Comcast Defends Cap-Exempt Xbox 360 Video Service → Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one

Comcast makes a good point here even though it is a narrow technical one. The Xbox is nothing but another STB. And delivering the video using IP instead of QAM is where all cable video is going anyway.

If the cable companies switching to IP delivery means it is now covered by net neutrality rules, it would never be implemented. And clearly the FCC never intended that switching from QAM to IP would invoke net neutrality rules.

It is not "just another STB". That argument is invalid. If you were to argue that it's a set top box then you'd also have to concede that it's a special STB capable of delivering video from different providers including Netflix. So what do you end up with? A STB that prefers Comcast video over any other. Still a problematic situation.

No. The argument for capping was that they didn't have enough last-mile bandwidth. This uses last-mile bandwidth.

The only way I could see it justified is if it were IP delivery through an internal modem on a cable box, and that modem used a separate DOCSIS channel that's not shared by HSI.

Nope... it uses the same last mile network Comcast says is vulnerable to congestion from "heavy users." Data is data... the only difference is how Comcast decides to treat it... as the plentiful resource it actually is or endangered by a data tsunami that forces them to charge more for less service.

When Comcast puts their mind to it, they can magically create an infinite pipeline for favored content, but the Internet they have been selling at enormous profits for a decade is constrained by a small percentage of "heavy users" they have to limit and throttle.

Ironic, isn't it?

'It's not on the Internet because it just isn't' does nothing to answer why there is a 250GB cap on broadband and no cap on this.

and be glad that they don't boot those heavy users right away.

And again; its Comcast's network; their content; they can put it in their private network as they see fit. They don't care about something of Netflix or Youtube and shouldn't. It's NOT their product. The same as with Vonage. It does NOT get QOS it's a regular Internet product and thus treated as that.

But what we do not know is if Comcast has some device from Microsoft to allow for this to happen and stay on the Network.

Exactly. It's all about the last-mile, and this goes totally against that.

The weird part is that the 250GB cap doesn't affect even heavy Netflix or Amazon users, or users of DirecTV's VOD, as they just wouldn't get anywhere near it, so it's not really protecting their own VOD. They also don't seem to enforce it evenly, even though they finally did give a number.

They must be foreseeing the day when there is a full OTT option, although snuffing out a competitor, while it is helpful to them, DirecTV and Dish still have DBS systems, other cable companies still overbuild them, and AT&T and Verizon still have their systems. And triple play bundles still cement their dominance over piecing services together, at least until everyone finally dumps their landlines.

The TiVo Premiere and Elite will offer access to Comcast's On Demand library some time this year. The way that will work is that the requests will go out over TCP/IP, but will be delivered via QAM so it will bypass the cap as well (at least in the video direction). So basically it will work as a STB like it does now, but the back-channel will be done over the Internet.

TiVo also offers access to Netflix, Amazon, etc. So would the TiVo not be considered a STB in this case?

Technically the 250 GB cap and the network congestion management are completely separate. It's possible to reach the 250 GB cap without ever triggering the network management and it's possible to trigger the network management without being anywhere near the 250 GB cap.

Comcast said that the XBox 360 video service won't count towards the cap, but no where did they state that it will be exempt from the network congestion management.

Still leaves open the questions of how much and how.

If they are making their live TV programming available on an IPTV platform using multicast, only one copy of any given stream exists on a given cable node regardless of how many people are watching it, which is a lot more efficient than doing the same thing with over-the-top unicast.

In that case, you are doing essentially the same thing as SDV does, except now you have the option of letting Internet traffic use unused video capacity.

With today's PVRs, cablecos could achieve almost the exact same result by letting their PVRs act as SDV/QAM-to-IP bridges on your LAN.

In some ways, it could be argued that network neutrality would effectively forbid cablecos from deploying more efficient and flexible methods of delivering services... and consumer will end up paying for it in other ways.

If they are claiming they are separate, then the 250GB cap has no legitimate reason to exist. I call for FCC investigation.

@InvalidError: Can the modems do multicast? That is an interesting point, although it doesn't sound like it is true. For VOD, however, it's all unicast.

You guys are crazy.. don't you have some linux distros to download?

Seriously, this is a Comcast product running on the comcast service. AT&T runs a full on IP video service and also tries to operate under caps. You don't see U-verse being counted against their 150gb caps do you?

This is a clear case of "because it's comcast" at play here.

Comcast own the network.. comcast is, first and foremost, a video TV provider and an internet and phone operator second. This is a case where I side with Comcast a they have the right to operate a service and utilize their lines to do so.

As it was CLEARLY mentioned by Karl, the great instigator, you must be a subscriber to comcast video and HSI.. it's clearly just a service to the consumer.

I, for one, do not have a cable box any more as I have MCE running my service with cablcards and extenders. There are people who Tivo and cable cards. I think those consumers should, as comcast VIDEO subscribers, have access to OnDemand content with out the "he has more peas than me" cry-babies feeling butt-hurt. The OnDemand content being delivered is the same OnDemand content being pushed out over the cable box.. this is definitely a case of "it's another cable box".. they are not competing with NetFlix, or others, ... you can't simply subscribe to this OnDemand service ala cart. It's an extension of the current video service provided.

I swear this stuff gets old sometimes. On one hand people bitch that you get cut out of OnDemand if you "don't take their crappy cable box".. so here is an opportunity for their customers, without "their crappy cable box" and "their extortion rental fee" to have access to OnDemand... but yet, some people want to cry foul and want Comcast, a video provider, to compete on their own network with other providers... nice back door argument.

They can certainly operate a service on their own private IP network as they do phone. And, in case you're wondering, there is a new config file pushed to the modem for this service to work.

The AT&T cap was never legitimate from day 1, so there's no much to discuss other than complain about it. VDSL is a private line, so there is no reason to cap or manage it. If they are running out of bandwidth farther up the chain, they should add more fiber.

It's fine if they want offer it, but they should count it towards the cap, or just get rid of the cap altogether, or make it higher for everyone.

I don't agree with the cap to be honest either.. but I know where they are coming from.

The fact is that if they did remove the cap, their video service IS bound to shrink.. if the video takes a great hit guess what?? ... so does their bottom line.

So, with that said, what happens is HSI becomes their dominant product for revenue. When this happens, HSI prices go up.. oh, now comes the consumer backlash from raising rates, or caps or meters.

Either way, the consumer needs to buck up and realize that the provider has to make a certain amount per month on average per customer to operate. The money is going to come from somewhere.

My big issue with the cap, with comcast, is that it's a definite cut-off cap.. and that i disagree with! .. that type of cap makes NO sense at all, but I do support their right to cap and overage if they wanted, (not saying I'd be happy with that either, but I'd support that over a solid cap and cut) or I'd support them simply offering an "unlimited" HSI with smart throttling when necessary for a much higher price.

The HSI line has changed it's primary use from a few years back when it was just for web surfing, email, porn and linux distros. With that it's only acceptable that the pricing model changes to meet the times as well.. Sorry guys, but not everything can keep going down down down down until it's almost nothing. Companies need to survive AND make a profit.

But, to cap and cut, yes, that is a way of killing competition. But still, in the terms of Xfinity OnDemand, I don't care if they run it with out counting against the caps.. it's THEIR product and it's the same thing they offer over QAM.. it's not a service to compete. The argument that this is wrong because they put the SAME content available over QAM to the same subscribing customer over their own last mile IP just doesn't hold up, except for those wanting their 5 minutes of "gotcha"...

If people are going to come here and bitch, at least be honest about it and look at both sides. To not look at both sides makes you an extremist... news flash, most people here are extremist in their views. (they can't see ANY view but their own selfish view. Hrmm.. I wonder where else we've seen this behavior before)

It's an issue of net neutrality, as IP-based services can offer a lot more interactivity than 10-year-old Motorola clunker cable boxes. Just because they haven't done anything more than an equivalent to what the Moto boxes have doesn't mean that they won't.

Yes, they have to make money, but at the same time they should be neutral to all traffic over their network. If they want unlimited for their own service, then they should be forced to give unlimited to everyone else.

O.K.

Nope! ... Tell that to AT&T's U-verse. Comcast has every right as a video provider to use their own lines to extend the reach of their existing service over their last mile internet. Since this service goes over their own network and doesn't hit the internet cloud I believe your net neutrality cry doesn't apply here.

It's sold as an internet connection, not as a connection to Comcast's private IP network. U-Verse is different, as the IP video traffic is separated out before it gets to the consumer as an "internet" connection.

I agree with you fiberguy. Comcast has every right to use their network to make as much money as they possibly can. In fact, I'll go further and offer that they are OBLIGATED to use it to make their shareholders as rich as possible.

However, that doesn't mean they haven't just stepped in a bit of mud.

The ISP industry has spent years convincing consumers that limits/throttling are necessary to control bandwidth consumption. Without checks, bandwidth usage will spiral out of control and cause unsustainable last mile upgrades. Regardless of the real truth, the concept/argument/theory sounds logical.

Now comes Comcast telling us that using the XBox with their own service is exempt from limits/throttling vs. using the XBox with NetFlix. This doesn't sound rational, does it? While NetFlix uses more Internet drain capacity (and this is certainly not free nor unlimited), I've never read that this is where the truly expensive problems exist nor have I read this is where growth cannot be sustained.

... not in the least. .Sorry.. not sure where you're getting that from at all.

It doesn't run over your home LAN. The RG separates it onto HPNA.