LOL, you say that as if Net Neutrality is a bad thing.
So you think it would be better that Shaw be allowed to deliver the same service as NetFlix but penalize those user that find NetFlix to be cheaper and better than their own service?
So you think when Shaw does this and they don't get the subscribers they are seeking because users prefer NetFlix that they won't do something to "compete" and try to attract them like lower the price or increase their content?
Net Neutrality, in this case, helps to creates the level playing field that the cable and telco companies are constantly whining about wanting.
Just wondering. To use this service, would you still have to subscribe to Shaw cable TV? If thats the case, Why bother. It's a pain in the ass when a company makes you bundle things to get something that should be a standalone product.
Good point. I didn't think about that angle but if it counts against your in-network IP cap even though you are viewing it off-network, what kind of metering is that?
By "off network", a Shaw's customer travels and uses the hotel's WiFi to access the Shaw's Video Service in their room. Why would that traffic count against their residential IP traffic cap?
I understand that Shaws may want to meter off-network movie viewing to control their outbound bandwidth but that's a helluva slap in the face. It shouldn't impact the customer's residential IP traffic cap since one UBB justification is to provide cause and effect for bandwidth hogs in the hope that it will curb their appetite enough to keep the system responsive for everyone. Either that or to generate the additional revenue necessary to upgrade the network to satisfy everyone's demand. This type of usage doesn't affect the last mile plant. In government, local revenue doesn't generally fund state roads.
Aren't IP packets delivered by the QAM infrastructure?
Only if you want to get picky. It's plain to see that they mean the VoD service is delivered using the TV infrastructure, not the cable modem system. Thus their VoD service doesn't place any load on the cable modem network, so there is no worry about the cap. You don't need their internet service to use their (TV-based) VoD service.
The exception is the PC based service, which as they have said, will eat the cap as it is IP based and uses the cable modem network. I don't see what the issue is - it's subject to the cap just like any other IP VoD service. No net neutrality issue.
It's a bit like saying "I want to use electricity, but gas is cheaper. Why can't electricity be the same price as gas as they can be used for the same thing? (cooking, heating)" - they are two different beasts despite producing the same end result.
I thought VOD was delivered using IP RTSP. Doesn't this use the CMTS?
Regardless, if you are home and using the STB to view the VOD content and it doesn't count against your cap, fine. However, if you are away from home and watching TV using someone else's connection, why would that count against your cap?
I think the NN issues are there but masked by perhaps minor technical differences. What's the difference between paying a flat fee for all the Shaws Video Service bandwidth you can eat and paying a flat fee for all the Internet bandwidth you can eat? True, Shaws Video Service is local in their NOC and therefore doesn't use the Internet backbone but I thought UBB was necessary to curb last-mile demands thereby maintaining quality for all without costly network upgrades? Has the bottleneck moved from last mile to backbone?
Regarding the comparison to Electricity and gas, neither are unlimited so I'm not sure what that comparison means.