# Comcast and Charter to Launch Joint Streaming Platform



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Comcast and Charter to Launch Joint Streaming Platform


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

I struggle with these general streaming services that want users to run through a proprietary streaming device. One of the big draws of a streaming world is the freedom to be able to operate in whatever streaming device you feel best for your setup. (ex., Apple users might prefer an Apple TV box, others love a Roku device, and some get by with their...smart TV apps. _*insert cringe face*_)

Although I'd wager that Peacock will come at no cost to customers on this platform, so if you're all about that, it probably appeals to some degree.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Well, I'm not really sure that Comcast's X1-based Flex streaming platform is any more or less proprietary than Apple's, Google's, Amazon's, Roku's, Samsung's, etc. There's not really any content that Comcast is holding back as exclusive to their Flex platform. You can stream Peacock on just about any device and you can use the Xfinity Stream app (for Comcast cable IPTV service) on at least Roku and Fire TV, with Apple TV on the way. So you don't need Flex for that. 

So it'll be a similar situation with Charter when they jump on board next year. They said they'll make their Spectrum TV app available for it but it'll continue to remain available on Apple TV, Roku, etc. I suspect Charter is going to stop issuing their clunky old-school QAM-capable cable TV boxes and instead just give out these Flex boxes, which can be used for both Spectrum cable TV as well as third-party OTT services.

Like the other streaming platforms, Flex/X1 has its own app store too. Not as big, but pretty much all the major apps are there now -- even some vMVPD apps like Sling and YouTube TV! And Comcast has their "X-Class TV" manufactured by Hisense that's sold at retail running Flex as its smart OS. Sounds to me like this Comcast/Charter JV wants to expand on those retail efforts. I expect we'll see them start to sell a retail version of the little 4K HDR Flex box too. Why not sell streaming boxes at retail too, if they're already selling smart TVs? And as you say, it'll probably come with a one-year free subscription to Peacock Premium. That's true now if you're a Comcast broadband-only customer. Take the free Flex box and get Peacock Premium for free with it.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 18, 2005)

Oh joy...another one.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Well, I'm not really sure that Comcast's X1-based Flex streaming platform is any more or less proprietary than Apple's, Google's, Amazon's, Roku's, Samsung's, etc. There's not really any content that Comcast is holding back as exclusive to their Flex platform. You can stream Peacock on just about any device and you can use the Xfinity Stream app (for Comcast cable IPTV service) on at least Roku and Fire TV, with Apple TV on the way. So you don't need Flex for that.


I simply misread the original article. I was under the premise that you needed the Flex device for the service.


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

Xfinity sent me one of the Flex boxes as part of my Internet subscription. The box is slow and the remote is terrible. While the Flex remote has a number pad, you spend most of your time using the arrow keys on the remote and those are awful. On the rare occasion I go to Peacock, I use the Roku version of the app because the Roku remote is head and shoulders above the Flex remote and the Roku version of the app seems a lot faster.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

The handful of folks who have the xfinity/flex device 'free' have just about universally condemned it as essentially less than a first generation roku. Maybe they think that throwing a load of spectrum engineers at it will make it better. 

There have been a couple of folks out there in the past few years that had good ideas to shake up the streaming box market, but ran into problems either with the implementation or legal roadblocks that caused either a crash and burn or fade to black. 

With the current fractioning of the market, it would be great if someone could make jump/switching from programs on one service directly to those on another service. But those who have tried to implement such a feature in the past ran into major headwinds from the providers; but if one could make a box fast enough, or with multiple simultaneous connections so that near instantaneous switching were possible (at a low price of course) they could revolutionize streaming.

Apple for one had such a feature on their list of things to integrate but ran into legal barriers in the way they were trying to do it, same as tivo. Both abandoned it, as did a couple others that simply faded away. I would have thought a hardware solution rather than software, which required streaming companies to become involved which seemed to be the problem, was a better path to go down even if it resulted in a more expensive unit. But more expensive than what? Two or three times as a roku stick? So about the same price as an ultra. Makes no sense.

Every time I have to press a half dozen or more buttons to jump from one services program to another I think about a more integrated system that would make such jumping as easy and seamless as switching between cable and antenna. Or one hdmi input and another. 

Come on folks, get off your rear and innovate.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

1948GG said:


> The handful of folks who have the xfinity/flex device 'free' have just about universally condemned it as essentially less than a first generation roku.


In that the Flex streamer does voice control, HDMI w/eARC, Dolby Atmos and 4K and probably some more advanced CODECs, that's an unqualified nonsense claim. You didn't put much thought into this. See more at "Roku DVP N1000".


> Maybe they think that throwing a load of spectrum engineers at it will make it better.


Evidence suggests that Spectrum doesn't have much in the way of set-top engineers.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

1948GG said:


> Apple for one had such a feature on their list of things to integrate but ran into legal barriers in the way they were trying to do it, same as tivo. Both abandoned it


Apple does this on the ATV with the up next feature as long as you don’t mind not having Netflix in the queue.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

harsh said:


> In that the Flex streamer does voice control, HDMI w/eARC, Dolby Atmos and 4K and probably some more advanced CODECs, that's an unqualified nonsense claim.


Typical comment from folks on this forum. As a graduate engineer with over 50 years experience in video systems, including several in the early years working with companies such as Sony, Ericsson, eventually Tivo and others at the dawn of widespread digital video systems, that's the real nonsense. It's a typical 'big bang' thinking that engineers are lame thinkers, an attitude I never ran into in all the years I've worked, far from it. But the real lame thinking these days come from the programmers; not a day goes by that I don't see some device or system that has major faults that a child could spot. 

But I await better units, and better thinking into them. Failure to bring attention to those faults simply let bad systems proliferate.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It would be better to discuss the problem then lob insults at each other. You both seem to be approaching the discussion from different perspectives. The Flex box is better than the first generation Roku for the specs harsh notes. Are you and your "universal condemnation" referring to the user interface? That would be more in the hands of the programmers who (random example) take a 4K output and send it a 720p screen (unless their excuse is a chip set that can't draw a 4K screen).

I have seen some bad UIs over the years. Some where the programmers went simple and boring. Others where they built tiles that zoomed and flipped into position and exceeded the capabilities of the hardware. Introducing a third element (other than the engineers designing the box and the programmers writing the user interface) one has the designers deciding the color schemes and layouts. If everyone works together the three groups can come up with a functional masterpiece. If they don, there is finger pointing and a less than optimal interface.

The minimum requirement is functional. Can you watch the programs available without seeing glitches and crashes and other interruptions? Once we get past functional the rest CAN be personal preference. Some people want a simple UI that allows them to find and view programs without razzle dazzle. Others demand razzle dazzle. Unless the box is built with two UIs one will end up with one unhappy group or a compromise that makes both sides less than satisfied.

One final thought is another group influencing the design: Marketing. They are the ones to blame when there are on screen interruptions such as the content shrinking during end credits so the machine can suggest other programming or when paused programming shrinks or is overlaid to promote other content. On services with advertising the group has to figure out how to smoothly inject targeted advertising on each playback device. Seeing all the puzzle pieces helps.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

1948GG said:


> Typical comment from folks on this forum. As a graduate engineer with over 50 years experience in video systems, including several in the early years working with companies such as Sony, Ericsson, eventually Tivo and others at the dawn of widespread digital video systems, that's the real nonsense. It's a typical 'big bang' thinking that engineers are lame thinkers, an attitude I never ran into in all the years I've worked, far from it.


The failing of this line of reasoning is that you seem to have assumed that Charter/Spectrum has a staff of such engineers. It seems more likely that they have some UI specialists with dreams, aspirations and management directives that are responsible for dealing with third party engineers and coders to actually get the work done. As an example, my Xfinity Flex streamer identifies as an Arris product so I'd imagine that Arris is doing most of the engineering and implementation at the direction of the Comcast UI people with all of the applicable back and forth that such an arrangement involves. This presumes that there aren't also focus groups involved.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

1948GG said:


> With the current fractioning of the market, it would be great if someone could make jump/switching from programs on one service directly to those on another service. But those who have tried to implement such a feature in the past ran into major headwinds from the providers; but if one could make a box fast enough, or with multiple simultaneous connections so that near instantaneous switching were possible (at a low price of course) they could revolutionize streaming.
> 
> Apple for one had such a feature on their list of things to integrate but ran into legal barriers in the way they were trying to do it, same as tivo. Both abandoned it, as did a couple others that simply faded away.


Not sure what kind of abandoned Apple feature you're talking about. The Apple TV app on the Apple TV box already does this pretty well. It integrates content from all the major subscription and free streaming services, with the major exception of Netflix, who could participate but just won't because they think they don't need to play nice with others. (Maybe their current downturn in global subs and subsequent stock price crash will encourage them to see things differently.)

I love having a single unified Up Next watchlist that keeps track of what I'm watching across multiple apps. Click the title and I'm immediately launched into the underlying video stream in the third-party app (or directly inside the Apple TV app for their own Apple TV+ content).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> The failing of this line of reasoning is that you seem to have assumed that Charter/Spectrum has a staff of such engineers. It seems more likely that they have some UI specialists with dreams, aspirations and management directives that are responsible for dealing with third party engineers and coders to actually get the work done. As an example, my Xfinity Flex streamer identifies as an Arris product so I'd imagine that Arris is doing most of the engineering and implementation at the direction of the Comcast UI people with all of the applicable back and forth that such an arrangement involves. This presumes that there aren't also focus groups involved.


Nah, Arris is just one of Comcast's CPE manufacturers. Comcast has their own in-house tech, coders and such who develop their software and design their consumer-facing tech. Not much different than the relationship between TiVo and Arris. As for Charter, I'm not sure what they're bringing to this new joint venture, other than money (~$900 million) and lots of potential users. Maybe nothing, but that's enough.


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

People can argue about the interface or color or tiles, but my biggest issues with the flex box is the remote, followed by the remote, followed by the remote again. Imagine having to navigate around the device with a chicklet style keyboard. That's basically what the arrow keys are like on the flex box. Small, stiff, chicklet keys. Flex isn't alone on that font for me. I like the interface on my Sony 850 TV. However, I can't stand my Sony remote. So even though my Sony TV has the same apps as my Roku, I use the Roku instead of the Sony because of the remote.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Getteau said:


> People can argue about the interface or color or tiles, but my biggest issues with the flex box is the remote, followed by the remote, followed by the remote again. Imagine having to navigate around the device with a chicklet style keyboard. That's basically what the arrow keys are like on the flex box. Small, stiff, chicklet keys. Flex isn't alone on that font for me. I like the interface on my Sony 850 TV. However, I can't stand my Sony remote. So even though my Sony TV has the same apps as my Roku, I use the Roku instead of the Sony because of the remote.


Yeah, I ordered the free Flex box just to score a free subscription to Peacock Premium. Hooked up the Flex box just for kicks and giggles to see how it was. And yeah, it was pretty bad. The remote may have been the worst part, but the UI and playback controls weren't great either.

If they want folks to use it as a built-in smart TV OS, or to buy a Flex box/stick as a standalone retail streaming device (which I suspect will happen now that they're getting into the retail smart TV game), then they're going to have to make some serious improvements to it. Who knows, maybe that will happen this year under the new JV...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I found the Flex box to be acceptable. I returned it about a month before cancelling my Xfinity Internet and watched Peacock on a TV app during the final month (what little I wanted to see). I get enough TV without Peacock.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> I found the Flex box to be acceptable. I returned it about a month before cancelling my Xfinity Internet and watched Peacock on a TV app during the final month (what little I wanted to see). I get enough TV without Peacock.


My free Peacock Premium subscription never ended even after I cancelled Xfinity internet and returned the Flex box. I wouldn't pay $5/mo for it but, as a freebie, it is nice to have for occasional viewing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I have not tried again ... but free is a good price for premium.


----------



## RichardS (Jan 2, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Nah, Arris is just one of Comcast's CPE manufacturers. Comcast has their own in-house tech, coders and such who develop their software and design their consumer-facing tech. Not much different than the relationship between TiVo and Arris. As for Charter, I'm not sure what they're bringing to this new joint venture, other than money (~$900 million) and lots of potential users. Maybe nothing, but that's enough.


Charter STB have always had a terrible interface. I wouldn't be surprised to see them pay Comcast to deliver a new UI for their STB.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

RichardS said:


> Charter STB have always had a terrible interface. I wouldn't be surprised to see them pay Comcast to deliver a new UI for their STB.


Yes, Charter is well known as being crap at technology. And Comcast definitely does already have a successful next-gen STB UI already. Two actually: the X1 UI designed mainly for channel-based TV with apps on the side, and the Flex UI designed mainly for app-based content but through which you can also access channels. It's all the same software coding underneath, just two somewhat different UIs riding atop. So yeah, they might just revamp the color scheme, slap a new Charter-specific brand name on it (instead of X1 or Flex) and then that's what'll be put in the next-gen Charter boxes. That would be my guess.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> And Comcast definitely does already have a successful next-gen STB UI already.


"Successful" is in the eye of the beholder.

That said, X1 has arguably moved well past what the notoriously failed Comcast<>TiVo collaboration could have achieved.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> "Successful" is in the eye of the beholder.


X1/Flex is the only OS in N. America that has succeeded in building a real app store home to all the leading streaming services. That's hard to do -- you have to get lots of big powerful companies to develop and support apps for your platform. Access to those apps is what _really_ matters now because it's what cable TV will evolve into. 

If you're a pay TV provider and want to provide some kind of consumption device for your customers (other than an app that runs on third-party retail hardware like Roku, etc.), you have exactly two choices: X1/Flex (which can be rebranded and slightly customized) or Google's Android TV Operator Tier (which offers extensive customization options for the operator). That's it. Them's your choices.

Who's gone with X1/Flex? Comcast (obviously), Cox and now Charter here in the US. Up in Canada: Rogers, Shaw and Videotron. Who's gone with Android TV Operator Tier? DirecTV, Dish, Verizon, TiVo (who's a supplier to small cable & IPTV operators), and probably a few other small players. 

Altice (the 9th largest MVPD in the US) is still limping along with their sad Altice One TV STB platform. They did succeed in getting Netflix, YouTube, Prime Video, CuriosityStream and Pandora to develop apps for it, along with nothingburgers like Stingray Music, Cheddar and Epicurious. But if your platform doesn't also have apps for Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max, Paramount+, Peacock, and Apple TV+, along with some of the most popular FASTs like Tubi and Pluto TV, well, it's DOA. And I'm skeptical that a company with no more pay TV subs than Altice has will ever succeed in getting those apps on board, especially now that they're converting lots of their network from cable to FTTH, which will probably only spur more cord-cutting and/or customers switching from Altice One cable TV to a vMVPD like YouTube TV on their smart TV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Availability and market share are not the arbiter's of a great ecosystem from the consumer's perspective. Comcast's power is based on the size of their subscriber base rather than by viewer acclaim.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Altice has will ever succeed in getting those apps on board, especially now that they're converting lots of their network from cable to FTTH, which will probably only spur more cord-cutting and/or customers switching from Altice One cable TV to a vMVPD like YouTube TV on their smart TV.


My thoughts on all of this is that cable itself goes away with FTTH.

At the end of the day, anything run over FTTH is a de facto vMVPD. Data is going to be a stream packaged to be sent using some network protocol. Sure, they may have their own device, but they can also create an app and be accessed from any device. My recollection is that Spectrum has gone that route… if you want, they will sell you an Apple TV and you can use it instead of a cable box. That’s basically what DirecTV and Dish have done with their vMVPD offerings.

As time goes on, this will play out as cablecos stop developing proprietary boxes and start selling to customers outside of their networks.

Of course, this comes down to accessing linear channels. Both Peacock and Paramount+ have created linear channels in their streamers. It’s only a matter of time before Disney follows suit and has alternatives to their channels in Disney+. 

I have a tough time seeing a future promising to the current cable business model.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wmb said:


> At the end of the day, anything run over FTTH is a de facto vMVPD.


At the end of the day, the majority of residential installations don't need gigabit speeds.

FTTH costs a lot to install and can be rather high maintenance (especially if done after construction).

Streaming is riding high now but I think you'll be surprised when the pricing comes in line with the cost.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

wmb said:


> My thoughts on all of this is that cable itself goes away with FTTH.
> 
> At the end of the day, anything run over FTTH is a de facto vMVPD. Data is going to be a stream packaged to be sent using some network protocol. Sure, they may have their own device, but they can also create an app and be accessed from any device.


Yes. Well, there is the difference between managed IPTV (fully on the operator's own network) versus OTT (traversing the open internet), but that's a technical distinction that doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things.



wmb said:


> My recollection is that Spectrum has gone that route… if you want, they will sell you an Apple TV and you can use it instead of a cable box. That’s basically what DirecTV and Dish have done with their vMVPD offerings.


Yeah, both Comcast Xfinity and Charter Spectrum allow you to fully access their respective cable TV services via apps for certain retail devices. The Xfinity Stream app is now on Roku and Fire TV (with Apple TV finally promised for some time this year) while the Spectrum TV app is available for Apple TV and, IDK, maybe Xbox or something else? But note that neither operator sells their cable TV service nationwide. You have to live at an address serviced by their own network, because they're doing managed IPTV via these apps. It's not OTT the way nationwide vMVPDs like YouTube TV are.



wmb said:


> As time goes on, this will play out as cablecos stop developing proprietary boxes and start selling to customers outside of their networks.


Well, as I say, cablecos and telcos/fibercos are all moving away from proprietary boxes to boxes/sticks/dongles running one of two platforms. (And by "platform," I mean "operating system + app store".) Those are Comcast's X1/Flex and Google's Android TV. Given the joint venture just announced between Charter and Comcast -- which boils down to Charter buying a 50% share in the X1/Flex platform -- I'd say that Charter is getting ready next year to begin shutting down traditional QAM cable TV in at least some areas, meaning that all customers in those areas will be served via managed IPTV. Before they can do that, they want their own customized streaming/IPTV box to give customers, to replace their clunky old TV boxes that don't run many, if any, apps. It's much more cost effective to have their own first-party Flex box than relying on third-party devices like Apple TV or Roku, plus it allows them to stay in control of the billing relationship, i.e. when someone signs up for an app-based service like Disney+ on the box, Charter can handle the billing (unified together across all app subscriptions, plus broadband service, mobile phone service, etc.) and get a distributor's cut (maybe 20%?) of the monthly fee from the streaming service. (Note that this would also be true had they gone with Android TV Operator Tier, except they would have had to split their ~20% cut with Google.)



wmb said:


> Of course, this comes down to accessing linear channels. Both Peacock and Paramount+ have created linear channels in their streamers. It’s only a matter of time before Disney follows suit and has alternatives to their channels in Disney+.
> 
> I have a tough time seeing a future promising to the current cable business model.


Yep. Imagine it's 2026 and by this point, the big media companies' DTC apps have fully cannibalized their linear channel ecosystem. So as soon as a show premiers on ABC, Disney Channel, FX, Freeform, Nat Geo, etc., it's available on-demand in Disney+ (which by this point will have completely absorbed Hulu). Not only that, but the base subscription to Disney+ will automatically include that companies' live linear channels, streaming right there in the app. It looks, though, like the ESPN family of channels will remain in the separate ESPN app. So at this same time, you'd be able to subscribe to the entirety of ESPN through that DTC app, with live streams of ESPN, ESPN 2, SEC Network, ACC Network, ESPNews, etc. all in the app, along with on-demand replays of games and shows.

It'll work the same way at Warner Bros. Discovery, all of whose linear channels -- HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT, HGTV, Food, Discovery, TLC, etc. -- will stream live inside their HBO Max app. Well, every channel won't make it -- only the strongest brands will survive. What's the point of still having, say, Discovery Health? Just make most of its content on-demand only and put its strongest show or two on the main Discovery linear channel.

And should their DTC services survive, it'll work the same at Paramount with their Paramount+ and at NBCUniversal with their Peacock. (Still think those two will end up merging. If not, one or both will drop out of the DTC race and end up licensing their linear channel content out to one or more of the surviving DTC services.)

It _already_ works this way at AMC Networks with their AMC+ app. And at Epix with their Epix Now DTC app (although I seriously doubt that Epix still exists come 2026 as I think Amazon will have wound it down and just absorbed that content into Prime Video). Even The Weather Channel now has a DTC app with a live stream of their cable network for $3/mo, lol. Any channel group that doesn't yet have a DTC app, e.g. Hallmark Channels, A+E Networks, will either have to launch their own DTC app and/or make themselves available "app-less" a la carte directly from the distributor (think Amazon Channels, Apple TV Channels, Roku Channel). Or they'll just get acquired by a bigger group that already has a successful DTC app. The main one to watch here is Hallmark; they're privately owned and that family ought to be cashing in here pretty soon, selling it to Disney or Netflix or Amazon or Paramount or somebody.

Meanwhile, we already see local channels placing their local news and lifestyle content in their own free DTC apps. At least one of my local stations even streams their OTA broadcast live in their free app (though, of course, it's only live at those times of day when they're airing their own local content, NOT when they're airing network or syndicated content). So that trend will continue.

So you'll just subscribe to whichever DTC mini-bundles you want: Disney, WBD, Paramount, NBCUniversal, etc. Plus, of course, Netflix, Prime Video and Apple TV+. Your smart TV or streaming box will aggregate any live linear channels from your various apps into a top-level "master" grid guide so you can see your paid and free channels all together in one place. Fire TV, Google TV, and Flex already do this. Roku and Apple TV eventually will. But most folks will focus on the main home screen, where you have a cross-app unified on-demand watchlist, plus a rotating gallery of on-demand suggestions to help you discover new stuff to watch. The master live channel grid guide will be there, but off to the side. And, come to think of it, that's how it already works in vMVPD apps like YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream. They can see where this is all headed...


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> It'll work the same way at Warner Bros. Discovery, all of whose linear channels -- HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT, HGTV, Food, Discovery, TLC, etc. -- will stream live inside their HBO Max app. Well, every channel won't make it -- only the strongest brands will survive. What's the point of still having, say, Discovery Health? Just make most of its content on-demand only and put its strongest show or two on the main Discovery linear channel.


Thanks for the reply… in a lot of ways, our overall vision aligns, but the details remain murky.

One aspect of this is linear channels. In an OTT DTC offering, linear channels don’t have the same meaning/utility as in a cable package. In a cable package, they are the primary structural element. In an OTT streamer, they can be more arbitrary organizational element for accessing the content library. That supplants the notion of the strongest brand surviving. 

For DTC/OTT, channels can be ephemeral, coming and going as needed… think the Christmas channels or Billy Joel channel on Sirius XM - they are there for 6 week blocks. Some can hang around longer, like the Yacht Rock channel. Some can be separate adds, like Howard Stern. But there are also core channels. This type of flexibility was never taken advantage of in the cable model, likely because the cable cos didn’t own the content and carriage agreements would be required.

Sports also provide a challenge… games are 2-3 hour stand alone shows. Most are packaged with pre- and post-game shows and broader news type of shows. Structuring ESPN (or the Premier League for Peacock) strictly in an app context will be interesting. Maybe each team has a channel??? Why not, extra channels have no real cost.

However, there is also the possibility of user defined channels, which look like Spotify playlists. You can program series to show up in the channel as new episodes are released. And, like a music playlist, they can be shared with friends/family/etc.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> At the end of the day, the majority of residential installations don't need gigabit speeds.


There is a quote (mis)attributed to Bill Gates saying no one would need more than 640k of RAM. Today, computers require over 4 GB of RAM (10,000 fold increase), again pretty much attributable to Bill Gates. While it seems unlikely, I wouldn’t say that gigabit speeds aren’t needed. Anyhow, they can be easily delivered using fiber.



harsh said:


> FTTH costs a lot to install and can be rather high maintenance (especially if done after construction).
> 
> Streaming is riding high now but I think you'll be surprised when the pricing comes in line with the cost.


I can’t imagine my current fiber provider operating at a loss. My neighborhood was built in the 1970s. They came through about 10 years ago, jacked and bored to install an orange polyethylene tube that they ran the fiber through. Now everyone in the neighborhood is on fiber… they abandoned the old copper POTS wires in place.

Maybe we will end up spending the same for streamers as we were for cable. I still feel it’s a better value because I’m not paying $23 per month for an ‘advanced services’ fee and $7 per month per receiver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

wmb said:


> Thanks for the reply… in a lot of ways, our overall vision aligns, but the details remain murky.
> 
> One aspect of this is linear channels. In an OTT DTC offering, linear channels don’t have the same meaning/utility as in a cable package. In a cable package, they are the primary structural element. In an OTT streamer, they can be more arbitrary organizational element for accessing the content library. That supplants the notion of the strongest brand surviving.
> 
> ...


Yes, all true. In a DTC streaming setting, linear "channels" ultimately exist for a lean-back sampling experience. "I don't want to hunt for something to watch on-demand. Just play something for me." And so the service will showcase on those channels a variety of content they offer, including their latest and greatest series, plus a variety of crowd faves from the past. They basically just exist to enhance the discoverability of content by customers. For instance, I've gotten sucked into a movie playing on the Showtime linear channel live streaming in that app and then decided to watch that movie on demand, from the beginning. Maybe I start it right then or maybe I add that movie to my watchlist to watch on demand later.

As for which brands still retain their own linear channel and how long those stick around, it's hard to say. I think these companies will want to take pains to assure consumers that they're still getting ALL the content they were used to getting from them via the traditional cable bundle (plus, of course, a lot more content that's always been exclusive to the DTC app and never available on their cable channels, e.g. Disney+ Originals, Max Originals, Peacock Originals, etc.). So I think it's highly likely, therefore, that we'd see the HBO Max app (which by then will have probably dropped "HBO" from its name) include live streams of the main linear cable channels with the strongest brands. CNN, of course, along with Discovery, HGTV, Food, TLC and OWN. Do TBS and TNT and TruTV all still exist or might they be merged into a single "Turner" channel? Or maybe by then it's named "Warner Network"?

We won't necessarily even see all actual _live_ content embedded within these linear streaming channels. Already we see some sports that NBCU has the rights to streaming live exclusively within Peacock, not on NBC or USA or another cable channel. And the way they're presented in Peacock is just via a large graphic on the home screen. "Click here to stream Sunday morning MLB live." I don't think they necessarily embed all those Peacock-exclusive live sports in one of those fake linear channels in the Peacock live channel grid guide. Although IDK, maybe they do, I don't visit that grid guide very often, which tells you where this is all going...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wmb said:


> There is a quote (mis)attributed to Bill Gates saying no one would need more than 640k of RAM. Today, computers require over 4 GB of RAM (10,000 fold increase), again pretty much attributable to Bill Gates.


Of course this is primarily the case because of the bloatware that Microsoft has convinced the marketplace was necessary over the years. Before Microsoft got their hooks into the market, some serious computing was being carried out in 64K of RAM. When I started my IT job 37 years ago, the multi-user (six terminals) Alpha Micro computer I was in charge of had a total of 256KB of RAM. 32KB was set aside for system functions and 32KB RAM partitions were allocated to each user.

Before my first real job, I was helping on a 128KB, three user Altos 580 system running MP/M that did bookkeeping, word processing and membership databases for the local Girl Scout council.

Laziness and the endless promotion of wasteful development tools and paradigms have ruined pretty much everything. As long as consumers are willing to be taken in by self-proclaimed "industry leaders", we're all a lot less better off than we could have otherwise been. I noticed yesterday that my Windows 10 Pro box had 146MB of its RAM allocated to Windows Defender.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> Before Microsoft got their hooks into the market, some serious computing was being carried out in 64K of RAM.


I remember helping a friend configure disk quotas on a Unix machine he administered while I was in grad school in the late 80s. Grad students were filling the drive trying to do some image processing problems in a course the computer was used for. I think the quota limit was 10 MB.

Anyhow, let’s just say it’s useful to be able to address 32 bits of memory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wmb said:


> Anyhow, let’s just say it’s useful to be able to address 32 bits of memory.


It is useful in some circumstances, but is it making the overall user experience better for the general population (not just grad students)?

My lament remains: modern applications software to perform relatively simple tasks can be many megabytes in size just because they are using "fashionable" development tools in conjunction with multiple virtual machines, runtimes and HALs.

I recently had to take my Android TV powered TV on a purge as its storage was full. Removing the HBOMax app cleared out 48MB of software and 120MB of data and cache.

The Paramount Plus app package requires perhaps twice as much space. What "data" do they need to store requires 109MB of space? The cache is an additional 102MB.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> The Paramount Plus app package requires perhaps twice as much space. What "data" do they need to store requires 109MB of space? The cache is an additional 102MB.


Fancy graphics for their UI. They could design a decent UI in less space ... and face customer complaints and low sales due to having an inferior UI.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Fancy graphics for their UI.


Their UI graphics are pretty similar to everyone elses -- a spartan monochrom menu icon set. Not much static artwork, if any. Most of the graphics are downloaded (part of the cache).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> I recently had to take my Android TV powered TV on a purge as its storage was full. Removing the HBOMax app cleared out 48MB of software and 120MB of data and cache.
> 
> The Paramount Plus app package requires perhaps twice as much space. What "data" do they need to store requires 109MB of space? The cache is an additional 102MB.


The funny thing about this, to me, is that the Paramount+ app is less graphically slick than the HBO Max app. I find P+ to generally have the worst-designed UI of the major SVODs. But at least the Apple TV version does use the new native Apple video player, so they got that part right.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> The funny thing about this, to me, is that the Paramount+ app is less graphically slick than the HBO Max app. I find P+ to generally have the worst-designed UI of the major SVODs. But at least the Apple TV version does use the new native Apple video player, so they got that part right.


I wish Peacock would use the new native Apple video player. Theirs is horrible.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> I wish Peacock would use the new native Apple video player. Theirs is horrible.


Yeah, I wish Peacock would get the memo on the native player. HBO Max, Hulu, Paramount+, Apple TV+ (natch), Discovery+, PBS, and even Netflix (who typically doesn't like to play nice with others) have all adopted it. It's super nice to have the same playback UI and controls across all those apps when watching a video. I'm actually a bit surprised that those apps don't place their logo on screen as part of the playback UI; given that they all look the same, it can be easy to forget which app you're in. I imagine that if Apple encouraged app logo placement in the playback UI, e.g. at top left of screen, it would encourage even more apps to adopt it rather than insist on retaining their own look, feel and controls.

Anyhow, among major apps, that leaves Peacock and YouTube without the native Apple player. (I don't know about Disney+ as I never subscribe to it.) But at least both of those apps have adjusted their playback controls so that they're _mostly_ consistent with the native Apple player, e.g. left-click to jump back several seconds. In YouTube you have to click the center button twice, rather than just once, to pause. Although you can click the dedicated play/pause button just once, as is true in any app...


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

With Peacock if I try to FF/RW with the remote control using the swipe it doesn't move until BAM...you have went 5 minutes FF or RW. The left click or right click on the touch pad does at least move it 10 seconds FF or RW but still.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I find P+ to generally have the worst-designed UI of the major SVODs.


From my viewpoint, Peacock owns that honor. Disney can be cluttered as the same program may show up three times on the same screen.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> With Peacock if I try to FF/RW with the remote control using the swipe it doesn't move until BAM...you have went 5 minutes FF or RW. The left click or right click on the touch pad does at least move it 10 seconds FF or RW but still.


Ah, yeah, that's right. Pretty much the only thing I do is the left click, sometimes stacking them multiple times, to go back and re-hear some dialog I missed or didn't understand. I rarely FF or rewind through big chunks of a video, so I don't notice that so much on Peacock.

If you really want to see a poorly designed playback experience, though, try Peacock for Android TV. You have to use the 4-way direction pad to navigate to the on-screen "buttons" and then click them to do anything. Yikes.


----------



## dstout (Jul 19, 2005)

What is stopping Comcast from offering a streaming package outside of their footprint?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dstout said:


> What is stopping Comcast from offering a streaming package outside of their footprint?


Potentially contracts with the channels they carry. DISH and DIRECTV learned that their carriage rights ended with what was in their contracts and had to renegotiate contracts to be able to stream within their footprint. Comcast and Charter would face the same challenges.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

dstout said:


> What is stopping Comcast from offering a streaming package outside of their footprint?





James Long said:


> Potentially contracts with the channels they carry. DISH and DIRECTV learned that their carriage rights ended with what was in their contracts and had to renegotiate contracts to be able to stream within their footprint. Comcast and Charter would face the same challenges.


Yeah, I imagine Comcast would have to go back to the national cable channel owners (e.g. Disney, Warner, etc.) and amend those contracts. But when you're the 800 lb gorilla in the industry -- Comcast is the nation's largest MVPD and they also happen to directly own all the NBCU networks -- getting those contracts updated should be no big deal.

I originally expected that that's what they might do with Peacock when they announced it was coming. Why not give it a vMVPD add-on of live cable channels with cloud DVR, as Hulu has done? Comcast obviously already has the technical infrastructure and relationships in place.

But at this point, the vibe I'm getting from Comcast is that they just aren't that interested in cable TV any more. I mean, yes, they still sell it and will continue to do so, so long as they're pricing it at a level where it provides a worthwhile amount of profits. But it's just not a priority for them at all. I laughed when I saw a recent Comcast ad on TV pitching their new triple play bundle. Guess what's in it? Broadband (of course), streaming (i.e. the free Flex 4K streaming box), and Xfinity Mobile cell phone service. The old triple play used to be broadband, cable TV, and home phone (VOIP). No more.

I also thought it was weird that in the streaming part of the bundle, they only mentioned Flex and made no mention of the fact that it includes a free subscription to Peacock Premium, which otherwise costs $5/mo. I may be reading too much into that omission but I thought it might be suggestive of the idea that Comcast is unsure of their long-term plans for Peacock, i.e. maybe they're going to sell it or spin it off. And then like 3 days later I read the story that Comcast's CEO had recently been in secret talks, which ultimately fell through, to sell the entire NBCU division (i.e. NBC, the NBCU cable nets, Universal TV and film studios and their content libraries, Peacock) to video game maker Electronic Arts, with EA's CEO serving as CEO of the new company (with Roberts holding a major share of the equity).

One last wrinkle in all this: the recently announced Comcast/Charter streaming platform joint venture includes the Xumo free ad-supported channel-based app/service. (It's similar to Paramount's Pluto TV but not as big or popular.) So the Xumo channels seem likely to be the default set of free ad-supported streaming channels in the next-gen Flex live TV UI. But note that Peacock's free tier also includes a similar channels-based UI. I always wondered why Xumo wasn't simply merged into that part of Peacock. Now I can see why. Comcast (along with Charter) will retain Xumo as their native free streaming channel solution while Peacock, for obvious reasons, must remain part of NBCU. And it's looking increasingly likely that NBCU's future will not be with Comcast.

I continue to think the most logical solution here is for Comcast to spin off NBCU to merge with Paramount. We'll see...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I imagine Comcast would have to go back to the national cable channel owners (e.g. Disney, Warner, etc.) and amend those contracts. But when you're the 800 lb gorilla in the industry -- Comcast is the nation's largest MVPD and they also happen to directly own all the NBCU networks -- getting those contracts updated should be no big deal.


AT&T|DIRECTV was the nation's largest MVPD (over 25 million subscribers) in 2015 and thought they were the 800 lb gorilla. Their negotiations did not go as well as planned.

2015 was also the year when Comcast internet subscribers surpassed their TV subscriber count. Comcast has lost 5 million TV subscribers since then. Over 20% of their TV subscribers. The largest MVPD in a waning marketplace.

#1 Comcast working with #2 Charter to launch streaming? Maybe that will give them "800lb status".



NashGuy said:


> I continue to think the most logical solution here is for Comcast to spin off NBCU to merge with Paramount. We'll see...


NBC merge with CBS? I can see the companies partnering on a streaming offering but I don't see a merger.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> AT&T|DIRECTV was the nation's largest MVPD (over 25 million subscribers) in 2015 and thought they were the 800 lb gorilla. Their negotiations did not go as well as planned.


I'd bet that AT&T was, thanks to the size of their MVPD sub base, able to negotiate better carriage rates than most. They weren't willing to play hard ball to the extent Ergen does, though, which is why we haven't seen the kind of blackouts and loss of entire sets of channels on AT&T/DTV that we've seen on DISH.



James Long said:


> 2015 was also the year when Comcast internet subscribers surpassed their TV subscriber count. Comcast has lost 5 million TV subscribers since then. Over 20% of their TV subscribers. The largest MVPD in a waning marketplace.


Yes, the MVPD market is waning, which I think is why Comcast ultimately just isn't that interested in it any more. Why double-down on it by launching a nationwide vMPVD to compete outside their MSO footprint? They really have zero interest in standalone cable TV subs any more, so why launch a vMVPD? (They could certainly get better carriage rates if they did launch one, given the size of their traditional MVPD, than what YouTube TV and Hulu Live must be paying, each with around 4 million subs.)

It's kind of shocking what it costs for standalone cable TV service from Comcast now. They really only want to offer it to folks who are also getting broadband. Just a standalone locals-only cable TV package with your major locals in HD now costs $50 before taxes! ($16.50 Limited Basic + $18.50 Broadcast TV Fee + $9.95 HD Technology Fee + $8.50 TV Box rental)



James Long said:


> #1 Comcast working with #2 Charter to launch streaming? Maybe that will give them "800lb status".


Yes, it will give them the only viable streaming TV platform (Flex) that isn't already owned by Roku, Amazon, Google, Apple, Samsung, LG, Vizio or Microsoft. Given the installed base of broadband customers between Comcast and Charter to whom they can offer a free streaming device, along with all those existing customer billing relationships, that _should_ be enough to ensure its survival and success (even if Flex isn't that great from a user perspective).



James Long said:


> NBC merge with CBS? I can see the companies partnering on a streaming offering but I don't see a merger.


They're _already_ partnering on a streaming offering in various second-tier European countries. It's called SkyShowtime. Basically a combination of Paramount+, Showtime and Peacock. So both media houses realize that they need each other to offer a compelling SVOD in the extremely competitive global marketplace. I think it's an initial first step that will precede the merger of Paramount and Universal.

But, as you understand, a hypothetical Paramount Universal would not be allowed to own both CBS and NBC. Given the contours of the proposed, but failed, deal between NBCUniversal and EA (as well as for other reasons), I suspect it would be Paramount in the driver's seat of a merged Paramount Universal. And I think they'd opt to keep their CBS and sell off NBC. CBS is, after all, the perennially highest-rated broadcast net in the country.

But who would buy NBC? Obvious answer is the one major US media house without a major broadcast net: Warner Bros. Discovery. Zaslav did say at Sun Valley last summer that the merger between Warner and Discovery wouldn't be their last deal, that he was hungry for more M&A as the global media landscape consolidates.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I'd bet that AT&T was, thanks to the size of their MVPD sub base, able to negotiate better carriage rates than most.


They did OK, but I don't believe they met the expectations AT&T had when they purchased DIRECTV. DIRECTV was purchased with the specific intent of AT&T creating an OTT streaming service. (DIRECTV renewing Sunday Ticket was a specific requirement of the purchase agreement.) Yet it took over a year for a minimal streaming service to be launched and additional years until the OTT service was comparable to their "Premium TV" services.

You note that Comcast is the largest MVPD in the US ... they didn't become #1 by adding subscribers. They became #1 when the top MVPDs declined in subscriber count below Comcast's declining number. I'd credit Comcast's "captive market" of cabled homes as helping them retain subscribers. Although with the many OTT services available it is easy to have Xfinity Internet and some other TV provider.

I have subscribed to Comcast / Xfinity twice. Once before there were any other high speed options available (but the rates were too high so I dropped them for DSL when that became available in my neighborhood). The second time the rates and speeds were much better but I dropped them after a few years when fiber became available. I never considered their TV service to be a good deal so I didn't subscribe.

I still don't consider Xfinity TV service to be a good deal, but over 17 million people consider the deal acceptable. I see nothing wrong with Comcast / Xfinity offering their service OTT within or outside of their cable footprint. Converting most (if not all) of their cable systems to streaming instead of QAM/ATSC/analog gives them a platform to reach beyond their IP network. The billing structure and customer service is all in place. It doesn't hurt to expand.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> I still don't consider Xfinity TV service to be a good deal, but over 17 million people consider the deal acceptable. I see nothing wrong with Comcast / Xfinity offering their service OTT within or outside of their cable footprint. Converting most (if not all) of their cable systems to streaming instead of QAM/ATSC/analog gives them a platform to reach beyond their IP network. The billing structure and customer service is all in place. It doesn't hurt to expand.


Comcast has been running their TV service simultaneously via both traditional QAM and IP streaming for over 5 years now. The Xfinity Stream app, which only works with the IP version of the service, launched on Roku back at the start of 2017. That app has offered the entirety of the Comcast cable channel line-up from the get-go. And they've also had the app available on iOS and Android mobile devices for several years too (although when you're away from home, i.e. not connected to Comcast broadband, you can't watch several of the live channels in the mobile app because you've switched from managed IP to OTT, which requires different contractual rights between Comcast and the network owners). The whole IP side of Comcast's cable TV operations, called VIPER, is managed out of their national tech center in Denver.

So Comcast has had the technical pieces in place for years now to offer their cable TV service nationwide as an OTT vMVPD. Literally, all they would have to do is tweak the Xfinity Stream app to allow customers across the US to sign up for service inside the app. And as you say, Comcast obviously already has the online billing infrastructure and customer service resources in place. All they'd need to do is amend their carriage contracts so that they have the rights to distribute all those national cable and local broadcast channels OTT as opposed to exclusively on their own managed network.

And yet they still haven't done it. They've sat back and watched Disney's Hulu Live, Google's YouTube TV, and to a lesser extent DirecTV Stream, Fubo TV and Sling all grow this new nationwide vMVPD industry. As I admit, I didn't expect that to happen. I predicted that by now we would have seen Comcast jump on board the vMVPD bandwagon by making it an add-on inside their DTC SVOD, Peacock (which probably shares some of the technical underpinnings that originated in the Xfinity Stream app).

The most logical conclusion at that point, I think, is that Comcast has been telling the truth these past few years when they've told analysts that they're just not interested in selling the cable bundle apart from their own broadband service. I think they rightly understand it as a sinking ship. They're not going to abandon the ship they currently have, i.e. Xfinity TV. But on the other hand, they're not going to build a second ship, i.e. a vMVPD, which is bound to sink as well as this decade wears on.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> DIRECTV was purchased with the specific intent of AT&T creating an OTT streaming service.


Why, other than name recognition in the DBS world, was DIRECTV a good choice on which to base an OTT streaming service? DISH had at least some experience in the OTT space along with a better track record for hardware.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> Why, other than name recognition in the DBS world, was DIRECTV a good choice on which to base an OTT streaming service? DISH had at least some experience in the OTT space along with a better track record for hardware.


DirecTV could be bought. Do you honestly believe Charlie would have sold Dish for any amount of money?

I also remember being able to stream DirecTV on a smartphone app way back when, well before AT&T bought them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wmb said:


> DirecTV could be bought. Do you honestly believe Charlie would have sold Dish for any amount of money?


This is a good point, but I was thinking more about the techology and experience.


> I also remember being able to stream DirecTV on a smartphone app way back when, well before AT&T bought them.


Streaming the MVPD service is a decidedly different discipline than an OTT service. DIRECTV had already walked away from pay-as-you-go. By the time that AT&T had closed the deal, The Nomad was dead and what was left of the streaming feature was pretty frustrating for many.

DIRECTV had value, but it wasn't much that could be readily applied to an OTT offering. DIRECTV had some server equipment for serving up the beginnings of shows but they clearly didn't have much idea how they were going to implement a streaming DVR.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> The most logical conclusion at that point, I think, is that Comcast has been telling the truth these past few years when they've told analysts that they're just not interested in selling the cable bundle apart from their own broadband service.


That is the answer that fits cognitive dissonance. Can't do something? Then say that you didn't want to do it anyways. Perhaps they are at a point where the contracts will finally allow them to move forward? As you agree, the technology and infrastructure is in place. Refusing to enter the OTT marketplace is just leaving money on the table.



harsh said:


> Why, other than name recognition in the DBS world, was DIRECTV a good choice on which to base an OTT streaming service?


Over 25 million combined customers. As clearly stated at the time AT&T purchased DIRECTV, they felt that their UVERSE TV subscriber base was not big enough to be able to negotiate the best deals. AT&T was reportedly paying 14% more for programming than DIRECTV. The plan was clear ... get big and negotiate contracts that would allow them to launch a successful service.

DIRECTV was available and willing to sell. So AT&T bought them. The rest is history.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Over 25 million combined customers. As clearly stated at the time AT&T purchased DIRECTV, they felt that their UVERSE TV subscriber base was not big enough to be able to negotiate the best deals. AT&T was reportedly paying 14% more for programming than DIRECTV. The plan was clear ... get big and negotiate contracts that would allow them to launch a successful service.


How does having the most customers or most favored nation status in the DBS industry translate to being the best suited to building a OTT live TV service? DIRECTV's streaming efforts back in the day were relatively poor in comparison to the product from Sony. Clearly AT&T substantially frittered away over half of their premium TV customer base before they had a marketable OTT offering. If they were truly bringing their buying power advantages to bear, they could have certainly come up with a less expensive product.

If availability to acquire and/or buying power was what made DIRECTV the ideal target, you probably shouldn't have suggested that it was anything else.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> That is the answer that fits cognitive dissonance. Can't do something? Then say that you didn't want to do it anyways. Perhaps they are at a point where the contracts will finally allow them to move forward? As you agree, the technology and infrastructure is in place. Refusing to enter the OTT marketplace is just leaving money on the table.


If you honestly believe that the largest MVPD and broadband operator in the country, who also owns one of the most important channel groups and studios (NBCUniversal), was powerless over the past several years to renegotiate their carriage contracts with other channel groups to allow them to expand their cable TV service into OTT/vMVPD (the _exact_ same way that AT&T did with DirecTV Now/AT&T TV), then you understand less about this industry than I thought.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Why, other than name recognition in the DBS world, was DIRECTV a good choice on which to base an OTT streaming service? DISH had at least some experience in the OTT space along with a better track record for hardware.


AT&T's acquisition of DirecTV was always about buying the brand, the large customer base, and the existing carriage contracts (with relatively favorable rates based on the large customer base). It was never about the DBS sats or DirecTV technology. It was merely a way to immediately buy their way into the MVPD industry at a massive scale. The idea from the get-go was to somehow merge the DTV and Uverse TV customer bases onto a new common platform powered by OTT internet distribution (which could be nationwide, not tied solely to AT&T's own Uverse DSL network as Uverse TV is). 

In other words, the plan was always to ultimately create DirecTV Stream and migrate the existing satellite and Uverse TV subscribers over to it. It just took them a hell of a lot longer to competently execute on that plan than they thought it would. (And, let's be honest, they didn't do it all that competently either.)


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> It just took them a hell of a lot longer to competently execute on that plan than they thought it would. (And, let's be honest, they didn't do it all that competently either.)


If you define competency as customer value, they peaked with the DVR release with DirecTV Now. Once they aligned packages with DirecTV, price price shot up, and value dropped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

wmb said:


> If you define competency as customer value, they peaked with the DVR release with DirecTV Now. Once they aligned packages with DirecTV, price price shot up, and value dropped.


Yeah, it was a great value for the channels back when DTV Now launched, offering pretty much the same channels as what's in Entertainment for only $35/mo. (And some of us got a free Apple TV 4K to boot!) Of course, at that point, the whole thing was still in development. It was buggy, unreliable, and feature incomplete (no cloud DVR). They were selling the service at a loss to lure folks in to be their beta testers. And, of course, they were bowing to competitive pricing pressure from the likes of YouTube TV, PS Vue, and Hulu Live, trying to establish market share in the new vMVPD race. They finished building the plane after they got it off the ground, so to speak.

With all those vMVPD services that launched at low prices, the plan was always to slowly add more channels and features while hiking prices to a point where they'd actually be able to turn a profit. I'd say that YouTube TV, Hulu Live and DTV Stream are profitable at their current price points. But little Fubo TV continues to lose money. They say they'll get to profitability thanks to in-app sports betting, plus more lucrative targeted ads. I remain skeptical and expect them to go the way of PS Vue by the end of '23.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> If you honestly believe that the largest MVPD and broadband operator in the country, who also owns one of the most important channel groups and studios (NBCUniversal), was powerless ...


I'll stop your insult at that exaggeration. I didn't say they were powerless. All I am saying is Comcast (and AT&T before it) are not all powerful. I'll add my own exaggeration to say that channels are NOT required to bow down and accept whatever terms Comcast (or AT&T before it) set forth. That sort of pride and arrogance usually proceeds a fall.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> All I am saying is Comcast (and AT&T before it) are not all powerful.


Given how Comcast is flaunting their government required merger concessions, I'd say they are awfully powerful.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that AT&T somehow preceded Comcast. Comcast has been around since 1963. They merged with AT&T (the old company) in 2001 (SBC took over the AT&T name in 2005).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Given how Comcast is flaunting their government required merger concessions, I'd say they are awfully powerful.


Looking awful likely that that most recent Comcast merger, the one where they got NBCU, isn't going to last a whole lot longer. Roberts's attempt to spin off NBCU to merge with EA fell through recently. But I still think Comcast will follow AT&T's lead and spin off the media business so it can merge with some other media business to gain scale. Let _them_ deal with throwing cash into the insatiable content maw while Comcast concentrates on their core connectivity business.









Report: EA Almost Merged With NBC Universal Before Deal With Comcast Dissolved


Puck News reports the merger fell apart last month.




www.gameinformer.com


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> I'm not sure where you got the idea that AT&T somehow preceded Comcast.


AT&T|DIRECTV was the largest MVPD in the US before Comcast was the largest MVPD in the US. Yeah, there was a time that AT&T had less MVPD customers than Comcast ... 2014 for example when all they had was UVERSE and a dream. A dream that led them to purchasing DIRECTV so they could be the biggest MVPD.

The point was that AT&T thought that being the biggest would allow them to get the contracts they needed to launch a successful OTT service. Not quite as easy as they expected. It took a few years to get the contracts to align and I believe it has taken Comcast a few years to align their contracts to be able to take their MVPD service and become an OTT service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But I still think Comcast will follow AT&T's lead and spin off the media business so it can merge with some other media business to gain scale.


AT&T took two mergers that activist investors complained about and created their current situation: DIRECTV still majority owned by AT&T but controlled by another company (and off the books in AT&T SEC filings) and Time Warner Discovery taking AT&T's content assets (AT&T splitting them off to be merged with someone else). It leaves AT&T as a connectivity company (with DIRECTV hidden on the side until the service crashes or is sold off to someone else).

Are you thinking Comcast would do a similar three way split or just spin off one of the three legs of their business?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But I still think Comcast will follow AT&T's lead and spin off the media business so it can merge with some other media business to gain scale.


AT&T isn't in the media business. AT&T is effectively trying to rid themselves of both media and pay TV.

I hope you're not suggesting that AT&T is trying to position themselves to combine with NBC Universal given how well the last NBC Universal merger went.

I suggest that these large companies stick with what they know and back off trying to establish behemoth's that encompass multiple entertainment sectors. I think maybe this separation should start with Sinclair.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> The point was that AT&T thought that being the biggest would allow them to get the contracts they needed to launch a successful OTT service. Not quite as easy as they expected. It took a few years to get the contracts to align and I believe it has taken Comcast a few years to align their contracts to be able to take their MVPD service and become an OTT service.


I think the failings here are that bargaining power isn't everything and if you put enough heft into a juggernaut, it won't be able to change course if the conditions require it.

Of course AT&T wanted to burn the candle at both ends by pressuring providers for lower prices while scalding customers with higher prices -- perhaps with the goal of funding some other pet project (wireless expansion?)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> I think the failings here are that bargaining power isn't everything and if you put enough heft into a juggernaut, it won't be able to change course if the conditions require it.


I believe you are finally getting the point. Being number one doesn't guarantee easy success.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Are you thinking Comcast would do a similar three way split or just spin off one of the three legs of their business?


I think Comcast is likely to do something along the lines of the recent proposed deal with Electronic Arts that ultimately fell through. Which is to spin off their media unit, NBCUniversal, in order to merge with some other pure media company. There's some logic to having a video game publisher be part of a big media house but frankly, given Peacock's position in the SVOD race, NBCU needs more movie+TV content and the IP on which future titles can be developed. (Video games might be a nice addition but it's not going to save Universal/Peacock. Sure, there's probably _some_ EA game IP on which movies or series could be based but probably not a ton. I don't think EA has any characters like Sonic or Mario.) So, as I say, the most plausible merger scenario is to spin off NBCU to merge with Paramount. Or possibly Warner Bros. Discovery. (Some honchos at Comcast in the past were reportedly interested in merging NBCU with Warner.)

I can't see Disney wanting/needing NBCU or, frankly, being allowed to participate in such a mega-deal given their size and the Fox deal they were already allowed. Who else does that leave as a potential partner for NBCU? Apple and Amazon are too big -- the DOJ/FCC would slap those deals down -- and frankly I don't think either would be interested. (Certainly not Apple, anyhow.)

Others are plausible -- Lionsgate/Starz, AMC Networks -- but they're too small on their own to matter (although could be part of some larger multi-party merger). Perhaps NBCU could be merged with Sony as a way of bowing out of the SVOD wars completely (meaning Peacock gets shut down) in order to form a larger content "arms dealer" who supplies their new movies and series to the highest bidders among the SVODs: Apple, WBD, Netflix, Disney, Amazon, Paramount.

Honestly, the _only_ other name that seems plausible is Netflix. Which is an idea that I would have scoffed at mere weeks ago but, hey, they've lost 2/3 of their market cap lately and appear to be doing some harsh soul-searching these days at Netflix. They're rewriting their rules, getting ready to roll out an ad-supported tier and bidding on the rights to live US sports (Formula 1 racing). That said, I still think it's a real stretch to think that Netflix is ready to so fully capitulate on their self-image as the next-gen pure-OTT vision of global media by buying a traditional Hollywood studio with a major broadcast network and a clutch of cable channels. So yeah, looks like NBCU either ends up hitched to Paramount or WBD or it ends up bowing out of the SVOD race in order to be an arms dealer, either on their own or maybe merged with Sony.

I don't foresee Comcast getting rid of any of divisions they currently have. They would continue to build, operate and sell access to their IP network and also sell mobile phone service (through partnerships with Verizon and Charter), MVPD service, and home phone and security services. They would still co-own with Charter their streaming video platform, i.e. Flex, which is essentially an operating system/UI + app store with customer subscription/billing. This streaming video platform is what (they hope) will gradually replace their legacy MVPD business over the course of this decade. Instead of purchasing a bundle of channels through Comcast (or Charter), you can sign up for one or more streaming apps/services through them on their Flex devices, whether that's a box they directly provide their broadband customers or a retail devices like a Flex-powered smart TV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> AT&T isn't in the media business. AT&T is effectively trying to rid themselves of both media and pay TV.
> 
> I hope you're not suggesting that AT&T is trying to position themselves to combine with NBC Universal given how well the last NBC Universal merger went.


No. I'm not sure how you're getting any of that out of what I posted. My point is that AT&T _got out_ of the media business by selling Warner to Discovery. (That was the correct decision, by the way, one which Wall Street applauded.) And I think Comcast is going to do something similar with their media business, NBCUniversal.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Just saw this article posted today over at _Variety_:









Comcast Has Been Awfully Quiet. Are Brian Roberts and Jeff Shell Itching to Make a Deal?


Is Comcast poised to make a big move? The cable and media giant has missed out on some snazzy acquisitions in recent years, failing to outmaneuver Disney to buy the bulk of 21st Century Fox’s enter…




variety.com





The article seems to explore the possibility of Comcast doubling down on content by acquiring another media company more than it does them selling off NBCU, although it does mention that option as well. I can't see them trying to buy Netflix or any other media competitor. As the article states, rising interest rates make this a bad time to take on more debt. And the article fails to mention the increasing competition Comcast faces in their core connectivity business from rising fiber and fixed 5G competitors, which will necessitate increased spending to improve their DOCSIS network. Spinning off NBCU makes the most sense, if they can find a willing dance partner.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Spinning off NBCU makes the most sense, if they can find a willing dance partner.


Would any regulatory agency accept another NBC merger?

I think we're going to see some of these recent big mergers leave at least one of the parties twisting in the wind as they've too commonly turned out to be undesirable match-ups. The only recent merger that didn't stink may be T-Mobile (perhaps because it didn't create a 400lb gorilla).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Would any regulatory agency accept another NBC merger?


Probably. Depends. There are two types of mergers: vertical and horizontal. When Comcast bought NBCU, that was a vertical merger, which is the type that gets anti-trust activists, such as net neutrality proponents, the most upset. The result was a company that sells broadband and cable TV packages then owning a studio connected to a streaming service and a set of cable channels. Not good. 

A horizontal merger is when two directly competing companies merge, like the recent merger of Warner Media and Discovery. Generally, the government doesn't have a problem with horizontal mergers so long as they don't result in too much reduction of competition and any one company gaining a truly dominant position in the industry.

So if Comcast were to spin off NBCU, thereby undoing a controversial vertical merger, in order to let it merge with another sub-scale media company, such as Paramount, I think the government would actually see that as a net positive. Should there be any grumbling from anti-trust activists about it, all Comcast and Paramount would need to do is point out that Disney and Fox were allowed to complete a MUCH larger merger deal, to the tune of $71.3 billion when Disney bought most of Fox's assets just a few years ago. That resulted in a true jumbo-sized dominant player, Disney, which has a market cap of *$175 bn*. 

To put that in perspective, Netflix has a market cap of $80 bn, Warner Bros. Discovery has a market cap of $36 bn and Paramount has a market cap of $17 bn. Comcast (including NBCU) currently has a market cap of $180 bn. When they acquired NBCU back in 2011, they valued it at $30 bn. Not sure what it might be valued at today. Of course, keep in mind that should Paramount and NBCU merge, they would have to divest one of the two broadcast networks, almost assuredly the lower-rated NBC. So you'd have to subtract the value of NBC (likely with its news division and sports rights) from the ultimate market value of a hypothetical Paramount Universal.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> When Comcast bought NBCU, that was a vertical merger, which is the type that gets anti-trust activists, such as net neutrality proponents, the most upset.


You've reversed the meanings of vertical and horizontal as they apply to mergers (or business types). A vertical merger is one between direct competitors.

An NBCU<->Paramount merger would be a vertical merger. An NBCU<->Amazon/Apple merger would probably be considered a diagonal merger (because each has its own movie division).

The Comcast merger was a horizontal merger as they didn't have much overlap. The pressure came because it would create such a huge company that had already shown anti-competitive tendencies.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> You've reversed the meanings of vertical and horizontal as they apply to mergers (or business types). A vertical merger is one between direct competitors.
> 
> An NBCU<->Paramount merger would be a vertical merger. An NBCU<->Amazon/Apple merger would probably be considered a diagonal merger (because each has its own movie division).
> 
> The Comcast merger was a horizontal merger as they didn't have much overlap. The pressure came because it would create such a huge company that had already shown anti-competitive tendencies.


Nope, you got it backwards, amigo. 

Vertical means up-and-down, i.e. on different levels in the supply chain, e.g. Comcast and NBCU, or AT&T and Warner Media. 

Horizontal means side-by-side, i.e. on the same level in the supply chain, e.g. Charter Cable and Time Warner Cable, or Warner Media and Discovery.









What Are Horizontal and Vertical Mergers?


Horizontal and vertical mergers are two types of mergers. Learn their similarities, differences, and potential consequences.




www.thebalancesmb.com


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I don't see Paramount and Peacock merging unless it is a joint venture between the owners. NBC selling Peacock to CBS? Would NBC create a separate streaming service for NBC broadcast content or move the broadcast content to Hulu? Or just not stream broadcast content?

A joint venture may increase subscriber count as people see more value in subscribing to a combined service (and not being able to choose one over the other as they may do today).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> I don't see Paramount and Peacock merging unless it is a joint venture between the owners. NBC selling Peacock to CBS? Would NBC create a separate streaming service for NBC broadcast content or move the broadcast content to Hulu? Or just not stream broadcast content?
> 
> A joint venture may increase subscriber count as people see more value in subscribing to a combined service (and not being able to choose one over the other as they may do today).


They're already doing a joint venture in certain second-tier European markets. It's called SkyShowtime and it's getting ready to launch pretty soon.









Exclusive: Comcast & Paramount seek SkyShowtime head of content - TBI Vision


Comcast and Paramount’s soon-to-launch streamer SkyShowtime is on the look-out for a head of content with a remit that will rival some of the biggest roles in Europe, TBI has learned. SkyShowtime was first revealed in mid-2021 and will offer TV, movies and original series from NBCUniversal...




tbivision.com





The fact that they're doing that JV is an implicit admission that neither side has what's necessary to compete and survive on their own, at least in slightly less affluent markets where consumers can be expected to spend less on TV and have fewer SVOD subscriptions. Hence the need to combine the content of Peacock (which already has some of Comcast's Sky branded Euro content) with Showtime and Paramount+ to create an SVOD that offers consumers in Spain, the Nordics, Austria, etc. more bang for their euro-buck.

The reason I doubt we'd see them go all-in on a global JV -- in other words, do something like SkyShowtime in all markets globally -- is that JVs like this tend to be unstable. That's the lesson of the multi-headed beast known as Hulu, a JV that Fox and Warner have already sold out of and which Comcast will finally sell out of by 2024, leaving it fully in Disney's possession. In the end, it just makes sense for the back-end studio system to be fully aligned with the front-end global SVOD. So if they were going to do SkyShowtime around the world, including major markets like the US, UK, Germany, etc., then they should just merge NBCU and Paramount.

If Comcast were to sell off/spin off NBCU, they'd probably get rid of all four parts:

the Universal TV and movie studio
that studio's DTC streamer, Peacock
the NBC broadcast network, including its local O&O major-market affiliates (e.g. WNBC, KNBC, etc.)
the set of national cable networks (e.g. USA, Bravo, SyFy, etc.)
The problem with a proposed NBCU/Paramount merger is what to do with NBC. Because Paramount Universal wouldn't be able to keep both it and CBS. I guess it's possible that NBC could just be kept by Comcast, but this seems like the least-likely scenario. Another option is that it's spun off as its own separate little stock, a media "free radical" which might then end up merging with other small players like Lionsgate/Starz and/or AMC Networks. (In this scenario, it's unclear how much of NBC's sports rights and news division might stay with it versus being retained by Paramount Universal, assuming that the sports rights are severable.) A third option is that the only major US media house without a US broadcast net, Warner Bros. Discovery, would buy NBC. Why not? They own free-to-air networks in Europe already. And having one in the US could be a boost to HBO Max and a future FAST (free ad-supported TV) app. I can imagine NBC airing a Guy Fieri-hosted cooking competition, a CW-style DC superhero show, a Magnolia home show with Chip & Joanna Gaines, and an increasing number of new scripted series produced by Warner as they slowly phase out NBC's Universal-produced shows if they aren't getting decent ratings.

So where would the NBC content stream? It would depend on who owns the network. If it remained owned by Comcast or was spun off solo, my guess is that Paramount Universal's SVOD (whether that would still be called Paramount+ or get renamed to indicate its new heft) would pay to keep getting current-season NBC shows next-day. They might pay to also be able to live stream NBC sports too, the way Peacock currently does (e.g. Sunday Night Football, Olympics, Sunday MLB, etc.).

If WBD ended up buying NBC, you'd naturally expect all that NBC content to find a home on HBO Max. Although who knows what the terms of the sale of NBC to WBD might be. I could imagine a situation where NBC primetime shows that aren't part of the news or sports divisions are available next-day on both Paramount+ and HBO Max for a few years following the sale and then are exclusively available on HBO Max. But I couldn't see WBD wanting to share the live sports, the news content (e.g. NBC Nightly News, Dateline, Today), or the late night shows (SNL, The Tonight Show), so that stuff would be exclusive to HBO Max (and/or their future FAST app -- call it MiniMax?).

I guess separating out the news channels would be a bit messy. I would anticipate that Paramount Universal would own the NBCU cable nets, including MSNBC, which WBD doesn't need since they have CNN. (MSNBC is overdue for a name change anyhow, given that Microsoft, i.e. "MS," ditched it years ago.) Not sure where CNBC might end up, though. Maybe WBD would want it since CNN doesn't have a business-specific news sibling? That's probably the only NBCU cable net that might be included in a hypothetical sale of NBC to WBD. Either way, I would imagine a layoff of some news folks after the deal closes, given all the talent WBD already has in their CNN division. The NBC News on-camera talent like Lester Holt and the Today show anchors would be safe but maybe not all the behind-the-scenes staff. Part of the rationale of mergers is cost-savings, i.e. layoffs. And WBD's Zaslav is proving to be pretty brutal in that regard, it seems.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Nope, you got it backwards, amigo.


I did indeed.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> If Comcast were to sell off/spin off NBCU, they'd probably get rid of all four parts:
> 
> the Universal TV and movie studio
> that studio's DTC streamer, Peacock
> ...


I consider NBC and Peacock to be a permanent pairing. Whether the other services go to Paramount or another new owner, I do not see Peacock existing separate from NBC.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> I consider NBC and Peacock to be a permanent pairing. Whether the other services go to Paramount or another new owner, I do not see Peacock existing separate from NBC.


Broadcast networks like NBC "rent" shows from various studios, who are the companies that actually produce and own that content. The network only has the rights to air and stream the shows they "rent" for a limited amount of time. A standard contract gives the network the rights to stream the five most recent episodes of their current-season series, although that might be amended to give them streaming rights to all current-season episodes, not just the last five. So that varies by series.

The pairing of an SVOD like Peacock isn't mainly with the network, it's with the studio, which in this case is NBCUniversal. Peacock streams the shows and movies produced and owned by that studio, plus whatever it has the rights to stream via NBC's broadcast contracts with their supplier studios. A good number of series that air on NBC actually are owned and produced by NBCUniversal, like the Law & Order series as well as the three Chicago ___ series. So Peacock can and does stream all episodes of those shows, past and current seasons. But some NBC series come from outside studios, like This Is Us, which is produced and owned by Disney's 20th Century. So Peacock (as well as the NBC app) only has the five most recent eps of that show. Meanwhile, Disney's Hulu has the entirety of This Is Us on offer, every season including all of the latest season.

So if Comcast were to sell NBCU to Paramount but split off NBC to go elsewhere, we would expect MOST of the content in Peacock to go with NBCU and get folded into Paramount+. It's possible, though, that the Peacock brand name and logo would go with NBC. So if we were to imagine WBD buying NBC, then they might use Peacock as the FAST app, with free access to select recent NBC shows (but no premium content or sports) plus a rotating library of older WBD content. So in this hypothetical scenario, what Pluto TV is to Paramount+, a totally free Peacock would be to HBO Max.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Broadcast networks like NBC "rent" shows from various studios, who are the companies that actually produce and own that content.


Is it a "rent" or is it a "subcontract"?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Is it a "rent" or is it a "subcontract"?


Eh, I'm using the term "rent" as a generality to mean that the broadcast network itself does not own the content. Rather, they pay a licensing fee to gain access to that content so that they can air and stream it during a limited window of time. Increasingly, we see the networks licensing their content from a studio that is part of their parent corporation, e.g. NBC licensing shows from NBCUniversal, both of which are part of Comcast; ABC licensing shows from 20th Century Television, both of which are part of Disney. But that's certainly not true of 100% of the content the networks air. The example I gave above is that NBC's hit series This Is Us is licensed from owner/producer 20th Century Television, which is why that show's permanent streaming home is Disney's Hulu, not NBCU's Peacock.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Interesting tidbid in the news today: Comcast has reportedly been in talks this year to buy two major TV brands, one strong in the US -- Vizio -- and one strong in Europe -- Philips. So far, Comcast has only dipped their toe in the smart TV wars by working with TV brand Hisense to produce a special "XClass TV" that runs Comcast+Charter's Flex streaming operating system as its smart TV platform. There are only a couple models/sizes of the XClass TV and it's only sold at Walmart. But if Comcast (or the Comcast+Charter JV) purchased Vizio and Philips, they would automatically be a major player in the smart TV market in both of Comcast's core areas, the US and Europe.









Comcast Reportedly in Talks to Buy TV Manufacturer Vizio, Other Companies


As media conglomerate Comcast continues to try to evolve from its cable roots, Protocol reports industry insiders have indicated that the company has recently been in talks to acquire buying multiple different companies …




thestreamable.com





Meanwhile, in further news, Comcast is in talks with the NCTC, a cooperative industry group whose members include hundreds of smaller, more rural cable broadband operators, to license them their Flex streaming device/platform as those smaller operators get set to pivot their video efforts away from traditional multichannel cable TV service over to app-based direct-to-consumer services like Disney+ and HBO Max. The NCTC collectively represents 34 million broadband customers, a number similar to what each Comcast and Charter serve.





__





Loading…






www.fiercevideo.com


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Comcast has reportedly been in talks this year to buy two major TV brands, one strong in the US -- Vizio -- and one strong in Europe -- Philips.


This is an Apple-like move that I'm guessing won't fly unless Comcast divests itself of other assets.

If you can't get them to include your app, buy them and make them add it.

I can't imagine why a mom and pop would want to go after a Flex box when they can let their customers choose their own boxes (Fire TV, Roku, ATV, etc.). I have a Flex box and the only reason I use it is for Hulu as my TV's version of the Hulu app doesn't support 4K.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> This is an Apple-like move that I'm guessing won't fly unless Comcast divests itself of other assets.


Won't fly on an anti-trust basis, you mean? Eh, I don't think either the US or EU would have a problem with Comcast owning a relatively small slice of the smart TV market.



harsh said:


> I can't imagine why a mom and pop would want to go after a Flex box when they can let their customers choose their own boxes (Fire TV, Roku, ATV, etc.). I have a Flex box and the only reason I use it is for Hulu as my TV's version of the Hulu app doesn't support 4K.


Couple reasons why a small cable operator would want to license Flex. First, so that they can get some kind of kickback from the Comcast/Charter app store for video subscriptions purchased on the boxes they issue their broadband customers. Second, having a box that you can offer those customers is a way to deepen the relationship and make it stickier. And believe it or not, there are some customers (especially older/less-tech-savvy ones) who don't own their own streaming device (e.g. Roku) and have always just used whatever box the cable operator gives them for TV viewing and will still expect to be led in that way. Cable operators of all sizes are getting ready to shut down traditional QAM cable TV and, whether they still offer their own cable TV service as streaming IPTV or just point customers toward third-party national vMPVDs like YouTube TV, they'll need to offer those customers an app-based streaming box that can serve as a next-gen "cable TV" box for when they make that transition.


----------

