US Cable Support > Comcast HSI > Comcast Xfinity for Xbox launching soon (possibly next week)

reply to JohnInSJ

Re: Comcast Xfinity for Xbox launching soon (possibly next week)

I'm a bit confused. I can use my Xfinity app on my Android phone anywhere, but I can't use my Xbox anywhere. Not sure I understand your comparison.

reply to GTFan

And how is this different from the app running on an iPad in your home, other than it's not connected to your TV? The answer is that it's not.

The problem that I have with the exclusion of the Xbox 360 VoD app's data from Comcast's residential HSI service cap is that it contradicts the rational that Comcast has been using to place the cap on it in the first place - to avoid having certain heavy users (aka "Data Hogs") in a given area degrade the service for most of the other users.

The arguments citing the current Network Neutrality rules probably won't go anywhere because of the many loopholes in them and Comcast's claims that they are only using their internal network/servers vs. the public internet.

However, I think the latest arguments, that the cap exclusion for the Xbox 360 VoD app violates Comcast's agreements that it made as part of its take-over of NBC Universal last year, are valid.

That agreement (»transition.fcc.gov/transaction/c···bcu.html) states that any Comcast service involving "caps, tiers, metering, or other usage-based pricing" shall not treat affiliated network traffic differently from unaffiliated network traffic and offer the same facilities and capabilities to others on commercially equivalent terms.

See: »dwmw.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/co···trality/

So, what then, do I think Comcast should do?

Some different possibilities:

1) Remove the cap on residential HSI service

2) Raise the cap to something more reasonable, like 1TB or more

3) Have the cap vary by HSI speed tier, with higher tiers having higher caps (e.g., Economy: 250GB, Performance: 500GB, Blast: 750GB, Extreme: 1 or 2TB, etc.)

4) Allow users to pay an extra fee for a higher cap (or an unlimited connection), regardless of speed tier

Personally, I'd favor either #3 or #4, as having no restrictions at all for everyone would probably lead to actual service slowdowns, especially during prime usage times.

If some users paid more for a higher cap (or no cap) then Comcast can use that extra income to add more capacity in problem areas.

Edit: I have now posted a poll thread for CHSI forum users to express what they think Comcast should do about the data cap now: »[Caps] What do you think Comcast should do now about its data ca

Another good article about all this on the Raw Story site:

Comcast exempts its new streaming video service from bandwidth caps
Raw Story - March 28, 2012
»www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/28/c···th-caps/

An excerpt:

"By exempting its own service from the company’s bandwidth caps, Comcast places its content rivals at a disadvantage that, on its face, appears to violate the principle of Internet neutrality, which the Federal Communications Commission mandated for the public Internet in rules (»www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/01/f···-agenda/) issued two years ago. Internet neutrality stipulates that all web traffic must be treated equally, which would seemingly prevent big corporations from prioritizing their traffic over small businesses, activist groups and others.

Comcast is getting around those rules by delivering Xfinity over a “private IP network,” it explained in a customer FAQ published this week. By drawing a distinction between “the public Internet” and its own high bandwidth “private” network, Comcast has proved its critics were right to suggest that weakened neutrality rules would lead to the creation of “super tiers,” (»www.itworld.com/internet/130565/···et-costs) where more bandwidth would be available to the owners, operators and, potentially, anyone who can pay enough.

Comcast and Netflix did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

Internet freedom activists have long warned that the “cableization” of the Internet was coming, and if Comcast were to open up its own “private IP network” to other major content providers — for a fee, of course — it would represent the creation of a super-tiered Internet of sorts, where moneyed players essentially run the show, forsaking the public Internet for the private Internet and hauling millions of users along with them into a new environment with entirely different rules.

It’s also not the first time Comcast has used its bandwidth resources to hurt a competitor and enrich itself: in 2010, Netflix partner Level 3 was forced into paying a reoccurring fee to “transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content.” (»www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/30/c···r-video/) They agreed under protest, saying their highest priority was averting service interruptions, which Comcast threatened if Level 3 did not pay up.

Critics compared the move to extortion and blackmail, but it was perfectly legal because no regulations at the time had addressed network operators charging tolls or blocking content. Now that those rules are solidified and “public Internet” traffic must be treated equally, network owners have been eyeing ways to further monetize their bandwidth resources.

Xfinity, it would seem, is just the beginning."

reply to GTFan

Which, again, has nothing to do with what I said. I give up, we'll have to agree to disagree.

A blog item on the Media Matters for America website:

Degrading Net Neutrality In Plain Sight
By Simon Maloy, Media Matters for America - March 29, 2012
»mediamatters.org/blog/201203290003

An excerpt:

"When the FCC passed the Open Internet Order in December 2010, which put in place regulatory strictures for network neutrality, a number of public interest groups raised the alarm over potential loopholes internet service providers could exploit to get around the spirit of the rules. Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access Project said the rules "foreshadow years of uncertainty and regulatory confusion, which those carriers will use to their advantage." Craig Aaron of Free Press said they "don't do enough to stop the phone and cable companies from dividing the Internet into fast and slow lanes, and they fail to protect wireless users from discrimination."

It's looking like they were prescient on this one. In the last month, two internet service providers have proposed new plans that, while they appear to technically comport with the FCC's Open Internet Order, nonetheless threaten the principles undergirding net neutrality.

Outside The Xbox

On March 23, Comcast quietly announced that usage of their soon-to-be-released XFINITY streaming video service for Microsoft's Xbox 360 console will not count against the 250 gigabyte cap the ISP puts on monthly data usage for residential customers.

Per Comcast's FAQ page on XFINITY TV:

[Note that the original wording of it is shown here, not the latest revised one (»gigaom.com/video/comcast-xbox-faq-update/) - telcodad]

Q: Will XFINITY On Demand content a customer views via the Xbox 360 go against their bandwidth cap?

A: No, since the content is being delivered over our private IP network and not the public Internet, it does not count against a customer's bandwidth cap. XFINITYTV.com and the XFINITY TV app stream content over the public Internet and count toward the customer's bandwidth cap.

What Comcast is doing by offering this streaming video all-you-can-eat buffet through their private network is prioritizing their own content. Think of it this way: if you're a Comcast subscriber and you want to watch a movie online but are worried about bumping up against the monthly data cap, you're incentivized to watch that movie via XFINITY on your Xbox, rather than through "public internet" providers like Netflix. It has less to do with consumer choice than it does with which services Comcast favors.

The FCC says companies like Comcast that provide "broadband Internet access service" shouldn't use that service to prioritize their own content (or enter into financial arrangements with outside content developers to favor their content) because it's wildly anti-competitive. What's at issue, though, is how the FCC defines "broadband Internet access service."

The FCC order's definition of "broadband Internet access service" specifically excludes "content delivery network services," which is what Comcast is using to deliver their streaming video to the Xbox. To borrow from the late Sen. Ted Stevens, if you think of the internet as a tube, then content delivery networks are smaller tubes within that tube devoted exclusively to providing specific services. There's a techno-wonky debate over whether content delivery networks should count as part of "the internet," but since the FCC says no (at least from the regulatory viewpoint), Comcast can argue that they're still in compliance with the Open Internet Order.

Consumer advocacy groups like Public Knowledge say Comcast is violating the "spirit of net neutrality" by transforming "the competitive online video marketplace into a two-tiered world, where its own online video doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else's.""

Comcast can try and justify the Xbox VoD app's exclusion from the cap anyway they want, but it is inconsistent with their other "private network" apps for other devices that use their HSI IP service in the home (on TiVos, etc.), that still have their data use subject to the cap.

Why aren't their Comcast-supplied apps "essentially acting as an additional cable box for your existing cable service" like the Xbox?

I think this "horse" may still have some life in her yet!

Apparently, I'm not the only person to see this inconsistancy:

Reed Hastings: "I want my HBO Go"
Netflix chief complains about Comcast broadband loophole
Variety - March 30, 2012
»www.variety.com/article/VR1118052125

Reed Hastings says:

"Comcast: I'm paying you a lot of money for HBO, so please let me watch HBO Go on my TV," Hastings wrote. "I want my HBO Go."

For Hastings to come to the defense of HBO Go is more than a little odd given he's repeatedly referred to it and HBO in general as competitive threats.

But Hastings hints at an ulterior motive later in his Facebook post: "Once I get HBO Go on my Xbox, then it will be strange that streaming 'Game of Thrones' from the HBO Go app on my Xbox will count against my Comcast Internet cap, but when I watch those same 'Game of Thrones' streams through the Comcast app on Xbox, over the same Wifi connection to my Xbox, then it will not count against my cap. Hmmm…"

Nor I, but you can't convince John of this. For some reason if you can stream it from anywhere it's subject to cap, even though that has nothing to do with getting it on the same network that your Xbox lives on.
And I'm not talking about HBO Go, which presumably comes from public servers - I'm talking about Xfinity on Demand on an iPad vs. the app on an Xbox, which presumably both come from Comcast servers and therefore never leave their network.

So quick question:

I have Xfinity video and internet. I go over to my son's house to help him take care of his children. He has Xfinity internet only and an Xbox 360. Can I activate/login with my account on his Xbox so we are able to watch more things when I am over there?

reply to dtherbert