Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Not Counting Their Video Service Against Bandwidth Cap
tekgoblin writes something not quite worth rejoicing over. From the article: "Comcast Internet subscribers can rejoice. Comcast has recently announced that they will not be counting content streamed via their Comcast Xfinity App on the Xbox 360 against their bandwidth caps. Comcast claims that since the data is only traversing their internal Comcast network that it will not count towards your 250 GB limit a month."
Comcast is claiming this does not violate net neutrality laws (and it very well may not); a number of folks are not very happy about it. I've always been perplexed by the large media interests of most U.S. last-mile providers.
I'm pretty sure that's what the competition is called in the US... they don't count their video/vod streams against your monthly data cap either, do they?
I know that their competing services offered north of the border don't count... you'd blow through the monthly cap in less than a day if it did. So how is this any different? They're offering a VOD service and saying it doesn't count against your monthly cap.
Cuts both ways? Does that mean I can FTP an unlimited amount of data to my neighbor that also has Comcast too? Where all part of one giant happy WAN, right?
Life is not for the lazy.
So if I set up a couple friends with ftp servers within comcast's network, and use over 250GB between them, I won't get charged?
This is the core issue of network neutrality! A network provider should be a neutral network provider, it should not prioritise one vendor's service over another vendor's equivalent service. Network operators being content providers at all is a violation of network neutrality in its purest form. Imposing limits on other services' traffic but not on their own is a blatant violation by even the loosest definition.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Why do we get so crazy when data is sent over IP rather than another way? If they had done this with their cable lines and not used TCP/IP, nobody would bat an eye. In fact, that's how content was always served in the past. When they decide to cut costs and use the newer, better infrastructure for the old stuff, people freak out.
A company serving their own service over their own lines is nothing to freak out about.
I will agree that if they were doing this with other companies' data, it would be worrisome. But not their own.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I've been saying this all along. The answer for these companies is not to cap or throttle, it's to behave like a good citizen on the internet and either peer with or colocate the data customers want.
Now imagine if Google, Apple, Amazon, and Netflix could host a few boxes inside the Comcast network. Everyone wins. Unfortunately, that's just not how higher-ups in most organizations think.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Gawd, I can't even vaguely imagine using 250GB in one month... Canada's caps are typically on the 60-ish range, if you're lucky or 90-ish range if you pay a significant chunk of money. 250GB would be nirvana!
Oh, and to claim that doesn't violate net neutrality shows a complete lack of understanding of what net neutrality is. It's a poster child example of a violation of net neutrality.
These companies see themselves as gatekeepers, not service providers. In other words, they think that they will make money from their ability to control what you do or see, not by providing you with the ability to do something. Getting them to realize that their business model has, in fact, changed and that they now are, in fact, service providers is going to be a long and messy project.
You have to be a Comcast *TV* provider to use those services. If you stream HBOGO over your Comcast internet connection, when you get TV via FIOS, you pay for that bandwidth, because you're not a Comcast TV customer.
This isn't a net neutrality case, this is a case of Comcast delivering content from your *TV* service to you via IP instead of QAM.
I'd actually be pissed off if they weren't doing this, because it would mean it was free to watch on-demand using their cable boxes, but not my devices.
Part of the problem here is they've effectively cordoned off the other services. There's us and them. Now all they have to do is squeeze them out with increasingly smaller bandwidth caps so that you'll use more Comcast controlled services to not go over your cap (and likely justify it with their inability to handle the traffic volume instead of actually upgrading their damned equipment which we paid for years ago, which they just pocketed the money for instead.) or they'll just start charging for anything non-comcraptastic. This is why it's a net neutrality problem.
I think the point is abundantly clear in the following article:
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/186-186/4184-net-neutrality-is-a-ruse
Designate Comcast as a common carrier and watch how fast they split their business between content and carriage. For as long as Comcast is connected to a public network carrying data from other networks to their customers, they are a common carrier, no matter what the FCC says. If Comcast wants to remain a private network, they can cut their connection to the Internet and provide their own content to their users.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
The fact that you can't spot thinly veiled raillery is adorable. Have a great day!
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. This is exactly what everyone here was warning about when the whole Net Neutrality "controversy" started. I just wonder why Comcast thought now was the right time to do it.
"The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
Netflix is really pissing me off, I'm switching to Qwikster.
Part of the deal to purchase NBC Universal required that Comcast offer equal access to NBC content over other networks. But making it free bandwidth for your customers, but not for other customers, seems to violate the intent of that requirement while perhaps adhering to the letter of it.
*This* is why you cannot have one company as the service provider and the content provider.
Prior to the merger, the justice department released a Competitive Impact Statement which is concerned with Comcast not allowing access to NBC (and others) content. But it did not consider the possibility of Comcast offering special benefits to the content for their subscribers. Now that I think about it, nothing stops Comcast from offering content cheaper, faster, better quality, in 3D, etc.
Comcast's web site has the regulatory approval document which explains their limitations. It doesn't seem to specifically say they can't do this, but it looks like other people figured they couldn't do this. This blog entry from Mediapost says that the ruling:
Does not disadvantage rival online video distribution through its broadband Internet access services and/or set-top boxes. Does not enter into agreements to unreasonably restrict online distribution of its own video programming or programming of other providers.
So I think most people believed that this was illegal.
I think you misunderstood the concept here.
Comcast is saying they wont bill you for the data use for staying within their intranet basically.
Since you're going to one of THEIR servers, vs. someone else's.
Netflix cannot simply park a node on some Comcast fiber and get the same benefit, since it would not be going to a Comcast owned/operated server.
If I hosted a server from my own home (on Comcast) then if other Comcast subscribers connected to it, the BW usage would still count.
Assuming the following is true and that the content on the xbox app is a subset of the VOD service offered on the cable tv service, this should not have anything to do with network neutrality. It is simply turning an xbox into a second cable box for VOD.
" Q: Does a customer need to have a Comcast cable box connected to the TV, along with the Xbox 360?
A: No, but the customer does need to have a cable box or CableCARD-enabled retail device connected to at least one TV in the house. This means, for example, an XFINITY Digital customer could access XFINITY On Demand content from the Xbox 360 in their rec room, as long as they have a cable box or retail CableCARD device in another room of the house, such as the living room. This is the first time that customers will be able to watch Comcastâ(TM)s On Demand service via a gaming console." (Emphasis mine).
If the xbox app offers items that are not on Comcast's On Demand service, then people may have a right to complain. If the xbox app only offers a subset of the on demand service, then this is a second cable box and only useful on a tv in your home that is not already hooked up to the cable tv service.
One would have to look into the service to verify whether the documentation from Comcast is correct.
Abuse of monopoly power would be to lower the cap or start limiting third party websites, which Comcast isn't doing.
How is what Comcast doing any different than the cable TV that you paid for? The content is exactly the same just the means of distribution is a little different to make it more convenient to watch.
Easy out for Comcast there: a connection to a server owned by a separate entity would constitute a peering arrangement, with an associated SLA etc.
Now, for a small provider who's peering arrangments (or purchase if they cannot qualify as a peer) consititute a large chunk of their network expense (sometimes even more than half) exempting local network traffic from bandwidth caps is justifiable.
For Comcast -- well, I'd venture that running an entire distribuition system to millions of customers dwarfs the expense of peering. They are using an excuse that only applies to "small guys" to justify behavior which is aimed at squashing competition for their other services. They are only incidentally a bandwidth purchase aggregator, and should not be allowed to use this pretense.
Someone had to do it.
soooo
What if I set up a P2P mesh with others on my same segment of a comcast network.
That data should not count against caps either, right? I've not only not left their network, I've even stayed in the same segment. If I had comcast I would actually try to do this and since they would inevitably say I exceeded my BW limits I would then sue them. It'd be fun times.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump