being a dumb pipe, and they can make money extorting the providers and CDNs, like they did to Netflix. I think they have already extorted Google and Hulu, two of the vMVPDs who also obviously have other services.



> And once that conversion happens, there's nothing stopping Comcast from pulling the plug on QAM and going IPTV-only.


Yeah, I think they're pretty close to that point. They can't be using up a big chunk of the system's bandwidth for a rapidly-shrinking customer base anymore.

That being said, as far as I'm concerned, all of this has no impact on TiVo, since Comcast became an unusable pile of garbage when they switched to MPEG-4, so the only practical options have become OTA and DirecTV, OTA with TiVo, and DirecTV with the Genie series of DVR.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

pdhenry said:


> I'm curious whether you have a link to that. It's been ~a year since I looked into the IPTV requirements.


I believe I originally read that info elsewhere (like on a Comcast FAQ page) but you can also see it in this article. Relevant bit:

_In the home, Comcast won't use a traditional set-top box for Xfinity Instant TV but will require that customers use a Comcast-supplied gateway (monthly leasing fees are about $10), which supports both the high-speed Internet service and the separately-managed IP video service flow for the new skinny TV offering.

Comcast eventually will also let consumers get Xfinity Instant TV even if they don't take the company's high-speed internet product, thought they'll still need a piece of equipment to get the IPTV service into the home on Comcast's managed network.

"We very much plan to support that," Strauss said. "But the most value is for customers who take the internet product. That's really where we're focusing our efforts."_​


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Well, we can quibble over semantics but right now I'm looking at the official "Xfinity Services & Pricing" pamphlet for Middle Tennessee effective Jan. 1, 2018.


 But show me the lineup(s) that avoids the HD technology fee.

Perhaps its just a way to charge $10 above the rate card, but note that if you've never had Comcast HD equipment you might avoid the fee. It's only when you've had and return the equipment (e.g. buy a TiVo) you discover that the fee is "sticky."


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I believe I originally read that info elsewhere (like on a Comcast FAQ page) but you can also see it in this article. Relevant bit:
> 
> _In the home, Comcast won't use a traditional set-top box for Xfinity Instant TV but will require that customers use a Comcast-supplied gateway (monthly leasing fees are about $10), which supports both the high-speed Internet service and the separately-managed IP video service flow for the new skinny TV offering.
> 
> ...


Isn't the X1/X2/etc basically a gateway? I'm pretty sure all the X1 boxes have a built-in cable modem so technically they are "Internet capable" even if the customer isn't paying for Comcast Internet. People who don't pay for HSI simple get blocked from accessing the Internet, but can still get to Comcast's WAN.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It's not only the bandwidth, it's the channel lineup. Other cable companies went to SDV, so they can add far more channels than Comcast can.


Well, switching from QAM to IPTV is about a combination of things: more efficient/better use of bandwidth, offering more channels with better picture quality (including 4K HDR), lowering the cost of CPE (customer premises equipment), and the efficiencies and developmental agility of having a single, unified video platform that serves all devices everywhere based on a common format (IP).



Bigg said:


> Maybe a test system, but implementing FDX is going to be a crapload of work, as they have to remove all of the existing drop amps in addition to completely rebuilding the plant itself. I would doubt that any widescale deployments will happen anytime soon. If they do a few systems with FDX, my bet would be on Metro DC/NoVA or Metro Boston, since those are densely developed FiOS markets, but who knows.


Going full duplex D3.1 will go hand-in-hand with Comcast's switch to DAA (distributed access architecture), the next major evolution to HFC (hybrid fiber/coax) networks. Yes, the pressure for the move to full duplex comes from fiber providers, not only Verizon/Frontier FiOS in the northeast but also AT&T Fiber across the south and in CA. Here's an article on the latest from Comcast about this topic: Comcast pushing to make new DAA nodes Full Duplex-capable | FierceCable

AFAIK, Comcast and Charter are the only cable co's yet to commit to full duplex D3.1. But then, are there any others that really matter? (Sorry, Cox. As for Altice, they're skipping right over it and going full-on FTTH.)



Bigg said:


> Yes, and it's probably going to be a flop. Comcast is better at just being a dumb pipe, and they can make money extorting the providers and CDNs, like they did to Netflix. I think they have already extorted Google and Hulu, two of the vMVPDs who also obviously have other services.


OK, you and I both know that Comcast is best experienced as a dumb, fast internet pipe. But I don't necessarily think that Xfinity Instant TV will be a total flop because of the way that they're packaging and pricing it. Let's say I'm a shiny-faced twentysomething who's just moved to town. <sigh, that was once me...> I can sign up for 25 Mbps broadband for $25/mo. with a one-year contract. Or for an extra $13/mo, I can also get Instant TV: all the major broadcast nets in HD, plus Showtime, Starz, and Cinemax, all with cloud DVR and on-demand! And I can use the Roku and phone I already have for watching! No need to deal with their crappy cable box. None of the vMPVDs can come close to that amount of content/features for $13. Comcast is changing their game so that the "otherwise" cord-cutters that prop up their TV sub numbers will now be on IPTV rather than QAM.



Bigg said:


> Yeah, I think they're pretty close to that point. They can't be using up a big chunk of the system's bandwidth for a rapidly-shrinking customer base anymore.


Yeah. Though perhaps, instead of completely pulling the plug on QAM a couple years from now, they'll still leave a slice of the current bandwidth on QAM in order to still let folks get Limited Basic TV (local channels plus C-SPAN) in SD only. (This could be helpful in dealing with local governments and the FCC.) That would be around 40 channels in 480i SD (in MPEG-4 in some markets, in MPEG-2 in markets that were never converted). They could cram all that into, what, 1 or 2 6 MHz QAMs? For those customers who never bothered to turn in their old QAM STB during the year-long switchover period, they would get their TV package downgraded to Limited Basic SD.



Bigg said:


> That being said, as far as I'm concerned, all of this has no impact on TiVo, since Comcast became an unusable pile of garbage when they switched to MPEG-4, so the only practical options have become OTA and DirecTV, OTA with TiVo, and DirecTV with the Genie series of DVR.


Well, this has no practical impact or you or me. Yes, Comcast TV is garbage. But they're the largest pay TV provider (not counting Netflix) in the country. They account for a huge share of TiVo users. So when they eventually switch to IPTV-only, it will essentially be the epitaph on TiVo's retail DVR gravestone.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

pdhenry said:


> But show me the lineup(s) that avoids the HD technology fee.
> 
> Perhaps its just a way to charge $10 above the rate card, but note that if you've never had Comcast HD equipment you might avoid the fee. It's only when you've had and return the equipment (e.g. buy a TiVo) you discover that the fee is "sticky."


The new Xfinity Instant TV (IPTV-only) does not have the HD Technology Fee; HD service is built into this package for no additional charge. The old Limited Basic TV package -- accessed with a Comcast-issued QAM STB -- does not have the HD Technology Fee because that TV package isn't even eligible for HD service (at least in my region).

Once you get into X1, you're dealing with bundled services and heavens only knows what all Comcast is doing there. I imagine that some -- maybe even all -- X1 TV customers get HD service bundled in and do not pay a separate HD Technology Fee.

From what I've read over the years here on TCF, it seems like some CableCARD users are lucky and get HD linear channels on their TiVo without having to pay the fee while others must do so.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

morac said:


> Isn't the X1/X2/etc basically a gateway? I'm pretty sure all the X1 boxes have a built-in cable modem so technically they are "Internet capable" even if the customer isn't paying for Comcast Internet. People who don't pay for HSI simple get blocked from accessing the Internet, but can still get to Comcast's WAN.


Hmm, I don't know. I've only ever set up one X1 box, for a local friend about a year ago. She had both X1 with DVR and lots of channels but also internet service. They sent her both the X1 STB as well as a separate internet gateway.

I don't think X1 TV has ever been offered to non-internet subs -- and I doubt it ever will be -- so I doubt that they would go to the hardware expense of having a built-in modem in the X1 TV STBs. (Now, the Altice One box from Optimum DOES have a built-in cable modem. But that's a whole 'nother company.) But if you have a link showing otherwise, please post it as I'd find it interesting.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> The new Xfinity Instant TV (IPTV-only) does not have the HD Technology Fee; HD service is built into this package for no additional charge.


I'll have to look into Xfinity Instant TV, against the day the Comcast decides to render my TiVos obsolete.


> The old Limited Basic TV package -- accessed with a Comcast-issued QAM STB -- does not have the HD Technology Fee because that TV package isn't even eligible for HD service (at least in my region).


Maybe a TiVo breaks the mold there as well. I had no problem getting HD locals with Limited Basic via a TiVo. The lineup card here includes HD locals in Limited Basic. No doubt, if the included equipment (i.e., whatever STB they give a person on limited basic) isn't HD capable you don't get HD, which again is why I think the HD fee makes more sense as a hardware tier despite Comcast's desire to get it from Cable Card users.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

morac said:


> With the SB8200, I was only getting about 260/11 Mbps. I've been told that the extra 20% doesn't work for D3.1 in some areas for some reason.


I'd be curious what channels/frequencies were in use when trying the SB8200 for DOCSIS 3.1. And if you're doing MoCA.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

krkaufman said:


> I'd be curious what channels/frequencies were in use when trying the SB8200 for DOCSIS 3.1. And if you're doing MoCA.


I do use MoCA. You can see the frequencies in my post over at dsl reports.com.

[Speed] Speeds slower than expected with new SB8200 - Comcast XFINITY | DSLReports Forums

I'll note that Comcast reclaimed a ton of frequencies by doing their super-compressed MPEG-4, so there's plenty of room for D3.1 below 1 Ghz. In my area they seemed to configured it somewhat wrong based on some of the posts in the above link.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> It's not the CableCARD mandate, it's the leveraging that (at least to this layman) appears to constitute an anti-trust violation.


I think there is a perfectly valid anti-trust case on the bundling side, but it's the other way around. There are plenty of TV providers out there. The only case where this would be a real issue that I can think of would be WebPass buildings if people don't have LOS for satellite. In that case, is Comcast basically just saying, "screw you, we don't want to serve you"?

The real anti-trust issue is that Comcast has used their monopoly on broadband to harm consumer choice as well as competitors like DirecTV and DISH by arbitrarily raising the price of standalone broadband as compared to their packages that include TV service. That is a clear violation of US antitrust law.

All this nonsense about HD fees and what package has what or allows what in a bundle is yet another reason the pay tv industry is dying.



NashGuy said:


> Well, switching from QAM to IPTV is about a combination of things: more efficient/better use of bandwidth, offering more channels with better picture quality (including 4K HDR), lowering the cost of CPE (customer premises equipment), and the efficiencies and developmental agility of having a single, unified video platform that serves all devices everywhere based on a common format (IP).


Hah! 4k on Comcast. Yeah right. True, the CPE costs will go down when they eventually get there, although they will have already converted most of their customer base to X1 by then anyway. I'm not sure what the point of a single IP platform is, as they already basically have that with IP fiber backhaul to the headend, and then it gets modulated to QAM in bulk from the IP streams. Further, the whole CBR encoding for cable and making it look like crap thing doesn't gain them anything from an encoding perspective, as mobile has multiple different encodes anyway. It makes no sense to pull TVs down to the level of mobile just to have the same video format (720p) across all devices. It's completely illogical. They should use stat muxes for each region or system with 1080i channel delivery, and have totally separate encodes for mobile.



> Yes, the pressure for the move to full duplex comes from fiber providers, not only Verizon/Frontier FiOS in the northeast but also AT&T Fiber across the south and in CA. Here's an article on the latest from Comcast about this topic: Comcast pushing to make new DAA nodes Full Duplex-capable | FierceCable


They seem to do fine with 250/10 competing against 1000/1000 on FiOS (to be fair it is actually 302/12 against 940/940 but still), and they have horrible VQ on top of that, and somehow clueless customers still pay them for their crappy service. They could just compete on price in those few markets where they actually have widespread competition, imagine that! The people who really want the speed will go to the FTTH provider anyway, even if Comcast has HFC that matches the throughput, as the reliability and latency will always be better on FTTH.



> AFAIK, Comcast and Charter are the only cable co's yet to commit to full duplex D3.1. But then, are there any others that really matter? (Sorry, Cox. As for Altice, they're skipping right over it and going full-on FTTH.)


I'm very skeptical. The costs to remove all the drop amps and totally re-engineer the plants is going to be massive. I don't even think the N+0 stuff will scale in more suburban/exurban/rural areas, due to the line lengths, and necessity to have N+4 amps stacked up to push deep into neighborhoods that are off of the main fiber lines, and then drop amps on top of that. I think Comcast will have a couple of FDX systems up and running within the next year or two, but I am extremely skeptical that it will ever scale system-wide.



> OK, you and I both know that Comcast is best experienced as a dumb, fast internet pipe. But I don't necessarily think that Xfinity Instant TV will be a total flop because of the way that they're packaging and pricing it. Let's say I'm a shiny-faced twentysomething who's just moved to town. <sigh, that was once me...> I can sign up for 25 Mbps broadband for $25/mo. with a one-year contract. Or for an extra $13/mo, I can also get Instant TV: all the major broadcast nets in HD, plus Showtime, Starz, and Cinemax, all with cloud DVR and on-demand! And I can use the Roku and phone I already have for watching! No need to deal with their crappy cable box. None of the vMPVDs can come close to that amount of content/features for $13. Comcast is changing their game so that the "otherwise" cord-cutters that prop up their TV sub numbers will now be on IPTV rather than QAM.


You're exactly right in saying that Comcast is just propping up sub numbers. At some point, they have to stop just propping numbers up because Wall Street will realize that they're losing money on those subscribers, and they should just give up on them. Once they price properly, they will just blend into the rest of the vMVPDs, most of which already run on low margins, and that's basically the end of XFinity Instant TV. The long term trend is that Comcast gets out of the TV business. They'll keep their high-revenue Triple Play customers for now, but there is really no point in them competing long term in the low end of the market. They may as well extort CDNs who want to deliver vMVPD traffic instead, that way they make money twice instead of making it once and then losing some of it.



> Yeah. Though perhaps, instead of completely pulling the plug on QAM a couple years from now, they'll still leave a slice of the current bandwidth on QAM in order to still let folks get Limited Basic TV (local channels plus C-SPAN) in SD only. (This could be helpful in dealing with local governments and the FCC.) That would be around 40 channels in 480i SD (in MPEG-4 in some markets, in MPEG-2 in markets that were never converted). They could cram all that into, what, 1 or 2 6 MHz QAMs?


4 QAMs. I think that they will transition to 100% IPTV with a single QAM left as a "call 1-800-Comcast" beacon left. They will transition in steps, probably moving upper tiers of channels, then the cable channels, then HD locals, then finally SD locals. The only part I don't understand is how they get IP-multicast to work, as it seems that it's all unicast now. I would think on DOCSIS you would need all the modems on the same set of channels to make multicast work, so I don't know what the story is there. If it's all unicast, it may make more sense to leave a few dozen popular channels on QAM, and everything else on IP.



> Well, this has no practical impact or you or me. Yes, Comcast TV is garbage. But they're the largest pay TV provider (not counting Netflix) in the country. They account for a huge share of TiVo users. So when they eventually switch to IPTV-only, it will essentially be the epitaph on TiVo's retail DVR gravestone.


My point is that TiVo is useless in Comcast-only areas now, due to their horrible VQ. It's a completely unwatchable mess. When DirecTV and OTA are your only options, you either go with an OTA TiVo, or the DirecTV Genie.



NashGuy said:


> Hmm, I don't know. I've only ever set up one X1 box, for a local friend about a year ago.


X1 boxes have at least an 8x4 DSG D3.0 modem in them. They use it for IP-VOD, Netflix, guide data, voice control, and other apps and stuff on the boxes. They could, in the future, use MoCA to access faster connections through a gateway. Today, the MoCA is used to stream IP-VOD from the D3.0 modem, or TV channels from the QAM tuners.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> 4 QAMs.


4 QAMs for 40 SD channels in 480i? Umm, no, I don't think so. 480i60 is moving only 18.3% of the pixels per second that 720p60 is moving. So they should be able to stuff about 5 times as many SD as HD channels per QAM. With MPEG4 h.264, aren't they getting about 9 720p channels per QAM? If so, it seems like they could get 45 SD channels per QAM then. With MPEG2, I would think it would take 2 QAMs to carry that same number of channels.



Bigg said:


> I think that they will transition to 100% IPTV with a single QAM left as a "call 1-800-Comcast" beacon left. They will transition in steps, probably moving upper tiers of channels, then the cable channels, then HD locals, then finally SD locals.


Maybe, although I don't really see the logic in stringing out the transition for years by slowly transitioning one tier of channels after another. (I would think they would wait at the very least six months between transitioning each additional tier.) Once you've gotten 80 to 85% of your user base (and virtually all of the profitable ones) on IPTV-ready hardware, why stretch out the transition of the remainder?

I too originally had the thought of leaving a single "call Comcast" beacon QAM left at the end but then realized that they could likely carry the entire Lifeline Basic tier in 480i SD on that single QAM (at least in those markets where all STBs in the field were transitioned over to MPEG-4 h.264). If they're going to indefinitely devote a single QAM to TV after the otherwise wholesale transition to IPTV, they may as well chuck the entire Lifeline Basic tier on it so that they can tell authorities and local broadcasters that they aren't cutting off anyone's TV service with those local must-carry channels.



Bigg said:


> The only part I don't understand is how they get IP-multicast to work, as it seems that it's all unicast now. I would think on DOCSIS you would need all the modems on the same set of channels to make multicast work, so I don't know what the story is there. If it's all unicast, it may make more sense to leave a few dozen popular channels on QAM, and everything else on IP.


Yeah, good question. I do know that Comcast has worked with CableLabs so the current DOCSIS 3.0 modem software stack includes the ability to translate multicast IPTV streams into unicast streams for consumption by clients on the home network. So a Roku accessing Xfinity Instant TV can be served by multicast for linear channels. Right now, Instant TV requires that the subscriber have an Xfinity-supplied internet gateway, which definitely has the multicast-to-unicast capability, in the home. And I'm sure X1 boxes can also can access multicast streams (and perhaps translate them to unicast if necessary for other clients in the home such as Rokus, phones, etc.).



Bigg said:


> X1 boxes have at least an 8x4 DSG D3.0 modem in them. They use it for IP-VOD, Netflix, guide data, voice control, and other apps and stuff on the boxes. They could, in the future, use MoCA to access faster connections through a gateway. Today, the MoCA is used to stream IP-VOD from the D3.0 modem, or TV channels from the QAM tuners.


Odd. I guess they wanted to give themselves the option of deploying X1 in homes without broadband service (although, as I say, I don't think they've ever done that). Or perhaps it's because some X1 households use their own retail modem for broadband and Comcast couldn't guarantee full compatibility of their IPTV services with those modems.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Doesn't matter that there are multiple TV providers around. The anti-trust issue is not the bundling. It's the requirement that if you want their TV service, you must also use their Broadband service.

The post to which I initially responded said that you will need X1 to get Comcast IPTV and that you need Comcast Internet to get X1.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

Here's a thought... if your "cable' company goes IPTV, does that allow a true cable provider to move in? Say my provider, Cox, goes all IPTV; my area would have no "cable" provider. Could Comcast or maybe a new company swoop in and take over? Maybe an entity will see that qam is still desired by people and will always be around. Big question. If a company goes IPTV are you obligated to have broadband service with them??


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> 4 QAMs for 40 SD channels in 480i? Umm, no, I don't think so. 480i60 is moving only 18.3% of the pixels per second that 720p60 is moving. So they should be able to stuff about 5 times as many SD as HD channels per QAM. With MPEG4 h.264, aren't they getting about 9 720p channels per QAM?


Comcast's MPEG-2 SD is between 3 and 4 mbps, so maybe 12 per QAM. MPEG-2 is only half as efficient as MPEG-4, and the compression doesn't scale linearly by the number of pixels. If they really went hog wild with cramming the channels, they might be able to cram 40 into 3 QAMs, but that would be a very tight squeeze. I also don't think they've really invested much in SD encoding in a long time, whereas they have invested a lot into HD encoding, and then have squandered all their technological gains into cramming more and more channels per QAM until the quality was lower than it's ever been.



> Maybe, although I don't really see the logic in stringing out the transition for years by slowly transitioning one tier of channels after another. (I would think they would wait at the very least six months between transitioning each additional tier.) Once you've gotten 80 to 85% of your user base (and virtually all of the profitable ones) on IPTV-ready hardware, why stretch out the transition of the remainder?


They can't replace everyone's box all at once, so the tiered system staggers the swaps, and allows re-use of equipment on lower tiers if they're going to be around for a few years. The biggest bandwidth savings would be the first couple of tiers to convert, where not that many people actually watch the stuff. They could also go the other way, and add new channels on IP-only, leaving existing ones QAM for a period of time.



> I too originally had the thought of leaving a single "call Comcast" beacon QAM left at the end but then realized that they could likely carry the entire Lifeline Basic tier in 480i SD on that single QAM (at least in those markets where all STBs in the field were transitioned over to MPEG-4 h.264). If they're going to indefinitely devote a single QAM to TV after the otherwise wholesale transition to IPTV, they may as well chuck the entire Lifeline Basic tier on it so that they can tell authorities and local broadcasters that they aren't cutting off anyone's TV service with those local must-carry channels.


It's not that easy. I think locals will stay on MPEG-2 QAM for a very long time, because Comcast can just take what the broadcasters send them, put two ATSC-8VSB channels into a QAM, and they're almost done. With OTA broadcasters consolidating and sharing channels to the detriment of the video quality, Comcast can pack 3-4 locals per QAM just by taking 2 8VSB transmissions and re-modulating them into QAM, without having to touch the compression, and they've already got the subchannels bundled in. Then add a single additional QAM with the HD channels downconverted, and now your 12 HD locals have turned into 5 or 6 QAMs total, and they could put the beacon in that SD downconvert QAM. Now that traffic doesn't have to also be transmitted over IP. That's 36mhz on an 860mhz system, not bad. The only real downside is the continuing requirement to have QAM tuners in boxes.



> Yeah, good question. I do know that Comcast has worked with CableLabs so the current DOCSIS 3.0 modem software stack includes the ability to translate multicast IPTV streams into unicast streams for consumption by clients on the home network. So a Roku accessing Xfinity Instant TV can be served by multicast for linear channels. Right now, Instant TV requires that the subscriber have an Xfinity-supplied internet gateway, which definitely has the multicast-to-unicast capability, in the home. And I'm sure X1 boxes can also can access multicast streams (and perhaps translate them to unicast if necessary for other clients in the home such as Rokus, phones, etc.).


The X1 boxes right now have 8x4 DSG. They would have to turn those modems off and go to 24x8+2OFDM on the gateways to have enough bandwidth so that every gateway on the system would be on the same set of multicast channels so that multicasting would actually work. In that scenario, I could see it working, if, say, all the multicasting is done via D3.1, so via a designated set of D3.0 channels that all of the gateways are locked onto. If they go to 32 D3.0 plus 2 OFDM, I believe they can do 200mhz per OFDM block, for a throughput of around 2gbps per block, plus the 32 D3.0 channels, using up a total of 592mhz of downstream bandwidth that all the modems would be locked on to. That would leave 36 QAMs open, either for more internet-only bandwidth that doesn't carry multicast IPTV, or for video.

The advantage of X1 is that it's basically modular, they can add a new gateway that feeds the X1 boxes IPTV via MoCA, and abandon the DSG and QAM tuners in the boxes, and the experience would be effectively seamless to the customer.



> Odd. I guess they wanted to give themselves the option of deploying X1 in homes without broadband service (although, as I say, I don't think they've ever done that). Or perhaps it's because some X1 households use their own retail modem for broadband and Comcast couldn't guarantee full compatibility of their IPTV services with those modems.


It's both. My parents have an XG1 that lives on it's own planet, and can't communicate with their eMTA and router, which I manage. I know someone who has an XG2 and still has a DOCSIS 2 modem. Not all of the gateways are set up to communicate with the X1 boxes via MoCA. I believe some of the in-home or out of home streaming requires this connection, but I'm not sure, as some of it is done in the cloud. It's a very confusing and convoluted system that they've set up. In any case, the X1 boxes have to be able to communicate with the headend on their own. The 8x4 modem isn't really a limitation for IP-VOD, as it's all unicast traffic anyway. I believe they have switched most or all VOD traffic on the XG1, XG2, and Xi-series boxes to MPEG-4 IP-VOD, and are phasing out MPEG-2 QAM VOD, which is what TiVo and legacy Comcast boxes use.

There is no technical reason that would stop them from allowing non-internet subscribers to subscribe to X1, it's a pure business decision. They could block Netflix, YouTube and Sling if you didn't also subscribe to their internet, or not. At first, X1 was only available to Triple Play customers, now it's available to Double Play. The rate card and website in my area are unclear as to what you actually get where, neither make any mention of X1 specifically, even though I know they used to.



lpwcomp said:


> Doesn't matter that there are multiple TV providers around. The anti-trust issue is not the bundling. It's the requirement that if you want their TV service, you must also use their Broadband service.


I suppose, but I think the case for their internet pricing violating antitrust is stronger.



mattyro7878 said:


> Here's a thought... if your "cable' company goes IPTV, does that allow a true cable provider to move in? Say my provider, Cox, goes all IPTV; my area would have no "cable" provider. Could Comcast or maybe a new company swoop in and take over? Maybe an entity will see that qam is still desired by people and will always be around. Big question. If a company goes IPTV are you obligated to have broadband service with them??


You think another company is going to spend millions and millions of dollars overbuilding another company to support a technology that's on it's deathbed because a few people on the internet care about an arcane technological differentiation that 99% of the population doesn't know anything about and doesn't care about? That's completely insane. If anyone were to overbuild anything, it would be 100% IPTV from the get-go, as that's where the technology is doing, to a flat, all-IP network. And it would very likely be FTTH, or at the very least FTTT.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Comcast's MPEG-2 SD is between 3 and 4 mbps, so maybe 12 per QAM. MPEG-2 is only half as efficient as MPEG-4, and the compression doesn't scale linearly by the number of pixels.


Try checking out this video bitrate calculator and compare suggested "H.264 (High Profile)" bitrates for 480i60 vs. 720p60. (You key in selected fields in the darkest bottom rectangle and it provides the calculated total bitrate in the top rectangle.) For 480i60, I used a resolution of 704 x 480 and a framerate of 30. (The calculator assumes that the encoding with be done in progressive scan, where every row of pixels is encoded every frame, and since interlaced 60 fps encodes only half the rows every frame, it's basically equivalent to progressive 30 fps.) For 720p60, I used a resolution of 1280 x 720 and a framerate of 60. The total suggested bitrate for the former is 1397.2 kbps and for the latter is 7042 kbps. So, as I said above, 720p60 needs about five times the bandwidth that 480i60 needs when both are encoded in MPEG-4 H.264.



Bigg said:


> It's not that easy. I think locals will stay on MPEG-2 QAM for a very long time, because Comcast can just take what the broadcasters send them, put two ATSC-8VSB channels into a QAM, and they're almost done.


You don't seem to realize that Comcast FOR YEARS NOW has been taking all those local channels, both HD and SD, and recompressing them into MPEG-4 for IP distribution to their app on mobile devices, and now Rokus. (The new Xfinity Instant TV service uses no MPEG-2 streams, I'm sure.) So it's already being done. It's simple enough for them to distribute those MPEG-4 locals over QAM if they choose to go that route. Just because they haven't for whatever reasons yet done so doesn't mean those reasons would still hold in my scenario where QAM is deprecated to only Lifeline Basic SD service for the least desirable 3% of their customer base. In those markets that made the MPEG-4 transition, like here in Nashville, I see no reason why Comcast would shy away from cramming their entire Lifeline Basic tier in MPEG-4 SD into minimal QAM bandwidth. But that's assuming that the STB transition was fully completed, so that all those QAM STBs in the field are MPEG-4 compatible. If that's not the case, then yeah, they'd need to leave that Lifeline Basic tier in MPEG-2 SD (assuming that they didn't choose to just completely shut down QAM completely).



Bigg said:


> They can't replace everyone's box all at once, so the tiered system staggers the swaps, and allows re-use of equipment on lower tiers if they're going to be around for a few years.


Sure they could. Wait until the portion of STBs in the field to be replaced is under 20% and then force all those to be swapped out over the course of a year, replaced either by a consumer-owned retail device (e.g. Roku) or by a really cheap box that Comcast would get mass-produced just for this purpose. They'd still rent them for the same price as the STBs they replace. Heck, strike a deal with Roku to manufacture an unbranded version of their Roku Express Plus but maybe with an upgraded AC wifi chip in it and a remote that's more suited to cable TV (chan up/down buttons, volume and TV power buttons, etc.). It would run a modified version of the Roku OS that only runs the Xfinity Stream app (and maybe a few other Comcast-vetted apps, like Netflix, that could be launched from within the Xfinity app). There would be no Roku homescreen or app store. The cost for such cheap little boxes would be very low and recouped by Comcast in rental fees in just a few months. (BTW, this is a similar tact that Sky took in the UK for their Roku-manufactured Now TV Smart Stick.)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Try checking out this video bitrate calculator and compare suggested "H.264 (High Profile)" bitrates for 480i60 vs. 720p60. (You key in selected fields in the darkest bottom rectangle and it provides the calculated total bitrate in the top rectangle.) For 480i60, I used a resolution of 704 x 480 and a framerate of 30. (The calculator assumes that the encoding with be done in progressive scan, where every row of pixels is encoded every frame, and since interlaced 60 fps encodes only half the rows every frame, it's basically equivalent to progressive 30 fps.) For 720p60, I used a resolution of 1280 x 720 and a framerate of 60. The total suggested bitrate for the former is 1397.2 kbps and for the latter is 7042 kbps. So, as I said above, 720p60 needs about five times the bandwidth that 480i60 needs when both are encoded in MPEG-4 H.264.


Comcast doesn't use H.264 for SD because the SD boxes don't support it. Their actual bitrates are 3-4mbps for SD video. Comcast also severely over-compresses their 720p, and there are limits to how much you can do that, as you have less to compress out at lower resolutions.



> You don't seem to realize that Comcast FOR YEARS NOW has been taking all those local channels, both HD and SD, and recompressing them into MPEG-4 for IP distribution to their app on mobile devices, and now Rokus.


I am well aware of this fact. However, that doesn't mean it make any sense for QAM. They would still have to carry all the subchannels in SD MPEG-2, so it doesn't really gain anything for a HUGE amount of work. I believe that the streaming stuff is just taking the MPEG-2 feed and re-compressing it somewhere on their network, and ending up with a lousy encode that's good enough for streaming and doesn't necessarily fit in a 9th or 10th of a QAM. To do MPEG-4 for QAM, they would likely have to get a higher bitrate feed from the broadcaster directly to increase encoding efficiency, and then compress it on their own in order to get the bandwidth savings that they want at even a minimal quality level that they use. For all this work, when you consider the SD subchannels, there would be little bandwidth savings versus just taking the MPEG-2 and re-modulating it like they do now. For example, if you had a market with 12 HD locals that today uses 5 QAMs and that includes HD and subchannels, with MPEG-4, after all that work, you'd end up with 4 QAMs. Big whoop-di-doo. Let the broadcasters drop the dough on new stat multi encoders, and take their encoded stream and re-modulate.



> In those markets that made the MPEG-4 transition, like here in Nashville, I see no reason why Comcast would shy away from cramming their entire Lifeline Basic tier in MPEG-4 SD into minimal QAM bandwidth. But that's assuming that the STB transition was fully completed, so that all those QAM STBs in the field are MPEG-4 compatible.


The MPEG-4 transition is for HD only. SD boxes don't do MPEG-4. If they're going to force equipment changes for those customers, they would eliminate SD completely, and just lock the box output to 480i for people who don't pay the HD fee, eliminating SD entirely, and allowing them to encode SD channels that aren't available in HD with MPEG-4. Those boxes would be able to do MPEG-2 HD as well, meaning local channels would no longer need to be simulcast in SD, saving more bandwidth.



> Sure they could.


It's not buying the hardware, that's easy, make a spec, send it to China, and cut a check. It's the truck rolls for stupid people who can't plug in a cable box and the support phone calls and the equipment swaps in offices and such. They have to either stagger by system or by tier, or some combination of the two. They've done it for analog to digital, they've done it for MPEG-4, now they're going to do it again for IPTV. Most customers won't notice a difference, as they will already have X1 equipment.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Comcast doesn't use H.264 for SD because the SD boxes don't support it.


If this is true, you could have simply stopped with this sentence. (The remarks after include a lot of assumptions on your part that I doubt.) As I mentioned at least once above, they probably would choose to leave their Lifeline Basic tier in H.264 SD on QAM *only* if *all* the QAM STBs in the field support H.264. If there are still some out there that do not, as you say is the case, then they would probably choose to leave up that tier in MPEG-2 SD.

I don't know why you're fixated on the current MPEG-2 bitrate they use for SD channels. They may be using 3-4 Mbps now but there's no reason why they should leave it at that. TV providers can and do engage in on-the-fly re-encoding between different bitrates and codecs all the time. It's not that big of a deal. There's no reason at all that Comcast couldn't decide to downgrade the picture quality on MPEG-2 SD to get all the locals to fit into minimal space on a vestigial QAM TV system. (They've already massively downgraded the PQ of their far more important MPEG-4 HD channels!) Remember, in this hypothetical scenario I'm imagining, this is just a way for Comcast to be able to continue transmitting the very lowest form of their pay TV service (Lifeline Basic in SD) to those relatively few subscribers who refused or were unable to swap out their old QAM STB during a year-long transition effort to new IPTV-capable STBs. The point here isn't to offer those few people a quality viewing experience. It's to be able to tell regulators, local authorities, and local broadcasters that their transition to IPTV didn't completely cut anyone off from TV service.



Bigg said:


> It's not buying the hardware, that's easy, make a spec, send it to China, and cut a check. It's the truck rolls for stupid people who can't plug in a cable box and the support phone calls and the equipment swaps in offices and such. They have to either stagger by system or by tier, or some combination of the two. They've done it for analog to digital, they've done it for MPEG-4, now they're going to do it again for IPTV. Most customers won't notice a difference, as they will already have X1 equipment.


And in those past transitions from analog to digital, and then MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, what percentage of customers were affected and had to be transitioned? Pretty close to 100%, I think. As I said above, I wouldn't imagine the final, forced push to transition deployed QAM-only STBs to IPTV STBs would happen until they got down to something like 15 to 20% of customers on QAM-only.

Yes, if you have to transition 100% of your customers over, it makes sense to do it in stages, e.g. 4 successive stages that each target roughly 25% of the customer base. But when you only have 20% of the customer base to target, why break that up into even smaller groups and drag the whole process out needlessly? Comcast has actually been doing the transition from QAM-only to IPTV hardware gradually and continuously for years now, first by getting X1 STBs into customers' homes and now by provisioning service to Rokus (with additional streaming platforms, such as smart TVs, to come). As I sketched out above, it's possible that, through the normal course of things, 75% of Comcast TV homes will be using IPTV-capable hardware by the end of this year. Even if that figure is too optimistic, they could easily hit 80% by the end of 2019, especially if they stopped handing out QAM-only STBs to new subs this year.*

*This is really the next thing to watch with Comcast's transition to IPTV. When they completely stop handing out QAM-only STBs to new customers (or existing customers who need to swap out faulty hardware) and instead hand out only IPTV-capable STBs, we'll know the end of QAM isn't all that far down the road.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> If this is true, you could have simply stopped with this sentence. (The remarks after include a lot of assumptions on your part that I doubt.) As I mentioned at least once above, they probably would choose to leave their Lifeline Basic tier in H.264 SD on QAM *only* if *all* the QAM STBs in the field support H.264. If there are still some out there that do not, as you say is the case, then they would probably choose to leave up that tier in MPEG-2 SD.


What assumptions? I actually know what I am talking about and I have measured the actual bitrates delivered via OTA and Comcast. It makes no sense to have H.264 SD channels, as you could just get rid of the channels at that point, as H.264 boxes support decoding an HD signal. If they replace old SD MPEG-2 boxes, they are going to be replaced with, at a bare minimum, MPEG-4 HD capable boxes that are not IP-capable.



> I don't know why you're fixated on the current MPEG-2 bitrate they use for SD channels. They may be using 3-4 Mbps now but there's no reason why they should leave it at that. TV providers can and do engage in on-the-fly re-encoding between different bitrates and codecs all the time. It's not that big of a deal. There's no reason at all that Comcast couldn't decide to downgrade the picture quality on MPEG-2 SD to get all the locals to fit into minimal space on a vestigial QAM TV system. (They've already massively downgraded the PQ of their far more important MPEG-4 HD channels!) Remember, in this hypothetical scenario I'm imagining, this is just a way for Comcast to be able to continue transmitting the very lowest form of their pay TV service (Lifeline Basic in SD) to those relatively few subscribers who refused or were unable to swap out their old QAM STB during a year-long transition effort to new IPTV-capable STBs. The point here isn't to offer those few people a quality viewing experience. It's to be able to tell regulators, local authorities, and local broadcasters that their transition to IPTV didn't completely cut anyone off from TV service.


I understand what you're saying, but you're not getting 40 SD MPEG-2 channels on a QAM. No way, no how. Maybe you go from 10-12 to 15. Maybe even a couple more, but there is only so far that you can cram. There is no regulatory reason that they need to keep QAM around as long as they have IPTV boxes to roll out. They got rid of Clear QAM a long time ago, which was the only difference that QAM had from IPTV from a user's perspective.



> And in those past transitions from analog to digital, and then MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, what percentage of customers were affected and had to be transitioned? Pretty close to 100%, I think. As I said above, I wouldn't imagine the final, forced push to transition deployed QAM-only STBs to IPTV STBs would happen until they got down to something like 15 to 20% of customers on QAM-only.


They might stagger by system, but either way, it's going to take several years to convert their nationwide footprint over to IPTV, especially considering that the remaining MPEG-2 SD customers are likely technologically clueless and many are likely to require truck rolls.



> Yes, if you have to transition 100% of your customers over, it makes sense to do it in stages, e.g. 4 successive stages that each target roughly 25% of the customer base. But when you only have 20% of the customer base to target, why break that up into even smaller groups and drag the whole process out needlessly? Comcast has actually been doing the transition from QAM-only to IPTV hardware gradually and continuously for years now, first by getting X1 STBs into customers' homes and now by provisioning service to Rokus (with additional streaming platforms, such as smart TVs, to come). As I sketched out above, it's possible that, through the normal course of things, 75% of Comcast TV homes will be using IPTV-capable hardware by the end of this year. Even if that figure is too optimistic, they could easily hit 80% by the end of 2019, especially if they stopped handing out QAM-only STBs to new subs this year.*
> 
> *This is really the next thing to watch with Comcast's transition to IPTV. When they completely stop handing out QAM-only STBs to new customers (or existing customers who need to swap out faulty hardware) and instead hand out only IPTV-capable STBs, we'll know the end of QAM isn't all that far down the road.


Then it will take that much longer to get through all the systems. They could do it that way. I would suspect, however, that they will at least stagger the upper tiers from Limited Basic, as even with IPTV, there is good incentive to keep Limited Basic in QAM for a while, at least until all the kinks are worked out of IP Multicast. And if they want to use IP-multicast, then they have to get new gateways out to virtually all of their customers, which is not a quick process either. At the rate they've been going, I think this might take at least a few more years. I think the first stage might be new channels or packages that are only available via IPTV to X1 customers, maybe international channels or sports packages, running alongside the existing QAM system.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

I was in an XFINITY Store yesterday doing an XFINITY Mobile package and I asked about the INSTANT TV. They told me it was available in my market but NOT AVAILABLE through the store but only 'on line/phone' through sales support. There wasn't anyone familiar with the operation at all. This store has maybe 4 big screens on the wall and they were running NETFLIX promotions on all of them. Likely taking advantage of some 4K streaming. I didn't see anyone that likely knew so I just left with no conversation. I was hoping for someone with some knowledge.

My XFINITY Mobile experience was quite good. A cell phone for me is an 'emergency device' only and it appears to me that 4.25 in monthly fees will give me all the service I need.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I had assumed they'd charge for the first gig of data (~$12) as a matter of principle. What's the $4.25 for? E911 and taxes, I imagine?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> I had assumed they'd charge for the first gig of data (~$12) as a matter of principle. What's the $4.25 for? E911 and taxes, I imagine?


I think you get 100MB shared for free, which would be enough to do some push notifications... maybe.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I think you get 100MB shared for free, which would be enough to do some push notifications... maybe.


You can do way more than a few push notifications on 100 MB. I use Google's Project Fi and only need to use cell data from the towers when I'm not connected to free wifi. Xfinity Mobile works the same way. As a Comcast home internet subscriber, I had access to Comcast's huge network of wifi hotspots, which are of course included as part of Xfinity Mobile too.

Last year, my monthly data usage on my cell phone only averaged 113 MB. Of course, that doesn't include free data I consumed via wifi. So, on Xfinity Mobile, some months I would have only needed to pay the fees and taxes. Some months I would have gone over 100 MB and needed to pay an additional $12 charge for a 1 GB chunk of data.

(Edited for clarity/typos.)


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> What assumptions? I actually know what I am talking about and I have measured the actual bitrates delivered via OTA and Comcast. It makes no sense to have H.264 SD channels, as you could just get rid of the channels at that point, as H.264 boxes support decoding an HD signal. If they replace old SD MPEG-2 boxes, they are going to be replaced with, at a bare minimum, MPEG-4 HD capable boxes that are not IP-capable.


Why on earth would Comcast spend money at this point to replace MPEG-2 QAM-only STBs with MPEG-4 QAM-only STBs? That makes no sense when the end goal is all-IPTV (likely a two-tier system of X1 as the flagship service and Instant TV as the budget option).

As for the idea of H.264 SD channels, that was something I was imaging in a scenario in which Comcast leaves up a minimal QAM TV system -- that would take up as little bandwidth as possible -- to serve legacy subscribers that remain on the Lifeline Basic tier in SD only. Those "bitter clingers" who never give up their old QAM STB in exchange for a newer IP-capable STB. The reason to only give those holdouts SD channels rather than HD channels is because 480i60 requires only about 1/5 the bandwidth that 720p60 does.



Bigg said:


> I understand what you're saying, but you're not getting 40 SD MPEG-2 channels on a QAM. No way, no how. Maybe you go from 10-12 to 15. Maybe even a couple more, but there is only so far that you can cram. There is no regulatory reason that they need to keep QAM around as long as they have IPTV boxes to roll out. They got rid of Clear QAM a long time ago, which was the only difference that QAM had from IPTV from a user's perspective.


Nope, go back and re-read. I never said 40 SD channels in *MPEG-2* on a single QAM. I said that many in *MPEG-4* on a single QAM. If they can get 8 to 10 720p60 channels in MPEG-4 on a QAM (which I've read is what Comcast is doing), they can get 40 480i60 channels in MPEG-4 on a QAM. It's pretty basic math. 720p60 requires roughly 5x the bandwidth that 480i60 does.

As for keeping any amount of QAM TV around, you're right, there's no regulatory reason that they would have to do that. But big corporations also have to try not to raise the hackles of FCC regulators and Congress-critters too much, not to mention all the local authorities which have given Comcast exclusive cable TV franchises and regulate pricing and rules on the Lifeline Basic tier. Comcast may decide that it's in their best interest just to indefinitely keep one or two QAMs devoted to TV, to support a deprecated version of that Lifeline Basic SD service for legacy subscribers until, I don't know, they all die or whatever. Then again, maybe not, maybe they just shut the entire thing down.



Bigg said:


> They might stagger by system, but either way, it's going to take several years to convert their nationwide footprint over to IPTV, especially considering that the remaining MPEG-2 SD customers are likely technologically clueless and many are likely to require truck rolls.


Their entire nationwide footprint already runs IPTV. You can use it right now, anywhere in the Comcast footprint, for their entire channel line-up in HD and SD, VOD and cloud DVR. I've been over this so many times with you, ad nauseum, that it's not even worth rehashing here. Believe what you like.



Bigg said:


> Then it will take that much longer to get through all the systems. They could do it that way. I would suspect, however, that they will at least stagger the upper tiers from Limited Basic, as even with IPTV, there is good incentive to keep Limited Basic in QAM for a while, at least until all the kinks are worked out of IP Multicast. And if they want to use IP-multicast, then they have to get new gateways out to virtually all of their customers, which is not a quick process either. At the rate they've been going, I think this might take at least a few more years. I think the first stage might be new channels or packages that are only available via IPTV to X1 customers, maybe international channels or sports packages, running alongside the existing QAM system.


Lots of Comcast gateways that are already deployed are capable of IP multicast. That capability has been part of the Reference Design Kit for DOCSIS modems (RDK-B) that Comcast developed in conjunction with CableLabs awhile back. And I suspect that all X1 STBs themselves are multicast-capable as well. But, yes, considerations around the use of multicast and the hardware to support that will be involved in determining when QAM is completely dropped.

As far as adding new international channels or other specialty packages, the trend at Comcast seems to be just incorporating that stuff via streaming apps that are added to the X1 platform. They recently added the Sling International app to X1. They've also added ad-free on-demand services from FX (called FX+) and AMC (called AMC Premiere) to X1. I'm not sure if those are just added to the general on-demand platform or if they are discreet apps.

I'm doubtful we're going to see any new linear cable channels debuting on Comcast or anywhere else going forward, other than a few UHD channels, or existing channels rebranding (e.g. Spike becoming Paramount Network).


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

given my new service experiences over the past six months with comcast being unable to deliver a reliable internet connection to my home, i'm thinking they've still got a lot of work to do before any conversion, at least in our market. meanwhile, my tv & tivo haven't skipped a beat.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

NorthAlabama said:


> given my new service experiences over the past six months with comcast being unable to deliver a reliable internet connection to my home, i'm thinking they've still got a lot of work to do before any conversion, at least in our market. meanwhile, my tv & tivo haven't skipped a beat.


It's better they take their time with any conversion and do it right. Remember that old saying "Be careful what you wish for...."


----------



## Davelnlr_ (Jan 13, 2011)

morac said:


> Comcast can also charge their HD fee for HD channels on Roku, which they do. Really there should be regulations preventing Comcast from throwing all these fees on top of their service. Especially considering it allows them a loop hole to increase prices for people under contract.


Especially when they are converting everything to 720p which I really do not consider HD unless your HDTV is a 32" model.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Hmmm one Comcast location reported going all-IP. 

Losing My TiVo Service

Scott


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> You can do way more than a few push notifications on 100 MB. I use Google's Project Fi and only need to use cell data from the towers when I'm not connected to free wifi. Xfinity Mobile works the same way. As a Comcast home internet subscriber, I had access to Comcast's huge network of wifi hotspots, which are of course included as part of Xfinity Mobile too.


I was exaggerating a bit, although personally, I use at least 500MB-1GB, and sometimes a lot more. You'd have to be on WiFi or keep data off most of the time to stay under 100MB. Still, it's a nice gesture for people who basically don't use mobile data so that they don't get charged $12 if they turn it on occasionally, send an email or two, check the traffic, and turn it off again.



NashGuy said:


> Why on earth would Comcast spend money at this point to replace MPEG-2 QAM-only STBs with MPEG-4 QAM-only STBs? That makes no sense when the end goal is all-IPTV (likely a two-tier system of X1 as the flagship service and Instant TV as the budget option).


They absolutely could deploy all X1 if they're willing to deploy X1 for commercial accounts (not sure if they do now), and TV-only accounts. Nothing stopping them from doing this now, they would just have to decide if they want to allow this in their billing system.



> As for the idea of H.264 SD channels, that was something I was imaging in a scenario in which Comcast leaves up a minimal QAM TV system -- that would take up as little bandwidth as possible -- to serve legacy subscribers that remain on the Lifeline Basic tier in SD only. Those "bitter clingers" who never give up their old QAM STB in exchange for a newer IP-capable STB. The reason to only give those holdouts SD channels rather than HD channels is because 480i60 requires only about 1/5 the bandwidth that 720p60 does.


Let me repeat. *SD boxes DO NOT SUPPORT MPEG-4.* No way, no how. They probably could support Limited Basic subs on their aging fleet of DCH and DCT HD-capable MPEG-2 boxes if they kept the locals in MPEG-2 HD as they come OTA, but that's probably more of a support headache than it's worth to re-use some old boxes that are the size of a truck and guzzle electricity. I could imagine a scenario where some of the later MPEG-4 HD non-IP boxes support Limited Basic, even though those channels are actually only MPEG-2. The DCX-series Motorola boxes probably aren't too bad to support as they're a lot newer, so more of them probably still actually work.



> Nope, go back and re-read. I never said 40 SD channels in *MPEG-2* on a single QAM. I said that many in *MPEG-4* on a single QAM. If they can get 8 to 10 720p60 channels in MPEG-4 on a QAM (which I've read is what Comcast is doing), they can get 40 480i60 channels in MPEG-4 on a QAM. It's pretty basic math. 720p60 requires roughly 5x the bandwidth that 480i60 does.


Let me repeat. *SD boxes DO NOT SUPPORT MPEG-4.* Also, compression doesn't scale linearly like that, but refer back to SD boxes not supporting MPEG-4 in the first place.



> As for keeping any amount of QAM TV around, you're right, there's no regulatory reason that they would have to do that. But big corporations also have to try not to raise the hackles of FCC regulators and Congress-critters too much, not to mention all the local authorities which have given Comcast exclusive cable TV franchises and regulate pricing and rules on the Lifeline Basic tier. Comcast may decide that it's in their best interest just to indefinitely keep one or two QAMs devoted to TV, to support a deprecated version of that Lifeline Basic SD service for legacy subscribers until, I don't know, they all die or whatever. Then again, maybe not, maybe they just shut the entire thing down.


There is a legitimate technical and regulatory argument to keep MPEG-2 HD local channels up for everyone for a substantial period of time, as it's really easy to deliver them that way without re-encoding or messing around with anything. If I were Comcast, I'd switch any laggard customers over to HD boxes and nuke the SD channels, freeing up a lot of bandwidth. Then, I'd just lock the box outputs to 480i over HDMI if they don't pay for HD, and reduce support calls for "how do I plug this into my new TV that my granddaughter gave me?" type of calls. There is no regulatory argument against IPTV for SD delivery, they simply have to replace all of the boxes out there with something that's IPTV-capable, probably something like an XiD. The XiD supports channel 3 RF out for people who are stuck 15 years in the past and don't have HDMI on their TV. Regulators don't care if they are using QAM, MPEG-2, or MPEG-4 or HEVC, or whatever, as long as the service gets delivered at whatever price it's regulated at.



> Their entire nationwide footprint already runs IPTV. You can use it right now, anywhere in the Comcast footprint, for their entire channel line-up in HD and SD, VOD and cloud DVR. I've been over this so many times with you, ad nauseum, that it's not even worth rehashing here. Believe what you like.


Read my post. I said that it would take several years to *convert *to IPTV. They can't just pull the plug on QAM tomorrow, because they have millions of boxes that don't support IPTV, and their IPTV infrastructure can't scale up right now to deliver every channel to every X1 box on the last mile, even though every X1 box can receive IPTV on it's own, and I believe they're converted for IP-VOD nationwide, as that saves bandwidth right off the bat, allowing them to reduce the number of VOD QAMs.



> Lots of Comcast gateways that are already deployed are capable of IP multicast. That capability has been part of the Reference Design Kit for DOCSIS modems (RDK-B) that Comcast developed in conjunction with CableLabs awhile back. And I suspect that all X1 STBs themselves are multicast-capable as well. But, yes, considerations around the use of multicast and the hardware to support that will be involved in determining when QAM is completely dropped.


Interesting. They would have to push out more gateways, however. The 8x4 DSG modems in X1 are fine for IP-VOD which is all IP unicast, but there's just not enough aggregate bandwidth to make IP multicast work at scale on a node, at least not with everything on IP. I suppose if they make 8 QAMs just for IP video delivery and nothing else, they could deliver a significant number of channels and VOD streams for the node, but you'd still have to have a dozen or two of the most popular channels on QAM. They might be able to eke it out on small nodes if the local channels are on QAM, and the rest delivered via IP. I don't know how they'll handle MPEG-4 and HEVC as well, since they have some boxes that are capable of both, and others that only do MPEG-4.



> As far as adding new international channels or other specialty packages, the trend at Comcast seems to be just incorporating that stuff via streaming apps that are added to the X1 platform. They recently added the Sling International app to X1. They've also added ad-free on-demand services from FX (called FX+) and AMC (called AMC Premiere) to X1. I'm not sure if those are just added to the general on-demand platform or if they are discreet apps.


That has been historically true, yes, because Comcast screwed up and decided not to use SDV, which allows delivery of all of that stuff via MPEG-2 QAM without running out of bandwidth. However, when they go to IPTV, it opens up a basically unlimited channel capacity, so they could offer all sorts of specialty stuff without a significant bandwidth/capacity penalty.



> I'm doubtful we're going to see any new linear cable channels debuting on Comcast or anywhere else going forward, other than a few UHD channels, or existing channels rebranding (e.g. Spike becoming Paramount Network).


We may or may not. Comcast doesn't seem to care to compete with DirecTV on their HD lineup, where DirecTV just kills Comcast, but at the same time, they might make more channels in sports packages HD, or over time migrate current SD channels that are available in HD over to HD. Or "HD" as Comcast likes to broadcast.



NorthAlabama said:


> given my new service experiences over the past six months with comcast being unable to deliver a reliable internet connection to my home, i'm thinking they've still got a lot of work to do before any conversion, at least in our market. meanwhile, my tv & tivo haven't skipped a beat.


It depends on the neighborhood and market. One thing I can give credit to Comcast for, aside from their horrendous business practices, abuse of monopoly, illegal mafia-esque behaviour towards Netflix, and horrendously poor TV service is that their internet is extremely fast and completely rock-solid. One place I lived had some node congestion, but even at the very worst points, I could still stream 4k with no issues.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Here's another theory. We're way overthinking this. They might just be stalling for a few years until more people cut the cord, and Wall Street wakes up to the profitability problem with low-end TV subs. The pay tv market is shrinking at about 3-4% per year, which is astounding. Comcast is hiding, by my estimation, 1-3 million, probably on the higher end of that range, customers who don't really want TV, but have it because it was cheap/free in a bundle. Once Wall Street realizes that chasing unprofitable subs is bad business, and losing subs can be a good thing, Comcast will end the deals, and those 3 million go POOF! Add to that the continued 3-4% decline in the whole market, and Comcast's extensive efforts to maintain relatively stable the past few years, the excrement is going to hit the rotating blades eventually so to speak, so that's another 1.8 million subs gone by the end of 2020, for a total loss of close to 5 million subs.

Once they've shed 25% of their customers, and a significant number of additional subs have shaved back to Limited Basic in a bundle where they're actually paying for the service, Comcast would make more money with fewer customers, and then it might be easier to transition to IPTV, both from a bandwidth and an equipment perspective, with locals left on QAM for those Limited Basic subs.

In my area they could deliver the entire Limited Basic, including HD MPEG-2 and SD MPEG-2 versions of everything via 8 QAMs.

If they leave Limited Basic on QAM, they could encode the local stuff with HEVC for IP delivery, as all boxes AFAIK have either QAM tuners OR can decode HEVC.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> It depends on the neighborhood and market. One thing I can give credit to Comcast for, aside from their horrendous business practices, abuse of monopoly, illegal mafia-esque behaviour towards Netflix, and horrendously poor TV service is that their internet is extremely fast and completely rock-solid. One place I lived had some node congestion, but even at the very worst points, I could still stream 4k with no issues.


comcast has been a presence in our market for over 30 years, and while tv has been mostly solid (years of trouble following the vod launch), internet reliability has been an issue in two neighborhoods i've lived. this has left me confounded due to the number aerospace, military, tech, and related industries and employees located here.

the good news? competition has increased substantially in the cable market, and fiber is all around. this, in spite of the valid issues you've mentioned, when combined with the premium they charge verses the level of service they deliver, has always left me hoping they will improve. it's been a long wait, and it's ongoing...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> comcast has been a presence in our market for over 30 years, and while tv has been mostly solid (years of trouble following the vod launch), internet reliability has been an issue in two neighborhoods i've lived. this has left me confounded due to the number aerospace, military, tech, and related industries and employees located here.


Yeah, unfortunately, it's an entirely local issue, and it sounds like they are doing a poor job of managing their plant in your area. There is no technical reason that DOCSIS can't be rock solid, extremely fast and reliable. The only major Achilles heel of DOCSIS is that it has powered nodes out in the field, so in an area prone to power outages, it tends to go down whenever there are power issues. It can also depend on what condition your system is in, who they bought it from, and what condition it was in when they bought it.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, unfortunately, it's an entirely local issue, and it sounds like they are doing a poor job of managing their plant in your area. There is no technical reason that DOCSIS can't be rock solid, extremely fast and reliable. The only major Achilles heel of DOCSIS is that it has powered nodes out in the field, so in an area prone to power outages, it tends to go down whenever there are power issues. It can also depend on what condition your system is in, who they bought it from, and what condition it was in when they bought it.


my issues have revolved around account provisioning, noise/line ingress from neighbors, and 3 bad gateways in a row (two with successive mac addresses, what are the odds?).

one tech spent a week working in the neighborhood, isolating and resolving the source of the noise. another tech decided they still needed to replace the line to the home (inside wiring is excellent, and so are all cables). the fourth gateway, shipped new, directly from tennessee, hardware revision c, software revision b, is solid, and now so is the signal. 6 months later. my guess is our local office is purchasing refurb gateways on the cheap, and the vendor isn't flashing the firmware correctly.

did I mention they locked me out of my online account for two weeks once the service was activated at the new address, and it took tier 3 working with backend engineering to restore my online access? that was resolved only after i emailed the vice-president of customer service, then things really started moving along after that. i expressed my concern about being asked to pay a bill I couldn't see, for service that still wasn't working.

i never once asked for a credit, but, fortunately for me, they applied them generously, i'm guessing i've received at least 2 months of free service during this debacle.

so, 6 months into my new internet service, i have a solid reliable connection...until i came home tonight, that is:

https://www.tivocommunity.com/commu...that-annoy-you.468777/page-3561#post-11484384


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NorthAlabama said:


> my issues have revolved around account provisioning, noise/line ingress from neighbors, and 3 bad gateways in a row (two with successive mac addresses, what are the odds?).
> 
> one tech spent a week working in the neighborhood, isolating and resolving the source of the noise. another tech decided they still needed to replace the line to the home (inside wiring is excellent, and so are all cables). the fourth gateway, shipped new, directly from tennessee, hardware revision c, software revision b, is solid, and now so is the signal. 6 months later. my guess is our local office is purchasing refurb gateways on the cheap, and the vendor isn't flashing the firmware correctly.
> 
> ...


Comcast giveth and Comcast taketh away.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> my issues have revolved around account provisioning, noise/line ingress from neighbors, and 3 bad gateways in a row (two with successive mac addresses, what are the odds?).


Oy vey, what a mess. On the other hand, what are you doing using their overpriced crappy gateways?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Oy vey, what a mess. On the other hand, what are you doing using their overpriced crappy gateways?


waiting for the price to drop on amazon, currently any equivalent replacements are in the $250 range (combined gateway or modem+wifi router), plus i may decide to switch to google fiber (no equipment fees), at&t fiber (fees unknown), or wow in 6 months. 

this arris gateway is actually a great performer - tg1682g - my network flies, and so does my connection, it transfers an hour mpg4 file in 3 minutes, mpg2 in 6, and i'm receiving 95%-100% of my purchased speeds, both wifi & ethernet (when the connection works).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> waiting for the price to drop on amazon, currently any equivalent replacements are in the $250 range (combined gateway or modem+wifi router), plus i may decide to switch to google fiber (no equipment fees), at&t fiber (fees unknown), or wow in 6 months.
> 
> this arris gateway is actually a great performer - tg1682g - my network flies, and so does my connection, it transfers an hour mpg4 file in 3 minutes, mpg2 in 6, and i'm receiving 95%-100% of my purchased speeds, both wifi & ethernet (when the connection works).


NOOOOOO! You don't want a combined modem/router!! Having everything separate is far better for upgrades, troubleshooting, equipment failures, you name it! OTOH, with all those options, what are you doing on Comcast, or have the others just not wired your area yet? Comcast would be on the bottom of my list if I had all of those available!


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> NOOOOOO! You don't want a combined modem/router!! Having everything separate is far better for upgrades, troubleshooting, equipment failures, you name it! OTOH, with all those options, what are you doing on Comcast, or have the others just not wired your area yet? Comcast would be on the bottom of my list if I had all of those available!


i know, i know, i would normally agree - tv/vcr/dvd combos, bad...turntable/stereo/cassette combo, bad...all-in-one computer, bad...printer/scanner combo, bad...peanut butter and jelly in the same jar, bad - but, at the moment, i'm enjoying the space savings (and performance).

i was an existing comcast tv customer at the time of the move (remember, tivo), and u-verse didn't provide service at my new address (fiber was being run down my street at the time of the move).

when renting, there's no downside to gateways (as long as the replacement is shipped by comcast, and not picked up locally), and when i ultimately decide on my provider once all fiber options are up and running, i'll make the equipment plunge. i have to say, i'm still not looking forward to replacing 1 device with 3...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> i know, i know, i would normally agree - tv/vcr/dvd combos, bad...turntable/stereo/cassette combo, bad...all-in-one computer, bad...printer/scanner combo, bad...peanut butter and jelly in the same jar, bad - but, at the moment, i'm enjoying the space savings (and performance).
> 
> i was an existing comcast tv customer at the time of the move (remember, tivo), and u-verse didn't provide service at my new address (fiber was being run down my street at the time of the move).
> 
> when renting, there's no downside to gateways (as long as the replacement is shipped by comcast, and not picked up locally), and when i ultimately decide on my provider once all fiber options are up and running, i'll make the equipment plunge. i have to say, i'm still not looking forward to replacing 1 device with 3...


Ah, so it's just temporary. I'd definitely go Google Fiber if you can get it. Do they have the TV service in your market? That is the best of the best, no re-compression at all. Their DVR is lousy, but with the superior VQ it would totally be worth it.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Ah, so it's just temporary. I'd definitely go Google Fiber if you can get it. Do they have the TV service in your market? That is the best of the best, no re-compression at all. Their DVR is lousy, but with the superior VQ it would totally be worth it.


yes, several tv packages with good lineups at my address, but rates aren't very competitive here, they're re-selling our utility company's existing fiber network while building out, so i'm hoping prices become more competitive before i jump.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> yes, several tv packages with good lineups at my address, but rates aren't very competitive here, they're re-selling our utility company's existing fiber network while building out, so i'm hoping prices become more competitive before i jump.


Even if the price is the same, it's a much better service!


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Even if the price is the same, it's a much better service!


aren't very competitive = more expensive than what i'm paying now


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Oy vey, what a mess. On the other hand, what are you doing using their overpriced crappy gateways?


Your hyperbolic and dogmatically derogatory characterizations of Comcast service and equipment undercut any validity there may be to your arguments.

For example, in many different threads you have termed their cable PQ "unwatchable." In fact, while I wholeheartedly agree that it is decidedly less than stellar, unwatchable it is not. I have a SOTA 65" LCD TV (Sony XBR-65Z9D), which tends to magnify the defects in any inferior signal, and yet most of the shows/movies I record on my Roamio Pro via Comcast CableCARD look quite good. Granted, I have a Darbee Darblet in the line which sharpens the image, but the improvement it provides is only subtle. And on my smaller Sony XBR-55HX929 (also using a Darblet), the PQ appears even better. I also have Netflix 4K streaming and play UHD Blu-rays on an Oppo UDP-203, so I know what a gorgeous picture looks like.

I would be the last to sing the praises of Comcast's video quality, but I have long meant to speak out against the FUD you are spreading about just how inferior it is. I would encourage you to temper your criticism if you want to maintain credibility and avoid misleading others. I should also point out that the PQ on our service appeared to improve visibly several months ago, so your impressions may be out of date or based on an atypical sampling. At the very least, you can now assume that your extremely negative characterizations are not universally accurate.

And as far as their gateway is concerned, it is not overpriced (as NorthAlabama points out) depending on the specifics of the customer's situation and his preferences. I have the Technicolor DPC3941T, which I specifically insisted on based on my research when I signed up for the service two years ago, and it has performed admirably for my purposes. And as for price, I pay a grand total of $42 p.m. (including the gateway rental and tax) for 70/6mbps service, which I would consider pretty decent in our market.

If I had known at the time that I would keep the service for more than two years I probably would have bought my own modem/router/gateway, but that's just me. There are a number of factors that go into determining which equipment to use and whether buying or renting is the best option, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. So again, I would encourage you to bear this mind before posting a definitive pronouncement on the subject. You clearly possess a good deal of technical expertise, which makes the misleading nature of some of your posts all the more troublesome and pernicious.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NorthAlabama said:


> waiting for the price to drop on amazon, currently any equivalent replacements are in the $250 range (combined gateway or modem+wifi router), plus i may decide to switch to google fiber (no equipment fees), at&t fiber (fees unknown), or wow in 6 months.
> 
> this arris gateway is actually a great performer - tg1682g - my network flies, and so does my connection, it transfers an hour mpg4 file in 3 minutes, mpg2 in 6, and i'm receiving 95%-100% of my purchased speeds, both wifi & ethernet (when the connection works).


I am in a similar situation. I have been working for the past three years (don't ask ) to get my condominium HOA connected for Google Fiber and thus did not anticipate staying with Comcast's HSI for very long. I priced the equipment I would have bought for myself at between $250 and $300 and--although I vacillated quite a bit and questioned my decision at various points--I have been pleased with the performance of the Technicolor DPC-3941T I have been renting for the past two years (which for me serves as modem, router, AND MoCA bridge). Now that the rental price has gone up $1 p.m., I'm even more torn about continuing to rent but the math doesn't seem work out as far as I am concerned so long as Google Fiber service remains on the near horizon. I know that I could probably recoup some of the purchase price of anything I buy by reselling it on the secondary market, but then I also know that part of the rental fees I pay gets me added Comcast support and guaranteed repair/replacement/upgrades as necessary for their equipment. So there are decidedly trade-offs.



NorthAlabama said:


> i know, i know, i would normally agree - tv/vcr/dvd combos, bad...turntable/stereo/cassette combo, bad...all-in-one computer, bad...printer/scanner combo, bad...peanut butter and jelly in the same jar, bad - but, at the moment, i'm enjoying the space savings (and performance).
> 
> i was an existing comcast tv customer at the time of the move (remember, tivo), and u-verse didn't provide service at my new address (fiber was being run down my street at the time of the move).
> 
> when renting, there's no downside to gateways (as long as the replacement is shipped by comcast, and not picked up locally), and when i ultimately decide on my provider once all fiber options are up and running, i'll make the equipment plunge. i have to say, i'm still not looking forward to replacing 1 device with 3...


That's also a significant consideration for me. The one gateway (as long as it is up to the task at hand) in my limited desk space--in a master bedroom no less, where clutter is most definitely not wife-friendly--is a much easier form factor to accommodate than three separate devices with three power blocks/cords.



NorthAlabama said:


> yes, several tv packages with good lineups at my address, but rates aren't very competitive here, they're re-selling our utility company's existing fiber network while building out, so i'm hoping prices become more competitive before i jump.


If you are referring to Google Fiber's TV prices, I doubt that they will decrease, although anything is possible I suppose. But, in fact, I strongly suspect it will not even be around very long. It is my impression that Google only tacked on the TV service initially to appear more desirable to the bundle subscribers of competing MVSP's and that they are not committed to continuing to provide it for the long haul. In somewhat similar fashion, they quickly ditched the free (guaranteed for seven years!) 5mbps service tier once they had determined that it no longer served their interests.



NorthAlabama said:


> aren't very competitive = more expensive than what i'm paying now


Same here. At $42 p.m. (including gateway rental and taxes) for what is effectively 70/6mbps, I can't do better with Google. I would have to spend $50 p.m. for the 100mbps service tier (albeit somewhat faster, symmetrical, and presumably with better equipment, better wifi and no data cap) or $70 for 1Gbps. Right now, Comcast will give you their $140 p.m. 1Gpbs service for a discounted $70 (guess why), which amounts to $82 if you take their gateway. If I can ever get the ball through the site survey/installation hoops at my HOA, I will probably jump on the Google Fiber service, although by that time Comcast may have duplex HFC gigabit service on line, which could muddy the waters.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> aren't very competitive = more expensive than what i'm paying now


Hmmmm, interesting. Comcast must actually compete in your area, unlike in most places where they don't have to!



chiguy50 said:


> Your hyperbolic and dogmatically derogatory characterizations of Comcast service and equipment undercut any validity there may be to your arguments.


1. Calling their internet "extremely fast and completely rock solid" is not derogatory towards their service, so that comment makes no sense.



Bigg said:


> One thing I can give credit to Comcast for, aside from their horrendous business practices, abuse of monopoly, illegal mafia-esque behaviour towards Netflix, and horrendously poor TV service is that their internet is extremely fast and completely rock-solid. One place I lived had some node congestion, but even at the very worst points, I could still stream 4k with no issues.


2. There is a fundamental problem with carrier provided gateways that makes them garbage. They are fundamentally controlled by the carrier, and all-in-one units are always inherently less upgradeable and you have to throw the whole thing out if one parts of it breaks. With DOCSIS, the only good solution is own and manage your own modem and router. I'd put up with a garbage gateway from AT&T if I had their fiber service, luckily FiOS you can have it all, as you can use your own router on Ethernet with a gigabit fiber service.



chiguy50 said:


> For example, in many different threads you have termed their cable PQ "unwatchable." In fact, while I wholeheartedly agree that it is decidedly less than stellar, unwatchable it is not.


Are you in an MPEG-4 market? You can process the crud out of their MPEG-2 feeds, but the MPEG-4 feeds are total garbage, and they are so blurry, and lack so much detail that they are unwatchable, at least for anything where VQ matters. MSNBC and CNN are fine, they are just talking heads, but try watching basketball or a nature show or something. Total garbage, it's all blurry, you can't see any of the detail in the original picture, and it's jarring to watch the quality snap back and forth from a decent 720p qualtiy on zoomed-in, mostly static images, to a blurry, sub-480p mess when zoomed out with a lot of movement, where their CBR encoding just falls apart due to bit starvation.



> I would be the last to sing the praises of Comcast's video quality, but I have long meant to speak out against the FUD you are spreading about just how inferior it is. I would encourage you to temper your criticism if you want to maintain credibility and avoid misleading others.


I have seen it with my own eyes, and it is total garbage, it's literally worse than watching a good quality SD feed.



> I should also point out that the PQ on our service appeared to improve visibly several months ago, so your impressions may be out of date or based on an atypical sampling.


I see both DirecTV and Comcast on a monthly basis, so I know what looks good and what doesn't. Comcast is a blurry, crappy mess, with muted, washed out colors, while DirecTV looks nice and clear and sharp, colors pop out at you, there are minimal if any compression artifacts, and their stat mux encodes handle high motion very well, even while heavily compressing 6 or 7 channels on a TP.



> And as far as their gateway is concerned, it is not overpriced (as NorthAlabama points out) depending on the specifics of the customer's situation and his preferences.


The gateway alone is $11/mo. Rip-off. You can get an equivalent modem and router for $190, which is a payback of just 17 months, and you can upgrade either portion individually when you want to, or use old routers as switches and/or APs.



> You clearly possess a good deal of technical expertise, which makes the misleading nature of some of your posts all the more troublesome and pernicious.


The only valid argument for renting is if you know you're not going to be somewhere very long. If you're going to be there for a while, there is no good reason to have Comcast's crappy gateway. Go over to DSLReports and try to argue for Comcast's crappy gateway, you'll get blasted hard for it.

EDIT: Clarify quote authors


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> I am in a similar situation. I have been working for the past three years (don't ask ) to get my condominium HOA connected for Google Fiber and thus did not anticipate staying with Comcast's HSI for very long.


That's about the only legitimately reason to keep renting, since it makes no sense to buy if you're getting Google Fiber soon. That sucks that they're taking so long to connect you though.



> That's also a significant consideration for me. The one gateway (as long as it is up to the task at hand) in my limited desk space--in a master bedroom no less, where clutter is most definitely not wife-friendly--is a much easier form factor to accommodate than three separate devices with three power blocks/cords.


That's a pretty lame excuse. I've had modems and routers in living spaces before, and a few velcro cable ties do wonders.



> If you are referring to Google Fiber's TV prices, I doubt that they will decrease, although anything is possible I suppose.


Unfortunately, yes, it will probably be replaced by YTTV ones that matures, although who knows. GFTV is a unique service for not re-compressing, and offering stunning video quality as a result. Even FiOS today has to re-compress virtually everything into MPEG-2, since the master C-Band feeds are pretty much all MPEG-4.



> Same here. At $42 p.m. (including gateway rental and taxes) for what is effectively 70/6mbps, I can't do better with Google. I would have to spend $50 p.m. for the 100mbps service tier (albeit somewhat faster, symmetrical, and presumably with better equipment, better wifi and no data cap) or $70 for 1Gbps.


Holy crap! Here, the equivalent package is $74.95/mo before taxes and fees. GF is still a much better service, as fiber will always have higher reliability and lower latency. There's a convincing argument for cable at whatever that actually is when you subtract the rip-off gateway rental fee, but for $50/mo, cable would have to be almost free to lure me away from a 100mbps symmetrical fiber line. GF is also basically guaranteed bandwidth, since it's WDM-PON, but then again, the heavy users have all self-selected off of Comcast, so Comcast is probably pretty reliable speed wise too.

EDIT: Fix quotes


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Hmmmm, interesting. Comcast must actually compete in your area, unlike in most places where they don't have to!
> 
> 1. Calling their internet "extremely fast and completely rock solid" is not derogatory towards their service, so that comment makes no sense.
> 
> ...


I can sum up by simply saying "There you go again!"


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> I can sum up by simply saying "There you go again!"


I know what I'm talking about, and I have both the facts and data, as well as the first-hand experience to back it all up.


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

Bigg said:


> I know what I'm talking about, and I have both the facts and data, as well as the first-hand experience to back it all up.


All of that in a 'One Night Stay'? I'd have thought it might have required a 2 night stay but then again .............................. I expect you've also a 'Rewards Card'


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> I know what I'm talking about, and I have both the facts and data, as well as the first-hand experience to back it all up.


Your statements of opinion (and blatantly biased ones at that) have nothing to do with facts. I'm sorry that you don't want to acknowledge the difference.

However, I think most of us here can separate the two. I only wished to correct the record for the sake of others who might be misled by your FUD. But then, you are not the only one on the internet spreading misinformation, so have at it if it pleases you. I, for one, will just simply ignore your posts from now on.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> Your statements of opinion (and blatantly biased ones at that) have nothing to do with facts. I'm sorry that you don't want to acknowledge the difference.


What exact statement doesn't have to do with facts? I have the facts and the math to back up everything that I say, whether it is a gateway being a rip-off, or Comcast's MPEG-4 VQ being utterly garbage, it is all quantifiable fact.



> However, I think most of us here can separate the two. I only wished to correct the record for the sake of others who might be misled by your FUD. But then, you are not the only one on the internet spreading misinformation, so have at it if it pleases you. I, for one, will just simply ignore your posts from now on.


There's no record to correct, as I know what I'm talking about on both counts. Unfortunately, Comcast's greed and lack of caring about their video product affects TiVo in a big way, but that's what it is. It's DirecTV or nothing at this point. Given the pay tv market, I choose nothing. People who value pay tv content enough to shell out ~$1400/year for it can get DirecTV and have the best VQ in the industry, at the expense of their TiVo.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

chiguy50 said:


> Your statements of opinion (and blatantly biased ones at that) have nothing to do with facts. I'm sorry that you don't want to acknowledge the difference.
> 
> However, I think most of us here can separate the two. I only wished to correct the record for the sake of others who might be misled by your FUD. But then, you are not the only one on the internet spreading misinformation, so have at it if it pleases you. I, for one, will just simply ignore your posts from now on.


I agree with you. I have Comcast here in the Twin Cities and the picture isn't DVD quality but it's pretty good on our 55" TVs. It certainly isn't crap or unwatchable. Maybe Bigg lives in an area where Comcast sucks but ours sure doesn't. You cant generalize about cable quality being crap and "know what I'm talking about".


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

I believe that I am wasting my time in continuing this discussion since you either can not or (what is more likely in my opinion) do not want to acknowledge the obvious. However, I will make one last rejoinder for the sake of posterity.



Bigg said:


> What exact statement doesn't have to do with facts? I have the facts and the math to back up everything that I say, whether it is a gateway being a rip-off, or Comcast's MPEG-4 VQ being utterly garbage, it is all quantifiable fact.


Your repeated hyperbolic use of such scientifically unquantifiable and overtly subjective terms as "junk," "rip-off," and "garbage" is evidence enough that you are voicing your own biases. If you would take care to clearly identify these statements as opinion I would have no qualms with them, disagree as I might with your extremely derogatory conclusions. But, quite to the contrary, you persist in trying to foist them off as unmitigated fact even in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary such as I have presented.

Again, if you really can not discern the distinction I have illustrated above, then all hope is lost in trying to persuade you to desist. And, sadly for you, this bias discredits anything else you might have to say that could otherwise have merit. (DISCLAIMER: As a retired military intelligence professional, I have something of a penchant for source evaluation.) But my main concern is for the unsuspecting public that might be misled by your disparaging FUD.

Just to recap, I actually and wholeheartedly agree with the premise that Comcast CTV video quality is far from exemplary and, in fact, falls short of my own personal expectations as a critical viewer. But your categorical dismissals are not only inaccurate, they are blatantly misleading and evidence of a lack of concern for truthfulness.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Here's an idea. Let's go away and come back for the two year anniversary of this thread?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mschnebly said:


> I agree with you. I have Comcast here in the Twin Cities and the picture isn't DVD quality but it's pretty good on our 55" TVs. It certainly isn't crap or unwatchable. Maybe Bigg lives in an area where Comcast sucks but ours sure doesn't. You cant generalize about cable quality being crap and "know what I'm talking about".


The MPEG-4 cable channels are encoded nationally and distributed via IP fiber. If you have Comcast's MPEG-4 your picture quality for cable channels is garbage. Period. If you're on MPEG-2 it might be OK, depending on the channel, as those were somewhat regionalized, and inconsistent as to bitrates.

The atrocious MPEG-4 picture quality has been well documented as fact by DSLReports, AVSForum, as well as here on TiVoCommunity.

Local channels can vary by market, as they are often encoded by the broadcaster, not Comcast, and are different for every station in every market.



chiguy50 said:


> Your repeated hyperbolic use of such scientifically unquantifiable and overtly subjective terms as "junk," "rip-off," and "garbage" is evidence enough that you are voicing your own biases. If you would take care to clearly identify these statements as opinion I would have no qualms with them, disagree as I might with your extremely derogatory conclusions. But, quite to the contrary, you persist in trying to foist them off as unmitigated fact even in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary such as I have presented.


This is a web forum, not a technical paper, but everything I've said can be easily quantified in objective, factual terms.

1. What I said: Comcast's VQ is garbage.

In objective terms: Comcast's implementation of MPEG-4 compression uses a bitrate and CBR encoding which is far too low to generate an HD-quality picture, and their conversion to 720p loses over half of the resolution of channels that are broadcast in 1080i. Comcast's use of CBR encoding combined with an extremely low bitrate as compared to competing services causes extensive color banding, a loss of brightness and contrast in the image, and a loss of detail that make the picture functionally equivalent to a sub-DVD quality picture during scenes with motion, and creates widespread compression artifacts.

2. What I said: Comcast's gateway is a rip-off and a piece of crap.

In objective terms: Comcast's gateway is controlled by Comcast, giving the user far fewer options as to how to set up their router and Wi-Fi, is an all-in-one device that does not allow for upgrading either component without upgrading the entire gateway, and over the expected life of a router and modem, costs more than double what buying an equivalent modem and router would cost.

Happy now that I've translated everything into cold, hard, objective facts for your nitpicking? Probably not. But what I say is backed up by objective facts.



> Again, if you really can not discern the distinction I have illustrated above, then all hope is lost in trying to persuade you to desist.


It's just in how you write things. The facts are still the facts, and my conclusions are still 100% correct.



> But my main concern is for the unsuspecting public that might be misled by your disparaging FUD.


That's a load of bovine fecal matter. I am not posting one bit of FUD, Comcast deserves 100% of the criticism that I give it, and no right-minded person would subscribe to Comcast's horrible TV service if they have any alternative to it like DirecTV or FiOS or something else.



> Just to recap, I actually and wholeheartedly agree with the premise that Comcast CTV video quality is far from exemplary and, in fact, falls short of my own personal expectations as a critical viewer. But your categorical dismissals are not only inaccurate, they are blatantly misleading and evidence of a lack of concern for truthfulness.


No, they are not misleading at all. They are the truth. I have seen this with my own two eyes, on a variety of different boxes, both TiVo and X1, and a variety of 1080p and 4k TVs. They look horrible to varying degrees, but it's just a case of bad-worse-worst.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Forum Topic: The Most Popular Comcast Modems


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

Bigg is 100% correct about Comcast's gateway modem/routers. Horrible performance.

I'm a Control4 dealer and whenever there's a network problem Control4's tech support instructs us to put the Comcast router into bridge mode and set up a different router and access point.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

DigitalDawn said:


> Bigg is 100% correct about Comcast's gateway modem/routers. Horrible performance.
> 
> I'm a Control4 dealer and whenever there's a network problem Control4's tech support instructs us to put the Comcast router into bridge mode and set up a different router and access point.


Very interesting. I'd imagine troubleshooting them is a real pain, as you don't have access to nearly as many options as you do with a regular router, you can't upgrade the firmware, you can't not upgrade the firmware, etc, etc.

At least with Comcast you can toss the gateway entirely (probably outside of your scope as the HA/HT dealer, but the Comcast customer can) and get your own modem and router, whereas with AT&T and others, you're often stuck with a pseudo bridge mode.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Very interesting. I'd imagine troubleshooting them is a real pain, as you don't have access to nearly as many options as you do with a regular router, you can't upgrade the firmware, you can't not upgrade the firmware, etc, etc.
> 
> At least with Comcast you can toss the gateway entirely (probably outside of your scope as the HA/HT dealer, but the Comcast customer can) and get your own modem and router, whereas with AT&T and others, you're often stuck with a pseudo bridge mode.


if you need the latest firmware while renting, exchange the gateway at the local office or through the mail - a great way to upgrade to the latest model and newest technology, too. in any case, comcast sends firmware updates to their gateways when needed, and in my experience, that isn't often.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Very interesting. I'd imagine troubleshooting them is a real pain, as you don't have access to nearly as many options as you do with a regular router, you can't upgrade the firmware, you can't not upgrade the firmware, etc, etc.
> 
> At least with Comcast you can toss the gateway entirely (probably outside of your scope as the HA/HT dealer, but the Comcast customer can) and get your own modem and router, whereas with AT&T and others, you're often stuck with a pseudo bridge mode.


I never use Comcast equipment as I think it's a rip-off to use and they don't work as well, but from what I've been told by techs if you use them, Comcast can get a lot more troubleshooting info because they manage them. They can get some info from customer owned modems, but they can get more details from their own gateways. Likewise they can't get any info from TiVo boxes, but can from their own. As such any support call is much more likely to result in a truck roll if you own your own equipment and Comcast no charges for all truck rolls unless it's proven the problem comes from something outside the home (and sometimes they incorrectly charge you anyway).


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I've had a couple of truck rolls that were due to external issues (wire from the pole to the house). The techs have been great - after they fixed the external problems they made sure everything inside the house was up to snuff. The only Comcast equipment I have is CableCards in the TiVos.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Unfortunately, yes, it will probably be replaced by YTTV ones that matures, although who knows. GFTV is a unique service for not re-compressing, and offering stunning video quality as a result. Even FiOS today has to re-compress virtually everything into MPEG-2, since the master C-Band feeds are pretty much all MPEG-4.


In new markets where Google Fiber is rolling out, including Louisville and San Antonio, they're not evening offering Google Fiber TV. Instead, they're offering a deal for a free Nvidia Shield Android TV box if you sign up for YouTube TV, their new OTT live TV service. Google sees the same thing that AT&T does: managed IPTV is outdated. The future is OTT. (Which is why my local AT&T installer told me that they will cease offering Uverse TV this year; I'm sure it will be replaced by their forthcoming new OTT service AT&T TV, which will be a more upscale version of DirecTV Now.)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

morac said:


> I never use Comcast equipment as I think it's a rip-off to use and they don't work as well, but from what I've been told by techs if you use them, Comcast can get a lot more troubleshooting info because they manage them. They can get some info from customer owned modems, but they can get more details from their own gateways. Likewise they can't get any info from TiVo boxes, but can from their own. As such any support call is much more likely to result in a truck roll if you own your own equipment and Comcast no charges for all truck rolls unless it's proven the problem comes from something outside the home (and sometimes they incorrectly charge you anyway).


Yeah, I've kind of been down that road. Got railroaded into renting a Comcast modem for a few months (UGH) because my modem was getting like 0.5mbps. I ended up buying another one, come to find out a year later, Comcast bungled a firmware update and broke it. UGH.

That being said, they should be able to troubleshoot a user owned modem or TiVo just fine, but specifically with TiVo, their staff is poorly trained to do it.



NashGuy said:


> In new markets where Google Fiber is rolling out, including Louisville and San Antonio, they're not evening offering Google Fiber TV.






> (Which is why my local AT&T installer told me that they will cease offering Uverse TV this year; I'm sure it will be replaced by their forthcoming new OTT service AT&T TV, which will be a more upscale version of DirecTV Now.)


I'm skeptical. DirecTV NOW is nowhere near a managed IPTV replacement. If they get rid of U-Verse, they will shed at least a million or two decent quality pay-tv customers.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I'm skeptical. DirecTV NOW is nowhere near a managed IPTV replacement. If they get rid of U-Verse, they will shed at least a million or two decent quality pay-tv customers.


I'm on the DTV Now beta app on Apple TV. They're still working out bugs in the cloud DVR but the rest of the service has been very solid lately with great HD picture quality, quite possibly better than DTV satellite. Lots of 1080p60 channels, and now they're rolling out 5.1 audio. The UX definitely beats Uverse TV, which I had a few years ago.

When they unveil AT&T TV (the likely name of the upcoming OTT service), which will ride over the same underlying platform as DTV Now, but will be accessed through AT&T-issued thin client 4K HDR STBs (powered by a custom version of Android TV) with Google Assistant voice remotes, I'm pretty sure it will be seen as an upgrade to Uverse TV. And, whereas Uverse TV is restricted to AT&T Internet and AT&T Fiber customers, AT&T TV will be available to customers nationwide regardless of their ISP. Their total number of pay TV subs won't go down, it will go up.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

DigitalDawn said:


> Bigg is 100% correct about Comcast's gateway modem/routers. Horrible performance.
> 
> I'm a Control4 dealer and whenever there's a network problem Control4's tech support instructs us to put the Comcast router into bridge mode and set up a different router and access point.


Could you provide any more details about the performance defects of specific products? It might help others here who have or are contemplating getting the equipment.

I myself am particularly curious about the new (XB6) Technicolor CGM4140COM DOCSIS3.1 gateway, which looks promising but for which I have seen very little feedback.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I'm on the DTV Now beta app on Apple TV. They're still working out bugs in the cloud DVR but the rest of the service has been very solid lately with great HD picture quality, quite possibly better than DTV satellite. Lots of 1080p60 channels, and now they're rolling out 5.1 audio. The UX definitely beats Uverse TV, which I had a few years ago.


How are they on the channel lineup? It seems like they are still patching that up, and is the cloud DVR as responsive as a local DVR?



> Their total number of pay TV subs won't go down, it will go up.


They may well steal part of a shrinking market from cable companies, but their ARPU and margins will tank compared to DBS. The ARPU across AT&T, which is mostly driven by DBS, is $118/mo, and D*'s margins are like 50%. DTV NOW is like $50/mo if that, and they are lucky to have strong single-digit margins.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> How are they on the channel lineup? It seems like they are still patching that up, and is the cloud DVR as responsive as a local DVR?


The channel line-ups are good for DTV Now. I'd say they offer the best well-rounded packages of any of the vMVPDs, especially at the entry $35 level.

In my experience, the cloud DVR is about as responsive as a local DVR for the first couple of clicks, but when you hit jump back/forward multiple times in a row, it starts bogging down and gets sluggish. But that said, it's still in beta and my experience (in multiple ways) seems to be worse than some other beta testers. So it's hard to say who the final product will behave.



Bigg said:


> They may well steal part of a shrinking market from cable companies, but their ARPU and margins will tank compared to DBS. The ARPU across AT&T, which is mostly driven by DBS, is $118/mo, and D*'s margins are like 50%. DTV NOW is like $50/mo if that, and they are lucky to have strong single-digit margins.


Couple of things to explain here: First, AT&T knows that their traditional pay TV base (DTV sat + Uverse TV) is eroding due to various factors. They see this is an industry-wide transition and they plan to try and manage, to be a part of, that transition. Are you going to just stand back and let your legacy TV business get disrupted or will you be part of the disruption? AT&T is opting for the latter.

Second, AT&T's plans for TV isn't just DTV Now, which is a low-margin, aimed at cord-cutters, pre-paid, contract-free, BYOD service. Later this year, they plan to roll out a new service (likely branded as AT&T TV), which will use the same underlying cloud-based OTT platform that they are still beta testing for DTV Now. But AT&T TV will be marketed differently. It will be presented as a successor/replacement for both Uverse TV (which will cease to be offered) as well as DTV satellite (which will continue to be offered for years). I expect pricing, as well as the feature set (better cloud DVR, 4K HDR, NFL Sunday Ticket, etc.), will be positioned higher for AT&T TV than for DTV Now. And AT&T TV won't be a BYOD service. It will run through sleek new STBs with full-sized voice remotes that are designed for use with regular pay TV (i.e. chan up/down buttons, TV volume and power, etc.). The experience of using AT&T TV will appeal more to those folks who are used to traditional pay TV as opposed to OTT apps with a dinky Roku remote. (And keep in mind that traditional pay TV still serves a ton of Americans -- MVPDs still have way more subs than vMVPDs or even Netflix.) While the pricing may be lower for AT&T TV than for DTV sat or Uverse TV, margins will be preserved, to an extent anyway, because it will be cheap to add new subs (self-install kit that's as easy as setting up a Roku) and because it will make use of more lucrative targeted ads, especially on the new Time Warner nets that AT&T will likely soon own. Meanwhile, the potential customer base for AT&T will be much larger: any house with high-speed internet. Uverse TV was only ever available in the AT&T wireline footprint and DTV sat can only work for folks who can (or are willing) to erect a dish. I'm sure they'll offer bundles that pair AT&T TV with AT&T Fiber/Internet too.

So AT&T TV will likely have lower margins than DTV sat or Uverse TV, but AT&T realizes that the industry is changing and margins must come down to retain customers. But it should have higher margins than DTV Now. They see DTV Now as analogous to their low-end Cricket Wireless brand; AT&T TV will be analogous to their flagship AT&T Wireless brand (which is apparent in the naming scheme). BTW, I'm not making all this up, it's based on multiple comments by the AT&T CEO as well as docs files with the FCC.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I'm on the DTV Now beta app on Apple TV. They're still working out bugs in the cloud DVR but the rest of the service has been very solid lately with great HD picture quality, quite possibly better than DTV satellite. Lots of 1080p60 channels, and now they're rolling out 5.1 audio. The UX definitely beats Uverse TV, which I had a few years ago.


Wow, the interface for UVerse must have been truly horrible. The DirecTV Now (even in Beta) is still too stupid to work for hundreds of channels.



NashGuy said:


> Second, AT&T's plans for TV isn't just DTV Now, which is a low-margin, aimed at cord-cutters, pre-paid, contract-free, BYOD service. Later this year, they plan to roll out a new service (likely branded as AT&T TV), which will use the same underlying cloud-based OTT platform that they are still beta testing for DTV Now. But AT&T TV will be marketed differently. It will be presented as a successor/replacement for both Uverse TV (which will cease to be offered) as well as DTV satellite (which will continue to be offered for years). I expect pricing, as well as the feature set (better cloud DVR, 4K HDR, NFL Sunday Ticket, etc.), will be positioned higher for AT&T TV than for DTV Now. And AT&T TV won't be a BYOD service. It will run through sleek new STBs with full-sized voice remotes that are designed for use with regular pay TV (i.e. chan up/down buttons, TV volume and power, etc.). The experience of using AT&T TV will appeal more to those folks who are used to traditional pay TV as opposed to OTT apps with a dinky Roku remote. (And keep in mind that traditional pay TV still serves a ton of Americans -- MVPDs still have way more subs than vMVPDs or even Netflix.)


Now, THAT is where they have to go and should go. The streaming solutions, including DTV Now, are too dinky to really replace the heavy lifting of cable and DBS today.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> In my experience, the cloud DVR is about as responsive as a local DVR for the first couple of clicks, but when you hit jump back/forward multiple times in a row, it starts bogging down and gets sluggish.


Yeah, I'm skeptical it will ever be as good as a local DVR where you can button mash several buttons a second without a penalty.



> Couple of things to explain here: First, AT&T knows that their traditional pay TV base (DTV sat + Uverse TV) is eroding due to various factors. They see this is an industry-wide transition and they plan to try and manage, to be a part of, that transition. Are you going to just stand back and let your legacy TV business get disrupted or will you be part of the disruption? AT&T is opting for the latter.


I think AT&T is smart to be doing DTV Now, but I'm not convinced that it can, should, or will replace either U-Verse or DBS, but it can, and should, cannibalize at least part of the customer base of each, otherwise another company will come and take the customers. That's the Apple rule. Never be afraid to self-cannibalize.



> Later this year, they plan to roll out a new service (likely branded as AT&T TV), which will use the same underlying cloud-based OTT platform that they are still beta testing for DTV Now.


I'm not convinced that can scale up to really replace DBS and managed IPTV in a lot of high-usage households. It also simply cannot replace DBS, as DBS reaches a lot of places that have too many TVs or not enough bandwidth to stream over the internet.

I guess I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see U-Verse TV morph into this new system, with new boxes, packages, and a new interface, but for legal and technical reasons, it would need to be offered as a managed IP multicast system to replace U-Verse TV. DirecTV isn't going anywhere, as rural, hospitality, and commercial markets rely on satellite, and satellite is by far the most efficient way to distribute video nationwide to millions of TVs at once.



> Uverse TV was only ever available in the AT&T wireline footprint and DTV sat can only work for folks who can (or are willing) to erect a dish. I'm sure they'll offer bundles that pair AT&T TV with AT&T Fiber/Internet too.


I'm not sure how that's different from DirecTV NOW at that point, other than having it's own branded box to replace a Roku. It seems sort of redundant. The same can be said about DirecTV, in that lots of places don't have the broadband required to deliver streaming IPTV.



> They see DTV Now as analogous to their low-end Cricket Wireless brand; AT&T TV will be analogous to their flagship AT&T Wireless brand (which is apparent in the naming scheme). BTW, I'm not making all this up, it's based on multiple comments by the AT&T CEO as well as docs files with the FCC.


That's an interesting thought. But I'm wondering if they want their new AT&T TV service to be managed IPTV, and partner with small providers who don't want to do their own TV anymore, as well as offer it on their own wireline footprint. I could see small local and regional cable companies giving up on TV and using a rebranded AT&T TV, similar to what Layer3 is doing.

It's interesting to see all these companies scrambling to get an ever-shrinking market. I think by 2030 at the latest, less than 50% of US households will subscribe to any pay TV service, including vMVPD/CoIP types of services. I think by that point, most providers will simply give up on TV, and everything will be OTT for the remaining households that want it, the exception being DirecTV and DISH, which will be around basically forever.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I guess I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see U-Verse TV morph into this new system, with new boxes, packages, and a new interface, but for legal and technical reasons, it would need to be offered as a managed IP multicast system to replace U-Verse TV. DirecTV isn't going anywhere, as rural, hospitality, and commercial markets rely on satellite, and satellite is by far the most efficient way to distribute video nationwide to millions of TVs at once.
> 
> That's an interesting thought. But I'm wondering if they want their new AT&T TV service to be managed IPTV, and partner with small providers who don't want to do their own TV anymore, as well as offer it on their own wireline footprint. I could see small local and regional cable companies giving up on TV and using a rebranded AT&T TV, similar to what Layer3 is doing.


Nope. Get managed IPTV out of your head. AT&T has stated that it's the past. OTT is the future. There are no "legal and technical reasons" why the upcoming service ("AT&T TV" or whatever) must be managed IPTV. (I'm sure when AT&T began offering Uverse TV, they didn't sign any contracts with local authorities saying that they were required to offer it forever.) When I say that it will replace Uverse TV, what I mean is that they'll just let Uverse TV die by ceasing to allow new sign-ups later this year (and then, maybe a year later, completely cut off the service). At about the same time as new Uverse TV sign-ups cease, they'll begin offering a new TV service, AT&T TV. In terms of legal contracts, it won't be a "replacement" or any kind of continuance of Uverse TV. But in terms of how it's marketed, yes, it will fill the role that Uverse TV used to fill (a pay TV service that comes with STBs and can be bundled at a discount on the same bill as your AT&T home internet and phone). As long as it's legally allowed, I'm sure AT&T will zero-rate the data used for AT&T TV if you're an AT&T Internet/Fiber customer, and they'll prioritize the video data as well to ensure a UX that's just as good as managed IPTV.

But AT&T TV will be more than just something to fill the hole where Uverse TV used to be, because, since it will be OTT, it can be offered nationwide. You're right that DTV satellite isn't going away soon because there will continue to be folks, especially rural dwellers, who don't have access to fast internet with high/no data caps. But that's gradually changing, just like the number of rural Americans who didn't have electricity in the first half of the 20th century eventually dwindled to nearly zero. So while there will still be folks who cling to their rooftop dishes, AT&T will work to move as many as possible over to OTT via advertising, better pricing and incentives. Once AT&T TV launches, I wouldn't expect to see much marketing effort put behind DTV satellite any more.

And, yes, I could definitely see smaller ISPs (whether DSL/fiber telcos or cable) partnering up to offer AT&T TV as a service bundled with their own broadband. Because it will be OTT, it's very simple to do. We're already seeing CenturyLink moving in this direction. They just recently stated that their managed IPTV, Prism TV, is now deprecated; if a customer proactively asks for it, they'll offer it, but they're not marketing it any more. For maybe a year they tried out an OTT service (similar to DTV Now) that they thought might replace Prism TV but that's ending this month. Meanwhile, they're offering to bundle DTV satellite. They just don't want to fool with pay TV any more, so something like AT&T TV would be a natural for them. Why try to sell customers on a bundle that requires a clunky rooftop dish when they could offer a service that runs over their broadband connection and can be easily self-installed?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> Wow, the interface for UVerse must have been truly horrible. The DirecTV Now (even in Beta) is still too stupid to work for hundreds of channels.


How do you mean? I don't have hundreds of channels in my TV package. Maybe 60? But, at any rate, I can scroll through the guide way faster than on any STB I've used before (e.g. Uverse TV, DTV Genie, TiVo). DTV Now (like all these new vMPVDs) doesn't have channel numbers. It doesn't make sense since retail streaming boxes don't have remotes with 0-9 keypads. Although I'd bet that the upcoming AT&T TV _will_ have channel numbers because some of the DTV Now beta testers awhile back saw channel numbers mysteriously appear in their guide for a short while. Remember, the tech platform for DTV Now will also power the upcoming AT&T TV; they're using DTV Now subs as beta guinea pigs to get the tech all ironed out before eventually using it to power AT&T TV.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> How do you mean? I don't have hundreds of channels in my TV package. Maybe 60? But, at any rate, I can scroll through the guide way faster than on any STB I've used before (e.g. Uverse TV, DTV Genie, TiVo). DTV Now (like all these new vMPVDs) doesn't have channel numbers. It doesn't make sense since retail streaming boxes don't have remotes with 0-9 keypads. Although I'd bet that the upcoming AT&T TV _will_ have channel numbers because some of the DTV Now beta testers awhile back saw channel numbers mysteriously appear in their guide for a short while. Remember, the tech platform for DTV Now will also power the upcoming AT&T TV; they're using DTV Now subs as beta guinea pigs to get the tech all ironed out before eventually using it to power AT&T TV.


I have hundreds on Fios and had hundreds on DirecTV satellite. Now doesn't have them but it is still cumbersome to change channels without things like direct entry and back buttons. Forced scrolling is not the best way to get to channels in a guide.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> I have hundreds on Fios and had hundreds on DirecTV satellite. Now doesn't have them but it is still cumbersome to change channels without things like direct entry and back buttons. Forced scrolling is not the best way to get to channels in a guide.


I agree that having a button on the remote to toggle back and forth to the last channel would be nice. That's one of the shortcomings of using an app made for a retail streaming device with a simple remote instead of a traditional provider-issued STB with a standard pay TV remote. That's one of the things that could be remedied, though, when AT&T TV rolls out and uses a STB like this:
DirecTV to Launch Android TV-Based OTT Set-Top Box (EXCLUSIVE)

That said, the DTV Now beta app on Apple TV does provide a way to quickly jump to your recently viewed channels. Click the Menu button on the remote and up comes the UI displaying whatever it had up when you last left it. If you're on the Watch Now tab, there on the top row of content is your current channel followed to the right by the last several channels you watched. So it's pretty quick and easy to see what's now playing on your favorite few channels and quickly switch between them. But, yeah, it's not as quick as pressing a single button on the remote to toggle back and forth between just the last two channels.

Assuming Apple allows it, I would think that the DTV Now app will eventually make use of the voice input function on the Apple TV remote so that you can just say the name of the channel to switch directly to it. And frankly, that would beat remembering multi-digit channel numbers and keying them in.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Nope. Get managed IPTV out of your head. AT&T has stated that it's the past. OTT is the future.


If they are that bull-headed about getting rid of U-Verse TV, they will shed a million or two customers above and beyond what cord cutting is doing. It's not going to be the same lineup as U-Verse, and it's not going to be the same quality service (although the raw VQ might actually be better).



> So while there will still be folks who cling to their rooftop dishes, AT&T will work to move as many as possible over to OTT via advertising, better pricing and incentives. Once AT&T TV launches, I wouldn't expect to see much marketing effort put behind DTV satellite any more.


Now you're really off the deep end. I could see AT&T pulling people away from U-Verse with OTT, and 5 years down the road letting U-Verse implode if it's too expensive to support, and just let the remaining customers go to cable if they're not really profitable anymore, even though it would be a big subscriber loss. However, DirecTV is definitely not going anywhere in this decade, the next decade, or really, the decade after that. DirecTV is immensely efficient for delivering a lot of high quality video. Further, they just moved several millions customers from U-Verse to DirecTV, and a lot of them are on copper VDSL lines that don't have the bandwidth for faster internet and IPTV, and certainly not for 4k TV if that ever becomes more than a tech demo.

Considering that OTA is still useful for video delivery, I'd expect DirecTV to still be around in 50 years. It might be a niche service for a few off-grid locations, commercial installations, and yachts and RVs, but it will still be around in some form for a very, very long time.

That being said, I would expect DirecTV's future 10-15 years down the road to be 5M subs, not 20M. It may mostly die off in suburban residential applications, but DBS is still immensely useful in commercial, hospitality, and rural areas. Think about every hotel, bar, restaurant, airport, etc with DirecTV, and then think about rural areas where broadband might be fixed wireless or DSL that doesn't have the bandwidth or capacity to support streaming video, or might not be reliable enough to use for that, while DirecTV can work when the grid is down, as long as people have a backup generator, or, in the future, areas with unreliable utilities may have more solar/battery backup too.



> And, yes, I could definitely see smaller ISPs (whether DSL/fiber telcos or cable) partnering up to offer AT&T TV as a service bundled with their own broadband.


Yeah, I think AT&T will be going this direction, as they have done it before with DirecTV on AT&T, DirecTV on Verizon, and others, like you mention Centurylink.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> If they are that bull-headed about getting rid of U-Verse TV, they will shed a million or two customers above and beyond what cord cutting is doing. It's not going to be the same lineup as U-Verse, and it's not going to be the same quality service (although the raw VQ might actually be better).
> 
> Now you're really off the deep end. I could see AT&T pulling people away from U-Verse with OTT, and 5 years down the road letting U-Verse implode if it's too expensive to support, and just let the remaining customers go to cable if they're not really profitable anymore, even though it would be a big subscriber loss. However, DirecTV is definitely not going anywhere in this decade, the next decade, or really, the decade after that.


You have no idea what the channel line-up will be for their forthcoming OTT service (possibly named AT&T TV) or how it will compare to Uverse TV (or to DTV Now, for that matter). And what's so magical about Uverse TV's line-up? I had it. Once you throw out the SD-only stuff, non-English-language channels, junk/shopping channels, etc., it's about the same line-up that's already available on DTV Now, but packaged and priced differently.

Nor do you know what the service quality of AT&T TV will be like. As someone who's had both Uverse TV and is beta testing DTV Now, I think I'm in a better position to judge that than you. And I would expect AT&T TV to be a better overall UX than DTV Now, given that it will be optimized for use on AT&T's own STBs. The Uverse DVR was OK but, IIRC, not as well designed as the DTV Genie.

I have consistently claimed that DTV satellite will be around for years to come, as it takes a long time to transition millions of users off a deprecated technology. And, as I said, there will continue be to rural customers (although fewer and fewer of them) who can't get the sort of internet service that would allow them to switch to OTT TV. But that doesn't mean that AT&T will continue to actively advertise DirecTV satellite service nationwide and still position it as their flagship TV service. No, as the name implies, AT&T TV will become their flagship TV service. Satellite TV already has the whiff of last-century tech for old folks living in Trump country. That market perception will only increase as AT&T demotes it to their second-string position.

AT&T Said to Plan Web Streaming as Primary TV Platform by 2020

Let's stick a pin in this and circle back in a year or so. I'll be sure to remember both of our predictions. We'll see what happens...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> You have no idea what the channel line-up will be for their forthcoming OTT service (possibly named AT&T TV) or how it will compare to Uverse TV (or to DTV Now, for that matter). And what's so magical about Uverse TV's line-up? I had it. Once you throw out the SD-only stuff, non-English-language channels, junk/shopping channels, etc., it's about the same line-up that's already available on DTV Now, but packaged and priced differently.


They're still ironing out contracts for DTV NOW, which will take years, as streaming is considered different from managed IPTV, as stupid as that is. I also don't see certain local content like diginets and PEG channels that have traditionally been on cable.



> Nor do you know what the service quality of AT&T TV will be like. As someone who's had both Uverse TV and is beta testing DTV Now, I think I'm in a better position to judge that than you. And I would expect AT&T TV to be a better overall UX than DTV Now, given that it will be optimized for use on AT&T's own STBs. The Uverse DVR was OK but, IIRC, not as well designed as the DTV Genie.


Unmanaged IPTV is never going to be as good as managed IPTV.



> I have consistently claimed that DTV satellite will be around for years to come, as it takes a long time to transition millions of users off a deprecated technology. And, as I said, there will continue be to rural customers (although fewer and fewer of them) who can't get the sort of internet service that would allow them to switch to OTT TV. But that doesn't mean that AT&T will continue to actively advertise DirecTV satellite service nationwide and still position it as their flagship TV service. No, as the name implies, AT&T TV will become their flagship TV service. Satellite TV already has the whiff of last-century tech for old folks living in Trump country. That market perception will only increase as AT&T demotes it to their second-string position.


I have no doubt that they will back way off advertising for the consumer market, but I think they will continue to be aggressive in the commercial and hospitality markets, and it will continue to be a cash cow for them. It's not an outdated or obsolete technology, and may have one last hurrah if 4k linear channels end up being a thing, as right now, DirecTV is the only method to deliver 4k live content at scale.



> Let's stick a pin in this and circle back in a year or so. I'll be sure to remember both of our predictions. We'll see what happens...


I don't doubt that they are going to push AT&T TV hard. They want as much of a shrinking market as possible. However, DirecTV will still be strong, U-Verse will hang on for a while until they decide to just cut their losses there and dump subs to cable. However, I predict that by 2030, less than half of all households will have any sort of linear pay tv at all, so all of this won't be that relevant.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Unmanaged IPTV is never going to be as good as managed IPTV.


'Zat so? I'm sure if we looked back at posts on message boards such as this from several years ago, we'd see naysayers' posts claiming that Netflix's nascent venture into streaming video would never work out either. Nope, DVDs by mail forever!


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Wow, the interface for UVerse must have been truly horrible. The DirecTV Now (even in Beta) is still too stupid to work for hundreds of channels.
> 
> Now, THAT is where they have to go and should go. The streaming solutions, including DTV Now, are too dinky to really replace the heavy lifting of cable and DBS today.


U-verse wasn't that bad, their boxes worked well, my parents had it at their old house and I tried to get where I lived but I'm in a DSL only neighborhood. Eventually I switched to TWC Spectrum for internet for faster than DSL speeds.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

I have a neighbor who actually works for Direct TV and he nor I can put up dishes on the roof of our rental building. The building's down the way have a lot of dishes rising from their balconies. I've been using OTA Tivo's and Direct TV Now and Sling TV ( I got in on the ground floor on both services and have been in both Beta dvr's). When ATT gets an IP equivalent running of Direct TV I'm up for it. 
Not that I'm giving the Tivo up, still handy for stacking up shows for later, consistent 5.1 sound for the major networks and the dvr is 60fps, OTT offerings that are 60 fps on channels don't always offer that with their cloud DVR's, watch a hockey game at 30fps and you will go crazy...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> 'Zat so? I'm sure if we looked back at posts on message boards such as this from several years ago, we'd see naysayers' posts claiming that Netflix's nascent venture into streaming video would never work out either. Nope, DVDs by mail forever!


Fundamentally, it can't be as good. I guess the question is, does it get to a point where it's "good enough" for the right price?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Well, this thread I started a long time ago has lain dormant for awhile now (after meandering off-topic, as we tend to do here at TCF). *But I'm revisiting it now because it looks like maybe, finally, here in early 2019, Comcast has begun transitioning over to 100% IPTV service for new subscribers in some areas.* If so, hey, it's happening only 15 months or so later than the article I cited in my OP predicted! (As a refresher, that article was from March 2017 and predicted that Comcast TV would go all-IP for new subs by year-end 2017.)

I haven't seen any industry news articles announcing this move by Comcast. What I have seen are a few different posts indicating that Comcast has restructured their TV service pricing and the way their services are bundled in certain areas, including the Chicago area. Those posts seemed to indicate that their regular X1 TV product was embracing some aspects of their Xfinity Instant TV product, a skinny IPTV-only service that up to now had been accessible only via the Xfinity Stream app on Roku, mobile devices, and in web browsers. One person even posted that Xfinity Instant TV had been killed where they live.

So I opened a browser with a cleared cache and headed over to Xfinity.com. I shopped for service at a residential address I found on Google Maps in Des Plaines, IL, which took me into Comcast's new "Plan Builder". No matter how I requested TV service in the Plan Builder -- whether the Basic (10+ channels), Extra (125+) or Preferred (200+) channel tiers, whether standalone or combined with broadband service -- I was never offered the option of a TV box with built-in DVR. Getting an X1 box required the Extra or Preferred TV packages and came with 20 hours of cloud DVR storage included (just as Xfinity Instant TV does in other areas). All three channel tiers offered the option to upgrade to 60 hours of cloud DVR storage for $10 per month. (If additional amounts of cloud storage beyond just 60 hours are available, they're not offered during this order process.) All TV boxes, whether the X1 box (the accompanying photo appeared to be the Xi6 box) with the Extra and Preferred tiers or the generic "TV box" with the Basic tier, cost $5 each per month. The Extra and Preferred tiers allow you to avoid paying for boxes by clicking "I will stream my Xfinity TV services on my own device" and linked to this page -- which explains using the Xfinity Stream app and makes no mention of CableCARD. HD channels no longer cost extra; "HD Technology" is listed as "included" for all plans. If broadband service is included in your plan, you can rent their xFi Gateway ($13/mo) or use your own modem and router. (I had anticipated that once Comcast shifted to IPTV as the only option for new customers, they would require use of their own multicast-video-enabled gateway but that does not appear to be the case here, at least yet.)

I don't know whether or not other TV service options -- including QAM-based TV service via CableCARD -- are available to new Comcast customers in this area if they ask for them by phone or in store but it definitely looks like Comcast's website is selling IPTV as the only option now in Chicagoland. I don't know all the markets where this shift has taken place yet. "Xfinity Instant TV" was not listed anywhere in the Plan Builder, which seems to indicate to me that they're deprecating that as a brand while subsuming it into their mainstream TV service, which now appears to be fully IPTV. But unlike Xfinity Instant TV, this new IPTV service offers Comcast's full range of channels and does so through an X1 box.

If Comcast is intentionally increasing the IP traffic on their network through a growing number of their own TV customers that are 100% served by IPTV and cloud DVR, one wonders how long it will be before they reclaim some of the bandwidth they currently devote to QAM TV by converting some or all of that bandwidth over to IP.


----------



## kpeters59 (Jun 19, 2007)

I think any phrasing that states 'growing number of TV subscribers' in relationship to Comcast is going to be problematic...

Is there any mention of what effect this will all have on Data Caps?

-KP


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

kpeters59 said:


> I think any phrasing that states 'growing number of TV subscribers' in relationship to Comcast is going to be problematic...
> 
> Is there any mention of what effect this will all have on Data Caps?
> 
> -KP


I'm not talking about the total number of Comcast TV subscribers growing, I'm talking about the number of Comcast TV subscribers _who are 100% served by IPTV_. Up until now, those subscribers have been limited to folks who sign up for Xfinity Instant TV, which was delivered only through Rokus and mobile devices and was never positioned as Comcast's "regular" TV service. But it looks like in some areas, Comcast is intentionally marketing 100% IPTV service as their main, default offering (and possibly their ONLY offering for new customers).

This won't have any effect on Comcast's data caps. They've always said that IPTV delivered to devices in-home through Xfinity Instant TV is provisioned only on their closed IP network, not the open internet, and do not count toward customers' data caps. So I'm sure the same policy exists in the Chicago area with the IPTV service there. In fact, the Plan Builder even let me select standalone basic TV, with cloud DVR added, without broadband service.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

I think CableCARD support will be around for a long time. Long enough for an IP solution for delivery to TiVos to be implemented. TiVos already have internet access. Receiving programs via an authenticated IP connection over the internet is surely feasible. It would require a software update. Otherwise I'll just go OTA. No biggee. Not worried about that now. That's all TBD in the future.


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

Wouldn't it be nice when they go IP if TiVo's could record/watch 10 channels at once? Minis would be fully usable then when recording 2-3 shows and having a house full of people.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

geekmedic said:


> Wouldn't it be nice when they go IP if TiVo's could record/watch 10 channels at once? Minis would be fully usable then when recording 2-3 shows and having a house full of people.


Yeah, "tuners" could be virtualized bit streams.

I'm _still_ waiting for a software update that gives me the ability to divide up my screen and display multiple tuners at once. Useful for monitoring multiple news/sports channels at once.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

RoamioJeff said:


> I think CableCARD support will be around for a long time. Long enough for an IP solution for delivery to TiVos to be implemented.


CableCARD support will be around as long as Comcast carries any TV channels via QAM. But as they transition their customer base over to IPTV, it's possible that they will only deliver a limited set of channels on QAM, maybe just SD channels, and convert the bulk of the bandwidth that they use for QAM over to IP.

As far as an IP delivery solution for TiVo, that doesn't look likely. Comcast seems like they only plan to deliver TV service to non-Comcast boxes via their Xfinity Stream app. It's been on Roku for awhile now, and maybe some Samsung smart TVs. They say it'll roll out to other devices (probably Apple TV and Fire TV, maybe LG and Sony smart TVs) over the course of 2019.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

The last plan I signed up with with Comcast back in November includes HD (no HD fee) and 20 hours of Cloud DVR. I can’t use the later as that requires an X1 box. My area still supports QAM, so none of what was mentioned above means Comcast is rolling out IP only TV.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

I dont that that it's exclusive here (I'm in the Twin Cities area) but we are seeing ads all the time now for Xfinity's IP offerings.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> I'm not talking about the total number of Comcast TV subscribers growing, I'm talking about the number of Comcast TV subscribers _who are 100% served by IPTV_. Up until now, those subscribers have been limited to folks who sign up for Xfinity Instant TV, which was delivered only through Rokus and mobile devices and was never positioned as Comcast's "regular" TV service. But it looks like in some areas, Comcast is intentionally marketing 100% IPTV service as their main, default offering (and possibly their ONLY offering for new customers).
> 
> This won't have any effect on Comcast's data caps. They've always said that IPTV delivered to devices in-home through Xfinity Instant TV is provisioned only on their closed IP network, not the open internet, and do not count toward customers' data caps. So I'm sure the same policy exists in the Chicago area with the IPTV service there. *In fact, the Plan Builder even let me select standalone basic TV, with cloud DVR added, without broadband service.*


This doesn't ring true to me if the implication is that the subscriber can have Xfinity TV without Xfinity broadband service.

Is it a likely business plan that Comcast would be pushing their internet services and at the same time allow customers to receive the IPTV signal over a competitor's HSI network? And, if so, how long would it likely be before the user were forced or highly incentivized to switch over to Xfinity HSI?

I don't claim any particular insight, but I could only see this happening under the condition that the standalone IPTV service price were comparable to a bundled IPTV/HSI deal (which is actually not so very different from the current situation in many cases).


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

RoamioJeff said:


> I think CableCARD support will be around for a long time. Long enough for an IP solution for delivery to TiVos to be implemented. TiVos already have internet access. Receiving programs via an authenticated IP connection over the internet is surely feasible. It would require a software update.


That totally depends on cooperation from cableCos, and for Xfinity in particular Comcast has been fighting Tivo patents in court. It didn't have to be this way but the FCC caved in on defining an industry standard access method.

In other words, don't hold your breath for Tivo access to IPTV. Given Tivo's nonexistent track record in this space, I think the more likely outcome is that the boxes will die off as less and less content is available with no IPTV replacement made.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

chiguy50 said:


> This doesn't ring true to me if the implication is that the subscriber can have Xfinity TV without Xfinity broadband service.


It's better for their bottom line to have customers buying both broadband and TV, but I can see them serving a segment that just wants to watch TV and doesn't care what's inside the coax making it work.
Surely a customer can do that today. It just takes some resistance to the Triple Play sales pitch.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> CableCARD support will be around as long as Comcast carries any TV channels via QAM. But as they transition their customer base over to IPTV, it's possible that they will only deliver a limited set of channels on QAM, maybe just SD channels, and convert the bulk of the bandwidth that they use for QAM over to IP.
> 
> As far as an IP delivery solution for TiVo, that doesn't look likely. Comcast seems like they only plan to deliver TV service to non-Comcast boxes via their Xfinity Stream app. It's been on Roku for awhile now, and maybe some Samsung smart TVs. They say it'll roll out to other devices (probably Apple TV and Fire TV, maybe LG and Sony smart TVs) over the course of 2019.


I think I read somewhere (probably another post here) that Comcast signed an exclusive deal with Roku for their Xfinity app and it won't be coming to other "boxes" but would remain on iPhones, android phones, etc.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

morac said:


> The last plan I signed up with with Comcast back in November includes HD (no HD fee) and 20 hours of Cloud DVR. I can't use the later as that requires an X1 box. My area still supports QAM, so none of what was mentioned above means Comcast is rolling out IP only TV.


You _could_ be right but, if so, it raises some odd questions about what they're doing with online sign-ups in Chicago. The biggest question is why aren't new customers offered the option of paying more to upgrade to a DVR box with an internal hard drive? That's always been an option -- pay an extra $10 and upgrade from a non-DVR box to a DVR box. Customers on an X1 DVR got 60 hours of cloud DVR service thrown in for free. But now they don't seem to be offering hardware DVRs and instead are selling 60 hours of cloud DVR as the $10 add-on. Maybe if you add the 60-hr cloud DVR option to your order Comcast surprises you with an X1 box such as the XG1v4 that has an internal DVR and 6 tuners? I guess that's possible but why not reference that as a selling point during the order process? Why only make reference to "Cloud DVR" and show a picture of a small X1 box like the Xi5 or Xi6 (which contain neither hard drives nor QAM tuners)?

I guess it's possible that Comcast, for some reason, is moving to a pure cloud DVR (i.e. IPTV) platform for recording TV while still retaining QAM linear channels (at least for new customers). That would mean that the small TV boxes they give to new TV customers, both the X1 box with Extra and Preferred and the regular box (whatever that is) with Basic, would contain one or more QAM tuners but no hard drive. The only existing model of X1 box that seems to fit that description (while also supporting the other X1 features the sign-up page boasted, such as a voice remote) is the XG2. You can see a comparison chart of all the X1 boxes here. The XG2 contains 4 QAM tuners and a CableCARD but no hard drive. I suppose the reason for more than one tuner in a non-DVR box is to support multi-TV households; additional TVs could be served by tunerless IP-only STBs such as the Xi3/Xi5/Xi6, which would use tuners 2-4 in the XG2 to watch live TV (basically the same way that a TiVo Mini works with a TiVo).

But even if all that's true, it's still a bit odd that the sign-up page now specifically asks customers if they want to use their own equipment to avoid the $5 per box fee but shows devices supporting the Xfinity Stream app as the only customer-owned solutions. No mention of CableCARD or TiVo at all. In fact, to order TV without a Comcast box, one must check a box that says "I will stream my Xfinity TV services on my own device." Note the use of the word stream there.

Also, why have they apparently gotten rid of Xfinity Instant TV -- their BYOD skinny IPTV service -- as its own branded option? Perhaps it's because their regular TV service has morphed into an expanded version of it.

Last thing I'd note that is Comcast has NOT shut down QAM TV service anywhere. Even if they're moving new sign-ups to fully-IPTV-based delivery, we know that there are lots of non-X1 QAM-only boxes (including TiVos) used by Comcast customers and they will have to be transitioned off of those boxes to newer equipment before Comcast could ever shut down even a part of their QAM TV system, and that would take quite a while.



chiguy50 said:


> This doesn't ring true to me if the implication is that the subscriber can have Xfinity TV without Xfinity broadband service.
> 
> Is it a likely business plan that Comcast would be pushing their internet services and at the same time allow customers to receive the IPTV signal over a competitor's HSI network? And, if so, how long would it likely be before the user were forced or highly incentivized to switch over to Xfinity HSI?
> 
> I don't claim any particular insight, but I could only see this happening under the condition that the standalone IPTV service price were comparable to a bundled IPTV/HSI deal (which is actually not so very different from the current situation in many cases).


Comcast delivers their in-home IPTV service only over their own network, the same way that they deliver their home phone (VoIP) service. But just as you don't have to subscribe to Comcast broadband service to get home phone service from them, you wouldn't necessary need their broadband service to get IPTV from them. But those IPTV-only customers would still need a Comcast-issued modem/gateway through which the IPTV service could be delivered. That modem might be built into the TV STB or it might be a separate unit (just a standard xFi Gateway) that would allow the STBs to be wirelessly placed around the house.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I think I read somewhere (probably another post here) that Comcast signed an exclusive deal with Roku for their Xfinity app and it won't be coming to other "boxes" but would remain on iPhones, android phones, etc.


Hmm. Maybe so. I know their support page says "Currently only certain devices have the Xfinity Stream app. We anticipate adding more equipment manufacturers and devices during 2019." But maybe that'll just be other smart TVs besides Samsung, not external streamers like Apple TV and Fire TV.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Also, why have they apparently gotten rid of Xfinity Instant TV -- their BYOD skinny IPTV service -- as its own branded option? Perhaps it's because their regular TV service has morphed into an expanded version of it.


Still available - Never miss out on live TV again


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

smark said:


> Still available - Never miss out on live TV again


Yes, when I go into the online ordering process for Comcast services at my address here in Nashville, Xfinity Instant TV is still available. But when I went into the revamped "Plan Builder" ordering process using a Chicago area address, Xfinity Instant TV was not listed as an option. Perhaps it's still available in that area but, for a service that's supposed to exclusively be distributed through online sign-ups, it's certainly odd that it's not presented there as part of the sign-up process.

The fact that the general product page for it, which you linked to, still exists does not necessarily mean that the service is still available nationwide.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, when I go into the online ordering process for Comcast services at my address here in Nashville, Xfinity Instant TV is still available. But when I went into the revamped "Plan Builder" ordering process using a Chicago area address, Xfinity Instant TV was not listed as an option. Perhaps it's still available in that area but, for a service that's supposed to exclusively be distributed through online sign-ups, it's certainly odd that it's not presented there as part of the sign-up process.
> 
> The fact that the general product page for it, which you linked to, still exists does not necessarily mean that the service is still available nationwide.


Different regions are covered differently and could have different products.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

smark said:


> Different regions are covered differently and could have different products.


Exactly. And, based on posts I'm reading around the web, this Plan Builder with differently structured and priced TV service for new customers is a new thing that's just recently rolled out in certain regions, Chicagoland being one of them. I have no idea if will go nationwide.

Another new thing that Comcast will soon introduce (not sure if it'll be everywhere or rolled out gradually across different areas) is "Xfinity Flex". They're going to rent their standalone broadband customers an Xi6 (a 4K HDR IPTV-only X1 box with voice remote) for the same $5/mo that they're charging for all other TV boxes in the new Plan Builder I described above. Customers can choose to only use the various OTT apps that are part of the X1 platform -- Netflix, Prime Video, YouTube, etc. -- or they can at any time upgrade to IPTV cable channel packages with cloud DVR service.

I would bet that Flex will allow add-ons of the same channel bundles currently offered via Xfinity Instant TV, and which are also offered in the new Plan Builder: Basic (Locals) for $20, Entertainment for $15, Sports & News for $25, and Kids & Family for $10, or all of them combined (plus more channels?) in the Extra tier for $60. (Basic and Extra prices are inclusive of the $10 Broadcast fee and both reflect a $20 discount for already having broadband. RSN fees and box rental fees are not included. Paperless auto bill pay and 1-2 year contracts can reduce total prices further.)


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Comcast delivers their in-home IPTV service only over their own network, *the same way that they deliver their home phone (VoIP) service. But just as you don't have to subscribe to Comcast broadband service to get home phone service from them, you wouldn't necessary need their broadband service to get IPTV from them*. But those IPTV-only customers would still need a Comcast-issued modem/gateway through which the IPTV service could be delivered. That modem might be built into the TV STB or it might be a separate unit (just a standard xFi Gateway) that would allow the STBs to be wirelessly placed around the house.


That's interesting; I did not know that about their VoIP service.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> That's interesting; I did not know that about their VoIP service.


Yep. I have an elderly aunt and uncle who, for years, have only had Comcast cable TV and telephone. They have no interest in using the internet. (Tried it for awhile but never really touched the computer, and they don't care about Netflix, etc.) So they have a voice-capable Comcast modem that their home phone line plugs into. I'm sure it's locked down so that if they connected a computer to it, it would not allow regular web access. It only allows telephony voice traffic. (Actually, it might put out a free Xfinity wifi hotspot for visitors or passersby who DO subscribe to broadband and can log in.)

There's no reason why such a modem couldn't operate the same way except only allowing Comcast's own IPTV traffic through.


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> CableCARD support will be around as long as Comcast carries any TV channels via QAM. But as they transition their customer base over to IPTV, it's possible that they will only deliver a limited set of channels on QAM, maybe just SD channels, and convert the bulk of the bandwidth that they use for QAM over to IP.


The (basic tier) channels delivered to (HD)DTAs will have to continue to be delivered via QAM (and for that matter MPEG2 for the original DTAs) until Comcast gets their Xi6 boxes and gateways out to that customer base. The good(?) news is that the Xi6 and associated gateway boxes are being deployed now as part of their Flex offering, so it is up to Comcast as to if/when they want to go after that segment of their customer base. Likely it will be the last push (as all those SD and local OTA channels do not consume many QAMs at all).


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> As far as an IP delivery solution for TiVo, that doesn't look likely.


Never say never, but Comcast and TiVo would have to enter into an appropriate agreement for TiVo to have access to the Comcast IPTV stream and given the current litigation I suspect Comcast would expect something substantial in return, possibly an ending to the litigation, which TiVo is probably not able to agree to.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

RoamioJeff said:


> I'm _still_ waiting for a software update that gives me the ability to divide up my screen and display multiple tuners at once. Useful for monitoring multiple news/sports channels at once.


I wish more boxes had that feature. PS Vue just rolled it out on the Apple TV, DISH has it on the Hopper 3, but those are the only solutions that I'm aware of at the present time.



NashGuy said:


> CableCARD support will be around as long as Comcast carries any TV channels via QAM. But as they transition their customer base over to IPTV, it's possible that they will only deliver a limited set of channels on QAM, maybe just SD channels, and convert the bulk of the bandwidth that they use for QAM over to IP.


Comcast has 22.1M TV subscribers and 25.5M internet subscribers. However, I'd estimate that between 1 and 5M of those TV subscribers are basically being forced or coerced into bundling by unprofitable teaser deals and don't want TV at all. Another 1 to 5M are only on some sort of basic service, and are too price sensitive to actually pay rack rate for Digital Starter or above. Thus, Comcast is a ticking time bomb for the pay TV industry. Of course, they have a horse in the race with NBCU, which partially explains their strange behavior surrounding TV subscribers, but if they pulled back from unprofitable and marginally profitable TV subscribers, and only offered full-sized TV packages at rack rate, they would likely send the entire pay TV industry into a tailspin. The other MSOs are in similar positions, but they haven't artificially held onto as many TV customers for as long as Comcast has.

In terms of IPTV, I don't know what Comcast's strategy is, but maybe they are getting ready to pull the plug on several million unprofitable pay TV customers, shrink their TV customer base, and during that process, go to IPTV.



NashGuy said:


> I guess that's possible but why not reference that as a selling point during the order process? Why only make reference to "Cloud DVR" and show a picture of a small X1 box like the Xi5 or Xi6 (which contain neither hard drives nor QAM tuners)?


You're way overthinking this. They could just be desperate to remain relevant and "cool" in the modern streaming world, so they want to advertise only cloud DVR because you can watch their crappy low quality TV service on a small, crappy screen on a phone or iPad with cloud DVR. They really should just give up, stop advertising TV service, and focus on broadband. People who really want cable TV will call 1-800-Comcast and get it.



> I suppose the reason for more than one tuner in a non-DVR box is to support multi-TV households; additional TVs could be served by tunerless IP-only STBs such as the Xi3/Xi5/Xi6, which would use tuners 2-4 in the XG2 to watch live TV (basically the same way that a TiVo Mini works with a TiVo).


That's also how the XG1 works today with an XiD or Xi3. Larger households can have an XG1 and an XG2 for more tuners available.



> But even if all that's true, it's still a bit odd that the sign-up page now specifically asks customers if they want to use their own equipment to avoid the $5 per box fee but shows devices supporting the Xfinity Stream app as the only customer-owned solutions. No mention of CableCARD or TiVo at all. In fact, to order TV without a Comcast box, one must check a box that says "I will stream my Xfinity TV services on my own device." Note the use of the word stream there.


They're trying to remain relevant and cool, and realize that there are less than 1M retail TiVos out there spread amongst OTA, Charter, Comcast, Verizon, Cox, and many smaller MSOs. I think we figured out that Charter has the highest concentration of them due to their even crappier CPE. If that's the case, then Comcast has no reason to advertise CableCard.

I'm not convinced they are going entirely IPTV, or that they are not, I'm just saying, there are other explanations for all of these interesting changes.



> Last thing I'd note that is Comcast has NOT shut down QAM TV service anywhere. Even if they're moving new sign-ups to fully-IPTV-based delivery, we know that there are lots of non-X1 QAM-only boxes (including TiVos) used by Comcast customers and they will have to be transitioned off of those boxes to newer equipment before Comcast could ever shut down even a part of their QAM TV system, and that would take quite a while.


Except for those lucky or unlucky customers, depending on how you look at it, in EPON areas where they have presumably abandoned or ripped out their HFC equipment.



smark said:


> Different regions are covered differently and could have different products.


I can tell you for a fact, that one arm does not know what the other arm is doing, even within the same state. As much lipstick as they plaster on the pig, it's still a pig, and some parts of it have more bacon than others.



NashGuy said:


> I'm sure it's locked down so that if they connected a computer to it, it would not allow regular web access.


You get a captive Comcast page. It would be interesting to see if you could get Comcast mail, tv.xfinity.com, etc.



gary.buhrmaster said:


> The (basic tier) channels delivered to (HD)DTAs will have to continue to be delivered via QAM (and for that matter MPEG2 for the original DTAs) until Comcast gets their Xi6 boxes and gateways out to that customer base. The good(?) news is that the Xi6 and associated gateway boxes are being deployed now as part of their Flex offering, so it is up to Comcast as to if/when they want to go after that segment of their customer base. Likely it will be the last push (as all those SD and local OTA channels do not consume many QAMs at all).


Their HD service is so heavily compressed that it doesn't consume a whole lot of bandwidth either. From a pure bandwidth perspective, there just isn't a huge incentive to go all-IP, especially when they can slowly chip away at less popular stuff and move it to IP unicast like they chipped away at analog in the early 2010's until they finally put it out of it's misery.

I would think the bigger driver would be architectural changes in the system that go entire Ethernet and IP-based with rphy, but I don't fully understand the implications on how you deliver QAM in an rphy FDX environment.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

gary.buhrmaster said:


> The (basic tier) channels delivered to (HD)DTAs will have to continue to be delivered via QAM (and for that matter MPEG2 for the original DTAs) until Comcast gets their Xi6 boxes and gateways out to that customer base. The good(?) news is that the Xi6 and associated gateway boxes are being deployed now as part of their Flex offering, so it is up to Comcast as to if/when they want to go after that segment of their customer base. Likely it will be the last push (as all those SD and local OTA channels do not consume many QAMs at all).


Yeah. What I've suggested before (and I've seen other "Comcast watchers" say the same) is that the first major step in deprecating QAM TV might be shutting down HD channels while leaving up all (or at least the most popular) SD channels in MPEG-2 on QAM. All those homes and businesses getting SD service via DTAs would be unaffected. Those folks on non-X1 boxes (old QAM-only STBs, as well as TiVos) who have HD service would of course lose their HD channels. Comcast's solution would be for them to swap out their box for an Xi6 or other X1 box, or to use a Roku or other device with the Xfinity Stream app. (I'm sure Comcast would give advanced warnings so potentially affected customers could switch hardware before the HD QAM shutdown.) And for those who didn't switch over, or took a long time to do it, they would still have TV service, if only in SD.

Note that Comcast seems to be moving toward a pricing system that no longer separately charges an HD Technology fee, BTW. HD versions of channels just show up if your equipment supports it.



gary.buhrmaster said:


> Never say never, but Comcast and TiVo would have to enter into an appropriate agreement for TiVo to have access to the Comcast IPTV stream and given the current litigation I suspect Comcast would expect something substantial in return, possibly an ending to the litigation, which TiVo is probably not able to agree to.


Yeah, about the only way I can see Comcast making nice and giving retail TiVo DVRs access to their IPTV system would be as part of a negotiated settlement to their current legal disputes. But Comcast has already won the opening rounds of that fight and I don't see them backing down. Meanwhile, which do you think TiVo cares more about: ensuring that they continue to get paid patent licensing fees by Comcast and every other MVPD, or ensuring that their retail customers with Comcast cable TV service (many of whom already paid for lifetime service long ago) get to keep using their TiVo DVRs after Comcast drops QAM/CableCARD support? Obviously the former.



Bigg said:


> I'm not convinced they are going entirely IPTV, or that they are not, I'm just saying, there are other explanations for all of these interesting changes.


Yes, there are alternative explanations, which I tried to reason through in my post #509 above. But they don't make a lot of sense to me. When you look at everything together -- repeated leaks over the years that Comcast's long-term roadmap is an eventual total move to IPTV, the fall 2017 rollout of Xfinity Instant TV IPTV on non-Comcast hardware only, the pending 2019 rollout of Xfinity Flex which will be standardized on Comcast's own hardware, the Xi6, and allow full IPTV service, plus the various changes in the ordering process in the new Plan Builder which no longer show *any* options for a DVR box (something Comcast has *always* offered in their online orders) while exclusively referencing "Cloud DVR" and "streaming" and incorporating the Xfinity Instant TV add-on channels packs (Entertainment, Sports & News, Kids & Family) -- the simplest explanation to me is that Comcast is taking their next step on the road to full IPTV by making IPTV-only boxes and service the default option among new TV customers in certain areas. (That may not be a correct interpretation of the available information but it seems to me to be the likeliest, all things considered.) Even if Comcast is still offering all of their traditional hardware, including DVR boxes with physical hard drives and QAM tuners, to customers by phone and in stores in those geographic areas, I think it would be significant if they've deprecated those options by not offering them to online sign-ups. It would be one more step, but by no means the last step, on the transition from QAM to IPTV.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Note that Comcast seems to be moving toward a pricing system that no longer separately charges an HD Technology fee, BTW. HD versions of channels just show up if your equipment supports it


Notably, the Comcast app on my Roku only tunes the SD channels in the lineup, probably because I don't pay the HD fee (I've had TiVos since before I had HD so there was never an occasion for them to charge it). My TiVos tune all of the HD channels.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

pdhenry said:


> Notably, the Comcast app on my Roku only tunes the SD channels in the lineup, probably because I don't pay the HD fee (I've had TiVos since before I had HD so there was never an occasion for them to charge it). My TiVos tune all of the HD channels.


Yeah, there's still a separate HD Technology Fee for lots (most?) of their existing subscriber base but they seem to be moving away from that with the way they're packaging services for new customers. Perhaps they'll eventually re-jigger rates on existing subs so that the $10 fee isn't broken out separately but just gets incorporated into the baseline cost of every channel package (regardless of whether your box supports HD or not). That would be one way to make a little more money off of those lower-margin SD-only non-X1 TV customers.

Also, if they roll out this new policy where every Comcast-issued box is only $5/mo (as opposed to the $10 they've always charged before for each additional TV served), while the Xfinity Stream app for Roku, etc. is free, I could imagine them also charging $5/mo for each CableCARD (assuming they're still distributing CableCARDs to new customers in areas where the $5 per box pricing is in effect).


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I always thought of it as a hardware technology fee (i.e., the fee you paid for an HD box rather than an SD set-top box when there were both types) and since I had my own HD hardware (TiVo) the fee didn't apply. I know once it appears in your account it's difficult or impossible to get it removed. It's only in the Roku app that they differentiate me as a have-not.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. What I've suggested before (and I've seen other "Comcast watchers" say the same) is that the first major step in deprecating QAM TV might be shutting down HD channels while leaving up all (or at least the most popular) SD channels in MPEG-2 on QAM.


They could serve DTAs with about 50-70 SD MPEG-2 channels, basically the old analog expanded basic lineup, de-duplicate another 50-70 that have HD versions, and convert the rest to MPEG-4 SD or IPTV, depending on where they were going technology wise.



NashGuy said:


> Yeah, there's still a separate HD Technology Fee for lots (most?) of their existing subscriber base but they seem to be moving away from that with the way they're packaging services for new customers.


The problem is, it's never been consistent market to market whether that was a programming fee or a technology fee. I'm actually surprised they are getting rid of it, considering that it would be trivially easy to offer SD over IPTV, whether an actual separate stream, or just locking the output of the box to 480i widescreen over HDMI.



> Also, if they roll out this new policy where every Comcast-issued box is only $5/mo (as opposed to the $10 they've always charged before for each additional TV served), while the Xfinity Stream app for Roku, etc. is free, I could imagine them also charging $5/mo for each CableCARD (assuming they're still distributing CableCARDs to new customers in areas where the $5 per box pricing is in effect).


It's interesting that they seem to be backing off on some of the fees. It's strange behavior for Comcast for sure. I'm thinking that they see the future revenue stream as a combination of data caps (outside the northeast anyway), xFi, and Cloud DVR storage tiers. What would be really nefarious is if they didn't limit your DVR usage on the box and just charged more each month as you accumulated more crap on your DVR. That might be a support nightmare, but I'm betting that they will have nag screens to upgrade as your approach your limit for "Only $5/mo more" for xyz amount of storage, with the ability to add at least a few additional blocks of storage.

I see this through two lenses:
1. This makes no sense to invest in linear TV, as linear TV is dying, so why bother?
2. It makes total sense to push to IPTV, so that as linear TV fades away, they can slowly reclaim that bandwidth without having a big chunk of QAM channels stuck in the middle of the band plan that no one's watching.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

pdhenry said:


> I always thought of it as a hardware technology fee (i.e., the fee you paid for an HD box rather than an SD set-top box when there were both types)


Except that the HD Technology Fee seems to apply across your entire account. Pay the $10 and it enables HD across every Comcast box, adapter and app you have that supports HD resolution. As far as actual pricing for the non-X1 Comcast boxes go, around here they're $2.50, whether HD or SD boxes, unless it's an SD box specifically for Limited Basic only, in which case it's just $1.00. In Comcast lingo, BTW, "boxes" provide a program guide plus access to premium channels, on-demand, PPV, and parental controls. "TV Adapters," aka Digital Tuning Adapters, are free and come in both HD and SD versions; they only provide access to non-premium linear channels without any of the extra features that boxes have.

I think Comcast realizes that, from a marketing perspective, they're not helping themselves with the "nickel and diming" of customers with all these separate fees. DirecTV, Dish and T-Vision (formerly Layer 3 TV) don't charge extra to get channels in HD. Nor do any of the live streaming cable TV services like YouTube TV, Hulu with Live TV, PS Vue or DirecTV Now. It just seems really passe in 2019 for a supposedly premium TV provider to charge extra to watch the HD versions of channels in your package. I'm sure that's why they didn't charge extra for HD in Xfinity Instant TV and, as I've explained at length above, it appears that a lot of the thinking behind that experiment is now making its way into Comcast's mainstream TV product.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> far as actual pricing for the non-X1 Comcast boxes go, around here they're $2.50, whether HD or SD boxes, unless it's an SD box specifically for Limited Basic only, in which case it's just $1.00.


Just reminds me that every Comcast franchise is still different. 

I'm familiar with a $10 "additional (digital) outlet" fee which includes the box for that outlet. TiVo owners warrant a discount on that fee (as well as the primary subscription) because they're only renting the cable card and not the entire set-top box. The discount is part of the FCC's Cable Card mandate (one way to be exempt from the mandate is to offer programming on a customer owned box like a Roku, btw)

Here, the "digital tuning adapter" was free for a year or two after they turned off analog basic cable, but now it carries a fee on the order of $1-3 (but no AO fee for that outlet beyond that).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Except that the HD Technology Fee seems to apply across your entire account. Pay the $10 and it enables HD across every Comcast box, adapter and app you have that supports HD resolution.


It's a hardware fee in some markets and a programming fee in others, hence why there are inconsistent results on this forum as to whether you have to pay it for a CableCard device.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Given the questionable (and that's being charitable) quality of Comcast's HD offering lowering or getting of the HD Technology fee is appropriate.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

pdhenry said:


> I'm familiar with a $10 "additional (digital) outlet" fee which includes the box for that outlet.


Service to additional outlets here are charged separately from the fees for the boxes or adapters themselves, which I outlined above. If an additional TV has a box connected to it, the outlet service charge is $9.95. If it has a TV adapter connected to it, the outlet service charge is $5.95. Service for the first TV, of course, is in included in the base package rate.



pdhenry said:


> TiVo owners warrant a discount on that fee (as well as the primary subscription) because they're only renting the cable card and not the entire set-top box. The discount is part of the FCC's Cable Card mandate (one way to be exempt from the mandate is to offer programming on a customer owned box like a Roku, btw)


So it might be that Comcast couldn't charge the same $5 for a CableCARD as they're now charging in some markets for an X1 box. OTOH, if offering their full service via the Xfinity Stream app on customer-owned hardware such a Roku exempts them from the CableCARD mandate, perhaps they could charge whatever they want for one (or no longer even offer them at all). But I was under the impression that the law required a cable operator to continue offering CableCARDs so long as they offered TV service via technology compatible with them, i.e. QAM. Although I figured that the FCC would exempt a cable operator transitioning to all-IPTV from offering CableCARDs to new customers if their policy was to only offer IPTV service to new customers.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> OTOH, if offering their full service via the Xfinity Stream app on customer-owned hardware such a Roku exempts them from the CableCARD mandate...


Based on my read of 47 CFR 76.1204 [N. B. : this *is* the Cable Card mandate]

§ 76.1204 Availability of equipment performing conditional access or security functions.
(a)

(1) A multichannel video programming distributor that utilizes Navigation Devicesto perform conditional access functions shall make available equipment that incorporates only the conditional accessfunctions of such devices.

(2) The foregoing requirement shall not apply to a multichannel video programming distributor that supports the active use bysubscribers of Navigation Devices that:

(i) Operate throughout the continental United States, and

(ii) Are available from retail outlets and other vendors throughout the United States that are not affiliated with the owner or operator of the multichannel video programming system.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

pdhenry said:


> Based on my read of 47 CFR 76.1204 [N. B. : this *is* the Cable Card mandate]
> 
> § 76.1204 Availability of equipment performing conditional access or security functions.
> (a)
> ...


I believe that the FCC, back during the Obama administration, decided that offering an app on a 3rd party device like a Roku was sufficient to satisfy the mandate and that they could get rid of CableCARDs if that was available.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> I believe that the FCC, back during the Obama administration, decided that offering an app on a 3rd party device like a Roku was sufficient to satisfy the mandate and that they could get rid of CableCARDs if that was available.


My interpretation of the above citation is that it says precisely that.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> I believe that the FCC, back during the Obama administration, decided that offering an app on a 3rd party device like a Roku was sufficient to satisfy the mandate and that they could get rid of CableCARDs if that was available.





pdhenry said:


> My interpretation of the above citation is that it says precisely that.


OK, wow. Given the amount of discussion around CableCARD that I've read on this forum, I don't know how that point escaped me. I knew that an app-based approach was approved by the FCC as a next-gen replacement for CableCARD but I guess I was thinking maybe that would just be for if/when a cable provider switched to IPTV. For whatever reason, I was (wrongly) thinking that as long as video was being transmitted over QAM, a cable provider still had to offer and support CableCARD access.

So what you're saying is that, if Comcast wanted to, they could today stop giving out CableCARDs (and perhaps even recall those in use) if their Xfinity Stream app for Roku/Samsung smart TV/etc. could be used in lieu of Comcast's own boxes/DVRs as a means of accessing their TV service, assuming the app offered substantial enough support (which might be defined as access to the full line-up of linear channels, plus cloud DVR capability)?

If that's the standard, then it looks like Comcast has already reached that point in Chicago and wherever else they've rolled out this new Plan Builder. Up until now, Comcast has not allowed access to their full service exclusively through their Roku app; a subscriber had to have at least one Comcast-issued STB or CableCARD on their account. They have allowed box-free access using only the Roku app if you signed up for Xfinity Instant TV, but that does not allow access to the full channel line-up and has been restricted to only 20 hours of cloud DVR.

But the new Plan Builder definitely allows customers to sign up for the full Preferred tier of 225+ channels (most in HD), plus add on every premium channel and a la carte package if desired, and then add 60 hours of cloud DVR storage without taking a single Comcast-issued STB and without any charges for Comcast hardware. [EDIT: You're only given the option to not take any TV box at all if you also subscribe to Comcast broadband service. Standalone TV service still requires you to take at least one Comcast-issued STB.] That full service, with all those features, can be accessed on the subscriber's TV using the Xfinity Stream app on Roku and certain Samsung smart TVs.

So it looks to me like Comcast is in the clear to legally deny all further issuance of CableCARDs in the Chicago area (and wherever else this new Plan Builder scheme has been rolled out). Am I wrong?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Although I figured that the FCC would exempt a cable operator transitioning to all-IPTV from offering CableCARDs to new customers if their policy was to only offer IPTV service to new customers.


The way I understand it, they have to offer CC to any customer until the day that they stop transmitting in QAM.



Dan203 said:


> I believe that the FCC, back during the Obama administration, decided that offering an app on a 3rd party device like a Roku was sufficient to satisfy the mandate and that they could get rid of CableCARDs if that was available.


I don't think that's the case. I think that was for an IPTV-based system. The way I understand it, CableCard lives on as a zombie in areas that use QAM until they don't use QAM anymore. Approximately 99% of Comcast's system today uses QAM, the other 1% being EPON communities.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> So what you're saying is that, if Comcast wanted to, they could today stop giving out CableCARDs (and perhaps even recall those in use) if their Xfinity Stream app for Roku/Samsung smart TV/etc. could be used in lieu of Comcast's own boxes/DVRs as a means of accessing their TV service, assuming the app offered substantial enough support (which might be defined as access to the full line-up of linear channels, plus cloud DVR capability)?


The requirement for cable companies to support CableCARDs is an FCC regulation that would have to be changed for support to end. Comcast can't stop supporting CableCARDs until the FCC tells them they can stop supporting CableCARDS, which so far the FCC hasn't done.



Bigg said:


> The way I understand it, they have to offer CC to any customer until the day that they stop transmitting in QAM.


I don't think the FCC has ever explicitly stated that if they switch over to IP from QAM, that they will no longer have to support CableCARDs. I think everyone just assumes that, since CableCARDs would simply not be compatible with an IP delivery system and since other IP systems like AT&T U-verse were never required to support CableCARDs.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> So what you're saying is that, if Comcast wanted to, they could today stop giving out CableCARDs (and perhaps even recall those in use) if their Xfinity Stream app for Roku/Samsung smart TV/etc. could be used in lieu of Comcast's own boxes/DVRs as a means of accessing their TV service, assuming the app offered substantial enough support (which might be defined as access to the full line-up of linear channels, plus cloud DVR capability)?


I believe that paragraph (1) *IS* the CableCARD mandate (other sections define requirements for the cards). It says if the cable company uses boxes with conditional access functions a customer must be able to obtain a component that only performs the conditional access function (i.e., a CableCARD) independent of the other set-top box functions.
Paragraph (2) says if you offer programming available nationally on customer owned hardware not sold by the cable company (so think of the Xfinity app on a Roku), the CableCARD mandate *does not apply*.
They may not be there yet - 'available nationally' may mean that they can't require the device to be connected to the specific cable company's broadband network (as I believe the Roku app currently works) but I'm not the one who gets to decide that. Also, I think the Roku app is still officially in beta.
There are a lot of set top boxes with CableCARDs in customers' homes still. They're moving down the path but they'd have to get X1-style boxes in place of the older boxes before getting there and pulling CableCARD support.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

pdhenry said:


> I believe that paragraph (1) *IS* the CableCARD mandate (other sections define requirements for the cards). It says if the cable company uses boxes with conditional access functions a customer must be able to obtain a component that only performs the conditional access function (i.e., a CableCARD) independent of the other set-top box functions.
> Paragraph (2) says if you offer programming available nationally on customer owned hardware not sold by the cable company (so think of the Xfinity app on a Roku), the CableCARD mandate *does not apply*.


That's my reading of that passage as well.



pdhenry said:


> They may not be there yet - 'available nationally' may mean that they can't require the device to be connected to the specific cable company's broadband network (as I believe the Roku app currently works) but I'm not the one who gets to decide that.


Hmm. That could be a factor here. Just now I went back into the Plan Builder using a Chicago-area address and realized that you're only given the option to not take any TV box at all if you also subscribe to Comcast broadband service. If you're just getting standalone TV service, even the highest Preferred tier, you still have to take at least one TV box (although you're also free to use the Xfinity Stream app on your devices too but if you're not doing that over an in-home Comcast internet connection, I would think that the Stream app would only ever show you "out-of-home" viewing options, which typically don't include live channels, I believe).

So it looks like the only way to fully avoid both a Comcast-issued box or a CableCARD while still getting full-scale service on your TV would require combining broadband with TV service.



pdhenry said:


> There are a lot of set top boxes with CableCARDs in customers' homes still. They're moving down the path but they'd have to get X1-style boxes in place of the older boxes before getting there and pulling CableCARD support.


Well, from a practical perspective, I don't think Comcast would suddenly drop all support for CableCARD one day, so that all those TiVos suddenly stop working. But -- if they were legally able to do so -- I can imagine them ceasing to issue any additional CableCARDs. It would take some time to transition current customers using them over to a different solution. And, from a practical perspective, they probably wouldn't even bother cutting them off as long as they're still transmitting in QAM and any given issued CableCARD continued to function.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I think the OP in this thread is predicting that.



NashGuy said:


> Note that the rumor isn't purporting that Comcast will turn off QAM service this year, only that it will officially deprecate it by making all new subs IP-only. I'm pretty sure all X1 boxes already deployed can seamlessly switch over to IP and let their QAM tuners lie dormant. Given that X1 already accounted for about half of all deployed STBs at the end of 2016, I would imagine Comcast would switch those subs over from QAM to IP somewhere around the same time (year-end '17).


Hey, that's you!


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

I dread the day we're forced to go all-ip. I fear that's when commercials will become unskippable on all content.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

randian said:


> I dread the day we're forced to go all-ip. I fear that's when commercials will become unskippable on all content.


Only if cloud dvr's takeover, IP doesn't rule out hardware dvr's. Also watch out for I want everything on VOD people. VOD is the nose of camel for forced adds.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

randian said:


> I dread the day we're forced to go all-ip. I fear that's when commercials will become unskippable on all content.


I think a lot of people fear that but I doubt that will happen. TV is probably always going to be a mixture of ad-free and ad-supported. There will always be a market for those willing to pay more to avoid ads (see HBO and Showtime, both around since the 1970s). With traditional cable TV and a TiVo (or other DVR), the cost you paid for ad-free was part of the cost of the TiVo hardware and service itself (plus the bother of having to manually FF/skip through the ad breaks). And still you're left with annoying pop-up ads that booger up the bottom quarter of the screen during some shows.

With Hulu and CBS All Access, though, you pay a lower price and have ads (although fewer ads than traditional cable TV) that can't be skipped or you pay an extra fee to have the ads removed.

That said, it's certainly possible that those who are devoted to only watching ad-free TV will end up paying more in the future (on an inflation-adjusted basis) for the ability to avoid ads than they paid during the era of cable TV + DVRs. We'll see.

What I can imagine happening, as IPTV and OTT become the norms for distribution of channel-based cable TV, is for cloud DVR service with unskippable ads to be offered at no additional charge, or for very little more, over the base cost of your channel package. But to be able to cut out the ads (or FF past them), you'll pay an up-charge. This is how Hulu with Live TV works.

But the whole concept of setting up a DVR to capture and save content from linear channels increasingly feels anachronistic. I expect everything to eventually shift to the on-demand paradigm, where all recent material is simply available to select whenever you're ready to watch. And if you want the ads cut out, you'll pay more (which, of course, makes sense).

The whole transition will play out gradually, though, with competing players trying out different things and none of them wanting to scare off customers by completely taking away something that generations of TV viewers have taken for granted, the ability to avoid ads on all of the non-live subscription-based TV they watch.



tenthplanet said:


> Only if cloud dvr's takeover, IP doesn't rule out hardware dvr's. Also watch out for I want everything on VOD people. VOD is the nose of camel for forced adds.


It's true that IPTV can use hardware DVRs. AT&T Uverse TV and Layer 3 TV (now T-Vision) both do. But I also see no reason why the video streams during ad breaks couldn't be coded so that the hardware DVR is disabled from enacting the FF or skip controls during those stretches of video. Neither of those two companies actually do that but the technology certainly exists to do it.

But the real ad money will be in serving up ads that are targeted at the specific individual viewer based on your viewing habits and whatever other demographic data that can be linked to you. So they wouldn't want to play back the general audience ads that were included in the original linear channel broadcast which aren't necessarily relevant to you (and which, by the time you watch the recording, might also be outdated). They'd rather stream fresh targeted ads to you during the ad breaks. And that probably works better if the whole DVR is in the cloud (although I guess cloud-based targeted ads could still be implemented in conjunction with an internet-connected local DVR).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I think a lot of people fear that but I doubt that will happen. TV is probably always going to be a mixture of ad-free and ad-supported. There will always be a market for those willing to pay more to avoid ads (see HBO and Showtime, both around since the 1970s).


As it stands today, most of the good content is on OTT SVOD, which is generally ad-free (Netflix, Amazon, etc), or tiered (Hulu), and if they put ads into the service, there's not much that anyone could do about it. Just based on where the content is, over the last 5 years, I've gone from TiVo being the center of my TV universe to TiVo being very much secondary to streaming on Roku.



> But the real ad money will be in serving up ads that are targeted at the specific individual viewer based on your viewing habits and whatever other demographic data that can be linked to you.


UGH. I HATE targeted ads. They are already annoying enough on the internet, as they show the same crap over and over. One of the things that I like about broadcast ads is that they are the same for everyone, so I get to see things that I wouldn't otherwise see, and conversely, brands are able to make an impression on me, even though I might never have sought out information about them otherwise.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> As it stands today, most of the good content is on OTT SVOD, which is generally ad-free (Netflix, Amazon, etc), or tiered (Hulu), and if they put ads into the service, there's not much that anyone could do about it.


Sure there is -- they could stop paying for the service. Which is why subscription services either won't contain ads or, if they do, will provide an option to somehow avoid the ads for an extra fee.

Now, if you're giving content away for free (e.g. YouTube, Tubi, Pluto TV), you can include forced ads and not even bother offering a paid ad-free version, I guess. But I think that there's too much popular resistance toward ads (especially among those willing to spend more on entertainment) for a subscription service to succeed without an upgrade option to avoid ads -- at least for on-demand content. When it comes to certain types of live TV, especially sports, there will always be ads, perhaps with no way to avoid them.



Bigg said:


> Just based on where the content is, over the last 5 years, I've gone from TiVo being the center of my TV universe to TiVo being very much secondary to streaming on Roku.


Yup, me too. Streaming platforms -- Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV, etc. -- increasingly rule the roost. The future of OTA TV (and even cable TV) is as an app on those platforms.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Sure there is -- they could stop paying for the service. Which is why subscription services either won't contain ads or, if they do, will provide an option to somehow avoid the ads for an extra fee.


True, but then you may not be able to access that content at all. I'd agree that there will likely remain an up-sell option to avoid them, but who knows.



> Yup, me too. Streaming platforms -- Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV, etc. -- increasingly rule the roost. The future of OTA TV (and even cable TV) is as an app on those platforms.


We already have cable and tons of other content on streaming, including OTA stations. I'm not convinced that OTA will go away completely, but I'm not convinced it won't either. The business model of OTA is so full of conflicts and contradictions that I'm not sure where it's going to end up. You've got networks who are absurdly overcharging affiliates who are absurdly overcharging cable companies for something that is also available for free, which is nuts, and now we have ATSC 3.0 where stations are supposed to want to pay millions of dollars to do a better job of giving their main product away for free to more people instead of charging for it through cable companies?

I wouldn't be surprised if OTA survives in the ATSC 3.0 world, but only as a bunch of diginets playing a bunch of low-quality re-run and syndicated content that's bottom of the barrel, with that content and model taking over the "main" station to complement the daytime soaps if-it-bleeds-it-leads scare mongering mentality of local news reporting.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> We already have cable and tons of other content on streaming, including OTA stations. I'm not convinced that OTA will go away completely, but I'm not convinced it won't either. The business model of OTA is so full of conflicts and contradictions that I'm not sure where it's going to end up.


I think the game plan for the big 4 broadcast nets will be to increasingly emphasize content that demands live viewing -- sports (especially the NFL) and non-scripted (competition/reality/performance/talk/news) shows. That latter category can be produced relatively cheaply, making it especially attractive.

Beyond that, I see ABC, CBS and NBC using their primetime blocks as launching pads for scripted series that their corporate parents produce and own and which can be further monetized through their related SVODs -- Hulu, CBS All Access, and the forthcoming NBCU service. Because those shows can be watched any time on the SVOD, their live airings on the network act as advertisements, and free samples, of the SVOD. Fox, of course, is now out of the business of producing scripted shows and they have no SVOD, which is why we'll likely see fewer such series there over time, and a big shift to sports, talk, reality and competition series such as The Masked Singer.

At some point, the reverse comp that networks get from their affiliates (which their affiliates get from MVPD retransmission fees) will peak and begin to decline, thanks to cord-cutting. If ATSC 3.0 gets off the ground, it will likely only contribute to that trend, and therefore the decline in that source of revenue for the nets. But if there's enough successful cross-pollination between the networks and their sibling SVODs, with network broadcasts building awareness of and interest in certain series, driving viewers to the SVOD to watch, then perhaps the direct-from-consumer subscription fees and targeted ad revenue on the SVOD will more than offset declines in reverse comp, thereby keeping the lights on at the big 3 networks and ensuring a continuing stream of scripted series.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I think the game plan for the big 4 broadcast nets will be to increasingly emphasize content that demands live viewing -- sports (especially the NFL) and non-scripted (competition/reality/performance/talk/news) shows. That latter category can be produced relatively cheaply, making it especially attractive.


Wow. I've read hundreds of your posts, but that's the best explanation I've heard yet of how the networks are planning on moving forward in terms of a business model. Do you think they will reach a "tipping point" where they see more opportunity in reaching more subscribers than in leeching off of retranmission fees, and thus will be more motivated to implement widespread ATSC 3.0 SFNs using cell towers in order to provide coverage using small, indoor antennas throughout their markets?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I think the game plan for the big 4 broadcast nets will be to increasingly emphasize content that demands live viewing -- sports (especially the NFL) and non-scripted (competition/reality/performance/talk/news) shows. That latter category can be produced relatively cheaply, making it especially attractive.
> 
> ..........


Those are the absolute last things I would want to watch live. They are the best things to time shift. Since they are overloaded with commercials.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

tenthplanet said:


> Only if cloud dvr's takeover, IP doesn't rule out hardware dvr's.


Sure it does if no one allows third-party access. And so far no one has.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Wow. I've read hundreds of your posts, but that's the best explanation I've heard yet of how the networks are planning on moving forward in terms of a business model. Do you think they will reach a "tipping point" where they see more opportunity in reaching more subscribers than in leeching off of retranmission fees, and thus will be more motivated to implement widespread ATSC 3.0 SFNs using cell towers in order to provide coverage using small, indoor antennas throughout their markets?


Thanks. As to your question: hard to say. From the point of view of ABC, CBS or NBC, people watching their content for free via OTA TV is the next-to-worst scenario for them, with the worst scenario being that they just never watch their stuff at all. At least if they watch OTA, the networks (and their affiliates) are still making money on the ads they show you. But they'd rather get money from both ads and subscription fees, which they can get if you're watching their content through an MVPD or on their DTC OTT SVOD (e.g. Hulu). (The situation is a little different for the non-network station owners like Sinclair, Nexstar, etc. because they're cut out of the loop on the SVOD and make nothing if you watch there.)

People like to talk about 4K HDR but I think the killer feature of ATSC 3.0 may be its more robust transmission system, making it easier to reliably tune in signals with no glitches. And if ATSC 3.0 were deployed on an SFN, that would make it even more robust, filling in those little dead spots throughout a metro area by giving an antenna the chance to catch the signal from multiple directions. (And keep in mind that multipath *strengthens* an ATSC 3.0 signal whereas it makes a glitchy mess of ATSC 1.0.)

Do the networks really want to make it that much easier for their viewers to cut the cord on MVPD service and just use a small indoor antenna and tuner that can stream their live broadcasts for free to apps on devices throughout the home? Seems risky, unless they figure that those viewers will watch them not only through the live ATSC 3.0 broadcast but also pay to watch via their DTC OTT SVOD (where the same network content, plus more, can be played on-demand any time). But if you can easily record the OTA broadcasts on a DVR and play it back any time, that obviously lessens the rationale for paying for the SVOD. Maybe the costs and hassles of using an ATSC 3.0 DVR will be such that the networks figure that their adoption and usage -- particularly among a public increasingly conditioned to on-demand streaming -- will be low enough so as not to much hamper their SVODs. But make no mistake, the networks do NOT like the idea of folks being able to record their content and watch it back on-demand whenever they live without having to pay them a dime for that privilege, especially if they can skip past the ads during playback.

That's why I'm unsure whether ASTC 3.0 DVRs will be able to record anything more than the content actually owned by your local station, e.g. the local newscasts. I can imagine some form of DRM being implemented that would keep viewers from being able to record the network-owned (e.g. primetime and pro/college sports) content or, at the least, keep the viewer from skipping through the ads if that content was recorded. Perhaps to remove that DRM and allow full DVR functionality, you'll need to pay some sort of subscription fee that would be split by the network and the local affiliate station -- basically a replacement for lost MVPD retransmission fees.

If such DRM cannot be implemented in ATSC 3.0 because it's found to be illegal or otherwise impracticable, and if cord-cutting increases with folks instead using OTA DVRs to watch network content, then I'd expect the networks to scale back what they spend on content so that they're still profitable, while holding back their most desirable content for their paid subscription services (their SVODs and cable networks). Maybe those expensive NFL games go away, carried only on pay sources. Maybe the networks only air the first 2 or 3 episodes of new scripted series; to watch the rest, you'll need their SVOD service. Maybe primetime shrinks from 3 hours to only 2 (which has always been the case on Fox), with older syndicated stuff or expanded local content filling in that other hour. In this scenario, the broadcast networks would carry on and survive, but as hollowed-out shells of their former selves.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> Those are the absolute last things I would want to watch live. They are the best things to time shift. Since they are overloaded with commercials.


Yeah, they load those broadcasts up with ads to make them as lucrative as possible. And if you really hate ads, as you do, then you'll time shift to avoid them.

But lots of folks don't want to find out on social media or at the office water cooler the next day who won last night's game or who got the rose or who got voted off the island. They want to see the thing unfold as it happens. And, perhaps just as important, they want to feel connected to everyone else who's watching this thing live, seeing it as they see it and sharing in that collective moment. That's an important aspect of live TV, especially on the big 4 broadcast networks; they kind of function as a shared national living room. And in an era where we're increasingly fractured -- in all sorts of ways, including our media consumption -- being able to carry event programming that gives the sense of "this is what the nation is watching" is powerful.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Thanks. As to your question: hard to say. From the point of view of ABC, CBS or NBC, people watching their content for free via OTA TV is the next-to-worst scenario for them, with the worst scenario being that they just never watch their stuff at all. At least if they watch OTA, the networks (and their affiliates) are still making money on the ads they show you. But they'd rather get money from both ads and subscription fees, which they can get if you're watching their content through an MVPD or on their DTC OTT SVOD (e.g. Hulu). (The situation is a little different for the non-network station owners like Sinclair, Nexstar, etc. because they're cut out of the loop on the SVOD and make nothing if you watch there.)


So what I'm thinking is that if the networks use their house ads as a platform to push their streaming services, as well as rely more heavily on live content which forces people to watch live ads, then they are going to want as many people as possible watching, which will become more important than the cable retrans fees. I just wonder where the "tipping point" for that is. If they push to ATSC 3.0 SFNs ASAP, they could capture more viewership, but potentially increase cord cutting and lose retrans fees more quickly, but if they wait too long, they could just become totally irrelevant. Based on your description of their business model, if they're playing a long game, then they'll move to ATSC 3.0 with an SFN as soon as they can.



> People like to talk about 4K HDR but I think the killer feature of ATSC 3.0 may be its more robust transmission system, making it easier to reliably tune in signals with no glitches. And if ATSC 3.0 were deployed on an SFN, that would make it even more robust, filling in those little dead spots throughout a metro area by giving an antenna the chance to catch the signal from multiple directions. (And keep in mind that multipath *strengthens* an ATSC 3.0 signal whereas it makes a glitchy mess of ATSC 1.0.)


Little dead spots? We have whole chunks of the state with poor OTA reception, i.e. requiring outdoor antennas. If an ATSC 3.0 SFN is deployed, everyone could use small indoor antennas, which will have much higher penetration than having to install antennas outdoors. I don't think we will see many, if any 4k feeds on ATSC 3.0. I don't see the business model for it, whereas I can see the business model for numerous 720p diginets, channel sharing, etc.



> Do the networks really want to make it that much easier for their viewers to cut the cord on MVPD service and just use a small indoor antenna and tuner that can stream their live broadcasts for free to apps on devices throughout the home? Seems risky, unless they figure that those viewers will watch them not only through the live ATSC 3.0 broadcast but also pay to watch via their DTC OTT SVOD (where the same network content, plus more, can be played on-demand any time). But if you can easily record the OTA broadcasts on a DVR and play it back any time, that obviously lessens the rationale for paying for the SVOD. Maybe the costs and hassles of using an ATSC 3.0 DVR will be such that the networks figure that their adoption and usage -- particularly among a public increasingly conditioned to on-demand streaming -- will be low enough so as not to much hamper their SVODs. But make no mistake, the networks do NOT like the idea of folks being able to record their content and watch it back on-demand whenever they live without having to pay them a dime for that privilege, especially if they can skip past the ads during playback.


I actually think the DVR thing is an advantage to the networks in moving to OTA, as we haven't seen widespread adoption of OTA DVRs. Maybe that will change with ATSC 3.0, but right now, virtually all DVRs out there in the wild are rented from an MVPD, or are cloud-based through a vMVPD, which, from a business perspective, is the same thing. I'm quite interested by the notion of using house ads in order to promote OTT SVOD, but I think ads will remain a core part of the business as well in the long run, just like they were in the pre-cable world.



> That's why I'm unsure whether ASTC 3.0 DVRs will be able to record anything more than the content actually owned by your local station, e.g. the local newscasts. I can imagine some form of DRM being implemented that would keep viewers from being able to record the network-owned (e.g. primetime and pro/college sports) content or, at the least, keep the viewer from skipping through the ads if that content was recorded. Perhaps to remove that DRM and allow full DVR functionality, you'll need to pay some sort of subscription fee that would be split by the network and the local affiliate station -- basically a replacement for lost MVPD retransmission fees.


That sounds like a horrible system! DRM never works out well for anyone involved, content providers or consumers, but of course that hasn't stopped the MAFIAA (RIAA and MPAA) and various software developers and others from pushing it down people's throats. I wonder if they are banking on people not using antennas, and either using super skinny bundles from vMVPDs, or including the live TV with cloud DVR for your local network affiliate in their OTT SVOD app? That would serve as a way to monetize retrans fees without a traditional facilities-based MVPD involved.



> If such DRM cannot be implemented in ATSC 3.0 because it's found to be illegal or otherwise impracticable, and if cord-cutting increases with folks instead using OTA DVRs to watch network content, then I'd expect the networks to scale back what they spend on content so that they're still profitable, while holding back their most desirable content for their paid subscription services (their SVODs and cable networks). Maybe those expensive NFL games go away, carried only on pay sources. Maybe the networks only air the first 2 or 3 episodes of new scripted series; to watch the rest, you'll need their SVOD service. Maybe primetime shrinks from 3 hours to only 2 (which has always been the case on Fox), with older syndicated stuff or expanded local content filling in that other hour. In this scenario, the broadcast networks would carry on and survive, but as hollowed-out shells of their former selves.


There is no precedent for widespread consumer ownership of DVRs. The only DVRs that have ever been widely used are rented from MVPDs. It is possible that people have now become accustomed to them and will seek out DVRs for ATSC 3.0, but studies show that the majority of cord cutters using ATSC 1.0 today don't have a DVR. Also, if they are focusing on live content, like sports and the live social-media shows that you mentioned earlier, it just doesn't matter, as they will watch live anyway. There may also be a push to make ads better and more interesting, so that people won't mind watching them as much, or doing more sponsorships and product placement as well.

Those other possibilities are quite interesting. The NFL games could likely go to a streaming or pay TV provider, although they have a mass audience that watches the advertising, so they could survive when most other sports don't. I totally agree about hollowed-out shells of their former selves. I think instead of reducing prime-time however, we will just see a move to low-budget content, whether they are game shows, reality shows, or anything else that's cheap and easy to produce in quantity, combined with what you're describing where the first 3 episodes of a show are broadcast, and then after that you have to go and stream them through a paid streaming service. They could also just turn into re-runs and syndicated content.



NashGuy said:


> And in an era where we're increasingly fractured -- in all sorts of ways, including our media consumption -- being able to carry event programming that gives the sense of "this is what the nation is watching" is powerful.


I think there is a market for that kind of stuff. It's definitely a lower-end market, but it's a big market nonetheless. Lot of people watch all sorts of garbage on TV, and there's a business surrounding that.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, they load those broadcasts up with ads to make them as lucrative as possible. And if you really hate ads, as you do, then you'll time shift to avoid them.
> 
> But lots of folks don't want to find out on social media or at the office water cooler the next day who won last night's game or who got the rose or who got voted off the island. They want to see the thing unfold as it happens. And, perhaps just as important, they want to feel connected to everyone else who's watching this thing live, seeing it as they see it and sharing in that collective moment. That's an important aspect of live TV, especially on the big 4 broadcast networks; they kind of function as a shared national living room. And in an era where we're increasingly fractured -- in all sorts of ways, including our media consumption -- being able to carry event programming that gives the sense of "this is what the nation is watching" is powerful.


You can still talk to the people at work about it the next day. You just start watching 30 to 60 minutes later to still avoid all the commercials. Then you have still watched it the night it aired. And can talk about it the next day. Only instead of having to sit through 20 minutes of commercials every hour, you have more time to do other things.

Personally, if it comes down to it. I would rather not watch it all then have to sit through all those commercials.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Yep, for sports I almost always chase-watch to avoid commercials. You're still watching same day.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> Well, this thread I started a long time ago has lain dormant for awhile now (after meandering off-topic, as we tend to do here at TCF). *But I'm revisiting it now because it looks like maybe, finally, here in early 2019, Comcast has begun transitioning over to 100% IPTV service for new subscribers in some areas.*
> ...
> No matter how I requested TV service in the Plan Builder -- whether the Basic (10+ channels), Extra (125+) or Preferred (200+) channel tiers, whether standalone or combined with broadband service -- I was never offered the option of a TV box with built-in DVR. Getting an X1 box required the Extra or Preferred TV packages and came with 20 hours of cloud DVR storage included (just as Xfinity Instant TV does in other areas). All three channel tiers offered the option to upgrade to 60 hours of cloud DVR storage for $10 per month. (If additional amounts of cloud storage beyond just 60 hours are available, they're not offered during this order process.) All TV boxes, whether the X1 box (the accompanying photo appeared to be the Xi6 box) with the Extra and Preferred tiers or the generic "TV box" with the Basic tier, cost $5 each per month. The Extra and Preferred tiers allow you to avoid paying for boxes by clicking "I will stream my Xfinity TV services on my own device" and linked to this page -- which explains using the Xfinity Stream app and makes no mention of CableCARD.
> ...
> ...


OK, back to the main topic of this thread. I've come across some additional info about the new changes Comcast is rolling out for online TV sign-ups and they further support my theory (laid out above) that the default option for those new customers is IPTV.

I posted over at DSL Reports asking if Comcast is doing away with DVR boxes for new customers and moving to only offering cloud DVR service. A guy there from Chicago responded that he just had Comcast services installed (I don't know if he signed up online or otherwise) -- broadband plus TV service for one TV. He was given an Xi5, an X1 IPTV-only box without tuners or hard drive, as his only piece of TV hardware. He also took an xFi Gateway (rented modem/router) for his broadband service. He had thought he was going to get the full X1 service, with a 6-tuner DVR that can store up to 500 hrs but was shocked to find that he only had cloud DVR service with far less storage and could only record a single show at a time! It took him several calls to get "downgraded" from IPTV service to regular X1 with a hardware DVR and QAM tuners.

Note that this guy did not specifically request IPTV. He thought he was getting "regular" X1 service with DVR. And yet he was given a standalone Xi5 with cloud DVR service. And this was in Chicago, the same area where I had initially read about the new Plan Builder and changes in how Comcast TV is being offered. So this guy's story definitely supports my theory that 100% IPTV delivery is now becoming the default option, the new normal, for Comcast, although it's still too soon to know for sure. (BTW, a closer examination of the X1 photo shown in the new TV sign-up page on their website -- I've embedded it below -- reveals that it features an Xi5, not an Xi6 as I had originally reported.)

Also, it looks like the restructured online TV sign-up system is spreading. Earlier this month, when I logged into my own Comcast account here in Nashville, I saw Xfinity Instant TV and regular X1 service with hardware DVRs being offered. Not now. I only see the new system. Same with my parents' Comcast account down in Georgia. (I'm evaluating options for them to switch away from Dish satellite but a lot seems to be in flux at the moment with TV service from both Comcast and AT&T, their only available broadband providers.)


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> OK, back to the main topic of this thread. I've come across some additional info about the new changes Comcast is rolling out for online TV sign-ups and they further support my theory (laid out above) that the default option for those new customers is IPTV.
> 
> I posted over at DSL Reports asking if Comcast is doing away with DVR boxes for new customers and moving to only offering cloud DVR service. A guy there from Chicago responded that he just had Comcast services installed (I don't know if he signed up online or otherwise) -- broadband plus TV service for one TV. He was given an Xi5, an X1 IPTV-only box without tuners or hard drive, as his only piece of TV hardware. He also took an xFi Gateway (rented modem/router) for his broadband service. He had thought he was going to get the full X1 service, with a 6-tuner DVR that can store up to 500 hrs but was shocked to find that he only had cloud DVR service with far less storage and could only record a single show at a time! It took him several calls to get "downgraded" from IPTV service to regular X1 with a hardware DVR and QAM tuners.
> 
> ...


Only being able to record one show at a time is practically medieval. One of the reasons I got a TiVo after my Moxi died was because the X1 tuners didn't buffer which I found annoying.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Only being able to record one show at a time is practically medieval. One of the reasons I got a TiVo after my Moxi died was because the X1 tuners didn't buffer which I found annoying.


Seriously. The guy who posted that was also seeing some technical problems with his connection. Who knows, maybe the "one recording at a time" thing was a glitch. If it wasn't, and that's what Comcast is trying to roll out as their main form of DVR service, they're going to have a lot of angry customers on their hands, I'd think.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> OK, back to the main topic of this thread.


We did get totally off-topic, but your posts about OTA are fantastic, you have very good insight into that market, and it made up for a bunch of crappy threads of people bickering I've been involved in over at DSL Reports!



> He had thought he was going to get the full X1 service, with a 6-tuner DVR that can store up to 500 hrs but was shocked to find that he only had cloud DVR service with far less storage and could only record a single show at a time! It took him several calls to get "downgraded" from IPTV service to regular X1 with a hardware DVR and QAM tuners.


That sounds rather... half-baked. I would think they would offer MORE tuners, not fewer, as well as tiered storage options. If they can move everyone to cloud DVR, offer an insane number of tuners, and then tier the storage, that's another revenue source for them, and it would be in their best interest to have a LOT of tuners.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> That sounds rather... half-baked. I would think they would offer MORE tuners, not fewer, as well as tiered storage options. If they can move everyone to cloud DVR, offer an insane number of tuners, and then tier the storage, that's another revenue source for them, and it would be in their best interest to have a LOT of tuners.


With IP-based cloud DVR there aren't ANY tuners, so I don't know why there would be any constraints on the number of simultaneous recordings at all. There aren't with YouTube TV, for instance. Until there's further confirmation from other users, I'm skeptical that that "only one simultaneous recording" rule is real.

And yes, tiered storage makes a lot of sense. 20 hours for free, 60 hours for an extra $10, 120 hours for an extra $20, etc. But based on the online sign-up page (see below), the only option is 60 hours for $10.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Only being able to record one show at a time is practically medieval.


No, it's just evil.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Bigg said:


> We did get totally off-topic, but your posts about OTA are fantastic, you have very good insight into that market, and it made up for a bunch of crappy threads of people bickering I've been involved in over at DSL Reports!
> 
> That sounds rather... half-baked. I would think they would offer MORE tuners, not fewer, as well as tiered storage options. If they can move everyone to cloud DVR, offer an insane number of tuners, and then tier the storage, that's another revenue source for them, and it would be in their best interest to have a LOT of tuners.


Maybe they are going to try to rely more on their On Demand instead of tuners (streams) recording.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> No, it's just evil.


When you record you can skip ads. When you watch live you have to wait for the ads to display.

When a programming developer owns the distribution network they have an incentive to limit what you record, but there's still that market push to claim DVR capability.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

mschnebly said:


> Maybe they are going to try to rely more on their On Demand instead of tuners (streams) recording.


The only reason to do that is to force commercials.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

randian said:


> The only reason to do that is to force commercials.


True and they force commercials to pay the bills. No commercials = higher costs and less great content. I do like the ability for those who can to pay more to eliminate the commercials.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

No idea if this ties into whatever changes that Comcast may be implementing with their TV/DVR service, but they've stated that they will roll out their own SVOD service next year. It will reportedly be free for their cable TV customers but will include ads, although there will be an option to pay a few bucks to remove the ads. Sounds like this new service will include some exclusive original content (the first series in production stars Emmy Rossum from Shameless) and I'm sure they'll also put some of their library catalog of Universal shows and movies on there too.

They're not going to take away DVR but one can see how they may try to encourage on-demand viewing of their own content instead. Will be interesting to see how it gets integrated into the X1 UI.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Actually, on my TiVo I've been able to FF through the Xfinity On-demand ads. Not as nice a UI as the native TiVo UI, but quicker than watching the whole ad.


----------



## DeltaOne (Sep 29, 2013)

pdhenry said:


> Actually, on my TiVo I've been able to FF through the Xfinity On-demand ads. Not as nice a UI as the native TiVo UI, but quicker than watching the whole ad.


In my experience, I've only been able to FF through OnDemand ads about half of the time. It depends on what network I'm watching.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

mschnebly said:


> True and they force commercials to pay the bills. No commercials = higher costs and less great content. I do like the ability for those who can to pay more to eliminate the commercials.


Does any cable company have an option to eliminate ads on On Demand content? Comcast certainly doesn't so far as I'm aware. Other problems I have with forced On-Demand (which is what a 1-tuner "DVR" is) are that it's typically not available the same day as the original broadcast, and I can't queue up episodes and binge watch because often only a few episodes are available. I can't store up episodes to the limit of my available storage because users have no ability to configure how On Demand works.


----------



## Phil T (Oct 29, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Actually, on my TiVo I've been able to FF through the Xfinity On-demand ads. Not as nice a UI as the native TiVo UI, but quicker than watching the whole ad.


Watched a Comcast on demand Conan from Australia last night. Could not skip any commercials.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Actually, on my TiVo I've been able to FF through the Xfinity On-demand ads. Not as nice a UI as the native TiVo UI, but quicker than watching the whole ad.


It depends on the network. Some allow fast forwarding, while others do not.

If you miss the last few minutes of a show, the XOD on TiVo is the worst way to catch up as it blocks you from fast forwarding through any content, including the show. Online streams at least allow you to drag to the end of the show and start there. There may be a few ads, but at least you don't need to watch 55 minutes of a show to see the 5 minutes you missed.


----------



## schatham (Mar 17, 2007)

That's why I hate on demand, commercial ff blocked most of the time. To make it worse you can't change the channel during commercials. 

I'll keep my real DVR thank you.


----------



## dishrich (Jan 16, 2002)

This might throw a little snag in Comcast's IPTV/cloud DVR plans:

TiVo Adds Patent Suit Against Comcast in California
Latest Rovi Corp. action comes as Comcast litigator is named one of California's top IP lawyers
https://www.multichannel.com/news/tivo-adds-more-lawsuits-against-comcast


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I now remember that the show I watched and could skip ads was Corporate from Comedy Central, but I know that other shows - particularly current-season episodes you can't FF at all.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> With IP-based cloud DVR there aren't ANY tuners, so I don't know why there would be any constraints on the number of simultaneous recordings at all. There aren't with YouTube TV, for instance. Until there's further confirmation from other users, I'm skeptical that that "only one simultaneous recording" rule is real.


Yeah, that sounds like a glitch, of which Comcast's X1 platform has many.



> And yes, tiered storage makes a lot of sense. 20 hours for free, 60 hours for an extra $10, 120 hours for an extra $20, etc. But based on the online sign-up page (see below), the only option is 60 hours for $10.


I would suspect that's only the first step. That seems like a lucrative business for Comcast.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, that sounds like a glitch, of which Comcast's X1 platform has many.
> 
> I would suspect that's only the first step. That seems like a lucrative business for Comcast.


Incredibly lucrative. Even with triply redundant storage that's less than three months to recover the full cost of it. Drives should last 2-3 years, so the math is obvious.


----------

