dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14063
share rss forum feed

dscline

join:2001-09-01
Atlanta, GA

1 recommendation

reply to lancguy

Re: [Caps] Please sign the petition to raise or eliminate the ca

said by lancguy:

a friend had a son downloading games for his x-box that he modded. She went over her limt 3 times and got cut. The only reason you would download games for a modded x-box is because you are illegally acquiring them.

My brother downloads music and games for his nitendo. He got notified when his daughter was streaming ESPN on her x-box.

People who run bit-torrent often get flagged, I find it hard to believe that it is because they are sharing legal files....

Excellent logic... some people who pirate go over the caps, therefore people who go over their caps must be pirates.

And for those using netflix or you tube, well they are essentially using networks provided by an ISP for nothing.

Really?!? I didn't realize Netflix didn't have any costs associated with their internet access. And I could have sworn that I paid for my internet access. But obviously I must be wrong.


nerdburg
Premium
join:2009-08-20
Schuylkill Haven, PA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to captastic
said by captastic :

Just because a select few people refuse to accept defined limits around a paid service doesn't mean they will go away. If you want a different/unlimited service, buy a different unlimited service that is priced accordingly to what you are getting.

I already pay a premium for "Extreme" service and I have the same cap as someone subscribed to Economy Service. I understand "unlimited" service is a can of worms for Comcast, but it would be nice if they would at least consider raising the cap for certain speed tiers. I would be willing to pay more for unlimited service, but Comcast does not offer an unlimited data plan for residential customers. Even Extreme 105 customers that pay $200/month still get the same cap as everyone else.


PeteC2
Got Mouse?
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by nerdburg:

I already pay a premium for "Extreme" service and I have the same cap as someone subscribed to Economy Service. I understand "unlimited" service is a can of worms for Comcast, but it would be nice if they would at least consider raising the cap for certain speed tiers. I would be willing to pay more for unlimited service, but Comcast does not offer an unlimited data plan for residential customers. Even Extreme 105 customers that pay $200/month still get the same cap as everyone else.

And that is why I support this effort. Personally, at the performance tier, the cap does not bother me...so far...but, like most folks, I will only be using more and more capcity as services continue to proliferate.

Besides, I absolutely agree that those folks who are paying for the higher speed tiers should get a correspondingly larger cap, at the bare minimum.
--
Deeds, not words


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
Looks like Comcast's exemption from its 250GB data cap of the VoD content streamed to the Xbox 360 (»Comcast Xfinity for Xbox launching soon (possibly next week)) is helping Public Knowledge to make its case (»www.broadcastingcable.com/articl···lans.php) against data caps:

PK Slams Comcast in Push for Data Cap Inquiry
Comcast says data caps do not apply to XfinityTV On Demand content
Broadcasting & Cable - March 26, 2012
»www.broadcastingcable.com/articl···uiry.php

"Public Knowledge Monday continued to press the FCC to look into usage caps.

After using reports of the new Apple iPad consuming large chunks of data plans to call for investigations into wireless data caps, Public Knowledge followed up with a jab to Comcast's midsection Monday over its wired pricing, and threatened the roundhouse punch of network neutrality to make its point that the FCC should get serious about investigating data limits.

Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn was responding to reports that Comcast was not counting the Xfinity video service it offers through Xbox against its broadband data caps, but was doing so for other video services via Xbox.

"The reports that Comcast is offering a video product through the Xbox 360 without the data counting toward the customer's data cap raises questions not only of the justification for the caps but, more importantly, of the survival of an open Internet," she said. "This type of arrangement is exactly the type of situation the Federal Communications Commission's rules on the open Internet were designed to prevent -- that an Internet Service Provider juggles the rules to give itself an advantage over a competitor. This is nothing less than a wake-up call to the Commission to show it is serious about protecting the open Internet. It also shows, once again, that the Commission should take the first steps toward understanding data caps."

Comcast says that the Xfinity service does not violate FCC rules.

"Comcast is committed to an open Internet and has pledged to abide by the FCC's Open Internet rules -- and our policies with respect to XfinityTV and the Xbox 360 fully comply with those rules and our commitments," the company said in a statement. "Any XfinityTV service that travels over the public Internet, including XfinityTV.com and our Xfinity TV app on mobile devices, counts toward our data usage threshold, as they always have. The Xfinity On Demand content that we will deliver to Xbox 360 will not travel over the public Internet and is delivered in much the same way as we deliver your video service to your set-top box. Your Xbox 360 essentially acts as an additional cable box for your existing cable service via the Xbox 360. As a result, our data caps do not apply."

Asked whether PK would file a complaint at the FCC, a PK spokesman said he was not sure. The FCC's network neutrality rules went into effect last fall, but no complaints of violations have apparently ensued (an FCC spokesman was checking at press time), though the FCC has been sued over the rules by Verizon and MetroPCS.

Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood joined Public Knowledge in criticizing the Comcast practice, but suggested that, technically, there might not be any grounds for complaint.

The FCC's codified and expanded network neutrality rules do not apply to private networks, something Free Press criticized at the time.

"Comcast tries to justify preferred treatment for its own video on the Xbox 360 by claiming that the content is delivered over a private IP network rather than the public Internet. But not counting this video against a Comcast customer's monthly data limit gives the Comcast product an unfair advantage against other Internet video services," said Wood. "Unfortunately, such anti-competitive tricks may be allowed by loopholes in the FCC's Open Internet rules, proving once again that the FCC failed to deliver on the promise of real Net Neutrality.""


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
A discussion about Comcast's data cap (with respect to the new XBox 360 VoD service) is also occurring in this thread: »Comcast Xfinity for Xbox launching soon (possibly next week)


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to lancguy
said by lancguy:

I can not for the life of me imagine anyone consistently going over the 250 gig limit.

»www.carbonite.com/en/?catid=goog···od-BTv-Q

Also, Windows Live Essentials, Picsa, Flickr, and yes, Netflix and other VoD providers.

I have heard of people getting hit for the cap, and they are usually exclusively streaming movies and tv or, pirating (music, games, software). Which by the way pirating violates your TOS.

I've used Netflix and DTV VoD. And Knoppix and Aeriagames downloads use BitTorrent; Knoppix and AG games are large and free.adnumber=10258862221
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to lancguy
said by lancguy:

And for those using netflix or you tube, well they are essentially using networks provided by an ISP for nothing. It's how they keep the cost down. Who should be responsible for upkeeping those networks?

Netflix and Google (YouTube) pay plenty for infrastructure from their servers to their peers, and I pay plenty for my Internet connection. So who is getting this "free ride" Ed Whitacre (former SBC/AT&T CEO) spoke of?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

1 recommendation

An article today on the GigaOM site about all the controversary regarding Comcast’s Xbox VoD app's data cap exemption:

The technical and legal realities of Comcast’s Xbox cap spat
By Stacey Higginbotham, GigaOM - March 27, 2012
»gigaom.com/broadband/the-technic···ap-spat/

"What Comcast has done through its agreement with Microsoft is to create a specialized path through the public Internet. By conceding to Comcast’s demands over authentication and whatever else, Microsoft has extended Comcast’s network onto its device and created a fast lane over which Comcast bits can travel. I wrote about the theoretical worries with these managed services back in 2009 (»gigaom.com/2009/10/21/fcc-will-p···ty-push/), when the FCC was weighing whether or not those services should exist on a neutral Internet. From that post:

For example, AT&T allocates a chunk of its pipe for delivering IPTV and won’t let other web traffic interfere with that. In practice, this means a set percentage of AT&T’s pipes are walled off from regular web traffic so customers paying for the telco TV product get a great service. But it also means that when the percentage allocated for the regular web is congested, regular service degrades.

If taken too far, then carriers could protect their revenue streams and get around any net neutrality provisions by allocating more of their network for managed services rather than for the public Internet. The FCC is worried that a neutral public Internet that gets forced through a smaller pipe so that carriers can invest more on upgrades and capacity for managed services won’t be able to support the innovations of tomorrow.


The FCC gave up the fight on managed services because it’s hard to regulate a theoretical, especially one with so many potential benefits for subscribers. Instead the net neutrality rules punted (»gigaom.com/2010/12/28/who-wins-a···y-rules/) on the managed services topic, focusing on the definition of broadband access which left wireline providers free to offer managed services for enterprise customers. On the consumer side offering specialized services seems okay provided it was on a limited number of a devices and in a few other special cases.

But opponents looking at Comcast’s decision are focused instead of the section of the net neutrality order that deals with discrimination, as opposed to what constitutes the broadband services actually protected by the regulations. For example, Michael Weinberg, from Public Knowledge says it’s important to look at how to adapt the rules going forward as the web changes. “If managed services can mean anything as long as you can imagine them in the cable landscape circa 2010 it becomes this huge loophole.”

He stressed that Public Knowledge isn’t done forming a legal argument to fight Comcast’s behavior, but in his view it’s clearly a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the net neutrality regulations: In this case Comcast’s private IP network used to stream Xfinity packets is only private because Comcast owns the last mile. And the reason Microsoft may have ceded some control over to Comcast — and will enforce the pay TV status quo — is because it realized that without Comcast’s participation it might never get the chance to add value for Xbox buyers by bringing them the content they want.

For all of these reasons, any legal action that could stem from this spat will be worth watching. It will not only help define how network neutrality will work in an evolving broadband ecosystem, but it will show us where the power will lie in the new TV landscape governed by IP."


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
A reader's comment to the GigaOM article (»gigaom.com/broadband/the-technic···p-spat):

Dwayne Winseck's Media Blog
dwmw.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/co···trality/)
Wednesday, March 28 2012

The decisive factor in deciding whether Comcast can distribute its own tv-like services uncapped by way of the xBox might not be the 2009 FCC [Network Neutrality] rules, but the Comcast-NBC Universal take-over approval last year.

The “Comcast rules” set out there [state] that any Comcast service involving “caps, tiers, metering, or other usage-based pricing shall:

1. not treat affiliated network traffic differently from unaffiliated network traffic” (p. 38).

2. Offers the same facilities and capabilities to others on commercially equivalent terms(p. 38);

3. Even Comcast’s set-top boxes must adhere to the “broadband Internet access service rules” (pp. 38-40).

»transition.fcc.gov/transaction/c···bcu.html


sortofageek
Runs from Clowns
Premium,Mod
join:2001-08-19
kudos:23
It seems this thread is no longer about the original purpose: [Caps] Please sign the petition to raise or eliminate the cap
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .