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.

2 of 108 comments (clear)

  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 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.