 elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Not a loophole This is exactly the result you should expect from Network Neutrality - major content will no longer traverse the Internet. Basic access rates will rise and performance will decline, so that all Internet-bound data is treated equally. | |
|
 |  odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:9
 ·Comcast
| Re: Not a loophole Agreed. And people need to understand the difference between IP video and the internet. I doubt most people will argue that video is moving to IP. Under the "Free Press groups" logic a first party video service would have to be treated like email/youtube as soon as you switched it from MPEG to IP. Kind of destroys the whole idea of QOS, and points out the fact they have no idea how networks function. | |
|
| | | | Re: Not a loophole Free Press has always been about that. They want their bread and eat it to. They were one of the ones that employed Rob (the one who sued Comcast over throttling) and demanded a cap. Then they still bitch and cry that the cap is NOT fair. But yet they asked for a solid number and didn't like what they ended up with.
What Free Press always fails to even put in the FCC has NO power over the Internet what so ever and will NEVER unless Congress decides to do that; and so far it has not happened. The only thing they've considered is cutting their budget in half. | |
|
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | That's the difference between Network Neutrality and Internet Neutrality. The video is coming over the TCP/IP network, and packets are being discriminated. This is definitely Internet neutral, but not network neutral.
Comcast could raise their cap (for everything) if you buy this IP video service from them, but not discriminate bytes. That would meet their goals and still be network neutral. | |
|
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: Not a loophole said by axus:That's the difference between Network Neutrality and Internet Neutrality. The video is coming over the TCP/IP network, and packets are being discriminated. This is definitely Internet neutral, but not network neutral.
Comcast could raise their cap (for everything) if you buy this IP video service from them, but not discriminate bytes. That would meet their goals and still be network neutral.
Good luck with that re-interpretation, and good luck applying and enforcing the concept. It simply doesn't fit with the dialogue that industry participated in for the past few years and the definition of NN that resulted. | |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:2
·Bright House
| Except that . . . quote:
"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,"
If that were true, one Comcast customer could torrent from another without impacting their monthly allotment.
Also, aren't some content providers mirroring on certain ISPs networks?
--
The Dark Tower's Skynet evolves from 4chan. | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one
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.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
|
| | | Re: Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one said by Linklist: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. | |
|
| | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one 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. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one said by BiggA:No. The argument for capping was that they didn't have enough last-mile bandwidth. This uses last-mile bandwidth. 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. | |
|
| |  MoracCat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
·Comcast
| said by zeppelin :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.
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?
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | 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. | |
|
| | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one 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. | |
|
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one 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) | |
|
| | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one 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. | |
|
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one said by BiggA: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.
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. | |
|
| | | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one said by BiggA: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.
... not in the least. .Sorry.. not sure where you're getting that from at all. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one It doesn't run over your home LAN. The RG separates it onto HPNA. | |
|
| | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | 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. | |
|
| DampierPhillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY | 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.
--
Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!
»stopthecap.com | |
|
| | | | Re: Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one 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. | |
|
| | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| 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. | |
|
| | MoracCat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | 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.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
| | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Comcast makes good point;though it is a narrow technical one 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. | |
|
| Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | said by Linklist: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.
O.K. | |
|
percosan
join:2002-03-13
San Francisco, CA | Are you serious? I am not a Comcast Fanboy but it drives me crazy that even when they do something consumer friendly like *supporting* a third party box like Xbox *and* do so without impacting ones data package there is always someone/some group to cry about it. I assume that they would also cry if the Xbox was blocked ... like the GoogleTV box.
-p | |
|
|  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Are you serious? While it seems to be very "consumer friendly", the implications of this are much wider as it is the most bold affront we've seen of attempts to challenge network neutrality. That is, of course, excluding the route telco took of exempting cell service from all net neutrality by donating to legislature campaign funds. | |
|
| | | The issue is that it's only consumer friendly for the people who are going to use the service. Let's say I'm not a Comcast TV subscriber or I don't own an xbox. I don't benefit from this at all. Since this is uncapped what's to stop a neighbor from using 10 xboxes and keeping his connection peaked? If half of your node starts using xboxes there will be congestion. On top of that chances are their traffic will have priority over other traffic. Now during peak hours I can't watch another service like Netflix or play a game because the network is being overloaded by Comcast TV traffic. Comcast won't care because their service works flawlessly while Netflix doesn't, so it's going to force people to switch if they want to use service. This is exactly what net neutrality is all about. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Are you serious? Please... before making your arguments, try to understand or learn cable networks first. You make some of us laugh. | |
|
| | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: Are you serious? said by fiberguy:Please... before making your arguments, try to understand or learn cable networks first. You make some of us laugh.
How much are they paying you? | |
|
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Are you serious? said by brad:said by fiberguy:Please... before making your arguments, try to understand or learn cable networks first. You make some of us laugh.
How much are they paying you? hahaha.. that's so funny.. 
That line is tired.. try spending the time you use posting that old tired line making up something new for those of BBR with nothing real to add to use when they, well, have nothing to add.
I can clearly see that intelligence here scares you? .. since I am pretty well educated on cable that I must be getting paid? WOW!! ....I've never head that before.
| |
|
| Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Bright House
| said by percosan:when they do something consumer friendly like *supporting* a third party box like Xbox *and* do so without impacting ones data package there is always someone/some group to cry about it Which post in this thread implied Comcast shouldn't support the Xbox?
--
The Dark Tower's Skynet evolves from 4chan. | |
|
| | percosan
join:2002-03-13
San Francisco, CA | Re: Are you serious? said by Noah Vail:said by percosan:when they do something consumer friendly like *supporting* a third party box like Xbox *and* do so without impacting ones data package there is always someone/some group to cry about it Which post in this thread implied Comcast shouldn't support the Xbox? Good question. I am not crying about any of the postings ... it was the way I read the Free Press and Public Knowledge position.
Maybe I need to top off on Caffeine before my next post 
-p | |
|
| | anybody know if it works like this so the way i understand the way cable television works is:
comcast network > cable box > tv
internet through comcast works:
internet > comcast network > cable modem > router > xbox, pc, etc.
so how exactly is the xbox like a cable box and cause it isn't skipping the modem or my router. i can't plug the xbox directly into the coaxial cable.
if anybody knows better please explain | |
|
| | | Re: anybody know if it works like this and thats the thing. NOBODY is asking how this works. Instead the Head Blogger and his guru is only jumping to it's a violation on how networks operate blah blah. But NOBODY knows how Comcast has set this up or what Microsoft did for them. | |
|
| | | | Re: anybody know if it works like this said by 25139889:and thats the thing. NOBODY is asking how this works. Instead the Head Blogger and his guru is only jumping to it's a violation on how networks operate blah blah. But NOBODY knows how Comcast has set this up or what Microsoft did for them.
Probably because it's irrelevant how it works. It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the bandwidth used is still last-mile traffic. The same last mile that Comcast has been saying is congested and needs to be capped. So now they're saying that their last mile is congested, but some traffic is fine and other traffic is not. A 1st grader could see the failed logic there.
And if you still don't get it let me spell it out for you. If Comcast were to either A) allow for all traffic which originates and stays within the Comcast network to not be counted towards the cap, or B) get rid of the cap altogether, then this action would be permissible. Otherwise, their explanation is utterly hypocritical and does not hold any water.
B is obvious. But to explain A, you can't say that the traffic doesn't count towards your cap because it stays on Comcast's network, but then turn around and count P2P between two Comcast users towards the cap. Same type of traffic. Both originated from and never left Comcast's network. One counts toward the cap and the other does not.  | |
|
| | | | Obviously because he understands the cable system and the internet to actually make that educated statement where as you are spouting a lot of words, but clearly do not understand the system you are arguing for or against.
Which appears to be a pretty common thing coming from you. | |
|
| cog_biz_useri ruin threads apparently
join:2011-04-19
Hamilton, ON | said by hellocomcast :so how exactly is the xbox like a cable box and cause it isn't skipping the modem or my router. i can't plug the xbox directly into the coaxial cable.
if anybody knows better please explain this was my thought too. anything that passes through the modem gets counted, no matter what. i think whoever's releasing these publications has no idea how cable modem systems work. i worked at an isp, and it's simply not possible to pick and choose what goes on the meter. if we could pick and choose, google and youtube already would be exempt from our data caps, because akamai has a content server at every isp.
--
Myth: It's only fair to pay for quality first-run movies.
Fact: Most movies shown on cable get two stars or less
and are repeated ad nauseum. | |
|
steven sPremium
join:2002-09-14
Dearborn, MI | Not defending comcast but... I don't see how this is any different than U-Verse TV (IPTV on STB's and Xbox 360's) not counting against AT&T's usage caps. | |
|
| |
| | | You are right and I do not believe any person here that believes in net neutrality would argue AT&T is any more right (or wrong) than Comcast here.
The "loop hole" in AT&T's argument is that the line is provisioned in a way that has an internet lane and a uverse lane. It is my understanding that the xBox works off the uVerse box. I don't know if that is right or wrong, nor do I know if comcast is any diffferent. | |
|
| | Congestion? I thought the reason Comcast and other ISPs were placing a cap in the first place was due to network load and congestion. How is delivering video over IP not effecting network load and congestion even if it doesn't touch the open internet? | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
DampierPhillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY | It Ruins Their Own Argument Comcast just buried their own argument for the 250GB usage cap in the first place.
»stopthecap.com/2012/03/27/comcas···alleged/
And BTW, not everyone is opposed to a cap-free Xbox experience... we just want it extended to their broadband service as well. | |
|
| | | Re: It Ruins Their Own Argument your link proves nothing that Karl hasn't already blogged about. Moving on. | |
|
 rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | more wishes by some for bigger government I understand the outrage of some people. After all, data are data, no matter whether they traverse the public Internet or just Comcast's own system. But at the heart of the matter is, the more the government tries to regulate businesses, the more creative ways they'll think up to operate pretty much the same way they always have. Look at what happened to banking regulations. Citizens and their lawmakers thought they were doing themselves a lot of favors by enacting more rules about what banks could and could not do. The end result is banks announcing they were going to add fees to their debit card accounts which the law (new or otherwise) never addressed. Even within private industries themselves, rules enacted to try to correct some perceived inequity ultimately have workarounds devised (I'm thinking of such things as professional sports team leagues and salary caps; players simply find other revenues such as product endorsements.)
The only way the government will get exactly what they want is to ban private operation in whatever industry and declare the government the only legal source for that good/service. I think exceedingly few people want such a state-run economy.
At the same time, Comcast is being two-faced, because their whole reason for imposing caps was to meter their data delivery. To me, it doesn't matter where the data are moving. The interconnects to the Internet are only one part of moving that data. There is still considerable expense in headends, routers, internal interconnect links, outside plant, and on and on; why all the sudden that is handwaved with respect to their other data movement service charges is beyond me.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.
Jeopardy! replies and randomcaps REALLY suck! | |
|
| | | Re: more wishes by some for bigger government You are greatly simplifying the results of regulation and ignoring some as well.
You are correct the banks did make many adjustments trying to keep their profits. However, some of those things they tried also caused consumer backlash and thus they undid those changes. The reason for that? Competition. I personally will never do business with one of the big 5 banks again as a result of what they tried because I have a choice. They can continue to try to cater to the lower credit worthy people and continue to try to extract all the money they can from them. I and my 10's of thousands of dollars will happily be with another.
ISP service is no where near a competitive market like banks and thus people dont generally have a choice to pick up and move their business elsewhere. Which is the entire reason you need people like Karl holding them accountable and stirring the pot to bring much attention to their anticonsumer actions. | |
|
| | Now it makes sense... Ahh, i was all confused yesterday because i'm not on Comcast's network. The main thing I was thinking however is what if I do have Comcast cableTV service (and therefore pay for the channels) but I have DSL from the phone company cuz it's "cheaper". This basically says I wont be able to use the Xfinity App on my Xbox which basically sucks! Same would go for not being able to use the App if I took it to my friends house where they have U-Verse instead of Comcast.
That's where my major confusion came in (that's what I get for not reading the full report :P) as I was thinking it's done over Xbox servers, guess that's a wash! They require you to be using their services, not just own an account. Gotcha! | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | wow - never can win Sounds like Comcast is doing a good thing here; far and few with most cable companys. And all they get is bad press. Hey guess what, if you don't like it, don't use it. Go rent a box and be happy. | |
|
RDC17
join:2011-05-15
Baltimore, MD | People will complain either way Doesn't count towards cap: "But this is violating net neutrality!"
Counts towards cap: "But its no different than an IPTV STB!"
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Some of the whining on this site (articles and comments) is just ridiculous. | |
|
| | | Re: People will complain either way You are pretty dense if you can't see that "either way" the problem is the "cap". The complaints are consistent; it's your support for an abusive product that is contemptible. | |
|
| Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Bright House
| said by RDC17:Doesn't count towards cap: "But this is violating net neutrality!"
Counts towards cap: "But its no different than an IPTV STB!" You can have that debate if you want to.
The primary discussion in this thread is about
how the Xbox policy is evidence
that Comcast's reasons for capping are a bald faced lie.
--
The Dark Tower's Skynet evolves from 4chan. | |
|
| | RDC17
join:2011-05-15
Baltimore, MD | Re: People will complain either way While in no way am I defending Comcast's reasoning for the caps, 250GB is a substantial amount of data- how many people does this cap actually effect?
Caps suck, especially the low ones on wireless, but in the end only a tiny percentage of users are impacted by them. Until people start making decisions to send their money elsewhere, caps will keep existing. | |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| "Not Proven" is a possible outcome of a trial in the British court system. It's also exactly what happened here.
quote:
"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," complained consumer group Free Press.
"Claiming"? Really? Is this in doubt somehow?
"Tries to justify" -- I think they just did. You may not AGREE with the justification, but they did justify it.
quote:
"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.
Really? In what way is it "unfair"? Comcast already said that services delivered over its own network don't count against the cap. That seems completely fair to me. Why should they?
So, would FreeP rather see Comcast be required by regulation to cripple themselves just because they are innovating and delivering video content via Video over IP rather than old fashioned proprietary cable TV settop boxes? Yeah, that'll help consumers a bunch.
quote:
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."
Oh now it becomes clear! FreeP really just wants to bash on the FCC for allowing caps in the first place. What a joke of an article.
quote:
Groups like Public Knowledge are arguing that the pure Comcast-network delivery angle is irrelevant, as the service is simply another effort at cozy deals between corporate giants resulting in a more constricted and walled-garden content environment where consumers are shoved towards preferred content. "Comcast has transformed 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," complains the group, adding that "the internet should reward the best services, not the ones with the right corporate owners."
This is just the "the government should regulate the ISPs and force them to be dumb uncapped pipes" argument, clothed in a different form. It is essentially saying that the business environment should be strongly biased towards independent online video companies (such as NetFlix), and this should be done by regulation, forcing companies like Comcast to not compete.
Apparently "consumer choice" in Public Knowledge's mind means "consumers get to choose what the government thinks they should be able to". | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | No last mile congestion--The Caps themselves are the problem The data doesn't go over the Internet, so it's really just a different delivery system to the home. Makes sense it shouldn't count against caps. HOWEVER having said that...
It also blows up the argument that last mile bandwidth is scarce and caps are needed. Clearly that is not the case if you can provide video over IP on the same last mile just fine.... basically it makes the case that caps are not only not needed, but the caps THEMSELVES are where the anti-competitive action is occurring, the caps have been put in place purely to limit consumers from third party competitors (like Netflix) coming in over the Internet connection.
Think about this, for a second.
Technically it is now possible for PayTV companies or others to put their video streams online. This would in effect mean that any consumer anywhere with a sufficiently fast internet connection could "subscribe" to any "channel" from ANY provider company in the USA irregardless of where they lived or where the provider company was based out of. It could be Dish Network, Google, Apple, Amazon, or even Comcast, Cox, Verizon, whomever--- their channels streaming online for anyone who wants to sign up.
You can see why Cable companies would be against this, to prevent said competition and protect their own PayTV business.
Thus why the want the Caps.... to stop any such competition from taking hold.... and later of course, an overage or metered billing option would be even more profitable too.
So, in short, I don't see a problem with video delivered over the last mile by IP to an Xbox360. I do see a problem with caps, however, as being anti-competitive. Period.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
|  The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | Re: No last mile congestion--The Caps themselves are the problem Precisely the point. Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that Comcast is innovating in terms of providing Video over IP, yet caps must be in place on the broadband side. Makes no sense. NWOhio mentioned that Comcast only cares about its product, not about Netflix, third party etc. Carriers shouldn't be allowed to provide TV service on top of broadband, period. None of this would be an issue if carriers were simply forced to be broadband providers only.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda | |
|
| | Netflix doesn't drive the cap XfinityTv over Xbox won't drive the cap either...
This really is a debate about nothing... | |
|
| Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Bright House
| Re: Netflix doesn't drive the cap said by asdfasdfasdf :This really is a debate about nothing... It's not much of a debate at all.
It more of an exposé about how Comcast's given reasons for capping aren't really based in truth.
--
The Dark Tower's Skynet evolves from 4chan. | |
|
 rrnetengPiedmont Triad Region
join:2004-08-06
united state | So what are the caps imposed for again? I thought my kool-aid packet said the shift to capping was due to the last mile constraints/bottlenecks and the cost to upgrade the last mile being so high. I wasn't aware it was due to upper network/peering congestion or bottlenecks.
Now your telling me we have plenty of bandwidth for IP/TV from the cable companies traveling the same last mile I thought was congested? But apparently we still need caps now because of the congestion at the peering points?
Can someone read their kool-aid packet and report back because I must have misread something.
--
Yeah, but at least I get cronjobs nightly. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | So... So if it DID count against the cap Karl would you be jumping all over Comcast? | |
|
| | Data caps are normal here You guys are damn lucky.
I live in New Zealand.
We have data caps as standard and everyone knows how many gigabytes they use each month. Its nothing new here and been in place since the dawn of the internet.
When an ISP starts peering with a major content provider so they can offer the data to that providers website for free - we see this as good. Internet is much more expensive here and so if an ISP wishes to cache something or peer with a content provider that has a local cache, its not discrimination, its just them trying to provide a better service for their customers.
Get over it! | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
·