Comcast Nixes Idea of Offering Video Outside Footprint CEO Doesn't See IP Video Delivery As Profitable Comcast CEO Brian Roberts says that despite the possibility for additional revenue and expansion of the Xfinity brand, the company really isn't interested in delivering IP video to customers outside of Comcast's traditional cable footprint. Rumblings suggest the idea of offering over the top (OTT) content to outside footprint customers is something Verizon's at least considering, but Roberts (who you'll recall also wasn't initially keen on offering wireless service, something Comcast now does in conjunction with Clear) insists simply wouldn't be profitable: "I don't think there is a business model ... where you have relationships with customers that are way outside of our footprint that we can make money [from]," Roberts said in Wednesday morning's earnings call....Besides, obtaining off-net programming rights represents another barrier, not to mention that such a strategy would turn the clubby cable industry on its head if MSOs were suddenly competing for subscribers in each other's backyards. Of course turning the bi-annual price hike crazy cable industry on its competitive head would probably be a good thing for consumers. However, instead of opening up markets and content, the excutive mindset for most companies continues to be that they can hold on to existing revenues by affixing padlocks to the content gates, as GigaOM's Janko Roettgers observes in a piece exploring how video authentication systems like TV Everywhere are the new DRM.
|
  Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:2
 ·Bright House
| Comcast & Verizon both ISP+TV - w/ important difference Verizon is an ISP with a lot more last-mile capacity to it's end users.
It's FiOS selling strategy is "We can deliver a much faster product to more of our users, than anyone else who matters".
So an IPTV stream isn't as big a deal to Vz, as it might be to it's competitors.
I can see Comcast as more sympathetic toward those ISPs
who resent being forced to upgrade their networks
in order to satisfy customer demand (and stay competitive).
I can also imagine Verizon liking the idea of taxing other ISPs networks with their own IPTV product.
NV
--
Adopting other people's animosity is The New Stupid. | |
|  |
2 edits | Re: Comcast & Verizon both ISP+TV - w/ important difference If their strategy is "We can deliver a much faster product to more of our users, than anyone else who matters", why did they stop FiOS expansion and only deliver to a limited VZ footprint? What about the other 1/2 of their customer base w/ DSL coverage?
Also note that FTTH is only the last mile and Verizon would have to pick up all these unicast video stream at core edges and carry across their network (potentially hundreds of miles) before it reaches the last mile.
EDIT ADD: And don't forget Verizon Wireless broadband
--
"Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy | |
| | | | | Re: Comcast & Verizon both ISP+TV - w/ important difference The real Verizon selling strategy is "We have delivered enough FiOS to keep people happy while we make all our money on per phone/required data plans which get to have very low caps, high overages and exempt from net-neutrality rulings.
No way will you ever be allowed to run OTT services on wireless even though they are running at speeds which were wireline levels only a few years ago.
Don't look at the man behind the curtain. Keep drinking the Verizon cool-aid. | |
| | | | | | Re: Comcast & Verizon both ISP+TV - w/ important difference Look at the amount of revenue loss Verizon has been reporting, and compare it to the revenue gains of Comcast. Verizon is paying dearly for their decision to put FIOS out in the places they did. | |
|
| |  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1 | said by yt:Also note that FTTH is only the last mile and Verizon would have to pick up all these unicast video stream at core edges and carry across their network (potentially hundreds of miles) before it reaches the last mile.
technologies like the rosen draft ng-vpn are helping to alleviate this concern by allowing multicast snooping over mpls-based transport networks.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
|
| | The real reason The real reason Comcast doesn't want to do this is because they don't want to set a precedent that will turn around and bite them. If they offered IPTV via other providers, they'd have a hard time opposing other IPTV platforms on their system. And it might make their caps look even more anti-competitive than they look now if people start asking why Comcast doesn't count usage of its own TV service toward the caps but counts other TV services that way.
And before someone says that caps wouldn't apply to traditional cable because it doesn't travel over the Internet, yes, that's true, but it does consume massive amounts of bandwidth on the local system. That's the whole reason for SDV--to only push out the channel that someone is actually watching. | |
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: The real reason said by ISurfTooMuch:The real reason Comcast doesn't want to do this is because they don't want to set a precedent that will turn around and bite them. If they offered IPTV via other providers, they'd have a hard time opposing other IPTV platforms on their system. Bingo. Opening Pandora's box of competition is not typically in the best interest of a duopoly. So, in a roundabout way, a business model exists, it's just not financially viable enough. | |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | I think he's right While it might be a good business for some, i think it might become an expensive distraction from their core businesses and footprints.
"A man's got to know his limitations" | |
| | | what? How can he not think that would be profitable? The only concern they could have is that they have no control over the delivery to the end customer and that could cause a customer support nightmare. I am a comcast customer and have been considering Netflix/Hulu over paying for premium channels for their "On Demand" service and $10 a month is much cheaper. | |
| | | | Re: what? It isn't about profitability; it's about not creating an IPTV service that can be used on any system. If Comcast were to do that, other companies might create competing services.
It probably also has to do with Comcast not wanting to go into competitors' areas to poach their customers. If they did that, their competitors might do the same thing to them. | |
| | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: what? said by ISurfTooMuch:It probably also has to do with Comcast not wanting to go into competitors' areas to poach their customers. If they did that, their competitors might do the same thing to them. Until someone else does it first and starts poaching Comcast's customers. Eventually one cable company will see the money in it and do it. | |
| | | | | | Re: what? Actually, my money's on Roku. If not the company, then the platform. You can already get foreign-language channel packages on it, and many of the big religious broadcasters are there, as well as the shopping channels. Then you've got companies like Crackle offering full-length movies on there, and even Fox News is experimenting by offering some video content. I think the programmers are looking at it, and, sooner or later, someone is going to take a chance and do something big. It likely won't be one of the big corporate players; it'll probably be a smaller company that needs to attract viewers. But, once it happens, it'll be game on.
Oh, and, just in case anyone wants to know, there's a great selection of live news channels on Roku now, both in the Channel Store and on private channels. | |
| | | | | | | Re: what? The private channels are the bomb, until A(ustralia)BC and C(anada)BC realize the leak and restrict by ip... | |
|
| |
|
|
