| |SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
said by davoice:Dang, then why pay for the service. Well, i can see why. So people can use different devices to watch there programming on.
Actually it will only work if you're on a TWC internet connection. The jury is out as to whether it would have to be behind the same cable modem on which you subscribe to internet service on the same account as TV service. With the iPad app, it only works when you're at your own home.
Dish has a boxes that connect to the net. I think it's called dish anywhere or everywhere. As long as my reciever at home is online, I can use th app and watch programing that I DVRed. Not sure if it would let me watch "live' TV or if it's limited to DVR only. But I don't have to be in my house to access it. Hence why I thought the TW thing was like that.
Speaking of which, I really should hook my DVR up to the internet.
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.
Re: Possible IP TV First Step
said by Jason Levine: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)?
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.
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.
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.)
| |said by Jason Levine: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 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.)
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.
Re: Possible IP TV First Step
said by Jason Levine: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 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.
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.
| || 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.
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?