[mikeryan]

Its true (full disclosure I used to work for Comcast - via an acquisition)

One of Comcast's biggest (and most hated) capex expenditures are the cable boxes. They hate with an unholy passion having to upgrade boxes. In this context they're basically trying to get the users to upgrade their boxes on their own dime. When I put on my consultant hat and talk to analysts in this area we've been talking more and more about how connected tv's and OTT Boxes can be beneficial to cable operators. One of the downsides of cable cards is that you never got a guide with it. Combine a cable card and a Samsung Connected TV and you can really do both and get rid of the card all together.

Second they're quickly realizing that maintaining two on-demand infrastructures (Web and traditional VOD) the really sensible thing is to move as much as possible to delivering via your cable modem as opposed to the broadcast channels.

Of course as they do so they're going to have to do something about the bandwidth caps. Stories like this put Comcast in a strange position. They want to deliver more "TV" video content over their internet pipes but apparently can't do so and maintain a cap at the same time.

[twoodfin]

That's another reason why the cable companies will be thrilled to help Apple sell televisions next year. Those sets will probably look a lot like your box-less solution on the inside, with the added benefit of a "real" computer and OS developed by a company that has some experience with such things.

The main reason, of course, is that their biggest threat will be taken away: An ever-growing segment of their customer base cancelling $100+ TV service in favor of $50 IP-only service, with the other $50 being spent on NetFlix, iTunes, Hulu.... Required "Apple TV" plans will include whatever mix of traditional signal and IP is needed to deliver a "magical experience" and will be priced accordingly.

[drzaiusapelord]

Well, they had the option to do this with Tivo and instead they developed their own shitty boxes instead of going with a world leader in DVR and interfaces. Why would they go with Apple when they've already dismissed Tivo and are extremely hostile when you try to get cable card service "whats that? Oh , we'll need a contract from you and a large deposit."

I'm not sure if the grandfather's post is accurate. Yes those boxes cost money but Comcast and other video providers have been very hesitant to give up the proprietary video cash cow for over the internet solutions that may cut them out of a revenue stream or make people realize they don't need to buy the "gold" package.

[nknight]

> extremely hostile when you try to get cable card service "whats that? Oh , we'll need a contract from you and a large deposit."

That depends heavily on the market. Comcast is internally dysfunctional. Although they've achieved significant technological unification, they have roughly a gazillion Battling Business Units serving different regions as a result of mergers and other insanity. Each is run by its own local tyrants, some of whom routinely ignore both law and corporate policy, while others behave quite reasonably. The dysfunction is further amplified because even within a single unit's region, local franchise agreements vary in details.

[doki_pen]

I find that funny because I looked into replacing my Comcast HD box with my own box and found out that it is nearly impossible. It seems like they want to maintain control over what happens with the content, and to do that, they have to pony up on the cable box. Recently I tried to fast forward through commercials an On Demand TV show and wasn't allowed to! Of course, no 3rd party box would have such a "feature".

[unreal37]

I remember ReplayTV once getting sued because they provided a "commercial skip" button that fast forwarded through commercials automatically. So yes, a third-party may indeed prevent you from fast forwarding due to lawsuits. http://news.cnet.com/ReplayTV-puts-ad-skipping-on-pause/2100...

[mikeryan]

I tried to fast forward through commercials an On Demand TV show and wasn't allowed to! Of course, no 3rd party box would have such a "feature".

Actually that's not a box feature. That's functionality provided by the VOD server. The box does very little w/r/t the playback of VOD it basically just collects remote presses and sends them upstream to a VOD controller which actually controls the video server. This is a consistent paradigm however the stream is pretty much always controlled on the server side and in fact Hulu implemented this feature way before Comcast did.

The difficulty with 3rd party boxes (outside of losing any "rental" fees) is that it adds a lot of provisioning overhead and frankly may not work properly. Your cable system doesn't want to have to support your cable box. Similar to how they don't support your wireless router.

[masklinn]

Well of course. Be serious for a second, they want you to foot the bill but they bloody well don't want you to have the control.