Comcast On Demand Online rolls out fully this year, but stops at the front door
By Richard Lawler 
posted Oct 21st 2009 2:49PM
posted Oct 21st 2009 2:49PM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Johny Drama!!
I'm starting a Cable & Dish (soon, over the internet) TV Company that's PPC (pay per channel) Costing from $2 - $10 a month per channel. Over 300 to choose from within 5 countries. The DVR Tuner well automatically use your HD antenna for your (free) local channels and Include Netflex, Blockbuster, & Youtube addons(wireless internet required) w/ Blue Ray player built in. This is the only Tuner offered which costs $15 per month per box.
All you pay for are the channels you choose and the set top Boxes (max 4). Taxes and fees will not be passed down to you. (You pay the same every month) Installation is $100 (free if using over the internet)
The above is all a lie; at least I got you excited
Looks like Watkins Glen (NY, USA) racetrack there in the background.
It's not Watking Glen. I'm pretty sure it's one of those boring tracks with only left hand turns.
"Watkins" not "Watking"...doh!!!
If a left hand turn only track is boring to you, then you obviously don't understand what goes on during the race.
I was like you until I had spent an afternoon with college friends learning what's so darn special with NASCAR. After that, I still didn't love the sport, but I understand what it's all about.
My next project is trying to figure out what so special about watching soccer? Golf is more exciting than that! And Hockey is at least more violent!
Knowing nothing about Entourage or NASCAR I'd still be willing to bet $100 that that's filmed in CA and NOT NY. Why in the hell would they film in upstate NY!?
5 second Google search later: yup, it's Fontana Speedway in SoCal
http://www.cnsm.csulb.edu/departments/geology/people/bperry//GrantPhotos/SanGabMtns1Dec05/074FontanaToRubidouxDec05L.jpg
Hey, Chris, no need to be a wanker about it. Watkins Glen had the exact same paint scheme in the stands was what tripped me up and in the end, it ain't really worth the effort making a big production out of it.
You're right, I was unnecessarily harsh on you. Just tired of seeing so many meaningless comments on blogs, particularly one's that are obviously incorrect.
Bad bad idea.
I fail to see why you think this is a bad idea. Hulu and the like have shown that on-demand viewing on a computer is a great medium, and with this you'll be able to atleast catch the channels that Hulu doesn't have rights to (HBO on demand, Showtime, etc) if you subscribe to it, giving you the chance to catch up on that Dexter episode you missed while not being home. In my opinion, this is a no-brainer, and it was bound to happen.
Hate on Comcast all you want (that comment not directed to you Jamus), but this is a POSITIVE change.
It would be an awesome idea if you didn't have to be at home to use it. When you're at home, you already have the real on-demand and don't need to watch low-res tv on a 15 inch screen when there's a 55 inch tv next to you that can watch HD.
Sorry about that, I should have given my reason... I just do not trust any big media group to own both the media and the distribution for these new type of outlets. We all got banged around for far too long with the old way and now that we have new means of access, the old school crew is doing their best to get a stranglehold on it too. Especially if Comcast is going to be controlling share of NBC/Universal. Ugggh.
@Mjayhunt Not everyone has this "real" On Demand you speak of. I've had comcast (TV and Internet) for many years and don't have On Demand. So this is actually a nice addition, assuming they let us "non-digital" customers have it as well.
@Jamus
But Comcast already has "Fancast", which is basically the same as Hulu. This will just be an extension of that, and no different than actually enjoying it on a tv on demand, except on a computer. Theoretically :) And yes, I'm sure it will be much more viable of a product once it rolls out to be usable from any computer, ie with a login. But even if Comcast owned a controlling share, that doesn't mean other people wouldn't get to see the content. Comcast Sports Net and various other Comcast owned channels have been featured on other carriers for years (Direct, Verizon, etc)
Well, I have Comcast and they have On Demand available and yet I can't access it. Why? Because I use CableCards rather than renting their STB's. I use Tivo instead. So I can't access their On Demand with current gen hardware.
This is better than nothing, and a good first step, but the main reason I'd be interested in this would be if I could access it when I'm not at home.
But of course then they'd need to deal with the whole insufficient bandwidth problem by doing variable bitrates or allowing buffering, neither of which they probably want to deal with right now.
This is a fine first step. As a Comcast 250GB cap customer I'm not even that concerned about this fitting within my cap for the moment, though that could become a problem at some point if they start offering HD. If I was a Time Warner customer on a 40GB or lower cap though, I wouldn't use this service unless it didn't count against the cap. And if the didn't count it I'd file a network neutrality suit against them if I were Hulu or Google or ...
I expected Comcast to move slower than this honestly, so for now this is fine. I eventually want HD and an iPhone application, and streaming over a lousy internet connection in a hotel room, and ... if they want me to continue paying more than $100/month for my cable...
Entourage sucks. So does comcast. But as soon as they have this rolled out, there will be some way to rip it onto my hard drives. Yay.
no sir.
it's you who is sucking....
It seems there's a lot of sucking going about........ Can I join in?
Award goes to Cody for the gayest comment of the year! Congratulations, just don't say it's all thanks to god, because he despises gay people. Just look at what he did to Lady Gaga...
Actually, I agree. Its relatively easy to download Hulu shows, and without the ads, with any stream ripper. I assume they'll work here too. And more and more video conversion programs are supporting flash as an input format...
Actually, it looks like Hulu has broken this recently, and now is streaming everything using RTMPE, meaning "encrypted". None of the stream ripping tools I tried (GetFLV, Replay Media Catcher, Hulu Downloader, various others) are capable of capturing Hulu downloads anymore. Of course you can use a stream capture tool, but those are horribly CPU intensive, and run in real time. I assume somebody will solve this soon (or already has but I couldn't find it). Feel free to comment if you know different.
p.s. Experience with ripping Hulu prior to this month is probably not relevant.
From the read link: "Comcast has no plans to offer an online-only subscription for cable channels, a move that could cannibalize its own cable TV offerings".
Damn.
Comcast has been send advertising on this to my physical and email addresses for the last 6 months.
It'll be nice when it kicks into gear. The advertising mention after the service goes into affect for a few months, then users will be able to long into their Comcast.net accounts from anywhere and watch content. So yes, at first you'll have to be home on your comcast modem. After a while you can be anywhere.
Man, we pay enough for internet. You'd think that they would give us non-tv viewers access to On Demand Online for free. Well maybe not in the end.
Why would they give non-TV viewers access. If you are not willing to pay for the real thing, they won't give it to you for free.
The purpose of the Online On-Demand is if you want to record a third show and your DVR is busy with two, you can . If you accidentally missed your show or messed up the recording, you can. If power goes out and you can't record, you can watch it later.
Butch up and pay for access. If it's expensive for you, get another job!
"If you are not willing to pay for the real thing, they won't give it to you for free."
Hulu and many others do...
Hulu and others do NOW. In reality though they don't make as much off the advertisements on Hulu as they do if you watch the show on real TV. And Rupert Murdoch is talking about making Hulu a paid service. It isn't really obvious how this will all shake out in the end. Will only a few shows be on Hulu? Will there be a premium version? Will they increase the number of ads as the economy recovers? Will advertisers pay more than they do now for internet ads that they know users watched rather than for TV ads that users might have fast-forwarded over? Will the whole TV industry collapse due to underfunding? Who knows...
call me when they go a la carte, and offer non-subscribers free on-demand content (when streamed with commercials), and (commercial free) streamed episodes for under a dollar.
It'd also be nice to be able to get live sports in HD, (with commercials), for free over the internet, without having to pay tonss of money for a season pass to nfl.com or mlb.com, etc.
One would think that Comcast would certainly have the opportunity to charge more for advertising when the content is on-demand over the internet, seeing as how the commercials can be MUCH better targeted, and the viewer can't as easily switch stations. I don't see why they can't simply make enough money off selling ads. Guess it goes against the whole "pay in order to have ads" cable TV philosophy.
I quit my $100/month cable tv subscription and haven't missed it one bit. That said, there are about 4 shows (besides sports, which I generally get OTA in HD) that I like to watch that don't show on the major networks. I have no desire to watch them more than once, so it makes no sense to purchase the entire episode. If I could pay a quarter or 50 cents to stream a commercial-free episode one time, I would gladly. Until then, I've got mininova.
Comcast will not be stupid and cannibalize their own business. If you can't watch it on your TV, you won't be able to watch it online without paying something more for it.
Comcast doesn't really know how to do targeted advertising, doesn't have the sales force to support it, nor the technology. Presumably some of that will come online as they get their feet wet. But you can't expect them to have that all figured out with the initial rollout.
Sucktastic!
If you can only access this at home, I see no benefit to this over regular on-demand services (unless for some reason your computer screen bests your TV screen). Call me when you can log in to watch stuff when you're out of town.
I can only think of one thing... netbook + bathroom = toilet tv.
How are they going to limit this to only at home watching? Does Comcast have some magic way to make sure it's only going to your house?
By the cable modem you use? You can't just up and take it across the city/state/country and expect it to work at a friends house.
Comcast knows what IP blocks they own so it's not magic in the least.
I guess you could VPN into your house and watch it... your IP address would appear to Comcast to be in the right block. Seems likely this would work. Wonder how hard it is to set up a VPN on my router... Course then I'm limited to the uplink bandwidth from my home, rather than the downlink bandwidth wherever I am (or both actually) which might be a problem if this was HD...
Comcast is sure to find a way to make this suck and be a complete assrape for their customers. I'm probably moving to a Comcast area and have already decided to use aerial instead.
I'm starting a Cable & Dish (soon, over the internet) TV Company that's PPC (pay per channel) Costing from $2 - $10 a month per channel. Over 300 to choose from within 5 countries. The DVR Tuner well automatically use your HD antenna for your (free) local channels and Include Netflex, Blockbuster, & Youtube addons(wireless internet required) w/ Blue Ray player built in. This is the only Tuner offered which costs $15 per month per box.
All you pay for are the channels you choose and the set top Boxes (max 4). Taxes and fees will not be passed down to you. (You pay the same every month) Installation is $100 (free if using over the internet)
The above is all a lie; at least I got you excited
Is downloading shows going to go towards your internet cap? That seems to put an even bigger strain on that.
I assume the answer is YES. In fact if the FCC goes forward with their network neutrality stance it may be ILLEGAL for the MSO to NOT count it against your cap. Which might be fine for a bit at Comcast with their 250GB cap, but I'd be nervous if I were a Time Warner customer.
Just for the hell of it, here's the math using the current Hulu bit rates. Your 250GB cap on Comcast would let you watch:
360p at 480Kbps... 38 days of video (24 hours a day)
360p at 700Kbps... 33 days of video
480p at 1Mbps... 23 days of video
720p at 2.5Mbps... 9 days of video
The last one is for the HD gallery 720p samples. Now 9 days at 24 hours a day is likely more than you can watch in a month, given you'll probably spend less than 8 hours a day watching video. But if you assume that there is more than one consumer in your household, then it certainly becomes possible you'd exceed the 250GB cap if you had HD internet video as your only source of content.
Obviously these numbers would be reduced substantially if you do other things with your internet connection. Like download games or buy software or whatever. Even iTunes updates... :-)
Anyway, I don't think you need to worry about the Comcast 250GB cap for now. But if you imagine you might want to watch 1080p video in the future, with better quality than that available today, and so forth, then it could certainly be a problem.
With Time Warner playing with 5GB and 40GB caps its obvious that you could run into the limit much more easily. That 40GB cap only gets you 35 hours of 720p TV watching per month. Just an hour a day, something you could easily hit, and that's ignoring other uses for bits on your internet connection.
and what about the 250GB cap per month?? Isn't streaming TV going to eat into our allotment of data usage?
So, your 20 channel service that costs me $40 currently will now cost $120? No thanks
The Promise Of TV Everywhere Is Doomed For Failure, Here's Why
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2009/10/the-promise-of-tv-everywhere-is-doomed-for-failure-heres-why.html
@Dan,
Thanks for the link. Thoughtful article. Interesting that they don't have a business plan. I'd say they NEED this, and they need a lot of the content on it to be exclusive. Otherwise there are going to be more and more cable cutters going over the top and disintermediation will mean the end of the current MSOs. If they think they're going to charge money for this they're smoking crack. They should be so lucky that I keep paying them what I already do. They should be planning for a REDUCTION in revenue per individual household in the coming years honestly. And yes I know it will cost them money to offer this. I just think they'll have to chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
Hmmm...so they are doing this, which takes up bandwidth for them, instead of upgraded infrastructure or better prices
The excitement over this is largely because Cable is such a locked-down system. If I could put together my own HTPC with a full-access CableCard or two, this service would be useless. It's basically Hulu, but with even tighter regional restrictions(a single home). It's like their customers said "We want to watch our shows when it suits us. This could work by using the internet," and they heard, "We want to watch our shows on the internet." It's that middle bit that is so important.
I'm not advocating piracy, but I could pull any episode of almost any show off the torrents and watch them anywhere I want. I don't see why my choices are limited to "under the strictest supervision," or "break the law." There has to be a better way.
Agreed. If things worked like they should my CableCard equipped Tivo's could record anything I wanted, as well as allowing me access to Comcast's VOD stuff on my TV. At which point this service would become largely uninteresting to me. But since a CableCard device isn't good enough to support VOD in that whacky CableLabs-lovin world we live in, we need something like this. Ditto if I could transfer and transcode any shows (even those flagged with do-not-copy flags) from my Tivo's to my iPhone or Laptop, then this would again get less interesting--I'd be able to watch whatever I wanted wherever I was anyway.
But things don't work that way. Not yet anyway.