Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast's New 'Xfinity Instant TV' Streaming Service Charges $18 For What Antennas Offer For Free (exstreamist.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the free-for-all dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Exstreamist: Comcast announced this week that they plan on rolling out their streaming service, "Xfinity Instant TV" as an option for broadband-only customers. At our very first glance, it seemed like a pretty good deal, a live-streaming service for $18 a month, not bad right? But once we actually looked into the offering, we noticed something funny. Almost the entirety of what they're planning on charging $18 a month for could be viewed free with an antenna. According to the Wall Street Journal, the antenna as an option is apparently a long lost TV option for many consumers. Variety is reporting, "Xfinity Instant TV" intro packages, the ones that are $18, will only include a handful of broadcast channels, and a few "freebies" like the Home Shopping Network, and CSPAN So we're not exactly talking about getting access to ESPN, CNN, FX, or other more desirable channels for cord cutters, those will cost you at least $45 more a month, so basically the cost of your current cable television package. The report notes that the service is only available to Comcast internet subscribers and does include access to on-demand services.

8 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. Sometimes antenna isn't an option either. by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some people live in low-lying areas and can't get a signal, and HOA rules, or the nature of the type of dwelling (apartment, rental house), prevents them from putting up an antenna in a way that gets around those issues.

    1. Re: Sometimes antenna isn't an option either. by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      To install an antenna on a tall pole/tower there is many times a rule that the tower must be able to fall over in any direction and still be on your property. So unless you have your home on a large lot that might restrict how tall you can go.

    2. Re:Sometimes antenna isn't an option either. by timholman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some people live in low-lying areas and can't get a signal

      In my case, the "low-lying area" is right in the middle of midtown Nashville. There's a hill to the north of my house, blocking reliable reception of two of the main network stations. One of the other stations can only be picked up reliably in the fall and winter, after the leaves fall from the trees surrounding my house. I suppose I could get around these problems by putting up a 40-foot tower, but my wife and my neighbors would probably not be pleased (cost and legalities aside).

      Digital broadcast TV is a wonderful thing if you live in Phoenix like my in-laws, and can just stick up an indoor antenna to pick up 30 broadcast channels. In flat terrain with all the local towers on the nearby mountain, it's great. For me, it's nearly useless, and I'm in the middle of a fairly big urban area. I can only imagine how much worse it is for people in the suburbs.

      So yes, Comcast is making you pay for "free" TV, but what they're also doing is providing a reliable signal. For the price, it may be worth it to some.

  2. Re:Most people have good HDTV signals by suso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unlike 1971, in 2017 most people actually live in cities and they get high quality 1080p HDTV over the air signals.

    Unlike in 1971, most people think that everyone else is in the same situation they are.

  3. Re:Most people have good HDTV signals by Nutria · · Score: 2

    Unlike 1971, in 2017 digital signals degrade instantly from great to nonexistent, whereas in 1971 with analog systems and rabbit ears you could get a descent signal and watch through the occasional bit of static, since analog signals degrade gracefully.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  4. Tell the HOA to pound sand by zerofoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    An HOA does not have the authority to block or prevent the installation of an antenna designed to receive television signals:

    https://www.fcc.gov/media/over...

    1. Re:Tell the HOA to pound sand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      My HOA prohibits sand.

  5. Re:comcast charges for something that's actually f by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    It isn't free to them. They have to pay the networks to provide it to you.

    And to put the blame for that where it belongs: it could be free to Comcast IF the network affiliates did not invoke their exemption to the must-carry rules and demand payment. You see, there is a law that says that cable operators must carry locally available broadcast signals (with certain limits on size, IIRC) without having to pay the broadcaster anything, UNLESS that broadcaster opts out. If they opt out, they can demand payment for retransmission rights.

    Right now in my area Comcast is displaying a CG page for one of the network stations we used to get. That broadcaster has opted out of must-carry and is refusing to grant retransmission rights. Comcast claims they demand too much money; the broadcaster claims Comcast isn't offering enough.

    And the irony of this is, it is the broadcasters who originally demanded the must-carry rules. They were afraid that cable would choose to carry a different source of the network material and exclude the local stations, or simply not carry a signal that most people could get OTA (freeing up a channel for some other programming). In the former situation, viewers would get the network programs with national or other-region advertising. In the latter, viewers would be less likely to switch from cable to OTA to get that channel. Both situations cost the broadcaster advertising revenue. For the channel that is currently a stationary graphic, they've lost all viewers and all ad revenues from this area, a lose-lose for them. Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, I think the phrase is.