About plummerl

plummerl · ‎01-03-2019

"it seems we are waiting for Comcast to win in the Import Court that caused the problem." Key phrase there, Rustyben, "it seems". Since the start of this record breaking thread, we have never seen an official statement from Comcast regarding this issue, other than the overplayed suggestion to use On Demand. Pathetic.

plummerl · ‎11-15-2018

@Gladiator51 wrote: It certainly appears they've got themselves covered. The heading is obviously a typo, should be "Changes to Services". I'm not sure that I'd agree with that statement. Read the four events bulleted in 4. None of them occurred in this case! The only notice of the change we received was in reply to our complaining about it here in the Community Forum. This does not "constitute sufficient and effective notice under this Agreement".

plummerl · ‎11-06-2018

I would venture to say it won't be returning anytime soon. The referenced article ends with: Responded TiVo: “There are over 1,000 different patents in Rovi's portfolio and Comcast's unprecedented effort to try to challenge a handful of them doesn't change the fact that they have already been found in violation of critical Rovi patents and are being forced to punish their own customers by removing popular features. In this particular instance we are optimistic about our appeal options, we expect that Comcast will continue to be found in violation of these and other patents in the future and are unwavering in our commitment to take the necessary legal actions to ensure Comcast renews its long-standing license to fairly compensate Rovi for the use of our IP.”

plummerl · ‎09-06-2018

As far as I can tell, the Motorola DCX3400 is still on the supported equipment list. This would imply that they owe us a solution to the FF & REW issue!

plummerl · ‎09-05-2018

@VanCleef1 wrote: @andyross wrote: My guess this is on HD recordings? Comcast has converted most HD channels, even some local broadcast, to MPEG4 compression. The non-X1 boxes tend to have issues, especially with FF and REW, and the related 30-sec skip and 15-sec review. The strange thing with mine is that I do NOT have a problem with fast forward and rewind for recordings off of the CBS HD and NBC HD channels. However, for my recordings off of the AMC HD and TCM HD channels I DO get the erratic speeds on forward and reverse. I have the Motorola DCX-3400-M. From my experience and comments by others, our broadcast networks (CBS, NBC, etc.) are not yet converted to MPEG4, hence FF & REW work as expected. It's only the streamed channels that are showing the issue.

plummerl · ‎09-05-2018

So how about someone from Comcast chiming in here about the situation with the erratic FF and Rewind BUG? Assuming all the conjecture is correct, switching to MPEG-4 has completely fouled up the ability to use the DVR (which we pay extra for!) as one should be able to. I'm so fed up with simply trying to advance 30 to 90 seconds (FF) and end up with a 15 minute advance. If the goal is to insure that we watch the commercials, rather than skipping them, it appears to be working. Oh, and the last thing I'll do is move to X1.

plummerl · ‎08-09-2018

@Rustyben wrote: @admyers wrote: Count me among the IRATE that the ability to set a recording remotely has been gone for almost a year with no sign of returning. I also find it hard to believe that "few customers" used this feature, but I suppose that is plausible (would be good to know if this was a guess, or supported by data). Has anyone attempted to put together a petition in an attempt to get Comcast to pay more attention to this? I realize the patent is tied up in court, but as someone else mentioned, if Comcast truly believes the feature isn't used much, they surely are not prioritizing resolution. >:-/ Comcast continues to challenge the TiVo patents and Comcast has a good record of winning in the actual Patent appeals court in Washington, DC. A recent article https://www.multichannel.com/news/comcast-wins-battle-in-patent-war-with-tivo Comcast won a Patent invalidation against TiVo. Try to keep up with us here. You have simply referenced the same article from five replies ago. You know, the one that shows Comcast quoted as saying "The cable operator responded by removing the feature from X1, claiming that few customers used the associated feature."

plummerl · ‎08-09-2018

@gbgadgets1 wrote: FWIW NEWS It appears that comcast won one of their many patent battles. I am not sure which legal battle/case is the one for the setting remote recording feature, but I would hope it would be added back at the flip of a switch as soon as Comcast wins that case too. For people that keep asking about why other providers have this feature, it is because they have a monetary agreement with Tivo to pay them a fee to use the patent for that feature. Comcast is holding out and battling leagally becasue they believe (rightly so), that at this point in time the patent is not unique and if you can code to do it, it should be commonly allowed and no longer patentable. 15-20 years ago when Tivo first came out, and everyone was figuring out how to build new services for these things, the patents made sense, but most of those patents no longer make sense to keep in place and are bad for consumers to do so (as we all see at comcast). Here's hoping the wins keep coming for Comcast, and they can get these feature turned back on soon (wihtout rates going up). The best takeaway from the article you referenced: "Late last year, the International Trade Commission ruled that Comcast’s X1 platform does indeed violate two TiVo patents related to remote recording. The cable operator responded by removing the feature from X1, claiming that few customers used the associated feature." "few customers" ????

plummerl · ‎02-27-2018

@xgrep wrote: @shelby1254 BUT... My understanding is that the import court (operative word "import") says that Comcast can't import the set top box. OK fine, I doubt any of us are overly concerned if Comcast can't import a box that we all already possess ! So, what edict of the court has been satisfied by removing the record feature from apps interfacing with boxes already in the country ??? Any box that was imported with the infringing feature would be subject to the ruling, regardless of when it was imported. Removing the feature removed the infringement. But let's face it: we don't fully understand the ruling or why, for example, Comcast couldn't import boxes that don't infringe and then add the feature through an update. Or even obtain boxes made in the USA (too bad the USA doesn't manufacture much anymore). Anyway, this is all speculation (and, BTW, I actually did work for the patent department of a major tech company and participated in licensing and infringement investigations and litigation from the technical side, so yeah, I'm a professional in this domain and still don't have full factual info on what's going on - and don't much care). On top of all this, I do not even have an X1 box/system. I did have the remote recording capability with the Stream App. I do not, of course, now have that capability.

plummerl · ‎01-18-2018

@TerriB wrote: @plummerl wrote: @TerriB wrote: Rustyben, Have you ever counted the number of times you and some of the Comcast reps have explained why the feature was removed and pointed people to the explanation? It boggles my mind how many posts every single day bring this up and/or demanding compensation or immediate re-establishment. I only used the feature when on vacation but obviously its widely used so I 'get it' but I just don't understand why users don't bother to read what you guys post as rationale (even if we don't like it). I have learned the hard way that continual complaining about feature changes is akin to self flagellation and nothing other than long service disruption is going to result in bill credit. My in box overflows with notifications of new posts about the remote recording feature. Users do indeed have the right to fuss but for heavens sake...search the forums FIRST and READ whats already been published on the root cause rather than post like this is a brand new problem. Well here's a startling thought, WHAT IS PREVENTING COMCAST FROM SENDING EVERY SUBSCRIBER AN EMAIL THAT EXPLAINS WHY A SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT FEATURE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE???? Give me a break. ============== I resent that you quoted my post like I did you a wrong ? I have zero control on how Comcast does or does not notify customers. I am just weary of new posts about this remote programming issue when there is a mega thread on it already and explanation after explanation after explanation. So many of us have been very vocal on features we have come to love that were taken away over the years and nothing has changed just because we contacted Comcast, came to the forums,etc. Oh yes wouldn't it be wonderful to have email notification ahead of time but all that would do would be to get us on the forums faster to voice our opinions and would not stop the change . They are going to what they are going to do whether they tell us ahead of time or not. So now I need to ask what you would do it they emailed that they were going to remove a feature you loved? What would change in the process? Its not like they are going to poll the customer base to see if we are ok with losing a feature before they remove it. Ok, try this. You stated the above. It's not rocket science, if Comcast had simply posted an email explaining the situation, subscribers would not be left to seek an explanation in the forum! Every single posting here questioning what's happened, with Comcast or their subject matter "experts" pointing to the first posting and supplying the rediculous suggestion that On Demand would take care of everything, would be prevented. If they had emailed a notification about the change, at least I would be coming into the forum with knowledge about/why what's happened.

plummerl · ‎01-18-2018

@TerriB wrote: Rustyben, Have you ever counted the number of times you and some of the Comcast reps have explained why the feature was removed and pointed people to the explanation? It boggles my mind how many posts every single day bring this up and/or demanding compensation or immediate re-establishment. I only used the feature when on vacation but obviously its widely used so I 'get it' but I just don't understand why users don't bother to read what you guys post as rationale (even if we don't like it). I have learned the hard way that continual complaining about feature changes is akin to self flagellation and nothing other than long service disruption is going to result in bill credit. My in box overflows with notifications of new posts about the remote recording feature. Users do indeed have the right to fuss but for heavens sake...search the forums FIRST and READ whats already been published on the root cause rather than post like this is a brand new problem. Well here's a startling thought, WHAT IS PREVENTING COMCAST FROM SENDING EVERY SUBSCRIBER AN EMAIL THAT EXPLAINS WHY A SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT FEATURE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE???? Give me a break.

plummerl · ‎11-02-2017

@ComcastElla wrote: @plummerl - Found a cause of the issue. Basically, the Cloud DVR is available only for X1 customers (or for Stream TV package that doesn't require a cable box). With your current setup, you are not supposed to have an access to the Cloud. You got the access because of the signal interference with one of your neighbors. We will have to correct this issue to avoid any future problems for you and for your neighbors. I apologize for the inconvenience. "Signal interference"??? Really? Come on, we can do better than that. Per my previous post, I stated that we currently have "Extreme Premier Double Play", which at the time we activated it, featured X1 as a component. At that time I declined receiving the X1 DVR and kept my original DVR. I'm paying for the X1 feature, so I'm assuming that is the reason I'm able to access the "Cloud DVR" from my devices, not because of "signal interference". Yesterday, all devices running the Stream App had to be re-registered, presumably from something you or someone else at Comcast did. They still have the "Cloud DVR". So, back to the original question, which also seems to be a common issue with many other customers. Why are some "Cloud DVR" recordings being terminated early?????

plummerl · ‎10-26-2017

A further note: Looking at other forum entries, this one describes the problem exactly: http://forums.xfinity.com/t5/Stream-TV-App/Xfinity-Stream-app-only-shows-half-of-a-recorded-show/td-p/2880154 and this goes back to March, over seven months ago!

plummerl · ‎10-25-2017

@ComcastElla wrote: Hi, plummerl - Do you only have an issue with "This is us" episodes? Since your DVR cable box is not on X1 platform, I can't see any recording information. Well duh! This issue does not concern my non-X1 DVR cable box (even though my current contract supports X1, which I refused to enable). The issue here is related to recordings on the "Cloud DVR", programmed by several of my devices (iPad & phone), using the "Stream TV" app. Believe it or not, I actually have a standard HD DVR, along with a Cloud DVR. Before this message was moved to it's own thread, it was very definitely related to the issue that I had originally replied to! That one was talking about device recordings as well, using the Stream TV app. I only have an issue with the "This Is Us" episodes, because they are the only ones that have been programmed to be recorded of late.

plummerl · ‎10-25-2017

Please add us to this issue! My wife has been recording "This Is Us" on NBC Tuesday nights. The last two recordings have been terminated early, last week's episode after 11 minutes, this week's episode at 17 minutes. The On Demand has the full length episodes.

plummerl · ‎10-08-2017

After reading it twice, where do you address which models of ROKU this is applicable to? It works on any ROKU?

plummerl · ‎09-05-2017

Rusty, perhaps you could take some time and explain why, as "a customer like you but have no Roku to try", you can be one of the most prolific responders to this thread solving issues with the ROKU app. The ROKU app has been out for how long in BETA format???? An app in BETA usually responds with a rapid succession of updates, leading up to an actual release. This BETA app feels more and more like an abandoned product with no release in sight. Someone, somewhere, still needs to provide a rational argument about why the ROKU would require compensation to content providers, but somehow, playing the same content on a 27" computer monitor would not require the same compensation.

plummerl · ‎07-09-2017

@andyross wrote: @plummerl wrote: @andyross wrote: @Mrwhitt wrote: I have two older ROKU devices. When will you be offering this product across the entire ROKU platform? It's quite likely older devices just do not have the horsepower needed to run the Xfinity software. Even on my Roku 4, it's not what I would call zippy. Isn't this really an indication as to the quality of the Xfinity software??? This app should be no different than any other ROKU app that fronts a menu to select a video for playback! Amazon Prime, Netflix, YouTube, etc. all have fairly complex UI's that provide access to untold numbers of video streams, all in high definition. My unsupported ROKU has no problem at all with the demands of any of the apps. It appears to function at the same level of my supported newer one. It depends on how it is written. It may also be a conversion from the X1 software, which may add some extra overhead. Plus, it is a Beta and the code is not optimized. Over time, they will optimize it for performance once they get the features working and most of the bugs worked out. That is pretty much the way all software programming works. Sorry, but as an embedded software engineer, if I'm targeting the sw to run on a class of hardware, I do not get it running on a portion of it and then hope that optimization will allow it to run on the rest of it! Oh wait, this is Comcast.

plummerl · ‎07-08-2017

@andyross wrote: @Mrwhitt wrote: I have two older ROKU devices. When will you be offering this product across the entire ROKU platform? It's quite likely older devices just do not have the horsepower needed to run the Xfinity software. Even on my Roku 4, it's not what I would call zippy. Isn't this really an indication as to the quality of the Xfinity software??? This app should be no different than any other ROKU app that fronts a menu to select a video for playback! Amazon Prime, Netflix, YouTube, etc. all have fairly complex UI's that provide access to untold numbers of video streams, all in high definition. My unsupported ROKU has no problem at all with the demands of any of the apps. It appears to function at the same level of my supported newer one.

plummerl · ‎06-17-2017

@workerdummy wrote: @plummerl wrote: You keep quoting the "licensing rules". Please point us to them. What rustyben is trying to say in his usual inept way is the licencing agreement Comcast has with the channel providers dictates what devices their channels can be broadcast on and whether or not there should be a fee charged. Comcast evidently claims their agreements mandate a fee be paid to broadcast them on Roku boxes meaning we have to pay a per Roku fee. No other cable company I can find charges for their Roku apps. We're already paying for content and we don't have to pay extra to use the Stream app on the computer or smartphones (although a lot of channels are not available on the smartphone app, Comcast must have the worst license negotiators in history). I'm not hearing from Comcast about agreements or licensing rules. Just Rustyben, who we now discover does not even own a ROKU, but apparently is an expert at it. Ponder this. Comcast pushed DTA's (SD & HD) onto us, after converting to pure digital. We pay a "rental" fee for using a DTA to provide the content that we pay to be delivered to our house, and this is for an adapter that Comcast owns. Replace the DTA with a ROKU, which we own, and they are still planning to charge us a usage fee to once again enable us to access the content that we pay to be delivered to our house. Apparently, I can watch the content on a computer (desktop or laptop) using my TV as a monitor for no cost???? OK.

plummerl · ‎06-11-2017

@Rustyben wrote: @plummerl wrote: @Rustyben wrote: @Terra1226 wrote: Thank you for your reply Rustyben, however, I still don't understand why they have to charge you for every TV that is connected, since you do not use their equipment for said TV. Does the company also incur more fees if a customer has more than one TV? for every outlet in the home that connects to a TV. you could connect (for example) a Raspberry pi 'PC' via HDMI and it would count as a streaming device not a TV since the TV would be the computer's monitor and allowed. I'm absolutely not following what your point is with this remark. Are you saying that in this configuration, of course you would not be charged a fee? If this is the case, please try and explain the difference between the Raspberry and a ROKU, which is a small computer hooked up to the TV by HDMI??? The only difference is that the ROKU is using a native app, while the Raspberry is using an app running on a server, delivered over a web page. They are both streaming identical content! under the current regulations, a desk/laptop PC has a primary or secondary option of HDMI monitor possible. Only the image would be shown sound is handled separately. A Roku is not a desk/laptop. google or go to amazon and google raspberry pi for info. Once you have cable tV service then the raspberry pi would work in your home for all channels or out of your home just as a tablet or mobile phone would with the exception that the desk/laptop/rasberry pi (counts as a desktop) is allowed to connect via HDMI and not be in violation of the licensing rules. The Roku only will work in the customer's home with the customers own internet service. You keep quoting the "licensing rules". Please point us to them.

plummerl · ‎06-11-2017

@Rustyben wrote: @Terra1226 wrote: Thank you for your reply Rustyben, however, I still don't understand why they have to charge you for every TV that is connected, since you do not use their equipment for said TV. Does the company also incur more fees if a customer has more than one TV? for every outlet in the home that connects to a TV. you could connect (for example) a Raspberry pi 'PC' via HDMI and it would count as a streaming device not a TV since the TV would be the computer's monitor and allowed. I'm absolutely not following what your point is with this remark. Are you saying that in this configuration, of course you would not be charged a fee? If this is the case, please try and explain the difference between the Raspberry and a ROKU, which is a small computer hooked up to the TV by HDMI??? The only difference is that the ROKU is using a native app, while the Raspberry is using an app running on a server, delivered over a web page. They are both streaming identical content!

plummerl · ‎05-19-2017

@MichelleSv wrote: @MichelleSv wrote: Service expert... Well lets see... It is a private SSID on a private router, connected to a private modem connected to comcast Cause everyone should up and tell the internet what their SSID's are.. @egnlsn wrote: Please don't ASSUME that just because someone is not a Comcast employee they don't know what they're talking about. A couple of weeks ago, I spoke with 4 different Comcast employees (2 via online chat, 1 via telephone, and a friend of mine who is a senior IT Tech in the system here). All four of them told me the same thing, which was contradictory to what another customer had told me. ASSUMING that there was something that the customer hadn't mentioned, I followed up based on the Comcast employees' words. Because of failure, I spoke with the regional V.P. of Engineering, who told me that the information given by the 4 Comcast employees was inaccurate. Several years ago, a Comcast employee told me, after speaking with a technician, that it wasn't possible to have my system in my house setup the way I'd had it setup for the previous few years. Most people in these forums who offer suggestions are actually here to help, and shouldn't be automatically discounted just because they may not be a Comcast employee. Many of the Comcast employees on here are technicians who work out in the field, and contribute to these forums in their spare time. I've seen times when someone has an issue and a Comcast employee doesn't respond for several days, but in the meantime there were several responses from others. When a Comcast employee does finally respond, his response has been the same as what someone else had already given. If a non-Comcast employee can help resolve an issue within a few hours of it being posted, why insist on waiting maybe 3 or 4 days for a Comcast employee to do the same. And I could care less what you think... As for that so called service expert, the device is wired not connected via wireless (and was not connected wireless when that generic error message popped). Just becuase a broken app promps a generic error message and then a no talent hack tries to explain things without first hand knowledge proves why this country is going down the drain. If he was a true expert he would have known it was a generic message and asked the correct questions. ... and yet, your reply talks to nothing but wireless, by talking about SSIDs. Where in the replies did you state that you were wired? What a waste of time, having a bad day?

plummerl · ‎05-05-2017

Tonight, I fired up the ROKU app. I was immediately told that I had to activate it, even though I had used it within the last week. I entered the 6 digit code on the xfinity.com/authorize site, and was told that it was successful. From the ROKU, it then told me once again that I had to activate it. This circle of h#ll went on for 4 or 5 successful code entries on the web site. I then left the app, returning within 5 minutes. Again, I had to enter the code. This time it successfully activated. Quite a stellar BETA after how many months?

plummerl · ‎04-04-2017

@Rustyben wrote: @plummerl wrote: @Rustyben wrote: @Venessa711 wrote: It's ridiculous that they would charge additional fee for HD streaming. Both Netflix and hulu stream everything in HD. The quality I've seen so far brings me back 15 years. Fuzzy quality. It's not my net connection because all other apps are fine. It's a great concept just needs alot of work.. and comcast needs to stop being so greedy. They only reason I have them is because of the speed of the net. If it were up to me I would never use comcast again due to such high pricing. As soon as I can switch to fiber its done. And this whole data junk is insane. When it first started I used half of the data. Then out of nowhere with no change of usage I suddenly hit full data every month. Something fishy is going on there. you either contribute to pipe development to deliver HD and beyond or you do not. If you are not paying for HD then you don't get HD beyond local channels. "Pipe development", what on earth are you talking about???? Comcast's "pipe" is way over the capacity to deliver HD. I'm pretty sure that it was "developed" long ago. pipe is all the equipment for QAM and streaming. Upgrades in technology cost money. those wanting only SD don't have to contribute the HD fee for network improvement and costs related to HD. Please, I know what a "pipe" is with respect to QAM and streaming. "The pipe", was already established long ago to support HD and streaming at very high rates (much more than is required for HD content) has also been around for a considerable amount of time. Adding HD to your TV content, entails no additional cost from an infrastructure point of view.

plummerl · ‎04-04-2017

@Rustyben wrote: @Venessa711 wrote: It's ridiculous that they would charge additional fee for HD streaming. Both Netflix and hulu stream everything in HD. The quality I've seen so far brings me back 15 years. Fuzzy quality. It's not my net connection because all other apps are fine. It's a great concept just needs alot of work.. and comcast needs to stop being so greedy. They only reason I have them is because of the speed of the net. If it were up to me I would never use comcast again due to such high pricing. As soon as I can switch to fiber its done. And this whole data junk is insane. When it first started I used half of the data. Then out of nowhere with no change of usage I suddenly hit full data every month. Something fishy is going on there. you either contribute to pipe development to deliver HD and beyond or you do not. If you are not paying for HD then you don't get HD beyond local channels. "Pipe development", what on earth are you talking about???? Comcast's "pipe" is way over the capacity to deliver HD. I'm pretty sure that it was "developed" long ago.

plummerl · ‎03-23-2017

@JoeB86 wrote: @plummerl wrote: Comcast, this has to be one of the lamest excuses for a BETA, that I have ever seen. If you keep posting updated versions, how about providing some kind of clue about what the new version has either fixed or added. The entire purpose of a BETA is to allow people to test it with some insight into current issues! A simple list of known problems and fixes could actually help you. Comcast will post the info shortly. They did for 1.1.5 if you go back to page 1. Please read the post on page 1, as you have apparently not done that. What you will see is the posting from 1/31/2017 announcing the release of the BETA. Above that is a new posting (3/22/2017) with regards to a release on 4/10/2017, this being V2.0.x. So we're going from a TV Roku App to a Stream Beta app on Roku. This is so exciting, I can't wait! Update heaven! Please tell me how this explains away my complaint. Oh, and what exactly is "University access/support"??????? I can't wait.

plummerl · ‎03-23-2017

@Rustyben wrote: @ftrain99 wrote: So there is a v2.0 coming next month according to the first page of this forum. The part about the renaming to xfinity stream does not bode well. Below is a Comcast page about the xfinity stream app as it exists now in its limited release to certain markets and the charges. Let us hope against all hope that there are no charges in store for the future. I for one have been an advocate for this app with the expectation that this would likely become a niche product for a relatively small portion of users. Realistically I cannot see all comcast customers going this route. Alas, the lack of real back and forth in this forum with real comcast folks (apologies comcastdan) makes me worry that this was nothing more than govt appeasement under the now lifted Obama administration mandate to find ways to remove stbs. https://www.xfinity.com/support/cable-tv/stream-faqs/?currentTopicId=624fac04-667f-42de-88d8-ef79da56ca9b&currentCollectionId=624fac04-667f-42de-88d8-ef79da56ca9b-2 I was never naive enough to not expect charges but I suppose one can always hope eh? Stream service is based upon no comcast set top boxes. You get the cloud DVR and access to the programs on your devices. The Stream App allows you to access your Cloud DVR recrodings and other on-demand programs as well as many stream anywhere channels and while in the home your entire programming is available. Why fret about what charges may be for using a Roku, it is free now and that is purpose of the beta to test and improve until full release. Why fret about what charges may be for using a ROKU?????? Are you absolutely O)U*#$()U#??????? So the purpose of the BETA is to test and improve an app that we were led to believe would be a no cost option, when in fact it appears that it will be nothing approaching that? In all these months of BETA exposure and the intended users of this ROKU channel being led to believe that it would be a no cost option, you think that we should just willingly perform a BETA test for the benefit of COMCAST? Unbelievable. If we should feel privledged to spend time BETA testing a ROKU channel for the benefit of COMCAST, and then to begin charging us to use the channel after the BETA, you're on the wrong planet.

plummerl · ‎03-21-2017

Comcast, this has to be one of the lamest excuses for a BETA, that I have ever seen. If you keep posting updated versions, how about providing some kind of clue about what the new version has either fixed or added. The entire purpose of a BETA is to allow people to test it with some insight into current issues! A simple list of known problems and fixes could actually help you.

plummerl · ‎03-10-2017

@DKSac wrote: Comcast charging for the app isn't any different then Sling or DirectTV charging extra for multiple streams. Sling charges charges significantly more if you want to watch on more then one device. What Comcast is proposing isn't even close to the amount Sling is changing. What Comcast is doing is common practice. So, can I assume that you do not stream content on any computers or mobile devices? If you did, you'd know that at home I can stream every channel that I'm subscribed to on iPads, phones, computers. Oh, and at no additional charge! I guess that I'm the only one.

plummerl · ‎03-08-2017

@OrMeanGene wrote: You guys really should make this available on outside the home internet source's(hotel, friends, hospital). Seems pointless to only use in home when you have a cable box already. Would imagine this would be the first issue addressed. Would be 5star with that. It's definitely not pointless if you want to have access to content on TV's without running cable all over the house. What will be pointless is if a monthly charge is unveiled when the channel emerges from BETA.

plummerl · ‎02-18-2017

@Rustyben wrote: @workerdummy wrote: @Rustyben wrote: @workerdummy wrote: When are we going to get word on what other Roku models the app will work with? Also, is a solution to the remote control problem being worked on, like a smartphone/tablet app or a copy of the current X1 remote that works with the Roku boxes. please see the first post on page one of this thread. If you see me ask any questions, ignore them. They are for Comcast employees only. This is primarily a user to user forum. ... and yet, we have been told, over and over, that the only feedback/reporting to COMCAST, for the ROKU beta is via this thread, in this forum. Which is it????

plummerl · ‎02-14-2017

@Rustyben wrote: @chrishicks wrote: Rustyben, You pay a total of $7.45/month for a Tivo DVR on your account. With that $7.45 you can record up to 6 channels at once, have access to On Demand and everything else that an X1 DVR can do. I would never compare a Roku to either an X1 or a Tivo to try to convince someone of why there may be a fee attached to the Roku. If you even try you're losing that discussion unless that fee is insanely cheap by Comcast standards(what are those right?). You mention that Comcast has to pay the providers for each outlet in service. I wonder how the Tivo Mini got the okay to be built and be used on the Comcast system since isn't that by design a huge ripoff to these providers you mention since it allows you to have an additional outlet without an additional fee? I mean isn't everyone who uses a Mini just stealing from these providers going by what you're saying? Or if I watch my service on a phone is that not technically an additional outlet that they should have to pay for? Or what about my tablet? Or my laptop? Or desktop? Aren't those additional places of viewing going by your reasoning? Are we robbing Comcast and these providers blind because there's no charge for those? Are these providers you mention knocking down doors at the Comcast offices looking for more money for all the phone/tablet/cxomputer users? I'd love to hear why the Roku is so special that it "may" require an outlet fee while all the other equipment mentioned doesn't. apparently the contracts don't count device usage in the home that do not hook up to TVs (they still allow lap/desktops to connect via HDMI as that is a 'monitor' for those systems (under the law maybe?) That sound you just heard was my head exploding. With what little brain cells I have left, I'd point out that in one sentence you have completely contradicted yourself. For your information, a ROKU is a device that IS A COMPUTER. It is connected to my TV via HDMI. It is actually using the internet to drop signals into my TV. It also provides HBO, Netflix, HULU, YouTube, my Facebook content, PBS, Amazon, etc, etc, etc. Amazingly, just like My XFINITY.

plummerl · ‎02-13-2017

@Rustyben wrote: @plummerl wrote: @andyross wrote: @kenwvt wrote: WHY OH WHY should using an app on my own roku cost MORE than a HD DTA ? This is ridiculous ! The app is inferior to a DTA, the price should be less or free. I will NOT be paying for this. -Ken Because the app does much more than a DTA. A DTA only support up to Starter channels, Latino packages, and some oddballs like Economy and Family. It does NOT support premimum, OnDemand, etc... The Roku app is designed to replace a full cable box, and has access to everything. So, now we get to rent an app??? Your description sounds exactly like the My XFINITY page on my browser. another customer here. You can load the HBO or Netflix app but you don't expect to use it without a subscription. Cable TV service is a for-profit business and an extra TV outlet must have revenue to pay the expenses paid to the providers of the entertainment (producers, networks, distributors). That's a ridiculous comparison! First of all, you conveniently failed to comment on the "My XFINITY" comparison. Secondly, I do pay for HBO & Netflix and many others. In every case, I'm free to watch it on the device of my choice, including the ROKU! How on earth is the ROKU, which I own, any different with respect to content that I am paying for?

plummerl · ‎02-13-2017

@andyross wrote: @kenwvt wrote: WHY OH WHY should using an app on my own roku cost MORE than a HD DTA ? This is ridiculous ! The app is inferior to a DTA, the price should be less or free. I will NOT be paying for this. -Ken Because the app does much more than a DTA. A DTA only support up to Starter channels, Latino packages, and some oddballs like Economy and Family. It does NOT support premimum, OnDemand, etc... The Roku app is designed to replace a full cable box, and has access to everything. So, now we get to rent an app??? Your description sounds exactly like the My XFINITY page on my browser.

plummerl · ‎02-13-2017

@kenwvt wrote: WHY OH WHY should using an app on my own roku cost MORE than a HD DTA ? This is ridiculous ! The app is inferior to a DTA, the price should be less or free. I will NOT be paying for this. -Ken ... and don't forget that you're renting the HD DTA, which you can't buy. You should not have to rent the ROKU, which you own!

plummerl · ‎02-03-2017

@MidnightSVT wrote: @egnlsn wrote: MidnightSVT I understand the beta app has no fees associated with it. However, Ars Technica, quoted COMCAST in their article stating that after the beta trial ends, a $7.49 monthly fee will be passed onto anyone who continues to use the app. This article was published after the intial beta information release (2/1/17). They are quoting a COMCAST representative, I am simply asking the moderators on this thread to provide a response to that quote (again, given by COMCAST). It is true, great. If not true, great. Just give us all of the information How 'bout we just wait and see what they're going to do. Often, the representatives out in the field are literally the last to know. The problem with the "wait and see" mentality is that is almost always bad for end users (customers). The wait and see strategy got us this beta app almost 2 months after it was promised. I am of the opinoin, and it is fine if others don't agree, that in order to adequately provide useful and helpful feedback, we the testers, need all of the information up front. I know this is selfish, but I am not going to pay a monthly fee to use this app, so I don't see any reason to provide app feedback on an app that I won't end up using. I have also put an additional Roku purchase on hold until I know for sure if a fee will be charged (or not charged). So, in my case, Comcast and Roku are both missing out on feedback related to the app on a Roku 3 (the device I currently own) and a Roku Premiere (the additional Roku I planned to buy depending on the fee outcome), because no one wants to be upfront from the start. You are not being selfish. My position is the same. At this stage of the game, Comcast either knows that they will charge a fee for the use of the ROKU or they will not attach a charge. Given the information that is out there, it looks fairly certain that a fee is coming. You would expect Comcast to quickly get in front of that if they had no fee planned. At this time I am not going to waste my time helping them to get their app running.

plummerl · ‎02-02-2017

@BetoRox wrote: @I'd rather have @ComcastDan & @ComcastJessie spend their time addressing technical issues than what the pricing "might" be when the beta run is over. C'mon man. If there's a fee associated with the ROKU, they might just as well declare the BETA period finished.

plummerl · ‎02-01-2017

@Rustyben wrote: @plummerl wrote: Can anyone possibly explain why Comcast has gone to the trouble of providing a BETA test of the ROKU App. without providing a reporting channel for encountered problems??? If this is their idea of BETA testing, I guess it should be no surprise. Comcast engineers are simply told to troll the forums looking for comments that might contain some important information about found bugs??? Oh, and if this App. emerges with any kind of fee associated with it, it's a non-starter. This is absolutely equivalent to using the Xfinity TV app on a phone, iPad or computer. Unless I'm mistaken, there is no fee associated with it. Oh wait, that will probably be next. as the release said the forum is the feedback and information source. As I said (as an embedded software engineer), that's the most inefficiant method of providing feedback to a MAJOR beta test of an app that I've ever seen. Browse the forums, filter out 99.9% of the chaff. This seems to provide me with a feeling about how they are treating this release. Not very good.

plummerl · ‎02-01-2017

Can anyone possibly explain why Comcast has gone to the trouble of providing a BETA test of the ROKU App. without providing a reporting channel for encountered problems??? If this is their idea of BETA testing, I guess it should be no surprise. Comcast engineers are simply told to troll the forums looking for comments that might contain some important information about found bugs??? Oh, and if this App. emerges with any kind of fee associated with it, it's a non-starter. This is absolutely equivalent to using the Xfinity TV app on a phone, iPad or computer. Unless I'm mistaken, there is no fee associated with it. Oh wait, that will probably be next.

plummerl · ‎01-04-2017

@mikec171 wrote: @Mrr1 wrote: If it is so difficult why have most, if not all of Comcast/Xfinity's major competitors, introduced functioning Roku apps? I'm not weighing in on the difficulty of the app, but what competitors of Comcast/Xfinity have Roku apps instead of charging for extra boxes? Sure, the purely online streaming vendors may but the actual TV vendors I researched (FiOS, DirecTV, and DISH) do not. Just curious as, from my perspective, Comcast seems to be leading the pack in trying to adopt to the new paradigm. So, just what exactly is the Web app, Xfinity TV? It would appear to be the very same presentation that will (someday maybe) be destined for the ROKU, with the major difference being on a piece of hardware that will HDMI it to the TV. Same comment applies to the mobile app. Give me a break!

plummerl · ‎01-01-2017

@scampcat wrote: I'm genuinely amused at the intensity of aggravation from users waiting for the app. I'll admit that I'm anxiously awaiting its debut, but I'm also the owner of two software companies, both of which have mobile apps. Because of that...PEOPLE...these things are NOT easy to build, especially when you add in streaming content, quality of service, data speed resampling when you're moving around through networks, etc. There's a LOT to get done, and getting an app like this working within even 12 months would be extremely impressive. This isn't a simple little Twitter app that gets a text message and a random picture. Be realistic about what you're expecting. Well, as a software engineer, I'd simply point you to the hundreds (thousands?) of channels currently on ROKU. This is not rocket science. ROKU has an extremely extensive documentation and developmental framework in place to get the job done. Apparently many other companies have been able to accomplish the task, repetitively. If it truly is a software "problem", then I'd say that it reflects poorly on COMCAST.

plummerl · ‎04-29-2016

@ComcastJohnF wrote: I believe there should be a pinhole reset you can perform if you need to reset the modem to factory, but I'm not clear under what circumstances a user would need to factory reset their modem? ... and if by chance, I wanted to sell my SB6141 modem (that I paid for!), I guess that without a factory reset ability, I am restricted to selling it to only Comcast customers????? This seems to amount to theft.