Comcast Internet Video Launching Before Year EndThough there's restrictions -- like you must be using a Comcast modem 04:11PM Wednesday Oct 21 2009 by Karl Bodetags: Video · competition · business · alternatives · cable · ComcastCalling it " video on demand on steroids," Comcast CEO Brian Roberts today gave new details on the cable industry's "TV Everywhere" initiative, which will offer existing cable customers access to a limited selection of online video. According to the sneak peak shown at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco, the service will have content only from broadcast partners who've agreed to the deal, and will only be accessible via your home computer. According to the AP, the walled garden will need to confirm you're using a Comast cable modem: You'll be able to watch popular cable television series such as HBO's "Entourage" and AMC's "Mad Men" on your computer by the end of the year without paying extra -- as long as you're a Comcast Corp. subscriber watching at home. . . After users log in, the cable system will perform such checks as whether a Comcast cable modem is being used. According to the AP, Comcast is working on a verification system that allows Comcast TV customers to access the service should they say -- use broadband from a competitor, or want to access the service while on the go or at work. The service will initially be called "On Demand Online," a name Comcast promises to shortly change to something that's well, interesting. Comcast isn't yet offering the service to non-Comcast TV customers, as they don't want to cannibalize cable TV revenues by encouraging cord cutting. Obviously there's still a ton of questions that need addressing. While the service is supposed to keep customers from cutting the cable cord and getting all their video online either through piracy or legitimate applications, a limited selection buried behind a pay wall could spell trouble if the catalog isn't compelling and it doesn't, well, work. Additional restrictions (like only being able to watch the content on your home PC) seem to threaten to make "TV Everywhere" more like "some TV, in some places, sometimes, for some people."
Related:- Comcast Successfully Delays Philly FiOS
- Internet Video Still Just a Baby
- Verizon: Cut Your Landline To Save Money
- Pittsburgh City Council Approves FiOS Franchise
- Comcast Considering 4G Voice
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- Cable Industry: Shucks, Guess Nobody Wants CableCARDs
- Comcast TV Everywhere WILL Work Outside The Home
|
 | 
IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC |  Will the 250GB cap be increased to reflect this "feature"?
Of course it won't.... | |
|  | 
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | Re: Will the 250GB cap be increased to reflect this "feature"? I bet OnNet caps won't count against the cap. | |
| | | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| Re: UM, WAIT, NO! Don't have a heart attack.
»www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art···9BF487O4
"Access will be carefully guarded: Comcast subscribers can initially watch shows and movies only on their home computers after being verified by the cable system. And for now, the online viewing will be restricted to those who also get Internet service through Comcast, not through competitors like phone companies.
Comcast, wanting to make sure the shows will remain off-limits to non-subscribers, still is working on providing access over competing home broadband systems as well as on the go — at work, on laptops and, one day, over cell phones."
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
| | | 
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| Re: UM, WAIT, NO! They shouldn't launch it until they can clear up the potential favoritism and potential network neutrality issues caused by such a hairbrained scheme.
Right now "TV Everywhere" is only such if one considers a laptop connected to their home network "everywhere". And for many who don't want an overpriced Internet connection from Comcast, it's "TV Nowhere" right out of the gate. They should be ashamed.
Comcast has every reason to drag their feet on implementing access to this from outside of their network. Doing so will only serve to encourage those "naughty" customers who have purchased Internet service elsewhere to "see the light" and come to Comcast for their surfing needs.
The idea of Comcast making this availble over cell phones makes me laugh, too. What makes anyone think that AT&T would ever support this for the iPhone, when they've required other apps (like Slingbox) to work only via WiFi? I doubt that Comcast will have much success in that arena.
--
Nobel peace prize for Obammer... Now he's got one more thing in common with Arafat besides hating America. And he's just as succesful as Jimmy "the failure" Carter. | |
| | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by JSRoman  :Comcast, wanting to make sure the shows will remain off-limits to non-subscribers." Oh I see so they can make sure people will subscribe to their cable service. Oh wait Comcast doesn't offer cable service in my area. SO this is MY fault how?
Once again the big media compnaies STILL don't get it. Jeez were are mere weeks away from the 2nd decade of the 21st century. Maybe by 2030 they'll get it. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: UM, WAIT, NO! said by BF69 :said by JSRoman :Comcast, wanting to make sure the shows will remain off-limits to non-subscribers." Oh I see so they can make sure people will subscribe to their cable service. Oh wait Comcast doesn't offer cable service in my area. SO this is MY fault how? Then this article and the proposed future service means nothing to you in the first place... the service is FOR comcast customers.. not the general U.S. public ... what don't you get? | |
| | 
aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | said by funchords :Okay, this AGAIN is not what was advertised, Comcast. "TV Everywhere" was supposed to be available to video subscribers, regardless of who the ISP was. In fact, I should be able to access this from my hotel because I subscribe to Comcast video. What the hell is so "TV Everywhere" now? It's simply "TV at home" and only if you're a cablemodem subscriber. This is so very very wrong. I would think they will have no problem offering it to everyone as long as they pay for it.
It only makes sense. Give it for no additional cost to Comcast customers and charge a fee to non Comcast customers. | |
| |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| How about Comcast change the name from "TV Everywhere" to "TV Somewhere", or even yet "Going Nowhere".
How is this providing any significant benefit to the consumer in its current form? People still have to subscribe to their cable TV and their Internet package to get it. Even when people don't have to be a Comcast "double screw play" customer to get it, it still won't be available without a bloated, expensive cable TV subscription.
This only benefits the consumer when it is available as a separate subscription, without Comcast Internet or cable TV required, that is priced reasonably. Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen anytime soon as neither consumer choice nor inexpensive alternatives seem to be in Comcast's list of priorities.
This also raises substantial questions of network neutrality, if Comcast decides not to count streaming video usage from their service against customer caps-- thus putting services like Hulu at a substantial disadvantage. (This is why the Obama Administration has it right when they're pushing for network neutrality legislation and rulings by government agencies.)
May Comcast's current version "TV Everywhere" die a quick death. It's too bad that they just can't get it right.
--
Nobel peace prize for Obammer... Now he's got one more thing in common with Arafat besides hating America. And he's just as succesful as Jimmy "the failure" Carter. | |
| | | Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
| Re: UM, WAIT, NO! said by NOVA_Guy :How about Comcast change the name from "TV Everywhere" to "TV Somewhere", or even yet "Going Nowhere". How is this providing any significant benefit to the consumer in its current form? People still have to subscribe to their cable TV and their Internet package to get it. Even when people don't have to be a Comcast "double screw play" customer to get it, it still won't be available without a bloated, expensive cable TV subscription. This only benefits the consumer when it is available as a separate subscription, without Comcast Internet or cable TV required, that is priced reasonably. Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen anytime soon as neither consumer choice nor inexpensive alternatives seem to be in Comcast's list of priorities. This also raises substantial questions of network neutrality, if Comcast decides not to count streaming video usage from their service against customer caps-- thus putting services like Hulu at a substantial disadvantage. (This is why the Obama Administration has it right when they're pushing for network neutrality legislation and rulings by government agencies.) May Comcast's current version "TV Everywhere" die a quick death. It's too bad that they just can't get it right. This is a big of a joke as forced you to have comcast HSI to use DVR remote control what a joke. Direct tv does not force you to get att dsl to use there remote dvr control. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | They've already said that this service would count against your cap... it's been said MANY moons ago.
And yea.. again, more government meddling is going to make our lives that much better.... seriously... | |
| | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by funchords :Okay, this AGAIN is not what was advertised, Comcast. "TV Everywhere" was supposed to be available to video subscribers, regardless of who the ISP was. In fact, I should be able to access this from my hotel because I subscribe to Comcast video. What the hell is so "TV Everywhere" now? It's simply "TV at home" and only if you're a cablemodem subscriber. This is so very very wrong. Did you miss this part:
quote:
According to the AP, Comcast is working on a verification system that allows Comcast TV customers to access the service should they say -- use broadband from a competitor, or want to access the service while on the go or at work.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
| | | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| Re: UM, WAIT, NO! In all fairness though, "working on" is not the same as "released", "works", or "is available". Presuming Comcast has webmail and/or a page for maintaining account information online, there is already a mechanism available for ensuring that the customer is a comcast customer, no matter what ISP they use to sign in from.
Currently only allowing Comcast modems to use the service definitely isn't "TV Everywhere". It's "TV at my house where I already have TV at" unless Comcast has recently come out with a cable modem that has a wireless coax input for mobile use. | |
| | | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: UM, WAIT, NO! said by cdru :In all fairness though, "working on" is not the same as "released", "works", or "is available". Presuming Comcast has webmail and/or a page for maintaining account information online, there is already a mechanism available for ensuring that the customer is a comcast customer, no matter what ISP they use to sign in from. I expect they may be working on a system whereby you can't post a username/PW on some web site and make the service available to anyone. Maybe making sure a username can't be used remotely by more than 1 connection at a time.
There are so many dishonest people out there that will try and take advantage of any hole in their authorization system. That may mean them doing due diligence on making the system as secure as possible.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
| | | | |
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| Re: UM, WAIT, NO! said by TKJunkMail :I expect they may be working on a system whereby you can't post a username/PW on some web site and make the service available to anyone. Once that system get's implemented, I'm sure many different industries would love to get their hands on it. An authentication mechanism that guarantees you are authorized to access the system from anywhere, but prevents unauthorized users from ever acquiring or using compromised credentials. That's basically the holy grail of authentication.
Maybe making sure a username can't be used remotely by more than 1 connection at a time. That's actually pretty trivial to implement. I've already implemented that for several websites I've worked on and have used that system with banks i've had accounts. | |
| | | | | | | | |
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| Re: UM, WAIT, NO! said by PGHammer :In short, Comcast is not allowed to keep access to THEIR value-added services confined to THEIR customers? (It's a service offered online with a *gatekeeper*; ESPN360.com operates the same way.) I didn't say that. It was only ever planned that THEIR customers should be able to access the content. While it would be cool if they allowed non-cable customers to subscribe to it, more like an IPTV service, I never presumed that was going to happen. My point is that as it is now, what good is a service that is tied to a Comcast cable modem on a comcast network? If you are close enough to a cable modem and outlet, you are close enough to just run a piece of coax too. Yeah I suppose if you don't have a TV in your [den|bedroom|kitchen] you could take a laptop and "watch TV" on it. But that's not really "TV everywhere". It's "TV in or very near your home".
However, in the case of TV Everywhere, the potential for abuse is rampant (I can think of three ways such a gatekeeper can be spoofed, and entirely with client-side software), and the content providers will NOT permit such a service to go forward unless such spoofing can be detected and defeated as quickly as possible. If they must guarantee that it can't be spoofed, retransmitted, etc then they might as well quit now because any such guarantee is worthless. Never underestimate the capabilities of people with enough determination. | |
| | | | | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | how hard is it, honestly just make people login with their comcast.net primary UID
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Okay.. first of all, nothing was "advertised" yet.. becuase they're simply talking about a future service that doesn't yet exists doesn't constitute as an advertisement for said product.
Second of all, this article talks about a service called On Demand Online.. not "TV Anywhere"..
Sounds like you're getting a little worked up becuase of that entitlement way of thinking.
(And people wonder why providers tend to stay tight lipped about future services, time lines for roll outs, and other related issues) | |
| | | 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: UM, WAIT, NO! Entitlement? What entitlement? -- I think I'm paying for my services, thank you.
The push behind TV Everywhere is really to protect Cable's TV revenue by strong-arming your favorite networks to take their TV content and put it behind a Cable TV paywall. That's terrible for the entire TV and Internet economy.
The Internet has been putting content creators directly in touch with viewers, and viewers pay for that service through their ISP subscriptions. TV Everywhere is aiming to remove that possibility.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: UM, WAIT, NO! You just don't get it, do you?
The entitlement mentality, and I'm sorry, but you are acting that way as is just about every bitcher here is,... is that Comcast is offering another added service and yet it's not good enough for them.. If they never offered it, we'd not be here having a conversation about it right? That's factually correct.
I see NOTHING wrong is a CABLE **TV** provider trying to push their service beyond the boob-toob.. afterall, isn't this what people want? .. and yet they bitch?
"CableTV Paywall" huh? (nice term by the way - I bet you hope it sticks?) They're allowing people who are their SUBSCRIBERS to be able to get content through the web. I don't see a problem with this.. afterall, other providers, non cable or satellite, is already doing this.. why is it a bad thing when Cable does it?
"Content creators"... so we get to the bottom line here.. what you're saying, to me as I take it, is that the "content creators" are those that post to you tube? is that it? Or are you talking about hollywood? If it's the youtube non-hollywood crowd well they already have a forum for that.. only the youtubes of the world still censor content worse than the cable companies and networks do. If it's Hollywood creators you're talking about, if they put their content out on the net, which is what comcast is doing, well.. we're in the same destination already with what Comcast is trying to do.
Comcast, at hand, is simply trying to allow THEIR CURRENT VIDEO CUSTOMERS access to content through the web.. big deal.. it's the end of the world. 
What I hear in this forum are people who aren't comcast customers bitching that they can't get the content, or that they'd have to "pay" for it (oh my F'ing god.. the evil money word again) ... and those people that aren't comcast customers really don't have a need to be in this discussion in the first place since this isn't going to apply to them.
And one last thing - again, you're not getting it. You said "The Internet has been putting content creators directly in touch with viewers, and viewers pay for that service through their ISP subscriptions." .... Really? So you're saying the money people pay for their internet is what allows them access to the content?? First off, you really need to define "content creators" for one.. and two, content and connectivity are two totally different things. Content providers, of ANY flavor, have, and do, charge for content when they feel they want the money.. and if not, it's got ads for revenue.. oh know.. !! I just said "ads".. the very thing that many people feel are evil and should go away..
One simple question.. if no one wants to pay directly for things (and we're not talking the internet line itself) they get from the web, and they don't want ads... just how in the world is content, that you all want so bad, supposed to be paid for or funded? It TAKES MONEY TO MAKE THE WORLD GO AROUND.. we're not living in Startrek times where the world just seems to happen..
TV Everywhere is not doing anything that you THINK it is.. I absolutely just can't see where you're coming to these conclusions you are. | |
| 
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | Restictions Limit Its Pizazz The inability to watch TV remotely while away from home, or to drop an expensive TV service plan for an internet-only option, makes this feature rather bland. Maybe Comcast should just buy SlingMedia and market their product? | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: Restictions Limit Its Pizazz I thought DishNetwork already had their hands in the SlingMedia company.. doubt Comcast would get involved there. | |
| 
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA | Glass half-empty What about saying that this is a step in the right direction for making content more portable, instead of just that it is not good enough? | |
| |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| Re: Glass half-empty It's hard to say that the glass is half empty when there are but a few scant drops of water sitting in it. This is so far from what they could offer-- and so far from what sites like Hulu and Netflix already offer-- that they should be ashamed to even launch it in its current state.
--
Nobel peace prize for Obammer... Now he's got one more thing in common with Arafat besides hating America. And he's just as succesful as Jimmy "the failure" Carter. | |
| | |
aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: I dont really see the point said by wifi4milez :If I am already at home, I am going to watch TV on my television not on my computer. If you could watch from your computer when you were elsewhere that would be another story. As it is now, this seems like its only marginally useful (like if all your TV's at home are being used). Or you are at a house(like my gilfriends) that only has Tv from OTA. | |
| | | | | | 
NickD
Premium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ
clubs: | But if she has a Comcast cable modem, it will work | |
| | | |
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: I dont really see the point said by NickD :But if she has a Comcast cable modem, it will work It will only if she subscribes to an expensive cable TV package from Comcast. And if she does have cable TV, and not just OTA service, how beneficial would this new TV "Everywhere" service be? | |
| |
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA | or you don't have a TV in a particular room. | |
| Chaldo
join:2008-03-18
West Bloomfield, MI | Someone explain why AT&T and Comcast are in the backround Look at the pic included, I see AT&T COMCAST what are they partners now? haha? | |
| | 
Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17 | Re: Someone explain why AT&T and Comcast are in the backround Most likely it's an old pic dating from when Comcast bought AT&T Broadband. (late 2002-early 2003, as I recall.) For a brief time the old ATTBI areas were rebranded as AT&T Comcast, before just becoming simply Comcast. | |
| | KodiacZiller
join:2008-09-04
73368
| Confused.. Is this only for those who have Comcast TV *and* Internet service? Or does this also apply to those like me who have Internet but not TV?
And I agree with others: the whole thing sounds kind of silly if one must be at home to view the programming. (Why not just go in the living room and watch it on TV?). | |
| |
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Confused.. You have to subscribe to Comcast TV services if I understand the article correctly.
The only way this could be useful is if someone with a portable computer (netbook/laptop) wanted to move around or watch TV where none are present. There are numerous options for watching TV remotely that don't have any restrictions and that are quite affordable, especially for those that don't own laptops.
It's like getting free TV service of a ball game on your phone, provided that you purchased a ticket and are inside the stadium. It's just not that special. I hope this is not taking resources away from something that might actually be desired by most of their customers. | |
| 
cypherstream
Looking forward to the future of things.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
clubs:
| Why not just use your comcast email login? HERE'S AN IDEA...
Have the person SIGN IN with their Comcast.net credentials, and once signed in they can be authenticated for what access they have. So then people can log in away from home.
Limit it so only one user can be on at a time, just like the old AOL days where people used to create screen names for each other but if you tried to sign on it booted you off right away saying so and so was already signed on. | |
| jus10
join:2009-08-04
Sterling, VA | Is it going to video? Or another god-awful flash piece of junk. The former would be interesting; the latter is utterly worthless.
My guess is the latter. | |
| 
i1me2ao
Premium
join:2001-03-03
TEXAS
·Comcast
| you will eventually get it everywhere but not where you are. this the same crappy specials they run on tv. get all 3 for bundle for 99.99 for a year then 114 after that. catch is you can not be american/living/recently deceased etc..
--
calling a illegal alien undocumented is like calling a drug dealer a undocumented pharmacist | |
| 
betapart2
@comcast.com
| Maybe, The way I see it, this is almost like an expanded beta. By opening it up to everybody, but still tieing it to your home internet connection (thru comcast), it allows them to more fully loadtest the servers than the limited beta's they have been running.
It also would give us the ability to comment on interface and usability issues, while they continue to work out the kinks in whatever expanded authentication process they are working on.
As for them selling this ala carte? I doubt it, at least yet. Besides the obvious comments about Comcast not wanting to cannibalize their TV business for this, I wouldn't be surprised if their contracts with the various content providers would limit their ability to do it also.
Home VOD vs Online VOD? In theory they could offer a lot more content online than they could in their current TV based VOD system since it's trivial these days to do web based load balancing, distributed storage, etc. I'm not entirely sure if the current VOD providers the MSO's use have a reliable and speedy version of their existing products available with that kind of expandability and redundancy.
And I think I've read before that this online on demand product DOES count against the cap, for the very net neutrality reasons some of you are complaining about. By counting their product against the caps it would prevent them from giving it an unfair advantage over hulu, netflix, etc.
Of course, the bright side is that if they see a sudden increase in the majority of their customer's net usage after this launch, it's more likely they'd raise the caps to accommodate the usage of their product offerings, also benefitting those other web usages. (It's not like Comcast has announced any plans, or even hinted at any sort of overage charges like some other MSO's. Their cap was more along the lines of putting a hard number on their old invisable cap, which from what I've seen they've been pretty soft in even enforcing.)
| |
| Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL | forced to uses a $5/m rented modem what a joke. forced to uses a $5/m rented modem what a joke.
what is next $5/m pre ip under ipv6? | |
| | broccoli
join:2007-11-29
Portland, OR
| Re: forced to uses a $5/m rented modem what a joke. said by Joe12345678 :forced to uses a $5/m rented modem what a joke. what is next $5/m pre ip under ipv6? I too was wondering about that, but I think it meant 'you must be using a Comcast connection.' IOW, connecting from a Comcast IP address. | |
| | |
NickD
Premium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ
clubs: | Re: forced to uses a $5/m rented modem what a joke. You could just set up a proxy server at home and connect through that. | |
| 
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs: | its.. ..most likely streaming video thing that uses a REQUIRED player or is embedded into a webpage and can't be downloaded to play locally or remotely on your choice of players (vlc for example)
Not interested. | |
| | JerryTimes
join:2002-01-09
Roseville, MI | Re: its.. I love how everyone is complaining about something that isn't even released yet. Funny. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: its.. said by JerryTimes :I love how everyone is complaining about something that isn't even released yet. Funny. ... exactly! and, a service that doesn't even need to be used.. it's not like this is anything ground breaking and will change lived forever.. I just don't see it.
Further.. for those people bitching about authentication, security, how they log into it and all that stuff, what I'm really hearing is "I want this service, don't want to pay for it, Comcast OWES this to me, and I'm going to abuse it use it however I want.. and will likely give my access information to my friends so they can use it for free too".. | |
| AstroBoy
join:2008-08-08
Parkville, MD
| What's the differance between this and VOD? If I must be at home on my PC, why not just use VOD on my TV? I don't get it??? I could setup a VPN to my house from anywhere in the world and watch outside my house, assuming my outbound speed is enough.
I just finished Monk season 7 on DVD, if I can't get Monk season 8, I will use a torrent! | |
| 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey | Tru2way and TV everywhere I bet we wouldnt see this year, comcast always says stuff like this, and then changes it mind, and pretends we didnt notice. | |
| | | |
|
|
Nice supplemental tool to watch missed episodes
