  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Stupid Government
Oh and where are those lower prices?
Morons.
--
Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge. | |
|
 | | | Re: Stupid Government well put. | |
|
| | | Also, if they are exempting some of the traffic that only flows on their network, should they not also exempt other traffic (p2p, etc.) that is wholly within their network as well?
Better not be counting the bittorrent data flowing between comcast customers on the cap! | |
|
|  camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
 ·Comcast
| I don't think the merger had anything to do with it, I think they were just waiting until everyone's eyes were batted elsewhere. Kinda feels like this happened before when a "company" was prioritizing traffic and was caught with there hand in the cookie jar.
And I love to provide info take a read if you have the time, I don't want to get into a liberal vs. Republican crap just food for thought.
»www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01···n-taxes/
»www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle···st-year/ | |
|
| | | $9 internet isn't cheap enough for you? | |
|
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? | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| | | | Re: How is this different from FiOS TV and Uverse TV Doesn't that exist for ALL IP pipes? Again it is a capacity management process. This is how IP works folks. Do you want to go back to the old days of T1's / service? What do you think that will cost? | |
|
| UnnDunnPremium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| 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. | |
|
| | | | 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. | |
|
| | | UnnDunnPremium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: How is this different from FiOS TV and Uverse TV 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? | |
|
| | | |  DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter
| Re: How is this different from FiOS TV and Uverse TV Because Netflix's complaint doesn't stem from "fair access" to Comcast's customers, but for cheap access to their customers.
Older article, but still relevant:
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010···astards/ | |
|
| | | |  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Simple question, simple answer. Comcast is bigger, and has more subscribers than UVerse. | |
|
| | | | AT&T DSL 150GB/month cap, AT&T Uverse 250GB/month cap. Imposed in some service areas, eventually in all service areas. | |
|
|  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| 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 | |
|
|  Vchat20Landing is the REAL challengePremium
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH | Actually, not to be completely nitpicky, U-Verse does do some traffic prioritization on their services. You can get a high enough HSI tier that would otherwise conflict bandwidth-wise with TV viewing if you had a full 4 HD streams going at once. It has been noted ad-nauseum that the HSI is throttled back to accomodate TV viewing/recording in these scenarios. I believe priority was Phone, TV, HSI at last check.
This is actually the primary reason (as far as I have seen rumored, obviously there isn't going to be an official statement from AT&T) that they have yet to implement caps on the VDSL U-Verse service which is the only service that carries TV and phone as well as HSI. Basically they'd need to successfully and accurately track just HSI in the bandwidth meter and ignore TV and phone. On paper it sounds easy, but as always in practice there's likely a lot of annoying corner cases.
And with FiOS, unless they have changed things recently, doesn't even use IP for TV services nor phone. The HSI pretty much rides its own trackable pipe separate from phone and TV. I -believe- the only thing that rides on HSI that is TV related is DVR control stuff and On Demand.
--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz | |
|
| | | | Re: How is this different from FiOS TV and Uverse TV It wouldn't be hard for ATT to tell the difference between 3 services. It's a matter of them currently watching the customers first. Each Service has to be tagged differently and knows where to go. Otherwise it would all get lost. | |
|
|  mmay149qPremium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48 | said by Sofa King:The traffic is not prioritized (so capacity management impacts all services equally).
Isn't this like FiOS TV and Uverse TV?
On U-Verse the Traffic is prioritized, VoIP 1st, TV 2nd, internet last. If you're on the 32/5 profile watching 4HD streams at once (or recording) then you're only going to get 18Mbps maximum (unless they changed the compression protocols since I've worked there) on the downstream on your internet. That's just one of the reasons I hate U-verse..... 
Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!!  | |
|
| | | So you can watch Fringe on the xBox and they add bandwidth and it doesnt count toward the cap, but you can't watch it from their website and get bandwidth added and not have it count against a cap as well? Sounds like unfair treatment of traffic to me. | |
|
 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. | |
|
|  EnasYorlThieves World
join:2001-12-02
West | 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. | |
|
| | |
| | | EnasYorlThieves World
join:2001-12-02
West
1 edit | Re: Gotta love this said by r81984:Define where the internet resides? LOL?
It already has been resolved so you cant talk about it forever.
Here is the gist of it for you:
Internet is public (can be accessed outside of your network), intranet is private (can only be accessed on your network).
When you have a public accessible IP and can access public IPs you are on the internet regardless of what network you are on.
If you have a private ip and only have access to private IPs than you are not on the internet, but on an intranet.
That was the whole point. The Xbox is using a Public IP address to get Private video.
Your post was so great I laughed out loud.
Or wait does Comcast own that IP address that everyone can reach the XBOX with? hmmm.. Standing on quicksand? ICANN (»www.icann.org/) do IT!
The actual network isn't defined by IP address space.
The Network is defined by who owns the Layer 1 medium (Fiber or Coax or Copper lines to the Subscriber) as well as the Layer 1/2 equipment such as DSLAMs, CMTS, eswitches, SONET, DWDM gear as well as the Layer 3 Routers that are routing all these packets.
That is Comcast point as well as mine. If the Public IP address you have sends a packet across the entire country but never leaves Comcast network are you on the Internet even though both Source and Destinations are Public IP's?
Or what if you packet doesn't leave any of Comcast links to a peering point but it does go thru say a Level 3 router from blade to blade. Is that considered the Internet as it wasn't Comcast's router?
That was my point. You can never get a clear demarcation. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love this You are attempting to make this much more complicated then it is and I believe you are doing it just to be a PITA.
The physical owner of the network components are irrelevant, you trying to make them relevant is just silly. The internet consist all mediums that interconnect.
And yes, the actual internet is defined by IP address space as no device can be a part of the network without a publicly routable address connecting it and every device that has a publicly routable address is a part of the network as is every device that is connecting to that connected device.
So yes, the computer or smartphone you are one right now is a part of the internet no matter how many firewalls you are behind. | |
|
| | | |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | said by EnasYorl:said by r81984:Define where the internet resides? LOL?
It already has been resolved so you cant talk about it forever.
Here is the gist of it for you:
Internet is public (can be accessed outside of your network), intranet is private (can only be accessed on your network).
When you have a public accessible IP and can access public IPs you are on the internet regardless of what network you are on.
If you have a private ip and only have access to private IPs than you are not on the internet, but on an intranet.
That was the whole point. The Xbox is using a Public IP address to get Private video. Your post was so great I laughed out loud. Your lack of understanding how networks and the internet works is laughable.
I am trying to give the simplest definition so you can understand, but it obviously was not simple enough for you to understand.
said by EnasYorl:Or wait does Comcast own that IP address that everyone can reach the XBOX with? hmmm.. Standing on quicksand? ICANN (»www.icann.org/) do IT!
Your xbox is going to get a public or at least an internet accessible ip address just like any other computer on your network or just share one internet IP on your router.
But the xbox comcast is going to route all data for the xbox on demand app through a different docsis channel or unused docsis space @ their modem to their private intranet ondemand servers.
Your xbox comcast ondemand traffic only works on the private network through their modem not the internet.
said by EnasYorl:The actual network isn't defined by IP address space.
The Network is defined by who owns the Layer 1 medium (Fiber or Coax or Copper lines to the Subscriber) as well as the Layer 1/2 equipment such as DSLAMs, CMTS, eswitches, SONET, DWDM gear as well as the Layer 3 Routers that are routing all these packets.
Who owns the network means nothing.
How the network is setup virtually decides if it is internet or intranet.
Your device can be both on the internet and intranet with certain data limited to each network.
said by EnasYorl:That is Comcast point as well as mine. If the Public IP address you have sends a packet across the entire country but never leaves Comcast network are you on the Internet even though both Source and Destinations are Public IP's?
Or what if you packet doesn't leave any of Comcast links to a peering point but it does go thru say a Level 3 router from blade to blade. Is that considered the Internet as it wasn't Comcast's router?
That was my point. You can never get a clear demarcation.
Comcast is not arguing that.
Many times you could be using the internet and what you are doing is hosted by the same company as your ISP, so sure you never leave the ISPs owned network, but you are still on the internet as you are on a publically accessible side of the ISPs network and the data shares the "internet" bandwidth.
For comcast the Xbox traffic is all internet traffic. The Xbox comcast ondemand traffic is all private, not internet accessible traffic that does not even share your "internet" bandwidth.
You can max out your xbox ondemand traffic and it will have no affect on your available internet bandwidth as they are not even on a shared connection.
The xbox ondemand app does not compete with any internet service as it can only be used on comcasts private intranet that can only be reached with a comcast modem on their network.
If people want dictate fairness of how much backbone a company allocates for their private network and how much for the internet then we must separate all ISPs from content providers.
That way all content will only be accessible over the internet and all ISPs will have to treat all data equal.
I do see a day when ISPs will be broken up from content providers.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | | | | EnasYorlThieves World
join:2001-12-02
West | Re: Gotta love this 1. Your wrong Comcast doesn't route the traffic to a Xbox on a different DOCSIS channel as XBOX supports 802.3 and some 802.11n/g. You a completely ignorant to Layer 2 DOCSIS MAC DOMAIN and it shows. Start around page 32 to educate yourself »www.cablelabs.com/specifications···0210.pdf
2. Who owns the network means everything that is what the debate is about. Companies spend Millions upon Millions in building up their own networks and they are not about to let anyone push traffic across it for free that is what peering costs are all about.
3. Xbox doesn't have a DOCSIS modem built into and it doesnt' support VLAN tagging. So it only has one MAC domain to the router or Cable modem and the DOCSIS modem isn't parsing Private or Internet traffic, it's all on the same Layer 2 DOCSIS MAC layer.
You are still cracking me up trying to convince everyone your understand something you clearly have never worked around and are clearly a DSL user to boot.
Rest my case »Comcast to Raise Caps, Start Charging Overage Fees | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | EnasYorlThieves World
join:2001-12-02
West | Re: Gotta love thissaid by r81984:S
Why would you think an xbox has a docsis modem built in to bring bring that up? No one claimed this but you.
»Re: Gotta love this
Your xbox is going to get a public or at least an internet accessible ip address just like any other computer on your network or just share one internet IP on your router.
But the xbox comcast is going to route all data for the xbox on demand app through a different docsis channel or unused docsis space @ their modem to their private intranet ondemand servers.
Your xbox comcast ondemand traffic only works on the private network through their modem not the internet.
You claimed it private MAC Layer to DOCSIS modem then onto XBOX.
It's not the way the network works. Bone up on your education.
I'm not lying just pointing out you don't know what you're talking about. As you are just Trolling.
I'm well aware of how the Internet is built.
Do some reading »www.bgp4.as/internet-exchanges | |
|
| | | | | | | | r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | Re: Gotta love this See you just made things up as that is not what that quote says.
LOL
Have fun with your xbox with its built in docsis modem.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | 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. | |
|
| | | 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? | |
|
| | | So you are saying it is OK to add additional bandwidth to accommodate for your own services to not impair the customers experience while allowing similar competing services to impair the customer service by not adding that same additional bandwidth?
All while claiming the reason you must "manage" the network is to prevent congestion. Congestion they claim is at the node in which adding bandwidth would further congest.
Just doesnt make much sense to me. | |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: Graph of how it works The graph clearly shows that the user is getting over 100% of their purchased service. I don't get your point.
Comcast chose to put additional investment in THEIR network to run a new and separate IP (not Internet) service.
As far as the capacity congestion argument. It is moot for two reasons. 1) they are not prioritizing the bits and 2) proper capacity planning has kept them as a top performing ISP for years. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Graph of how it works So again I ask, "So you are saying it is OK to add additional bandwidth to accommodate for your own services to not impair the customers experience while allowing similar competing services to impair the customer service by not adding that same additional bandwidth?"
Yet it appears as though you are claiming that the xBox service is running through a whole new network that is independent of the internet service. Really? Do they need to run another line to my house for me to get this xbox service? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Graph of how it works They are two separate and distinct services with provisioned bandwidth per service to the home. Look at how Uverse and FiOS work. One exception: I believe Uverse TV does impact the Internet bandwidth.
All networks today run multiple services over IP infrastructures (aka convergence). This allows for economies of scale vs building a separate physical infrastructure for every service. If the requirement is to have a separate physical network, it would be highly inefficient and much more expensive for the service. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Graph of how it works You are completely wrong. They are the same "service" (ip packets getting routed) working over the same IP network. They are simply marking one of them to not be used against a cap.
I wont argue your uVerse and FiOS work, as I would say any IP routed packet that is treated differently than another over the same infrastructure is not being net neutral. IP phones, IPtv, IP games, IP video, IP anything that is routed through an IP network should all be equally "managed" no matter the source or destination.
This service also impacts the internet bandwidth, however, they are offsetting that by increasing the bandwidth for its usage. As it does for FiOS as any IP packet is going to take space on the network and there is no way around that. The difference with fiber is that you have so much damn bandwidth and scalability it doesnt matter.
I understand your last statement, mine was made in jest because of the stupidity of what was implied (see my first statement above). | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Graph of how it works This is network convergence and applicable to all today's providers. You would be hard pressed to find any ISP, carrier, etc, that does not use MPLS, QoS, or some other logical method to differentiate SLA based services across a common IP infrastructure.
Forcing operators to move to separate physical, dedicated infrastructures per service would be an enormous industry cost which would be reflected back into the service costs.
Net-neutrality is about the Internet and services specifically delivered over the Internet. | |
|
 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 | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
| | 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... | |
|
 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 | |
|
| | Well, of course they're not... and they've never forged any packets either (ha-ha). | |
|
| | 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. | |
|
| | | Re: The real answer from an Ex-Employee... The same as with any digital phone service from cable providers. They NEVER touch the PSTN until it reaches a customer outside of that network.
And if they wanted to get even braver they could count Sprint customers as being free calls even if they were LD due to TWC and others using Sprint as their wholesale provider. | |
|
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Comcast is protecting its turf... Comcast wants TV to remain TV.
They want you to watch TV on TV and have a predefined amount of Internet for other uses. (250 GB)
However, it's clear that the market is moving in the direction of TV being just like any other kind of Data. That's scares the crap out of Comcast, because it will undermine its entire business model. Again, the cap has nothing to do with preventing network congestion. There's already a system in place to do that in real time.
Comcast has tried to carve out a protected niche here where they argue that they have a private network going to an Xbox. Furthermore, they claim that a data cap enacted nearly 4 years ago is still adequate. What a crock.
--
"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 | |
|
| | Am I wrong? So please correct me if I'm wrong, but in simplistic terms...say I am on my pc watching a netflix movie, my roommate #1 is downloading some torrents (legal of course), roommate #2 is surfing...all which have maxed out my d/l bandwidth...and then roommate 3 fires up his Xbox to watch a movie via Comcast...Comcast is going to ADD enough bandwidth so he can watch his movie which is prioritized over the other things? Is this an overly simplistic view? | |
|
| | | Re: Am I wrong? you nailed it cable convert. | |
|
| | | Not overly simplistic but basically that's sorta what's going on.
As it stands now, instead of adding, Comcast just sends the data over an unused portion of the bandwidth your modem can do. If you have a 50Mbps plan with a D3 modem, it's the modem then limit the speeds to 50Mbps, it still has access to the rest of the bandwidth (100-300Mbps) and I guess if the Xbox Xfinity data is tagged as such, it just gets access to that other bandwidth that's not available to normal TCP packets.
While I agree this is "private" network, the only difference is below:
"ISP router" to CMTS to modem to my router to Xbox
vs
CDN to CMTS to Modem to my router to Xbox.
I'm sure Comcast doesn't have a bandwidth cap on their connection to the internet. AT&T/Verizon/L3 or whomever doesn't go, "Oh sorry Comcast, you can only use 50,000PB this month and nothing more or we'll charge you or cut you off" - In reality Comcast just pays for access to those backbones and if they want to dump 1Billion PetaBytes or 1 Thousand it doesn't matter. The router they have wont melt because it's doing more work either, it just might not be able to keep up. The problem is that if their customers use more data they'll have to upgrade the ISP Router(s) to handle the load and that's just not good business! Stock holders don't like seeing you spending money even if that means you'll have happier customers and therefore more willing to spend. Comcast rather getting by with what they have while charging more and therefore making a profit each quarter since costs hasn't gone up! | |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: Am I wrong? No CAP, but different economics. Instead of the monthly fee WE pay, Comcast has to pay capital for more for capacity growth - More QAM downstreams, more CMTS ports, more metro fiber, optics, routers, more backbone fiber, optics, routers, more interconnect ports, etc. | |
|
 JimThePCGuyFormerly known as schja01.Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-27
Morton Grove, IL | Why is this different that what UVerse does? UVerse does exactly what Comcast is doing. It has for years. They deliver their own TV via IP but it's not counted against and caps. | |
|
| | Spoofing Xbox360 traffic Would be nice if there was a way to spoof Xbox 360 traffic to avoid the cap. I bet they do the QoS based on IP addresses though. Doing it based on ports would be stupid. | |
|
| | Wasted investment? The thing that really sucks about this is that I do in fact agree that net neutrality is being violated here and it's time for the caps to go. But my family likes the Xfinity service on XBL. (I'm not a big fan, but my wife, son, and daughter are.) Being that we have only one provider in my neighborhood (Comcast) it sucks that this argument is likely to change this service in some capacity eventually.
Being a CCNA I definitely agree that Comcast is playing shenanigans with the description of the inner workings of this service. This service could leave Comcast's network easily since it is IP based. It is duplicitous that they are stating that the fact it does not route through the internet cloud as the reason this doesn't violate net neutrality.
Blame this on the Comcast management executives who are only interested in LARGE profits and uncompetitive behavior over modest profits and competition. This service could and should be available to anyone wishing to subscribe to it. Not just Comcast cable subscribers.
If you really think about it, the whole requirement that you must be a Comcast cable subscriber is actually a limitation to the money this service could make for Comcast were it available to all on the internet. But hey, corporations have been willing to "cut their nose off to spite their face" for years.
HBO Go seems to be caught in this very same dichotomy. HBO Go is great but its useless to me since I already own a Tivo and record anything good on HBO already. As far as my household goes HBO is a complete waste of investment dollars from HBO. I imagine there are a lot of households like mine as well. Xfinity and HBO Go could make loads more money if they were available to all. | |
|
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | They say necessity is the mother of invention... I say if there was ever the time for an invention to get rid of incumbents, it's well overdue. We need for telcos the become irrelevant now. And the only sway its going to happen is to have a last mile technology that works kind of like wifi does today.
We need wifi to become not the last meters, but the last mile. | |
|
| | Comcast Advertisement listed under there Business services. Talk about false advertiseing there add says that there product is more reliable than T-1 service! I wonder how many people buy into there BS! Comcast does not have any kind of internet product even close to the reliability of a T-1. There plant is mainly aerial cause it was much cheaper to build and goes out everytime the wind blows. I can not beleive they would even say that. That is a outrageous LIE! Anyone that knows anything about Telephony knows there service is not as reliable as a T-1 circuit. | |
|
|
|
