Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast Will Let Netflix Onto Its X1 Platform

Posted by msmash on from the talk-of-the-town dept.

Kara Swisher, reporting for Recode:Cable giant Comcast will allow popular web video streaming service Netflix onto its X1 platform. (Editor's note: both the companies confirmed the move to the publication.) Sources said the deal to be on the cable giant's set-top box would be akin to the arrangement that Netflix has cut with smaller cable operators in the United States and bigger ones across the globe. Netflix also has deals with Apple, Roku and Google's Chromecast; its app is offered on these Internet TV services. It also is embedded in smart televisions.It's an enormous step, given the long and sometimes contentious history between the two companies against a backdrop of increased consumer usage of internet-delivered video. From the report:Back in 2012, for example, Peter Kafka reported that Netflix CEO Reed Hastings was "once again accusing Comcast of violating 'net neutrality' principles by favoring its own web video service over those from Netflix, HBO and Hulu, when it comes to data usage."

43 comments

  1. WhoopDiDoDa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say the cat!

  2. This better not slow down my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First posts!

    Awe, crap.

  3. Can't beat them, join them by WarJolt · · Score: 1

    I guess comcast finally realized they will lose when it comes to TV.

    1. Re:Can't beat them, join them by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They'll lose if they take Netflix on head-to-head. But they can treat them like HBO, take a cut off the top, and then later start capping bandwidth and charging overages, or making people buy premium service in order to use Netflix.

  4. It honestly does not compete by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I never understood why Comcast considered Netflix a competitor instead of something like another channel. Netflix has very little that would be playing currently on most cable channels people pay to watch, and it has nothing live like cable can offer... they are very complementary to each other.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:It honestly does not compete by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Or people like me who dropped $100 cable tv service for a Hulu/Netflix/Amazon Prime and can watch most anything out there for less. Cable in general sucks.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:It honestly does not compete by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I never understood why Comcast considered Netflix a competitor instead of something like another channel.

      In my house Netflix is one of the key reasons we recently dumped Time Warner. We don't need specifically what's on Cable TV as long as what the other services have is still entertaining.

      On a side note, if Time Warner wants us back, they'll have to become more Netflix-like, including on-demand and no commercials. I realize I'm being anecdotal here, but that fits the definition of "Competetion" to me.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:It honestly does not compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People don't want to pay for 200 channels with nothing on. Hell, if you look at the grumbling at netflix, people don't want to pay for that either once they've binged all the shows they want to watch. There's been rumors of netflix switching to a regular broadcast schedule, largely because of people suggesting that they'll cancel netflix, wait 6 months for them to post the season of whatever show, subscribe again for a month and binge it, then cancel again.

    4. Re:It honestly does not compete by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Unfortunate for the cable company there are a lot more local stations offering streams even if most are only news and weather that's what I tuned into them for anyway and the larger network like cbs and cw have their most recent content up the day after it airs.

      It's not hard to find the content I watched on cable already available on hulu, netflix, and other streaming sources.

    5. Re:It honestly does not compete by brewthatistrue · · Score: 2

      > Netflix has very little that would be playing currently on most cable channels people pay to watch

      At one time, Netflix digital content was full of grade A movies instead of the mix of A, B, and C movies it has now.

      Then the MPAA wised up and learned from the RIAA's deal with Apple's iTunes and decided they didn't want to cede content distribution to a single mammoth provider ultimately ending up with DRM-free music sales.

      Netflix tried to split DVD and digital into two companies (Netflix and Qwikster) to allow them to bargain better with the studios, but the split failed and Netflix ultimately caved to MPAA demands to delay new releases on DVD in exchange for discounted DVD prices and the opportunity to be allowed to negotiate for streaming rights. (Notable competitor Redbox has not agreed to this release window and just pays retail price for new release DVDs.)

      The studios renegotiated their contracts to make digital content prohibitively expensive for Netflix.

      http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/...
      https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

      This is why there are so many web sites with competing catalogs and no one place to easily watch anything you want. Hulu, Vudu (Wal-Mart), Amazon, Netflix, Crunchyroll, Funimation, Daisuki, iTunes, Crackle, Google Play, etc.

      Some sites have tried to catalog into an easily searchable interface:
      https://www.justwatch.com/
      http://www.flixfindr.com/
      http://www.canistream.it/

      But still, there are some shows that are just not available anywhere (e.g. Rawhide tv western with Clint Eastwood).

      tldr: Netflix would compete with cable television if it could.

    6. Re: It honestly does not compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait just a second now!! The best thing about those 200+ "free" channels is that most of infomercials don't even have any commercials! You seem like a TV snob who wants to turn to channel #27493 (today, tomorrow it will change) for your special program. Then you must think you're clever because you just record your show on the DVR that you have to rent forever, instead of buying, but then find out that "fast forwarding for this show has been disabled."

      I just can't possibility think of why even the most least educated person should ever have to hate the cable companies when they give you so much flexibility, free choice, and value added services.

    7. Re:It honestly does not compete by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      There is a notion held by anti-capitalist "businessmen" that any money that someone else makes is money that they lost. They are incapable of understanding concepts like "complementary products" and just thrash around, tearing the market down with them.

    8. Re:It honestly does not compete by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't mean they'll go back to cable. When Netflix runs out of stuff to watch then I'll stop watching TV. If you can get caught up for 2 months out of the year and spend 10 months unsubscribed and not watching TV, then that's a very good thing and not something to be criticized.

    9. Re:It honestly does not compete by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      "Most anything out there"?

      Hulu has the most currently run shows.. but even the higher end commercial free option only has 5 episodes for some shows, right? Not even the full _current_ season, much less previous seasons..

      I would give up having a DVR and even pay slightly _more_ than cable _IF_ it were completely commercial free, AND had a big backlog -- but including current shows. Yes, I do/have watched _years_ old shows I had recorded, then caught up. (I'm almost caught up with MasterChef, after having not watched for I think 3 seasons, but I kept recording it.. It's a good "light" show I can watch at 1.75x on the treadmill and still have gotten everything.)

    10. Re: It honestly does not compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By saying "most least" you've proved yourself to at the lower end of the intelligence spectrum so I'm not sure your opinion is really worth anything.

  5. Will they have NON DRV X1 boxes? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Will they have NON DRV X1 boxes? or will be forced to pay that DRV fee to get out of iguide hell?

    1. Re:Will they have NON DRV X1 boxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have non-DVR X1 boxes available already.

    2. Re:Will they have NON DRV X1 boxes? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      a non-X1 box that supports Netflix would be a lot better. X1 is slow, hot garbage

    3. Re:Will they have NON DRV X1 boxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with that sentiment with regards to the first generation X1 box, but the 4th generation X1 boxes are pretty damned sweet.

  6. Remember, ONLY apps can app apps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Appcast's App1 app apping device can app apps while apping other apps, unlike LUDDITE computers running LUDDITE Windows 7!

    Apps!

    1. Re: Remember, ONLY apps can app apps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      App you

  7. meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "conflict" was Cocmast wanting to get paid on both ends, by the subscriber and by the website. Comcast negotiates with websites by holding eyeballs captive, shirk covering their share of the costs of hauling Internet data by asking CDN companies to pay for upgrades to Comcast's core network that should be covered by eyeball customers, who are paying to receive xxMbit/s but not getting it due to problems within Comcast's network.

    "Let them onto their platform" sounds like Netflix is paying, which is the "Cocmast wins" scenario from earlier battles. "Settlement-free peering without ratios" and "Comcast customers pay for Comcast's network" are the "Comcast loses" scenarios.

    1. Re:meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cocmast

      This is now my most favorite freudian slip ever. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but for this company, they really are a dick.

  8. Who won? by berchca · · Score: 1

    So someone blinked, but was it Netflix or Comcast?

    1. Re:Who won? by CaseyB · · Score: 2

      Both, neither, pick one. It's not a win for net neutrality though.

      Netflix: "Comcast is preferring their own services over others! Net neutrality, net neutrality!!"
      Comcast: "Alright, let's cut a deal."
      Netflix: "Comcast is preferring their own services and ours! All is right with the world! Screw you, video streaming startups!"

    2. Re:Who won? by swb · · Score: 1

      I think this is right.

      Comcast is just choosing not to fight with one of its harshest critics. Now that they have co-opted them, Netflix won't bitch about Comcast, Comcast can claim they are "fair" and there's "no conflict of interest between data and content" and who knows, maybe they've figured out a way to distribute Netflix content to their DVR subscribers more efficiently than a generic network stream as well.

      Either way, I'd score this as a loss for consumers, a minor win for Comcast and a think-with-your-dick move by Netflix. Whatever they gain by being on a Comcast platform they lose many times over in terms of credibility and moral high ground.

    3. Re:Who won? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Neither blinked but their eyes got so dried out that they couldn't see what they were signing anymore.

  9. The question is is there payola involved? by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    If Netflix is paying Comcast anything they all the Comcast customers need to start a lynch mob. They already are paying both services already. In fact we should all complain since the payola would probably be amortized across all Netflix customers and will result in a price hike.

    Whenever someone "reaches an agreement" payola is involved. It may be less that what comcast wants but that is neither here nor there. What these companies do shouldn't affect what I already pay for.

    1. Re:The question is is there payola involved? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      Whenever someone "reaches an agreement" payola is involved.

      Not necessarily. In this case, Comcast got another bauble for it's array of X1 services and Netflix probably gets closer to some metric like "Integrate to profitable platforms". If both are seen as advantageous by the respective parties, there may not have been any money that changed hands. That may be unlikely, but it is possible.

      The part I find odd is that you somehow assume that, outside of providing you with the contracted service for the given price, that the companies involved have some responsibility to run their businesses without other external financial interactions. Does this extend to the other vendors Netflix deals with (like Samsung)? After all, you paid for the TV and so you deserve a rebate from Netflix? I feel dumber for having to type that, but that's what you're saying.

      --
      That is all.
    2. Re:The question is is there payola involved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The X1 platform is not a Comcast service.
      It's a Cable Platform as a Service, and it's being demoed out by several cable companies in other countries. (Shaw Cable in Canada being the largest)

      By integrating with more services that people want, they can sell their services providing Content Infrastructure, rather than being an ISP/Cable-Company.

  10. I see by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    So this is why Netflix emailed me this long weekend to say my subscription is going up: danegeld.

    1. Re:I see by CrankyFool · · Score: 1

      Netflix emailed you this weekend because two years ago, it raised prices and grandfathered you for a whopping two years, and those two years are finally over. I believe, in fact, that's literally what your email notice said.

  11. For how long? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    In other words, Comcast doesn't have anything that could compete with it and knows that people will try whatever they can to get away from them if they disallowed it.

    How long until they offer something crappier and slightly more expensive, and cut off Netflix, hoping that people will grudgingly bite the bullet?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:For how long? by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1

      The X1 Platform isn't a Comcast Product.
      It's a Platform Service being used by cable companies in several countries. (Shaw Cable, Canada being the largest to announce)
      By integrating Netflix, they just make their Cable Platform more enticing for other Cable companies to use.
      And I'm sure Shaw Cable has a wish-lish of features they want on the platform.

  12. Let them? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Let them? um they don't have a choice. Wasn't that the point of the net neutrality fight.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  13. Peter Kafka Is he a relative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, the whole story suits...

  14. Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to go Comcast! Comcast is the greatest company in the world.

  15. But Concast can't handle the bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how Concast wanted Netflix to pay network access fees and suddenly they're putting Netflix on their boxes.

  16. Oh Please!! by jltnol · · Score: 1

    This is only the result of the FCC regulation that will force cable operators like Comcast to allow consumers to purchase, connect, and use other Cable TV Boxes. Short of that decision, this would NOT be happening. It's just a move to shore up their argument, which, by the way, they've already lost.

    1. Re:Oh Please!! by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1

      I think this is more a fact that they are selling the X1 platform for other cable operators to use. (The big announcement was Shaw Cable Canada, and Cox USA using it)
      Adding a Netflix feature makes it more enticing to other companies to buy this service.

  17. Interface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it going to cover with the same shitty interface that is the hallmark of the set top box.

  18. Great move for Comcast by rmullig2 · · Score: 1

    They will in all likelihood be getting a commission on each user that signs up to use the application through the set top. They can stream the Netflix content over the cable TV network thereby relieving some of the congestion there. The best part for them is it gives them leverage over the content providers. If networks want to pull their stations off the Comcast system then subscribers can access the content through Netflix and watch it on the same big screen TV they are used to.

  19. This is just Comcast by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    desperately trying to get Wheeler to give up on opening up cable boxes. Jokes on them, no sports, so I cut the cord.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/