dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-01-10 08:26:51: Roku this morning announced that the company has struck a new deal with Time Warner Cable, allowing Time Warner Cable customers to stream 300 channels via their Roku devices. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


JamminR

@naismc.com

Great!

-sarcasm-
Awesome! Roku users will be able to stream to thier TV's instead of using the cable box to show content.
Oh, wait, It's only for the Roku stick, not the larger amount of set top boxes Roku has sold?
Oh, and it's only if you already subscribe to cable TV?

Amazing. Yet another intelligent idea.
Roku, please don't act like this is wonderful.
Stop blowing smoke about such things, and instead go back to fixing your surround sound color space issues with your other devices.



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

Possible IP TV First Step

I realize that the big cable companies don't want to shake up the markets too much, but sooner or later one of them will realize that if they make an app like this available to everyone across the country (for a subscription fee, of course), they instantly expand their footprint and gain customers.

Of course, the reason they won't do this is because then the other cable companies will do the same and the competition would drive down prices. Can't have that, now can we? (Even if it winds up meaning more profits for the cable companies without rate increases.)
--
-Jason Levine



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to JamminR

Re: Great!

It's not just for the Roku stick, but for most of their recent boxes.

From »www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-575···hannels/ :

"TWC TV is expected to launch this quarter on the Roku 2, Roku HD and Roku LT and the Roku Streaming Stick."

And while you still need a cable TV subscription, this means you could buy a $100 or less Roku box instead of paying the cable company for another cable box.
--
-Jason Levine



Mert

@comcast.net

Internet subscription?

Does this require a Time Warner Internet subscription also?



mikesterr

join:2008-04-18
Atco, NJ

Great Idea

I always felt this was a great idea. It's not instantly profitable for the cable company but it allows additional tv sets where you don't need a box and you don't need a cable run, since the roku works great wirelessly. Clearly TWC is using this as an experiment to switch to some type of wireless in house delivery. Cost of acquisition goes way down if you only have to run the cable into 1 spot in the house and then stream to all the tv's wirelessly So I assume that's on their Radar. Plus you start to make way for Video over IP we all hope is coming. There is also reduced cost of maintenance, when you don't have home owners splicing into the cable 10 times to feed the tv on the patio and the one in the shed, and the one in the basement next to the exercise machine they said they would use if they could watch tv while they used it.



ChrisG

@107.41.49.x

This is great for some

I do think this is great. We have cable over here in our primary residence and with this we don't need to resubscribe with digital boxes and all for our second home. We can just stream our "home" programming to our vacation home. I also don't have to install another outlet at our detached ohana house or the garage for that matter as I can just stick a wireless roku anywhere on the property. Yay!

This is not a help for cordcutters but there are plenty of folks who are not in that bucket who have other needs. This is just another value add to retain satellite and fios/uverse folk.



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to mikesterr

Re: Great Idea

The question is what is the bandwidth requirement. So if you say had 3 or 4 TVs how would that effect your internet connection?


rick0204

join:2009-05-20
North Bergen, NJ
reply to Mert

Re: Internet subscription?

The Roku needs a broadband internet connection to work. So I guess the answer to your question is yes.


rick0204

join:2009-05-20
North Bergen, NJ
reply to 88615298

Re: Great Idea

We have Cablevision and we have 3 TV's with Roku devices. All three can be streaming HD content with excellent quality. Cablevision"s basic tier is 15 down.


bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY
Reviews:
·TowerStream
reply to Mert

Re: Internet subscription?

I imagine so: - The current TWC Ipad app requires a TWC IP and I tried the app at a friends house on his wifi and it worked. It didn't work at my house on my TWC RR line as it was smart enough to see i didn't have cable TV.

Would be cool if it worked on anything so if cable subs travel they coudl watch TV



jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

TV Anywhere

Would this require a walled garden approach or can anyone just throw a Roku device in their backpack and use it to watch TV from any location with acceptable bandwidth available?


Raydr
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-19
Carrollton, TX
reply to Jason Levine

Re: Possible IP TV First Step

said by Jason Levine:

sooner or later one of them will realize that if they make an app like this available to everyone across the country (for a subscription fee, of course), they instantly expand their footprint and gain customers.

I can't help but wonder what kinds of lawsuits or conflicts we'll see due to "franchise agreements" or area exclusivity agreements or something (where a city or area has agreed that Cable Company X will be the sole TV provider)?


mikesterr

join:2008-04-18
Atco, NJ
reply to jmn1207

Re: TV Anywhere

Now that's a good question. What would stop someone from buying their mom a Roku so at her house she can have internet and one of those very limited broadcast basic accounts that are like $12 or $13 but the roku signs into the other acct and she can access all the other channels.



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to Raydr

Re: Possible IP TV First Step

A city should have no jurisdiction to say "XYZ's nationally available, Internet-based video service" can't be offered here because we've agreed to give Cable Company X a monopoly. Those franchise agreements might protect against a rival cable company laying down fiber to make a competing service, but a pure-IP TV play should be out of the scope of the agreement.
--
-Jason Levine


elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to mikesterr

Re: Great Idea

I don't necessarily agree that wireless delivery of video is solid yet, but is certainly more flexible as you mention. Until the majority of folks move into 5 GHz and there is some better mechanism of reducing channel interference and QoS, wireless will be less stable than say a Moca delivery or hardwired ethernet. Even powerline in some instances.

For my remote locations in the house, I use Moca and it is 100% solid, but like you suggest I also take advantage of wireless delivery of audio and tablets. I think both have their place.

One of the big issues I have w/ Roku and why I won't buy a current gen one is because they are all 2.4Ghz radios, and ONLY if you buy the top model for $100 do you get a physical ethernet. My last generation XDS has ethernet and so I will keep it until they fix their product marketing issues.

I put a LT in my parents house, and they are only 1 device and there is NO interference in 2.4Ghz so it works no problem. I would be concerned w/ 2-3 devices and if you look TWC app will probably take 5 Mbps, so that MAY be an issue depending upon the router and conditions. The average person though has no idea of how to setup or diagnose wireless issues.

I think TWC is taking the Netflix approach and this is great, because the more devices you can access content the better. Again the issue is that this is live streaming and until they integrate it with a DVR or cloud DVR function it's useless to me because I don't watch commercials.

I do applaud them for opening up, and now that these IP STB are coming out, if they put an app on my xboxes then maybe I deprecate my W7MC because it's apparent MSFT is getting out of the biz.

If Tivo ever gets their act together (talk about lost oppys) then maybe their solution will have some weight.

One thing that is not clear yet, is what these guys will charge for these IP STB which will run them $50-$70 to acquire.



swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS
reply to mikesterr

Re: TV Anywhere

You will only see up to the channels you are subscribed too. Also, you need to be attached to your TW internet service for it to work. Same reason why i can not use the android app and watch tv outside of my home on the cellular network.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts


ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

2 recommendations

reply to Jason Levine

Re: Possible IP TV First Step

Actually, exclusive franchise agreements became illegal back in the '80s, so a city can't say anything about this any more than they can say anything about satellite dishes.


ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

What's the point?

OK, so, in order to get this, you have to sub to TW cable, and it will only work via your TW Internet IP, which means that you can only get the channels you already sub to, and you can only get them in the house where your cable is connected, which is the very place where you already have access to these channels. Not only that, but I'm sure it's a safe bet that this service will count against your data cap, which means you aren't going to want to use this as a full-time cable box replacement.

So what is the point of this?



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to Jason Levine

Re: Possible IP TV First Step

said by Jason Levine:

Of course, the reason they won't do this is because then the other cable companies will do the same and the competition would drive down prices. Can't have that, now can we? (Even if it winds up meaning more profits for the cable companies without rate increases.)

You are contradicting yourself. If competition is driving down prices, profits would go down and not up.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

emp41112

join:2004-12-10
Cincinnati, OH
reply to ISurfTooMuch

Re: What's the point?

The point for me is I can watch HD cable now. I have just basic cable, but the TWC app has the channels in HD. So now I can get HD cable without renting a box from TWC. I love this idea


wkm001

join:2009-12-14
reply to Raydr

Re: Possible IP TV First Step

My city has a non exclusive franchise agreement with Comcast. But no cable company wants to be the second cable company. To re-run all that coax for maybe half of the customers isn't worth it. What about DirecTV?


Lets Go

join:2005-03-05
Homer, NY

How easy is it

The key will be how user friendly the app will be. If it is difficult to navigate then the less techy family members will not use it and I will have to just go get a digital box from TW for the tvs that don't already have one.
--


pepsiaddict

join:2007-10-31
Rochester, NY
reply to ISurfTooMuch

Re: What's the point?

For TVs where the usage of TW TV is such that it doesnt make sense to rent a cable box.

My example ... our bedroom TV has a Roku box primarily to access my Plex media server in the house and occasionally Netflix. It would be nice to have access to cable TV in the room too, but not enough to justify a box rental. This solves that ... and its actually part of the reason I bought into Roku boxes for media streaming after last years rumors about this happening.



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to FFH

Re: Possible IP TV First Step

Prices going down doesn't always mean profits go down.

Let's assume that Time Warner Cable rolled out TWC TV to everyone in the US. Even if you aren't in a Time Warner Cable area (or have Time Warner Cable TV service), you could sign up for TWC TV. Suddenly, they have an influx of customers. Even if each customer was paying less (because we'll assume for the moment that TWC TV costs less than a cable subscription) the increased number of customers would add more money.

In addition, IP TV would require less infrastructure investment than cable TV. To run a Cable TV service, you need to maintain cable lines, phone support, service in people's homes, etc. To run an IP TV service, you need app support and servers to stream the channels. Cost of doing business would drop and profits would rise. (Yes, the Cable Internet side of things would still require money/investment, but that's separate from the Cable TV portion.)
--
-Jason Levine


JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
reply to Jason Levine

said by Jason Levine:

I realize that the big cable companies don't want to shake up the markets too much, but sooner or later one of them will realize that if they make an app like this available to everyone across the country (for a subscription fee, of course), they instantly expand their footprint and gain customers.

Of course, the reason they won't do this is because then the other cable companies will do the same and the competition would drive down prices. Can't have that, now can we? (Even if it winds up meaning more profits for the cable companies without rate increases.)

Not to pick on you specifically, but reading the comments across this thread have me scratching my head. This type of set up is exactly what will be coming about more and more. Why? Because the FCC is directing it. This is their solution for allowing people to move away from the cable company owned STB. First the FCC mandated that cable providers offer up an over the top IP streaming solution (meaning that you stream to devices inside the home). Then, when pressed to define a standard, the FCC took the recommendation from the cable industry itself. Rather than forcing a single standard, the industry recommended that the FCC allow them to all define their own standards. However, to enable the influx of third-party streaming devices, all of their standards would be a) open; b) fully spec'd.

I was wondering when a cable company would announce a pairing with Roku. This is the first of many. And it won't just be Roku. Other companies will come out with streaming apps of all types to allow you to access stuff around the house. Yes, you still need to subscribe to that cable service, but the intent of all this isn't to do away with the cable company. It's to do away with the monopoly on the cable box. I think this is a fantastic first step, and I'm very glad to see it. I love the idea of going back to not having to have a set top box on every device in your home. Not to mention the fact that such a service will be deliverable to all ip-enabled devices connected to your home network.

I'm having trouble understanding why people are panning this move. It's the first of many that will come about because of the changed regulation. It opens up other sources of viewing in the home, all without having to lease additional hardware from your cable company.

Oh, and that scenario that you're mentioning is exactly one that's being set up by Verizon. They want to decouple FiOS TV from the fiber. That was a stated plan last year at the CES, so you could subscribe to FiOS TV via, say, a Comcast internet connection. I think that will happen too. Eventually I think the FCC will force the issue - not allowing internet providers from denying access to pay TV access provided by other providers.


Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to wkm001

Thus the lure of an IP TV setup. You'd need to run zero coax. Just release the app, let people sign up online, and stream the videos. Users would utilize whatever Internet service they already have (Comcast, FIOS, Time Warner Cable, etc.)
--
-Jason Levine



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to JPL

I wasn't panning this move. I was just expressing a measure of doubt about the market shakeup given that the cable companies have their own little "local monopolies" setup now. They are comfortable in this arrangement and will need a push to do away with that. I do think that, if they do take the step, it will be good for everyone involved.
--
-Jason Levine


JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

said by Jason Levine:

I wasn't panning this move. I was just expressing a measure of doubt about the market shakeup given that the cable companies have their own little "local monopolies" setup now. They are comfortable in this arrangement and will need a push to do away with that. I do think that, if they do take the step, it will be good for everyone involved.

My point is - they have no choice. The FCC is mandating it. Even as a condition for giving the cable companies something they've long asked for. They approved the ability of cable companies to now encrypt local channels. But as a condition for doing that, the FCC is requiring that these cable companies offer up an over-the-top IP solution (think residential gateway) to basic subscribers, for free, for at least 2 years.

I think this is the type of regulation that makes sense, to be honest. When the government tries to force a standard on industry you end up with the electric car. When they take a major innovation that's being driven by the industry and turning that around and using that as a standard, you end up with the hybrid engine. Same thing here. When the FCC first directed cable companies to decouple the security from their boxes, we ended up with the cable card. Yes, it was a product that the cable industry itself developed, but under duress by the FCC, and they did so without fully supporting the product. As a result, you ended up with something that, apart from TiVo, very few manufacturers actually use (try to find a TV that accepts a cable card, some time).

These cable companies were all moving toward these in-home streaming set-ups anyway. The FCC (smartly, I think) jumped on that, and decided to make THAT the standard for getting past the set top box. Which has been a long-stated goal of their's. They're trying to create a market for third party boxes very much like what they did for phones many years ago - I still remember when, if you wanted to get a phone, you could only get them from the phone company - you had to lease them, and they were attrotiously expensive as a result. You couldn't do your own connections, either. Want to move that phone? Gotta call the phone company to do it... who will have no issue charging you for the pleasure of having to wait for them to come out. Encryption has been the only real stumbling block with the FCC doing the same thing with the cable box. This set up is a way around it.


SHOES75

@nuvox.net

Roku

If I have a Roku and I don't subscribe to cable this deal doesn't NOT make it any more enticing. I don't have cable because it costs $100 a month and I still wont get it no matter how you make it available. Unless its $20 or less a month I am not interested. They need to make every channel a la cart and then make that available.



gjrhine

join:2001-12-12
Pawleys Island, SC
reply to JamminR

Re: Great!

Get your facts straight.