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

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.

Comments

We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box!

[mrchaotica]

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.

Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box!

[PeeAitchPee]

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. :-)

Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box!

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box!

[omnichad]

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.

Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box!

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box!

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:We ALREADY HAD cable TV without the box!

[mrchaotica]

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!

So basically

[ArhcAngel]

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.

Comcast?

[TechyImmigrant]

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.

Re:Comcast?

[TechyImmigrant]

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.

Maybe already too late for Comcast

[rmdingler]

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.

They don't understand cord-cutters

[omnichad]

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.

Re:I'll try it.

[negRo_slim]

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.

Re:Terrific!

[m00sh]

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.

Re:Can you sign up outside of Comcast's area?

[Mr D from 63]

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.