While the FCC’s flawed Unlock the Box proposal will be subject to various challenges and any potential implementation is years away, Comcast’s fortunately moving forward with their own solutions. And, from the cable industry’s annual trade event this week, they unveiled Xfinity apps for Roku, Nvidia Shield, and Samsung televisions. It’s early days yet and these “alpha” experiences are likely months from deployment… as not only will they provide live and on-demand cable television, but they’ll also link into an upcoming cloud DVR service. Cool, right?
In talking to Multichannel’s Jeff Baumgartner, he suspects that this IP-based service could require an in-home gateway device of some sort and that usage won’t be subject to Comcast broadband data caps as the video wouldn’t be flowing over the “public” Internet.
I sure hope Verizon is working on something similar for FiOS TV, as I’d love to use my Roku, Fire TV, or Apple TV as my cable box (without waiting around for any possible government regulation). If not, well, my home is also pre-wired for Comcast and their new 1TB broadband cap isn’t too shabby…
Now hopefully FiOS follows suit. Literally no reason not to out Android app on tv
Well, Dave, you know Verizon is reportedly working on an all-IP video service to roll out this year. (Possibly replacing the existing FiOS TV service? Why else? Doesn’t make sense to offer QAM and managed IP TV on the same network if bandwidth is any concern at all.) The tunerless STB for it has rolled through the FCC already:
http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/verizon-ip-tv-service-set-top-box-1201754543/
Why Verizon would want to withhold this new service from consumer-owned STBs that are capable of delivering a secure, smooth experience for the viewer is beyond me. (As you speculate for Comcast above, Verizon could require some sort of additional hardware gateway accessory as the service wouldn’t be OTT on the open internet but on their managed, secure network — sorry, no password sharing!) I could certainly see both Verizon and Comcast providing apps for their IP-based services to Roku and Android TV. (The Nvidia Shield that Comcast demo’d in your story is a high-end Android TV box.) As Roku’s CEO recently remarked, those two OSes are the future of smart TV app platforms. And the native Live Channels app in Android TV is ready and waiting to re-create the traditional cable box channel program grid for the world of live streaming. It even gains DVR capabilities in this year’s update…
Oh, I’m sure Verizon would want to offer it. They’re just slower, with fewer resources for development and less negotiating power with content providers. Maybe I’ll go ahead blog the IP STB… they didn’t actually launch in 2014. This has been a long time coming.
Regarding Roku and thinking out a couple years, I hope they’re working on updating their underlying platform as Android or to support Android apps…
Yeah, Verizon would have to develop the apps for those platforms, although I doubt getting the content providers (TV networks) to play along would be problematic. Time Warner Cable’s been putting their TV service on a Roku app for awhile now, Comcast has announced they’re doing it soon, and virtually every cable channel is on one or more OTT service like PS Vue now, so I don’t think they’re that worried about how their live channels get delivered as long as the middle man is paying them and there’s some kind of reasonable security in place.
Roku is pretty bullish on their future and, given their unique role as a neutral hardware platform for streaming (without trying to push their own subscription services or other business lines), I’d say they have reason to be. Roku is the ONLY platform fully offering Amazon Video, Google Play, and Ultraviolet-affiliated services like Vudu and MGo, along with just about every other popular service out there (PS Vue and Starz currently excepted). Given the Roku CEO’s view that Android TV will be their chief rival in the smart TV space, along with the current success of the Roku platform (ahead of all rival STB platforms), I wonder whether Roku would see it as a smart move to support Android-coded apps on their platform. (Obviously, they’re not going to become Android TV with the Google Play store — I assume you mean moving the Roku OS to a forked version of open-source Android, like Amazon Fire is, but maintaining their own “channel store” and platform independence.)
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/26/11511166/roku-says-google-is-its-biggest-rival
Another thought: unlike Google, Roku is NOT backing the FCC’s “Unlock the Box” push (which makes it rather surprising that Comcast chose to showcase their upcoming IP-based service on the Android TV-powered Nvidia Shield.) Roku has (probably smartly) decided that their safest path forward is continuing to play Switzerland, not pissing off any of the big boys, including the big MSOs like Comcast who have taken a shine to using Roku (and probably other platforms as well) as a means to head off “Unlock the Box” at the pass. Well before any new standard could be settled upon for the “UtB” successor to CableCARD, Comcast, AT&T/DirecTV, and probably Verizon and Charter will all have moved to optionally offering their TV service over retail consumer-owned streaming boxes, largely defusing the political will to go any further and divorce their video streams from their proprietary software user interfaces.
So, since everybody here is enthusiastic about this, y’all must think that whole “comskip thing” is just a silly waste of effort, right?
Hold onto that CableCARD TiVo as long as you can, Chucky. But even with cloud DVR (as it exists now across all providers I’m aware of), you can comskip (or FF past them). Sure, one provider may cease allowing it (or, more likely, charge you a fee to access that feature) but they’ll risk losing customers to competitors if they do. Given that satellite TV would appear to be forevermore married to local hard drives, I don’t see them dumping the ability to skip (or at least FF) over commercials. There’s clearly an appetite for video entertainment sans ads. It’ll always be available, for a price, whether it’s packaged into the base subscription price (Netflix, HBO, Showtime, etc.) or as an added feature (Hulu).
Tim, I suspect Comcast and Roku worked something out ($$$) hence, Roku CEO’s op-ed against unlocking the box being published in the WSJ within 24 hours of Comcast putting out a Roku-support press release. (And Comcast did have a Roku 4 on display at the Cable Show.)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-fccs-set-top-box-rule-hurts-consumers-1461279906
http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/comcast-and-roku-bring-xfinity-tv-partner-app-to-roku-tvs-and-roku-streaming-players
Regarding commercial skip, in several rooms like the kitchen, all I want is live television. For binge-watching shows, I’d say I do as much via Netflix, Hulu, Amazon as I do cable. So the disruption could be tolerable, if skip is blocked.
If this happens, theoretically you would not be stuck with the one to three local service providers in your area, other than for Internet access….right? I mean, if I wanted Comcast, but only had access to, say, Verizon, I could do Verizon (or Google, or TWC, or whomever) for Internet access, and get the TV service via the app for my IP TV viewing pleasure… I understand in this current implementation, the bandwidth caps could be a hurdle with some providers, but am I reading correctly that this is at least a fringe possibility, or is there some other underlying challenge to prevent this?
No, this would not be an over-the-top service for a number of reasons including content licensing, QOS, upsetting their own content distribution agreements with other cable providers, etc.
I had FioS but I moved to an area with only Comcast and I am pleasantly surprised. FioS technology looks surprisingly dated compared to X1 from Comcast, but the big thing is the abundant Comcast hot spots. As I walk around my neighborhood I am constantly leaving LTE on my smartphone and hitting a free Comcast hot spots automatically at almost every house on the block. My Mobile data usage has fallen sharply. Most every restaurant in my area has a Comcast hot spot, and this single feature is keeping me a very happy man ! One very small negative, I have two Comcast phone lines and the second one for 11.99 doesn’t give you caller ID. Really ?
Comcast already blocks commercial skipping (by blocking all fast forwarding period) on their VOD content. Not sure why you think they’ll support it on cloud DVR recordings going forward? Once the local competition is dead they’ll block it. Guaranteed.
“Once the local competition is dead they’ll block it. Guaranteed.”
Yup. Strongly tend to agree.
“Regarding commercial skip, in several rooms like the kitchen, all I want is live television.”
Live television? What are we, unfrozen cavemen bloggers? Have you tried checking out this new “PVR” technology that’s rolling out? (Some folks call ’em DVR’s but I don’t think it’ll catch on.) Ever since I got my PVR, I’ve managed to pretty much eliminate live television, except for those truly rare “breaking” news events.
Comskip + timeshift FTW!
I don’t doubt that Comcast (or any TV provider, maybe) would disable com skip/FF on cloud DVR recordings if they truly had no competition. But they do, now more than ever. Two satellite TV providers, local OTA, in many places telco and/or fiber, and a growing menu of OTT TV options.
Let’s not get carried away here, Comcast isn’t going to kill the competition.
“I don’t doubt that Comcast (or any TV provider, maybe) would disable com skip/FF on cloud DVR recordings if they truly had no competition. But they do, now more than ever. Two satellite TV providers, local OTA, in many places telco and/or fiber, and a growing menu of OTT TV options.”
But let’s say you’re in an urban setting or rural setting without decent OTA. Or let’s say you can’t handle the tech hassle of OTA DVR’s.
Let’s say you’re in an urban setting without recourse without to Satellite, or want the faster/cheaper broadband of wireline.
And crucially, let’s say you want things beyond what OTT provides.
There’s a captive, monopoly there. And in such circumstances, for any MSO, there are going to be financial incentives for serving ads. And Comcast especially! The Feds let them own a big content arm, fergawdsakes.
If I were running an MSO, and I had either exclusive programming or a captive audience I could serve ads to, I sure as hell would…
(And that’s not even getting into content contracts. Maybe we enter a bifurcated world like Hulu with ad-free as a more expensive tier. But the more widespread the ratings, the more add-value for the ad-free tier.)
Actually you can “skip” commercials, the page up button does a 5 min skip but you can program it to only jump 30 seconds (or whatever you want) to jump through commercials even On Demand. Hit the 30 sec jump a few times and if it goes over use the 15 sec back button.
But let’s say you’re in an urban setting or rural setting without decent OTA. Or let’s say you can’t handle the tech hassle of OTA DVR’s.
Let’s say you’re in an urban setting without recourse without to Satellite, or want the faster/cheaper broadband of wireline.
And crucially, let’s say you want things beyond what OTT provides.
Let’s say a lot of things, apparently. Look, no doubt you’re describing a small percentage of the population who meets all those criteria. I’m doubtful that a large MSO like Comcast is going to put in place policies that shoo off other customers because they know that those few who meet all your criteria will stay with Comcast because they don’t have a better option. For those consumers who fall in that boat, hey, I’m sympathetic, that sucks for them. But life is full of trade-offs. There are reasons, for instance, some people do or don’t want to live in the heart of big cities or out in the boonies. (I’ll never live in either.) Options for TV and internet service may be among those reasons.
As you hint, I think Hulu points the way in terms of the ad-supported TV business model. If you want on-demand TV without ads, it will be available but will cost more. Also, those ads will be “programmatic,” i.e. targeted, with the viewer having the option to provide information to further target to ads to his interests and needs. Let’s be honest: the DVR model pioneered by TiVo has always been about viewers cheating the system. That’s worked out well for those of us with DVRs (especially with the the new TiVo SkipMode) but has probably pushed TV toward airing more ads to make up for the devaluation of ads in general. Content costs money to produce and requires profits to attract investors and talent.
“Look, no doubt you’re describing a small percentage of the population who meets all those criteria”
Disagree. Think the captive population is waaaay larger than you imagine.
“I’m doubtful that a large MSO like Comcast is going to put in place policies that shoo off other customers”
Once local DVR’s hit a small enough percentage, and cloud DVR’s hit a high enough percentage, they’d be crazy not to chase the dollars.
Our disagreement is when that points comes in, and I think you don’t get the numbers.
“As you hint, I think Hulu points the way in terms of the ad-supported TV business model. If you want on-demand TV without ads, it will be available but will cost more.”
But as I said, the difference between niche programming having an ad-free tier, and mass-market programming having an ad-free tier is massive. There are movies that need to open on Friday. There are products that need to hit everyone.
The added-value for an ad-free tier on mass-market programming is going to be huge, and may be commercially prohibitive.