Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Roku Owners: Comcast Is About To Sell You Cable TV Without the Cable Box (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the hassle-free dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Comcast is making its Xfinity TV service available to subscribers with Roku set-top players via a new app, paving the way for customers of the nation's largest cable provider to watch live programming without the cost or hassle of a cable box. Roku is the first set-stop box to offer the Xfinity TV service, Comcast said in a statement Tuesday. During a test period, subscribers will have to hang on to their cable devices. When the app formally rolls out later this year, they'll be able sign up without renting a cable box. While Comcast expects the majority of its customers to opt for the typical setup, traditional pay-TV providers are trying to be more flexible about where and how people can watch TV given the popularity of streaming services like Netflix and Amazon and the boxes that offer them. Customers with Roku players will be able to watch live TV, browse on-demand libraries and record shows, just as they can with Comcast's boxes. Those who use the Roku as their primary device instead of Comcast's X1 device will receive a $2.50 monthly credit, the company said.

108 comments

  1. We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was called "Clear QAM" and Comcast could have supported it at any time. The only reason it isn't is that the FCC has suffered regulatory capture and allowed Comcast to choose to encrypt, fucking over users of third-party tuners.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't control who gets clear QAM, everyone could watch everything for free. Not a smart business model.

    2. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Just like analog cable, you can install channel filters to block channels to non-subscribers. This is a long-ago solved problem.

    3. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You can't control who gets clear QAM

      Sure you could. You could do it exactly the same way the cable companies did it for analog cable: by putting filters on the line. They were just too goddamn cheap to keep doing it and wanted to pad their profit margin at the expense of consumer choice and market competition in TV-viewing hardware instead.

      (The fact that cable boxes enabled Orwellian monitoring of viewing habits was an added bonus, of course.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      It supported it until around 2009/10. That's around the time my PC's TV card became quite a bit less useful.

    5. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The day Comcast started encrypting the signal to my house was the day I canceled service with them. I put an antenna in the attic and between that and Netflix I've been fine. One thing that was pretty shocking was seeing how good the over-the-air image quality was compared to what Comcast was dishing out.

    6. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      we lost a couple tivo and two old-school vhs decks (yes we used them to the very end) when analog signals were discontinued by cable company.

      we then started using a vcr in conjunction with a scheduling feature of the cable box (essentially programming the vcr to record what we programmed the cable box to show and when).. that feature soon disappeared after.

      we then lost four pc tuners when they started encrypting their new digital-only signals... even the fucking ota channels... GONE.

      all of this while they jack up rates every 3-6 months, add more bogus bullshit below-the-line charges, and pull more and more channels off of "basic" and "expanded" basic and onto separate extra-cost tiers...

      and they want to sell us a dvr (correction: rent) for 20 bucks a month more?

      FUCK NO.

      our bill is $140 for expanded basic, one sd box and slowest available internet. it used to be $105 for all of that PLUS every fucking extra tier and every fucking premium channel, and that was just 10 years ago.

      if we could even get ota signals in the valley here, we'd be all over that and dump charter's lame ass. but we're stuck... this or only internet and their internet is so fucking shitty we can't rely on that for tv either.

    7. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2

      You still have it. Spend $40 and buy an HDTV antenna and stick it on the window sill. We just did it after our local cable provider pulled the same Clear QAM encrypting shenanigans and found we get about 35 channels -- all the locals in HD, plus PBS and a handful of others. You can even get a bigger amplified antenna on your roof or in your attic and split the signal and distribute it to your various TVs likely using your existing cable TV wiring . . . just like in the old days. :-)

    8. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by dknj · · Score: 1

      Think long and hard about why that won't scale for a minute

    9. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Sure you could. You could do it exactly the same way the cable companies did it for analog cable: by putting filters on the line.

      That's not compatible with what customers are really asking for, though, which is a la carte. Even the cable companies are going to give that sooner or later. They've started moving in that direction just by offering more numerous and varied packages to different subscribers, which in turn is the problem with filters; they're simply incompatible with having umpteen different packages which you sell to different groups of people, or even different individuals. A box with hardware under their control is the only reasonable way for them to accomplish that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by omnichad · · Score: 2

      The fact is, they already implemented it once. They can always do it again. You're right that you have to install separate equipment on every single line coming from the distribution point. The installer put one on mine when I signed up for Internet-only service to block the Clear-QAM local channels.

    11. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      Think long and hard about why that won't scale for a minute

      Well they did it for a number of years, but you're not entirely wrong. Having to do a truck roll every time someone changed service plans is a dumb way to manage access in the 21st century. Remote management of a data network makes all the sense in the world, especially as we get farther and farther away from cable's traditional multicasting-style roots.

      (Comparatively, I suspect people would be up in arms if you had to go to the local cell phone store every time they wanted to change phones or plans)

    12. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cocks (Cox) cable recently switched from Clear QAM to digital DRM. No cable box = no channels, not even for cable ready TVs. They screw you $15/month for a full cable box, or $5/month for a crippled cabe box, or $3/month for a cablecard. Either way they screw you rental charges.

    13. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact is, they already implemented it once. They can always do it again.

      Unfortunately, this removes the ability to manage their channel space. When individual traps were used, channels were analog and didn't move around much, if at all. If you blocked "channel 65" to stop someone from getting free HBO, that was it.

      Today channels can move around on a regular basis, putting something that will need more bandwidth on a "channel" where there is extra, combining similar services, etc. This is all managed by the boxes who are told what lives where.

      Anyone who has had to rescan the system on their TV with clear-QAM knows this. Of course, now that it is almost all encrypted digital you don't scan the system with your TV anymore, so it is less visible when things change.

      The installer put one on mine when I signed up for Internet-only service to block the Clear-QAM local channels.

      Yes, since internet and cable are two different things, in two different frequency bands, using a trap is a good way of solving this problem. But using a trap to block just "HBO" or sports packages won't be practical today.

    14. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Of course, digitally-switched traps or combiners could do it too (if they exist or could be made to exist). Since CableCard never really worked out, I've never had a reason to subscribe. The last time I had a subscription was Satellite where I connected the receiver to MythTV and controlled my own recording. Simply not possible to do well in HD with any current provider (without DMCA violations anyway).

    15. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I suspect people would be up in arms if you had to go to the local cell phone store every time they wanted to change phones or plans

      A majority of people think this is the case (in the US at least).

    16. Re: We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a $5 tool from eBay can open your cable box and remove the filter. This is why they went all digital.

    17. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theoretically you can, but even with an amplifier, we were just able to connect all the televisions in our home. The signal is not strong enough coming out from the router.

    18. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And TV manufacturers could have made TVs that had CableCard built in. But consumers WANT set top boxes because they want to be able to pause and rewind. There's no demand for TVs with built in support for encrypted QAM.

    19. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Of course, digitally-switched traps or combiners could do it too (if they exist or could be made to exist).

      The price would be outrageous. And people would do what they did with traps -- remove them. Or some smart guy learned you could drill a small hole all the way through the trap and insert a wire, and then put the trap back and nobody could see it wasn't working.

      Since CableCard never really worked out,

      I have two. They aren't working out? (Actually three, but one is in a cable box that doesn't have service enabled.)

      Simply not possible to do well in HD with any current provider (without DMCA violations anyway).

      Interesting. One of the cable cards that isn't working out is in a Silicon Dust three receiver unit, and I have no problems recording HD content off of it. Is it done well? I don't know. It appears to be recording full bitrate signal, including captions. The files are huge for long programs.

    20. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You could do it exactly the same way the cable companies did it for analog cable: by putting filters on the line.

      How do you trap out one channel but not another, when they are both carried on the same data stream?

      Now, if you wanted to argue that they should have left the basic cable tier unencrypted, I'd go along with you on that. They CAN trap "cable" vs. "internet", so they can provide service in a way that if you have cable AT ALL you get the basic tier (which everyone gets who is buying cable) in clearQAM. The excuse for not using traps for this? "We have found cases where people can watch the video even with a trap in place." Amazing. When I pointed out that it is impossible to receive a signal that isn't perfect and that nobody could coerce a TV that can't decode the clearQAM signal into showing anything, he had no answer.

      They were just too goddamn cheap

      The cost of keeping a trap system in place is very high, so yes, they were "too cheap" to keep paying a ton of money to do it. Not only was it a maintenance nightmare (sending a truck out every time someone wanted to turn a service on or off), it led to an inability to prosecute cable thieves. The practice called "pencil whip disconnect" (disconnecting service by simply checking the box on the dispatch form that said "disconnected" and doing nothing else) meant that there was reasonable doubt whenever a cable thief was taken to court. "We moved in and found it this way, we thought it was part of the rent."

    21. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Over-the-air digital TV is ATSC, not QAM.

      And yes, I cut the cord years ago. Fuck Comcast!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    22. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      And TV manufacturers could have made TVs that had CableCard built in.

      No, no they couldn't. Cable Labs (wholly owned by the cable cartel) made it as difficult and expensive as fucking possible to make any CableCard-supporting device to be sold to consumers (as opposed to rented to them). CableCard was literally designed to fail.

      But consumers WANT set top boxes because they want to be able to pause and rewind.

      Bullshit. First of all, most cable boxes are the basic standard-def, no recording pieces of shit that have the lowest rental fee. Most of the rest are HD but non-DVR. Second, there's no reason you couldn't have put a DVR in a TV if you wanted. People never had the chance to buy such a thing because Cable Labs never allowed it to exist.

      There's no demand for TVs with built in support for encrypted QAM.

      There's no demand for encrypted QAM in the first place! People don't want to be treated as a hostile enemy by their electronics; they only accept it because the FUCKERS IN THE CABLE CARTEL force it down their throats until they choke on it!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    23. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      One of the cable cards that isn't working out is in a Silicon Dust three receiver unit, and I have no problems recording HD content off of it.

      If you're in a walled garden on Windows, I'm sure it works. But I want to do things my own way.

    24. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      If you had reliable internet without a data cap, there are IPTV options for Kodi. Legal? Probably not. $10 a month for about 400 channels. It works.

      It's too bad Comcast won't just sell this sort of service. But I have found out I like some of the European channels Comcast (and indeed nobody else in North America) doesn't offer.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    25. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you live too far away and can't get OTA digital signals ! A Lot of people got screwed when they went digital !

    26. Re: We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silicon Dust supports Windows, Mac and Linux. You'd know that if you took five seconds to check whether you were correct rather than just assuming so.

    27. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      I worked for one of them on the network side. Clear QAM was never the answer. If anything, it would have been CableCard.

      Why?

      1. Filters cost money to deploy and replace. (Both equipment and labor)

      2. Impossible to charge per TV/device (Signal is 100% free past the filters)

      3. Filters offer no fraud protection (very cheap and easy to bypass filters, or split out to neighbors)

      Of those, probably #3 was the biggest issue at first. But they were sure excited to see what they could do with issue #2.

      The CableCard standard would allow cable customers to plug it into any compatible device and decrypt the signal.

      Unfortunately, there was a lack of regulation so the CableCard typically did not enable customers to used enhanced channel guides, video on demand, or other "premium" features.

      Without the ability to offer feature parity, CableCard devices never took off---users faced a high upfront expense for limited features.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    28. Re: We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

      Remember, it was cool to get 'free' HBO in the 1980s and 1990s.....

    29. Re: We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And they didn't use a notch filter for blocking that - those were "encrypted" with an analog obfuscation scheme.

    30. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Of course, digitally-switched traps or combiners could do it too (if they exist or could be made to exist).

      They do exist. They are called cable boxes.

    31. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      2. Impossible to charge per TV/device (Signal is 100% free past the filters)

      Of those, probably #3 was the biggest issue at first. But they were sure excited to see what they could do with issue #2.

      No shit. And that's exactly why the FCC shouldn't have allowed them to do it -- because charging per TV is FUCKING EVIL!

      Unfortunately, there was a lack of regulation so the CableCard typically did not enable customers to used enhanced channel guides, video on demand, or other "premium" features.

      Oh, bullshit! The CableCard spec was entirely within the control of Comcast and the rest of the cable cartel; if it lacked features it was entirely the fault of the cable companies themselves. In other words, they designed it to be inferior on purpose in order to drive cable box rentals.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    32. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      They do exist. They are called cable boxes.

      I thought about that when I made my response. Actually, the cable box is not a trap or combiner because it also decodes the signal and presents one output at a time. A trap or combiner would remove the unwanted or unbought signals and allow the remaining signals to pass in to whatever other device would use them, such as an ATV-capable TV or VCR. Because it includes the tuning function as well as the selection function, it isn't the answer being sought.

    33. Re: We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      And they didn't use a notch filter for blocking that

      Yes, in many systems they used a trap to block the pay services like HBO -- until there became so many of them that individual traps became a logistical nightmare. Also, people learned how to defeat the traps (remove or deactivate).

      That's what led to the sync-suppressed or sync-inverted scrambling systems that were applied later. Those could still be defeated with a bit more technical knowledge, however.

    34. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, there was a lack of regulation so the CableCard typically did not enable customers to used enhanced channel guides, video on demand, or other "premium" features.

      Oh, bullshit! The CableCard spec was entirely within the control of Comcast and the rest of the cable cartel; if it lacked features it was entirely the fault of the cable companies themselves. In other words, they designed it to be inferior on purpose in order to drive cable box rentals.

      No, that's what the GP was saying. Since there were no regulations requiring them to deliver that content to cablecard customers, they didn't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box! by robot256 · · Score: 1

      The answer was already given earlier, though, that in today's networks, the networks selectively allocate RF channels only to the logical channels being viewed. The "tuner" is an active device that must request the channel you want from the router, and thus by necessity also includes the capability to perform selection.

      One could imagine an application for a universal tuner under the customer's control that used said protocol to request logical channels, and a digital selector under the cable company's control that kept up with the channel hopping and blocked any RF signal that contained a forbidden logical channel. Such a selector would be rather complex and of no benefit to the cable company, so if they even built it, they would charge an arm and a leg for it.

  2. I'll try it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm game for anything at this point. Even if its only a little cheaper and I think my Roku's UI is superbly ugly.

    1. Re:I'll try it. by negRo_slim · · Score: 2

      Then ditch cable andexplicitly paid for TV in general. I know it sounds trite but life is good with a bit ofYoutube, Podcasts and Radio.Frees up attention for hobbys and enjoyable work and dare I say even becoming more active.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  3. wait.... charged for WHAT?!!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so if I use the Roku.. connected to internet... NO CABLE and NO CABLECARD... what would I need to pay 9.95?!?!
    (current outlet charges are 9.95 - owned equipment with cablecard gets 2.50 credit)

    1. Re:wait.... charged for WHAT?!!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because over three quarters of your cable (not Internet) bill is to pay for programming.

  4. So basically by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

    The worst customer service from the worst company on the planet now with extra buffering. Expect it to not work so great if you happen to use AT&T for your internet.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:So basically by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Expect it to not work so great if you happen to use AT&T for your internet.

      Or count toward your bandwidth cap if you use Comcast.

    2. Re:So basically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure you have to have their internet package as well in order to use it. Says it has to be running from an xfinity gateway.

    3. Re:So basically by eliphalet · · Score: 1

      If Comcast were to offer this service over the Internet, one or both of the following will happen: 1. All of the ISPs who don't have caps yet will impose them. 2. The Trumpkins on the FCC will permit the other ISPs to block any IP-based TV service other than their own.

  5. Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast Is About To Sell You...

    Damn; we didn't see the purchase coming... or BeauHD, did your sloppy, inept ass mean to type "they're going to try to sell...?"

  6. Comcast? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure I would ever buy anything from Comcast. There's a long history of people doing that and finding themselves on the losing end of the deal.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Comcast? by m00sh · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I would ever buy anything from Comcast. There's a long history of people doing that and finding themselves on the losing end of the deal.

      Like there is choice.

    2. Re:Comcast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it works it's terrific. 160x30 consistently. Rarely out. But when something does happen to your connection or your account you spend forever getting it sorted out. Found out my account number had changed and I owed $500 by the time they cut me off. I had all that paid (even more because I freaked about an overdue bill notice I got once so sent in an extra $120 or so) to the old account number. They couldn't just move it over. I needed it for work so I just paid the current bill and waited for the credit. 5 months.

    3. Re:Comcast? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      I get the choice between Comcast and Frontier Fios. Frontier have been imperfect (they messed up routing to our static subnet once and once moved the DNS servers without telling us) but you call them and they fix it. Waiting 5 months for anything doesn't sound like an option I would take.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    4. Re:Comcast? by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. Don't watch tv, or put up an antenna and get OTA for free. That's what I do. The tv only exists for chromecasting netflix and youtube.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    5. Re:Comcast? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Even if you had no choice of affordable fast Internet? :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    6. Re:Comcast? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Even if you had no choice of affordable fast Internet? :(

      I would move. In fact I did.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  7. Not so fast...are we sure this is going to happen? by Kargan · · Score: 0

    https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-...

    Trump and his wonderful deregulations just announced today that Cable providers don't need to do this. I have to wonder if Comcast was aware of this before their announcement?

    "Former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who had been appointed by Barack Obama, criticized the move, calling it a victory for "Cablewood over consumers." He also took a jab at Trump on Twitter. "$200 million Pai Tax on helpless cable subs. Trump helping little guy??"

    --
    Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
  8. Maybe already too late for Comcast by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    From appointment TV on three networks, to VCRs that play movies that are too expensive to buy, to space-saving digitally downloaded entertainment.

    Programming providers has better learn to be more nimble in their ability to change with the market, or they will go the way of brick and mortar rental stores.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  9. Can you sign up outside of Comcast's area? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Or is this only over Comcast's Internet service?

    1. Re:Can you sign up outside of Comcast's area? by N7DR · · Score: 1

      Or is this only over Comcast's Internet service?

      From TFA: "For now, Xfinity app will be available only in current markets".

    2. Re:Can you sign up outside of Comcast's area? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Who would choose Comcast if they actually had a choice?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:Can you sign up outside of Comcast's area? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      Or is this only over Comcast's Internet service?

      Time Warner has a Roku live TV and on demand app. It only works on your home IP, if you connect outside your home, even on another TWC connection, you get a very limited (useless) set of channels.

      I assume similar limitations for Comcast.

  10. They don't understand cord-cutters by omnichad · · Score: 2

    Cable is yet again trying to "modernize" itself too woo back the cord-cutters. Yeah, the Roku is not why people are cutting the cord. It's the pricing model that a $2.50 credit doesn't come even close to fixing.

    1. Re:They don't understand cord-cutters by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Cable is yet again trying to "modernize" itself too woo back the cord-cutters. Yeah, the Roku is not why people are cutting the cord. It's the pricing model that a $2.50 credit doesn't come even close to fixing.

      Not to mention, while you might get a $2.50 bill credit Comcast will now blame any service issues on the Roku (since they don't own it). Whereas if service doesn't work on an actual cable box it's on them to get it to work, or roll a tech to replace the box.

    2. Re:They don't understand cord-cutters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me it was the price that I cut it. In 2000 I paid ~30 for internet and TV and about 20 of that was TV. By the time I cut it was 110. So back to ~40. Now internet only is up to ~60. The TV portion is now around 75+20 in other stuff for about the same channels I had in 2000. For inflation that would be ~30 bucks for the TV. Instead they want nearly 100 for the same thing. Then on top of that they have managed to cram even more commercials in.

    3. Re:They don't understand cord-cutters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They actually don't mind this. The customer gets charged for a repair call even if the problem is completely on Comcast's end. You get around this by buying "insurance" that you pay monthly. It's really quite the scam.

    4. Re:They don't understand cord-cutters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cable is yet again trying to "modernize" itself too woo back the cord-cutters. Yeah, the Roku is not why people are cutting the cord. It's the pricing model that a $2.50 credit doesn't come even close to fixing.

      Not to mention, while you might get a $2.50 bill credit Comcast will now blame any service issues on the Roku (since they don't own it). Whereas if service doesn't work on an actual cable box it's on them to get it to work, or roll a tech to replace the box.

      Somehow, I think Comcast just raised the price of cable by $12.50.. you see they are giving back only $2.50 of the $15 they charge per month for the cable box

    5. Re:They don't understand cord-cutters by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Cable is yet again trying to "modernize" itself too woo back the cord-cutters. Yeah, the Roku is not why people are cutting the cord. It's the pricing model that a $2.50 credit doesn't come even close to fixing.

      But... for those of us who do have a Roku and a X1 box, this would save us $2.50 a month. I have both in my bedroom and I only use X1 satellite box occasionally. I got the Roku to watch NHL Live as my favorite team (Oilers) plays late at night, local time. Getting rid of the extra X1 box and saving a few dollars, assuming that the App works well, is a bit of a win in my book. Plus, the Roku supports wireless and can be moved around the house. The X1 box has to be wired with Coax.

      So, for cord cutters, maybe it won't be worth it in the end. But it's a nice option for those of us who still subscribe to cable.

    6. Re:They don't understand cord-cutters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To upgrade my internet service to include cable TV (160 channels) would cost me $54.50/month.

      I'll pass.

    7. Re:They don't understand cord-cutters by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Depends. Comcast is the ONLY high speed internet provider to my house. I can pay $100/mo for their 75Mb internet, or $90/mo for their 75Mb internet and the basic digital cable channels (except for the 13th month of service, where I have to be off their current "promotion" for 30 days before I can get back on). But it's $10 extra per cable box. and another $10 extra if you want that service in HD. So we have a single SD link on the TV my wife watches. If I can pay $87.50 for all of that and just plug in the handful of Rokus I've gotten for free over the years (and maybe even get HD), I'm in.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    8. Re:They don't understand cord-cutters by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Other commenters are saying this is a credit against the "per-outlet" fee that's much higher. Each Roku gets its own fee.

    9. Re:They don't understand cord-cutters by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I think Comcast just raised the price of cable by $12.50.. you see they are giving back only $2.50 of the $15 they charge per month for the cable box

      That was my first thought. How could they credit you for something that is yours?

  11. I prefer VOD by Baleet · · Score: 1

    I am a lot less interested in having to be stuck in front of my TV for something than the ability to DVR it or get it on demand later.

  12. Re:Terrific! by sh00z · · Score: 1

    I don't know about income levels, but since I've paid the lifetime subscription on my TiVo, it sure would be nice to have an a la carte cable option added (I'll take FX and AMC, please).

  13. TiVo? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    What does this do that my TiVo doesn't do? I can already access the "On Demand" shows from Comcast via the TiVo. I already get the $2.50 credit and don't pay for the cable box* (although there is a monthly service fee for the TiVo box).

    Even after returning a cable box, I had to call to actually stop them billing me for it. Also, the same for my cable modem after I bought my own and returned the rented cable modem to Comcast.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:TiVo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of paying money for X, I pay the same or more money for Y. Can someone explain to me the advantage of not having to buy either? I took some massive brain damage earlier and seriously can't figure it out.

    2. Re:TiVo? by unitron · · Score: 1

      Are you renting or leasing that TiVo from the cable co, or did you buy it outright?

      If the latter, then you aren't paying a monthly fee for the box, you're paying for the piece of hardware which you own outright to be able to use the TiVo Service, which is a combination of a month by month license to use the proprietary part of the software, and the listings service (unfortunately not as good with the switch from Tribune Media Services/Gracenote to their new overlords Rovi), and some other "intellectual property" type stuff.

      Do you have to pay anything for the cable card or is the first one "free"?

      (and yes "the first one is free" *is* classic pusher technique)

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  14. Does it use Internet Data? by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    If it uses Internet Data, then one needs to be careful about over data usage cap limits and extra fees. Comcast has or is moving to 1,000 GByte calendar month data caps, though one can get unlimited data by paying $50 more than the usual subscription fee for a given data plan. These extra fees won't be made up by the $2.50 credit on the cable box fee. What they should do is charge only $2.50 as the only fee for using a Roku and forget about the cable box fee and zero rate data charges. Knowing Comcast, they would probably raise the channel/program package fees as well as ISP/Internet connection fees. No one should be hoodwinked into thinking there's some sort of deal here. Comcast will still control fees to maintain a high net income.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  15. Paid TV with ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, fuck you very mush

    1. Re:Paid TV with ads? by sh00z · · Score: 1

      Same as DirecTV now.

  16. Re:Terrific! by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

    I don't understand roku has a bunch of models that range from cheap entry level all the way up to the roku ultra 4k that's priced a little higher than amazon fire tv probably it's closest competitor and just a little less than Apple TV.

  17. Re:Not so fast...are we sure this is going to happ by blahbooboo · · Score: 1

    I am surprised Tom only has like 500 followers on twitter

  18. Roku is nice but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rokus are nice but I haven't seen a DVR feature for them. Charter/spectrum in the past few months has been offering an internet only service using a Roku. The biggest problem is that I have to watch TV on their schedule with no way to record something to watch it later. That is why I will be cancelling the service. I can get their local channel offering through a Tablo device and I dont have to pay their re-broadcast fee on top of the monthly fee.

    1. Re:Roku is nice but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rokus are nice but I haven't seen a DVR feature for them. Charter/spectrum in the past few months has been offering an internet only service using a Roku.

      It would be very easy to add write-support for USB attached hard drives, but...... content providers. [copying, piracy, and the decline of western civilization]

  19. Re:Not so fast...are we sure this is going to happ by mi · · Score: 1

    Trump and his wonderful deregulations just announced today that Cable providers don't need to do this. I have to wonder if Comcast was aware of this before their announcement?

    Seriously, you think, Comcast, which spends millions of dollars lobbying various governments, could possibly have been unaware of developments at FCC? Or, more generally, that Comcast, whose CEO played golf with the President, is not benefiting from the barriers to entry imposed by the regulations?

    The much more likely explanation is that Comcast, facing competition from the likes of Verizon, is trying to do, what the customers want. And they'll only have to do more of that, if FCC makes it easier for more competition to appear.

    Heck, if you want to speculate about a communication-provider making a mistake due to a political miscalculation, take a closer look at Alphabet (Google) freezing its own broadband effort. Google executives were Hillary Clinton to win Presidency (and were actively helping her) and thus had no reasons to expect an improvement of business-climate. Had they known, Ajit Pai will soon become head of FCC, maybe, Google Fiber would've kept expanding...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  20. Re:Terrific! by m00sh · · Score: 2

    I don't understand roku has a bunch of models that range from cheap entry level all the way up to the roku ultra 4k that's priced a little higher than amazon fire tv probably it's closest competitor and just a little less than Apple TV.

    He means Apple TV.

  21. Customers get a $2.50 credit by japhering · · Score: 1

    Against at $15 charge for a cable box they no longer have .. sounds like a sweet deal for Comcast

  22. Re:Not so fast...are we sure this is going to happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The good news there is that now there are more choices than ever in that space and you don't have to get cable. I have not had cable TV for over 5 years and still alive.

  23. Re:Not so fast...are we sure this is going to happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The much more likely explanation is that Comcast, facing competition from the likes of Verizon, is trying to do, what the customers want.

    ROFL. Oh, I needed some levity today.

  24. Horse crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They give us $2.50 credit per month on a device they were charging probably $20/month or something crazy. Ya, it's baked into the basic cost that requires we get a set top box. This is crap.

    Please Donald Trump, save us!!!!!

  25. Re:Not so fast...are we sure this is going to happ by markdavis · · Score: 1

    Trump and his wonderful deregulations just announced today that Cable providers don't need to do this. I have to wonder if Comcast was aware of this before their announcement?

    OMG, give me a break. The weak FCC has been allowing cable companies to screw consumers for decades... .and through both ENTIRE Obama administrations. So let's not pretend there is some new anti-consumer "thing" happening, or that it is something Republican, or something Trump, because it really isn't.

    Cable companies have been encrypting stations with proprietary methods and should not. They then used SDV and locked everyone out of participating except TiVo (pretty much). And even TiVo has a nightmare trying to get things working with cable companies because the cable companies MAKE it a nightmare... they are the only token hold-on. Hidden fees, rental boxes for people who don't even have boxes, cable cards that never work or mysteriously need repairing at random times, over and over again, tuning adapters that freak out nearly EVERY DAY. There have already been several attempts by the FCC to coordinate "open" hardware- and they all failed. I have seen it all. THIS IS NOT NEW.

  26. Who exactly wants this? by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"Roku Owners: Comcast Is About To Sell You Cable TV Without the Cable Box"

    Who cares? Who exactly wants to be FORCED to watch commercials now? I know I don't. That is what "streaming cable" means.

    DVR on cable or OTA- fine
    Netflix model- fine
    Amazon pay-per-show model- fine
    Network passes of uninterrupted shows- fine.
    Streaming cable channels? Why?????

    1. Re:Who exactly wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sports and other live programming.

    2. Re:Who exactly wants this? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Sports and other live programming."

      That is a good point. Thanks. Sometimes I forget about those, since I have ZERO interest in either. Although I know that many sports fans also like to watch recordings, even if it is just delayed enough to zip through endless, mind-numbing commercials.

  27. Die Comcast Die by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

    Plex today bought Watchup, which means soon you'll be able to get over a hundred channels of news streamed to any Plex client associated to your Plex Pass (or some similar deal) -- no need to tie it to a single silly screen plugged into your Roku. Expect more of this. Day by day, the cord cutters are winning and the Comcasts of the world are losing. They don't want you to time shift, cut commercials out, or consume content on anything but their Comcast-approved device, all "supported" by the worst customer service ever seen. Fuck them and their obsolete business model -- they are reaping decades of thumbing their collective noses at their customers.

  28. This seems to be IPTV by billrp · · Score: 1

    If the Roku works out there can be lots of other simpler set top boxes that don't need coax - just an ethernet or a good WiFi. This also means Comcast can open IPTV to apps on PCs, Macs, and smart-phones. And you can put TVs in your house where you don't have coax, like a bathroom or kitchen or outside. It might also mean that if you travel you can still watch your home TV channels wherever there's internet access, including while driving or in a bus or train.

  29. No DVR, no deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry but I'm paying for the privilege to skip ads. Streaming TV shows even with a Comcast account still requires watching ads or taking surveys without knowing how the results can be used/shared. I'll keep on getting gouged on price as long as I can skip commercials but once that option is taken away it's time to simply start torrenting content and drop pay TV entirely.

  30. Do we still get to pay $10 extra for HD? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    I'd say no, because you need an HD box, and that's where the $10 comes from, but they gave me the HD box and said for $10 I could upgrade to HD without changing anything but the size of the payment I make each month. Because fuck you, that's why.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  31. Cable Box required on the LAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cable Box required on the LAN.
    Comcast has to get their "rental fees", after all.

    Must say that my Roku gets thousands of programs I actually want to watch, without connecting it to CATV already.

  32. Re:Orwellian by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    How come everyone who throws around the term Orwellian have a different problem with a lack of privacy than the one Orwell envisioned. In Orwell's book, there was punishment for having unapproved desires.

  33. Comcast used to sell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cable TV service w/o the cable TV service.

    So, no thanks. The mailings to "Mr. Anonymous Coward or Current Resident" go straight to the circular file.

  34. Re:Orwellian by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    In Orwell's book, there was punishment for having unapproved desires.

    The surveillance infrastructure isn't fully set up yet. Just wait.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  35. Re:Terrific! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast probably doesn't want to pay a 30% Apple Tax.

  36. Already doing that for years by hAckz0r · · Score: 1

    I have been using a Tivo with a free Comcast cablecard for many years without renting their "cable box". Comcast was required by law to give me two free cable cards, and each card went into a dual channel Tivo receiver to record two simultaneous standard "broadcast" stations on each, for a total of four recording channels for zero cost beyond the dirt cheap package that Comcast doesn't want you to know exists. Between that and Amazon Prime video I have way more than I can keep up with. I was not about to upgrade the Comcast service with all the wiz-bang-HD-you-pay-for-it channels. When they finally think to unbundle the expensive channels packages and give me what few channels I do want, then we'll see. In the mean time I have _way_ more than enough to watch without all the expensive upgrades.

  37. Re:Not so fast...are we sure this is going to happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It only took decades to get music outside of CD's... look at the landscape now. Farfetched? Sure... but stranger things have happened.

  38. Back to the past... by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    paving the way for customers of the nation's largest cable provider to watch live programming without the cost or hassle of a cable box.

    You mean like they use to, when I could just plug the cable directly into my TV, use just my TV remote AND get HD channels? All without a cable box? Then one day they strangely decided that I just HAD to have a cable box. Which 1) required a fee if I wanted the HD cable box (SD was free) 2) required that I now use two different remotes to control my TV 3) a SEPERATE box for each and every TV I wanted to hook up.

    Gee, thanks Comcast. You created an unnecessary problem, and then now offered a half-assed 'solution'. Cable sucks.

  39. All modern TV can work without the box by NecroMancer · · Score: 1

    All modern TV sets have a PCMCIA slot for inserting a CAM module, just like a satellite receiver. I never understood why TV providers don't use them...

    1. Re:All modern TV can work without the box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The make a ton of money on VOD, or at least they used to. Most cable card capable devices can't access cable co VOD but these days tend to enable other methods to get on demand content.

  40. Time Warner Cable by Phaid · · Score: 1

    TWC launched an app for Roku about three years ago. I use it on my two TVs with Roku 3's. One is on wifi, the other wired, and the video quality is as good as with a DVR. And the UI for the app is much better than on TWC's cable boxes; you can sort channels by name instead of channel number, navigation is quick and responsive, and everything is laid out logically for the D-pad instead of two dozen buttons on a normal remote. I mean, it's not exactly rocket science -- we're talking about basic TV functionality here, plus a navigable grid schedule and Pay Per View -- but everything about cable TV is so bad normally that this looks amazing by comparison.

    Of course there's no guarantee Comcast won't screw it up, but if TWC managed to do a good job with it this has potential.

  41. There's an App for that... by NathanWoodruff · · Score: 0

    You can already watch XFinity TV on your phone.
    I open the app, pick the channel and screen cast it to my TV. I believe 1080p is the best it gets though. Go to Google Play store and search on XFinity TV.... You have to have a current TV account though.

  42. Re:Terrific! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    They don't have to. They can simply pass that cost on to the subscriber with a hefty surcharge for AppleTV. Currently (according to TFS) Roku users get a $2.50 discount. They could easily support AppleTV by giving them a $20/month surcharge. AppleTV users will be happy to pay that, esp. since they're soooooo worried about being seen as "low-income".