Comcast 360 Video Won't Count Against Your Cap Xfinity 360 Video Beta Expands to Microsoft, Comcast Employees Monday Mar 26 2012 12:27 EDT As we noted back in October, both Comcast and Verizon were planning to offer some of their video content via broadband on the Xbox 360. Verizon's service has already launched but is somewhat lacking upon closer inspection, with customers needing an Xbox Live Gold subscription and both FiOS TV and Internet subscriptions to access about 26 channels -- which they can already get on existing set tops at higher quality. Comcast's now preparing their launch, and like Verizon the service will require you subscribe to both Xfinity TV and broadband services. There's no word yet on a full launch, but Engadget notes that the beta test has been expanding among Microsoft and Comcast employees. A poster over at the AVS forum noticed the Comcast website for the service is already up and running. It contains a FAQ with additional information including the fact that unlike Verizon, Comcast won't be offering live TV programs. The FAQ also notes that the service will not count against the Comcast 250 GB monthly cap: quote:
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.
Comcast has generally avoided any neutrality complaints since their run in with the FCC, going out of their way to ensure their Internet video-based services don't impact the cap -- thereby not giving their own services a leg up. While Comcast's arguing that this service runs over their private IP network so this isn't a neutrality violation, some may not see it that way. Then again, all they're really doing is using the 360 as a glorified cable box with less content than usual. |
 | |
SHoTTa35
Anon
2012-Mar-26 11:44 am
Wait - huh?A: No, since the content is being delivered over our private IP network and not the public Internet....
That doesn't make too much sense. I can see that they setup to stream this stuff to Xbox Live servers directly from them but from Xbox Live to me is over the "public internet". As it stands now they Xbox live bandwidth counts against caps. So unless the app is reporting to Comcast what bandwidth it used then they minus it from the traffic?
They can be "private IP network" all they want but there's noway for my Xbox to reach their private network then. | |
|  | | |
Re: Wait - huh?If they have a CDN running on their network then they can certainly reach this Private IP network. It's not touching the "Public" internet until it crosses the edge of their network. | |
| | | | |
SHoTTa35
Anon
2012-Mar-26 12:02 pm
Re: Wait - huh?Well i assumed they did but i'm guessing the data goes like this: Comcast - private network - Xbox Live Servers - Public internet - Me. All traffic to the Xbox goes over specific IP and port which is a routeable address so unless Comcast is doing some extra stuff that i'm too dumb to understand? I'm an IT guy too but still some stuff is just over my head  I'm just having trouble thinking of how they'd get to me without crossing public internet since I am connected to public internet Maybe the app creates a VPN to comcast? :dunno: | |
| | | | | |
Re: Wait - huh?Iss easy, comcast gave microsoft a connection on their network. So that this app connects to microsoft xbox servers over that comcast connection. This way it never goes outside comcasts network. | |
| | | | | | |
SHoTTa35
Anon
2012-Mar-26 1:38 pm
Re: Wait - huh?Ah wait, think i got it now.
Xbox - Microsoft - Comcast - Hey give me data! - Comcast directly to Xbox - Here you go.
Since it's basically comcast to comcast (Server to Modem) then. I'm guess then it never leaves the network. In that case. I was just thinking of the part about ports since the Xbox only opens 3074 for it's use. | |
| | | | | | |
to majortom1029
They are likely peering with Microsoft at several IXs around the country. | |
| | | | | | |
to majortom1029
said by majortom1029:Iss easy, comcast gave microsoft a connection on their network. So that this app connects to microsoft xbox servers over that comcast connection. This way it never goes outside comcasts network.
But the congestion Comcast claims exists at their nodes. Private or public internet, all traffic must go through the node you're connected to. There's obviously no congestion at the core, where you can see how prices have dropped like a crater. | |
|
| | |  djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:4 ·Time Warner Cable
|
to SHoTTa35
I assume it will work like U-verse does.
Think of the XBox Live subscription as buying access to the software. XBox Live authentication happens over the public internet as usual.
When you go to watch content, the XBox requests the video through the private network (and thus doesn't count against your cap). The video doesn't go through Microsoft's servers. | |
| | | |  DocDrewaka DrDrew
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:22 |
to SHoTTa35
Ummm... this is for Comcast customers only. Optimum customers aren't getting this. | |
|
| | BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
EARTH |
to battleop
The thing is, their excuse is still fundamentally BS for not counting it against the caps, because the reason for caps is the limited bandwidth on the DOCSIS cable system, not in the core of the network. There is never an excuse for a lack of bandwidth in the core network, as they can always just add more fiber. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Wait - huh?said by BiggA:The thing is, their excuse is still fundamentally BS for not counting it against the caps, because the reason for caps is the limited bandwidth on the DOCSIS cable system, not in the core of the network. There is never an excuse for a lack of bandwidth in the core network, as they can always just add more fiber.
Caps don't even address congestion at a node. Congestion occurs during peak hours, and everyone watching youtube or listening to music in the evening is equally contributing to congestion. Someone downloading 4 TB of torrents at 3 AM isn't affecting the network in the slightest. | |
|
|  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO |
to SHoTTa35
can we say "Anti-Trust" this is almost exactly like the BS the railroads tried to pull in the 1800's and early 1900's » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh ··· rman_Act"To protect the consumers by preventing arrangements designed, or which tend, to advance the cost of goods to the consumer". id say this counts | |
| | |  ·Verizon FiOS
|
cableties
Premium Member
2012-Mar-26 12:57 pm
Re: Wait - huh?said by elios:can we say "Anti-Trust"
this is almost exactly like the BS the railroads tried to pull in the 1800's and early 1900's
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh ··· rman_Act
"To protect the consumers by preventing arrangements designed, or which tend, to advance the cost of goods to the consumer".
id say this counts
Interesting... | |
| | | | | |
talz13
Member
2012-Mar-26 1:55 pm
Re: Wait - huh?Does that apply if they don't charge for overages, they just disconnect you? | |
|
| | | |
to elios
the sherman acts were some of the most Unconstitutional pieces of legislation ever passed in American history.
Where, outside of the sherman act and many New Deal-era legislation, that should also be rendered Unconstitutional, is it the government's responsibility to protect consumers from expensive products and services? Thats not written anywhere in the Constitution. The founders were extremely laissez faire, b/c they had first hand experience with how governments distort markets, cause prices to increase, and pick favorites.
But aside from all this, i still dont see how this could possibly be construed as Anti-Trust, when according to the Sherman Act it would have to "advance the cost of goods". Not sure how that's happening:
"Q: What will this cost customers?
A: The Xfinity experience on the Xbox 360 is available at no additional cost for customers subscribing to Xfinity Digital service with High Speed Internet who also have an Xbox LIVE Gold subscription." | |
| | | | | |
Re: Wait - huh?You are not seeing all the hidden cost.
Even if the cost never once go up, the act of violating the Sherman Act can keep the cost to consumers inflated. I'm not saying this is a violation of that, I am simply pointing out to you that just because cost does not directly go up, does not mean that consumers are paying the price they would if there was competition. If you want to know what prices should actually be for consumers, look in markets that actually have competition, if you can find one (3 or more providers).
If you are going to minimize our constitution to a piece of paper that says only what a government can do, then you miss pretty much the entire point of the constitution. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: Wait - huh?said by Skippy25:If you are going to minimize our constitution to a piece of paper that says only what a government can do, then you miss pretty much the entire point of the constitution.
last i checked, that's exactly the point of the Constitution. Have you read the Federalist or Anti-Federalist papers? the entire point of the Constitution was to tell the government explicitly and precisely what it was legally allowed to do. We grant the government it's rights by loaning it a small portion of our liberties. It can't create new rights for us since the people and the states already own ALL rights except those we lent to the Federal government. and slightly more on topic, how does the government always know whats best for the consumer? does it have a crystal ball that predicts the effects of every decision a business makes? they cant even predict the effects of it's OWN decisions well. But...back on topic, i still dont see a problem with this. it's a benefit to consumers. If comcast made a deal with microsoft that all traffic done via your xbox didnt go against your cap, would you really throw anti-trust laws and the FCC at them? isnt that a benefit? you cant turn a benefit of one company into a negative for another and then cry fairness. how would ANY company provide better services? they wouldnt. it's pathetic that this is even debatable as a possible violation of anti-trust laws when this clearly benefits customers in every aspect of the term. | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: Wait - huh?No, I would not throw antitrust laws at them as I dont believe this is an antitrust violation, I believe it is a net neutrality violation and should be dealt with accordingly. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Re: Wait - huh?there's no such thing as neutrality. you may desire to keep companies and services neutral with each other, but what if it comes at the expense of the consumer? if you believe this to be against so-called net neutrality because comcast would be favoring it's partnership with microsoft's xbox live over non-existing partnerships with netflix, hulu, amazon, etc, what about me? what if im a comcast subscriber and i want to use xbox live to stream TV? doesnt this now HURT me? how is that neutral? | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Wait - huh?Based on that response I would suggest you go do some research on network neutrality and then come back with an educated and relevant remark.
Your attempt to make the neutrality argument consumer based instead of content/network based shows your lack of understanding about the entire issue to advance this discussion any further.
But to answer your "its all about me" question.... you should be able to use your xBox to stream TV if you want and they have enabled it. I have absolutely no issue with that. However, you should be able to do that at the same cost (or no less than the cost) that I should be able to stream IPTV from another source or to another "box" like an HTPC. I would even concede this being perfectly fine not counting against your caps if ALL traffic that stays on their network does not count against caps as well. All traffic means that it doesnt matter if it is emails, streaming TV, torrents, music, linux distros, or games. If the origin of the source and the destination is on the Comcast network then it doesnt count against a cap.
NOTE: In order for you to understand my comments in the preceding paragraph you would have had to do what was recommended in the first paragraph. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Wait - huh?i do thoroughly understand NN. however, i think it's implecations are beyond your understanding. You claim it's merely about keeping content/networks unbiased when in reality it's about "fairness". if i have comcast, i want benefits to using comcast. if one of those benefits allows me to stream more content from xbox, or hulu, or amazon prime than from netflix, so be it. forcing a company to remove such a benefit, or preventing one from ever occurring, is not fair to me. i use netflix. i love netflix. But if comcast's service, or Hulu plus, or xyz subscription offered a better experience and comcast offered no cap hit for it, i'd have no problem using it instead. If it's not as good as netflix, i can keep paying for netflix and i wont be penalized.
If comcast actively creates penalties for using netflix, and not your negative benefits those like you like to call penalties, it might just be time to ditch comcast or move to business class. or i could use my unlimited VZW LTE to stream netflix instead. i wont be hurting, and i hate statists trying to push national legislation to help some people while it hurts many others. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Wait - huh?I has nothing to with fairness from the consumer perspective so stop trying to ride that horse. Again, your reply shows you have no clue what NN is actually about so I am done with you.
One last thing and hopefully this will make it clear to you based on the stupidity of your very last sentence. The entire point of NN is that no one gets "hurt" while some people get "helped" because both of them have the exact same fair opportunity to get the service they want without having any loopholes or hoops to jump through. The entire fact that you even mention one group is helped while the other is hurt shows the exact reason why NN is needed and that you dont understand it.
So learn what NN is and then maybe you can try your hand at another discussion some time as I am done with you and your lack of knowledge concerning this one. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Wait - huh?said by Skippy25:I has nothing to with fairness from the consumer perspective so stop trying to ride that horse. Again, your reply shows you have no clue what NN is actually about so I am done with you.
One last thing and hopefully this will make it clear to you based on the stupidity of your very last sentence. The entire point of NN is that no one gets "hurt" while some people get "helped" because both of them have the exact same fair opportunity to get the service they want without having any loopholes or hoops to jump through. The entire fact that you even mention one group is helped while the other is hurt shows the exact reason why NN is needed and that you dont understand it.
So learn what NN is and then maybe you can try your hand at another discussion some time as I am done with you and your lack of knowledge concerning this one.
lol you dont seem capable of thinking past the immediate effects of NN. i have not been talking about those, but of the unintended consequences that statists refuse to acknowledge. when you introduce market-distorting legislation there will be many unintended outcomes. in this case, i believe it will hurt many consumers who would have been able to pay less for one service or to utilize it more than another. When you let statists create laws, it hurts everybody, period. when you limit the choices a business can make, you limit how they can make money, shed costs, expand services/products, or lower prices. that is exactly what NN would do: restrict the abilities of internet-based companies to respond and adapt to market changes. this deters innovation, which hurts consumers. i bet youre also one that believes broadband, housing, and health insurance (not health care, but insurance) is a right. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Wait - huh?Your an idiot in saying that not having an open internet will hurt consumers from getting products/services they want when it will do 100% the opposite.
Spin it how you will, but if an ISP is forced to deliver every packet without discrimination then their entire user base is able to get (to their satisfaction) every products/services they want. You claiming anything else is shear silliness from every possible angle you can come from.
And so there is no confusion, discrimination of packets includes, but is not limited to:
Prioritizing based on partnerships
Placing arbitrary caps on service
Working around caps based on partnerships
In everyone of those cases I have listed, there are losers and winners when the ISP implements them. This goes toward both the consumers and the businesses they choose to favor or turn away. | |
|
| | | | | Wyngs
join:2010-02-20
Coos Bay, OR
1 edit |
to Somnambul33t
said by Somnambul33t:said by Skippy25:If you are going to minimize our constitution to a piece of paper that says only what a government can do, then you miss pretty much the entire point of the constitution.
last i checked, that's exactly the point of the Constitution. Have you read the Federalist or Anti-Federalist papers? the entire point of the Constitution was to tell the government explicitly and precisely what it was legally allowed to do. this clearly benefits customers in every aspect of the term.
On the contrary. The Constitution is a document that places LIMITS on what the government can do. It was never meant to list all the things it could do - an obvious impossibility.
| |
|
| | | elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO |
to Somnambul33t
you miss the point the fact is it doesnt count in to your comcast data cap
there for making it same as when the oil co. bought up the railroads
any one else had to pay more wile the oil co. got effectively a free ride
bottom line every one elses prices go up
same thing here
want to watch netflix your going to pay more at some point since netflix will count in to your data cap
were Comcast own streaming doesnt
how is that fair? it give comcasts service an unfair advantage over any one else | |
| | | | |  danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA |
Re: Wait - huh?hmmmm guess Section 8 on enumerated powers is overrated... and no neither the new deal nor the sherman act are unconstitutional. Please actually read the document and its amendments. It give the government a massive amount of power and there is nothing it about size or limits of. It in fact allows the government to take care of its people in pretty far reaching ways and means.
That said the fcc should have classified all these carriers are common carriers and these issues would have never materialized. As it is they are classified as information services which dramatically limits what the FCC can regulate. | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: Wait - huh?said by danclan:It give the government a massive amount of power and there is nothing it about size or limits of. It in fact allows the government to take care of its people in pretty far reaching ways and means.
i dont want the government to "take care of" me. i want it to leave me the hell alone. it was never created to coddle the people, only to protect their liberties from other people and governments. a voluntary contract or trade between 2 companies, 2 individuals, or a company and an individual is the product of a market no government could ever begin to understand. why do people continue insisting that a government of faceless, largely unelected paper pushers knows better than you, i, or these companies whats in our own self interests? if you can't predict markets, neither can a government, yet the government has the ability to try, and it always fails. every single time. if preventing 1 company from providing a benefit to its customers (streaming xbox TV not counting against caps) is considered "consumer protection", then leave me the hell alone. i think can take care of my self, thanks. | |
|
| | | bklass
Premium Member
join:2012-02-06
Canada
kudos:4 |
to Somnambul33t
As part of the 2011 Comcast-NBC Universal merger, Comcast was forced to agree to the following: According to the “Comcast rules”, 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. offer the same facilities and capabilities to others on commercially equivalent terms(p. 38);
3. insure that even its set-top boxes adhere to the “broadband Internet access service rules” (pp. 38-40).
SourceSherman Act or not, and IANAL statements about the Constitutionality of tested legislation aside, Comcast explicitly agreed not to conduct the very practices it is drawing fire for at the moment. | |
|
| pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2 |
to SHoTTa35
Just wait until we have IP6 and ISP's can monitor every device we have, and shape or deny traffic to and from each and every one. | |
| | | BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
EARTH |
BiggA
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 12:24 pm
Re: Wait until IP6That's one of the main reasons why I hate IPv6.
Are we going to have to pay every month for each device? Theoretically, I am violating the ToS of Comcast, by having more than 5 devices. I was probably ahead of the curve in doing so, although I'd guess most houses now are way above that number with smartphones, tablets, streaming boxes, game consoles, body scales and the like, not to even mention computers. We have 3 people with 14 devices running Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Kindle, and embedded just off the top of my head. | |
|
| |
Telco
Member
2012-Mar-26 11:47 am
WhaaaatNo live streaming!
Why does this company have such an issue with live streaming.. | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC |
axus
Member
2012-Mar-26 12:06 pm
This is totally biased against internet video competitorsI can understand why it's not measured as internet traffic, because it isn't Internet traffic. But, it is still network traffic. Comcast has programmed hardware somewhere to handle one packet differently than another.
One catch here is that it's limited to XBOX-360. It's not a website you are browsing to. You can't say it's affecting competitors that aren't on XBOX-360.
I think that Netflix has a good argument that Comcast is using their control of the network connection to create a bias for Comcast's IP-video service over other competitors on the Xbox. | |
| |
•••••••• |  steve1515
Premium Member
join:2000-08-07
Peabody, MA |
steve1515
Premium Member
2012-Mar-26 12:37 pm
What if...?So, let's say that my friend which is on Comcast Business sets up a server and I connect to it with my Comcast connection and download lots of files... In the terabytes. Comcast is basically saying that this large amount of data will not count against my cap since it's all on Comcast's private network? I doubt it! What do you think? | |
| |
•••• | ·Optimum Online
|
An example of how caps are going to be used to protect cableThis example really doesn't matter, having tried the feature on my xbox360 with fios, the feature is pretty stupid, lower quality tv over my xbox when I already get it on my set top box. But is is an example of the tricks cable and telcos are going to play to protect their business against the likes of netflix, youtube , hulu etc.
Don't count their services against the bandwidth cap, because it's on a private ip network which is bs, the xbox is using the same type of nat ip address from your router that your computer is using, the only difference is if the data leaves comcast's core network, which isn't anything new many services host servers inside networks like comcast to provide better service, and even if they do have to go outside of their network for the other services content the cost of bandwidth is so minimal at that point in the network it's negligible. The real cost for Comcast per user is maintaining their cable modem network, the same network that both their xbox video service and Netflix work over | |
| |
••• |  dellsweigExtreme Aerobatics
MVM
join:2003-12-10
Campbell Hall, NY
kudos:1 |
so non public traffic is free???If I understand this response - and read between the lines - is Comcast saying that if I consume traffic that originates on their network and does not cross into another carrier - then it does not count against my cap??
lol | |
| |  IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 |
Re: so non public traffic is free???Makes sense if you don't think about it....  | |
| | | |
to dellsweig
I also wonder, just because another user is on Comcast, does that mean that the traffic has not passed outside of the Comcast network in between? Is Comcast's network 100% connected throughout, or do they use some 3rd party transit to connect different regions of their network together? | |
|
| |
Silly
Anon
2012-Mar-26 2:05 pm
Doesnt go through microsoft.It goes from comcasts servers to your Xbox...do you guys really think every piece of data goes through Microsoft? That's just silly. | |
| | |
Let's just cut through the BSI think the reason we're having such a lively discussion is we're looking for a distinction that doesn't exist.
Here's the gist of it all. Comcast and other ISP's that have caps are doing it for one reason and one reason alone: to protect their business interests. Simple as that. Comcast has been in the business of selling TV. Well, then along came Netflix, Roku, Amazon Video, and others, and these products undercut their revenue, so they have to find a way to rein them in, and caps are really the second-best way. The best way, of course, would be to simply block them, but that would be politically unwise in the extreme. Now we see this new service using the 360, and, wonder of wonders, it isn't capped. Why not? We can spend all day trying to figure it out, but the answer is right there: Comcast is making money off of it, so it's to their advantage if people use it.
If Comcast or any other cable company was really facing a last-mile bandwidth crunch, there's an easy way to fix that: delete cable channels. And before anyone says there's nothing to delete, sure there is. Just about every cable channel now has an SD and HD version. There's no reason the SD channels can't be dropped, since it's entirely possible to downconvert the HD signal for a standard TV. I'm not saying it's as easy as flipping a switch, but it could be done, and that would free up bandwidth for Internet.
But, in the end, this incident simply proves that this is all about the fact that Comcast is looking to monetize that data, one way or another. They aren't content to simply sell you access; they also want those bits to also make them money, either through a data cap or through a partnership with another company.
If Comcast, AT&T, and TWC were airlines, they'd sell you a ticket, then charge you extra for the seat. | |
| | |
relevantGood on ya Comcast. Your service just became relevant. | |
|  espaethDigital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 |
Is this even possible?Based on the counters they are polling to gather device utilization, I'm not sure how it's even possible that they would be able to exclude this traffic from their usage meter and hence the cap calculation. | |
|  JohkalCool Cat
MVM
join:2002-11-13
Pennsyltucky
kudos:13 |
Johkal
MVM
2012-Mar-26 6:25 pm
Late again posting news already posted in the Comcast forum | |
| |  88615298
Premium Member
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 3:35 am
Re: Late again posting news already posted in the Comcast forum | |
| | | JohkalCool Cat
MVM
join:2002-11-13
Pennsyltucky
kudos:13 |
Johkal
MVM
2012-Mar-27 4:24 pm
Re: Late again posting news already posted in the Comcast forumWant to take off the knee pads? | |
|
| |
|
How about .. |
·
·
