 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Stupid Government Did the powers-that-be that rubber-stamped this merger really believe that Comcast was going to actually obey the terms of the merger conditions?
Oh and where are those lower prices?
Morons.
--
Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge. |
|
|
|
3 edits | How is this different from FiOS TV and Uverse TV The traffic is not prioritized (so capacity management impacts all services equally). ADDITIONAL bandwidth is added as not to impact your Internet service. On top of that, capacity is managed normally with the downstream while multiple watchdogs (FCC, Netflix, etc) have been measuring this for years with great results as compared with all ISPs.
I'm amazed at all the negative hype around using IP as it was intended to be used. Viva IP Convergence!
Isn't this like FiOS TV and Uverse TV? |
|
 Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Gotta love this You can argue it both ways and our "lack of technology knowledge" officials have no idea what it all means.
Yes Comcast is giving priority to the intranet service over internet service. Now is that against network neutrality for the internet, obviously no.
But if throwing this in the face of our knowledgeless elected officials actually gets all bandwidth caps banned then I am all for it.
Caps should never be allowed, we got rid of them in 1995 and companies are trying force them back on us. |
|
| Graph of how it works Bryan Berg's analysis was excellent! He had some missing pieces which were clarified in Tony Werner's blog post about how DSCP is not used for Xbox priority, only service flows, but here is a great picture Bryan posted which shows the traffic does not impact his Internet. It is bandwidth over and above his service. |
|
| reply to Sofa King
Re: How is this different from FiOS TV and Uverse TV said by Sofa King:The traffic is not prioritized (so capacity management impacts all services equally) and ADDITIONAL bandwidth is added as not to impact Internet. Yes additional bandwidth has been added, but it *appears* that all traffic is still traveling down the same QAM channels, even though there are more of them now. Even if Comcast is not prioritizing traffic, there are still ultimately issues around how much bandwidth the MSO is using for managed services versus Internet service. It's ultimately a finite resource, and there will be demand from both the TV and Internet sides of the house. There's no guarantee that bandwidth will be added equitably for both sides in the future, and we have no way of knowing how Comcast (or any other cable operator) decides to divvy it up. |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
 ·Site5.com
| Well, it is their network While I don't like traffic prioritization, this isn't QOS. This is simply the fact that Comcast is not counting Comcast TV over the Xbox 360 to the cap. That, IMHO, isn't a big deal to me and here is why. Does it create an unfair advantage? Not in my mind. The people who have netflix, like my parents and friends, are going to continue using them. Those that have comcast in addition to netflix, like my parents and friends, are going to watch it. If they have xbox 360s, then they can watch it without it counting towards the cap. I just don't see that as an issue.
Now, if Comcast was using QOS to block other traffic from coming in or restrict the speed of netflix, then I would agree. That just isn't the case here.
The cap is not an issue for 99.9% of the customer base. Almost all common consumers don't even know about the cap since it is a soft cap.
Netflix should be focusing more on getting content faster and improving their business model than complaining about this.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
UnnDunnPremium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Sofa King
Re: How is this different from FiOS TV and Uverse TV said by Sofa King:Isn't this like FiOS TV and Uverse TV?
The difference is neither Verizon nor AT&T impose bandwidth caps on their wired residential broadband plans. |
|
| If I understood correctly It sounded like their traffic not only avoided the usage cap but it also the speed limit. For people on Blast this probably won't make a difference, but if you were on the economy tier it certainly might.
This would be good news for cable subscribers as they could just get digital tv and a 1.5mbps internet package as it won't impact the quality of the stream for them. Start comparing a 1.5mbps netflix stream to a 6mbps xfinity stream and I can guess which one is going to look better... |
|
| reply to UnnDunn
Re: How is this different from FiOS TV and Uverse TV said by UnnDunn:said by Sofa King:Isn't this like FiOS TV and Uverse TV?
The difference is neither Verizon nor AT&T impose bandwidth caps on their wired residential broadband plans. Wrong - U-Verse has a 250GB cap, which their own TV conveniently ignores. Just like Comcast. |
|
| reply to Sofa King
Re: Graph of how it works said by Sofa King:Bryan Berg's analysis was excellent! He had some missing pieces which were clarified in Tony Werner's blog post about how DSCP is not used for Xbox priority, only service flows, but here is a great picture Bryan posted which shows the traffic does not impact his Internet. It is bandwidth over and above his service.
Great! Now I can have even more bits flowing down the pipe potentially clogging up my neighborhood node at peak times!
So where's that justification for the cap again? |
|
 IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | The cap was never about congestion... Not in the slightest. Comcast's usage cap was set at 250GB in October 2008 shortly after a settlement in Florida (»bit.ly/J0UKka) and it hasn't been increased since.
Providing exemptions to the cap for this activity could suggest the following:
1) This cap really isn't high enough anymore for "normal use". Why go so far to provide an exemption for this usage otherwise if it was?
2) Comcast has little incentive to support potentially competitive Internet-based offerings with a fixed cap of 250 GB. (The Cord-Cutters)
Looking at Comcast's business tier services for comparison on pricing. (Comcast Business Plans have no usage cap)
»business.comcast.com/smb/service···et/plans
- Starter $59.95 (12 Mbps/2 Mbps, 2 email boxes, Internet Security for 25 computers, Microsoft Cloud Services, Web Hosting)
- Premium $99.95 (22 Mbps/5 Mbps 8 email boxes, Internet Security for 25 computers, Microsoft Cloud Services, Web Hosting)
With all these extras included along with business level-grade support/service and no usage cap, these prices are only slightly more than their residential counterparts, which are subject to the 250 GB user cap.
I think that's pretty interesting...
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army |
|
 EnasYorlThieves World
join:2001-12-02
West | reply to Oh_No
Re: Gotta love this said by Oh_No:You can argue it both ways and our "lack of technology knowledge" officials have no idea what it all means.
Yes Comcast is giving priority to the intranet service over internet service. Now is that against network neutrality for the internet, obviously no.
But if throwing this in the face of our knowledgeless elected officials actually gets all bandwidth caps banned then I am all for it.
Caps should never be allowed, we got rid of them in 1995 and companies are trying force them back on us.
So you have to ask yourself the Internet is really just a bunch of Private ISP networks that tie their networks together at Peering Routers. »www.bgp4.as/internet-exchanges
So is the only true part of the internet the piece of fiber between the two ISP's peering routers as the old government ArpaNET »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arpan···1977.png isn't the main backbone anymore. It's the Level 3, AT&T, etc that have some of the larger pieces.
Someone needs to clearing define where does the Internet reside?
Until that is resolved we can talk about this forever. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to Nightfall
Re: Well, it is their network Correct. As I posted yesterday »RE: Is Comcast prioritizing traffic or not?, this is just about not going against the cap. There is no QOS prioritizing like Netflix is whining about.
And I agree with Comcast that Xbox traffic is just to another STB and shouldn't be counted against the cap just because the traffic is IP instead of QAM. |
|
| Well, of course they're not... and they've never forged any packets either (ha-ha). |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
 ·MSN
| reply to Nightfall
Re: Well, it is their network said by Nightfall:While I don't like traffic prioritization, this isn't QOS. This is simply the fact that Comcast is not counting Comcast TV over the Xbox 360 to the cap. That, IMHO, isn't a big deal to me and here is why. Does it create an unfair advantage? Not in my mind. The people who have netflix, like my parents and friends, are going to continue using them. Those that have comcast in addition to netflix, like my parents and friends, are going to watch it. If they have xbox 360s, then they can watch it without it counting towards the cap. I just don't see that as an issue.
Now, if Comcast was using QOS to block other traffic from coming in or restrict the speed of netflix, then I would agree. That just isn't the case here.
The cap is not an issue for 99.9% of the customer base. Almost all common consumers don't even know about the cap since it is a soft cap.
Netflix should be focusing more on getting content faster and improving their business model than complaining about this.
This might be their network---BUT they have been given a de facto MONOPOLY within most of their service area. How is this any different then a landlord not renting to blacks or families with children? Your explanation would go: Well it IS their apartment complex! Sorry bud, but there were conditions that Comcrap agreed to and now they are thumbing their nose at them. |
|
| The real answer from an Ex-Employee... I used to work for Comcast so I know this as fact.
Comcast, represented as one company is actually two entities.
Comcast Media is the second entity. The fact that help proves this is the stock symbols, there are two. Now companies including comcast get their media (video as a example) from Comcast media. Directv does it. Charter does it. Even Hulu does it.
Comcast does not have to give Comcast media priority over it's network because the traffic never leaves their network. I can't recall where Comcast Media is located but Comcast does have a backbone running between cities and Comcast Media is on the backbone. With Comcast Media being on the network and the traffic never having to leave the network to get to a subscriber, the bandwidth will appear to come as priority but all it is that the data does not have to touch the latency side of the internet.
Comcast does the same thing with the phone service. The phone service is on a different QAM channel that come to the house. When you call someone within the Comcast network, the phone call never leaves the network thereby the call looking like it gets priority. |
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
·VOIPo
| reply to Sofa King
Re: How is this different from FiOS TV and Uverse TV said by Sofa King:The traffic is not prioritized (so capacity management impacts all services equally). ADDITIONAL bandwidth is added as not to impact your Internet service. On top of that, capacity is managed normally with the downstream while multiple watchdogs (FCC, Netflix, etc) have been measuring this for years with great results as compared with all ISPs.
I'm amazed at all the negative hype around using IP as it was intended to be used. Viva IP Convergence!
Isn't this like FiOS TV and Uverse TV?
FIOS TV and Uverse TV technically are not apps on a different device though. Also interesting enough AT&T stopped offering the 360 bundle yesterday, said they are waiting for enhancements.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
UnnDunnPremium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to GTFan
said by GTFan:Wrong - U-Verse has a 250GB cap, which their own TV conveniently ignores. Just like Comcast.
If that's the case, why is Netflix bitching about Comcast and not about AT&T? |
|
| reply to pnh102
Re: Stupid Government well put. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
| reply to qworster
Re: Well, it is their network said by qworster:said by Nightfall:While I don't like traffic prioritization, this isn't QOS. This is simply the fact that Comcast is not counting Comcast TV over the Xbox 360 to the cap. That, IMHO, isn't a big deal to me and here is why. Does it create an unfair advantage? Not in my mind. The people who have netflix, like my parents and friends, are going to continue using them. Those that have comcast in addition to netflix, like my parents and friends, are going to watch it. If they have xbox 360s, then they can watch it without it counting towards the cap. I just don't see that as an issue.
Now, if Comcast was using QOS to block other traffic from coming in or restrict the speed of netflix, then I would agree. That just isn't the case here.
The cap is not an issue for 99.9% of the customer base. Almost all common consumers don't even know about the cap since it is a soft cap.
Netflix should be focusing more on getting content faster and improving their business model than complaining about this.
This might be their network---BUT they have been given a de facto MONOPOLY within most of their service area. How is this any different then a landlord not renting to blacks or families with children? Your explanation would go: Well it IS their apartment complex! Sorry bud, but there were conditions that Comcrap agreed to and now they are thumbing their nose at them. Way to change the topic. While I don't disagree with your point, we are discussing how the traffic on the Comcast network while watching Comcast TV doesn't affect the cap. You have a comment on that topic or are you just going to derail it with more anti-comcast discussion?
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
