Slashdot Mirror


Sony Put Video Service on Hold Due to Comcast Data Caps

suraj.sun writes with more fallout from Comcast's bandwidth caps that give preference to their own video services. From the article: "An executive from Sony said Monday that concerns about Comcast's discriminatory data cap are giving the firm second thoughts about launching an Internet video service, that would compete with cable and satellite TV services. In March,Comcast announced that video streamed to the Xbox from Comcast's own video service would be exempted from the cable giant's 250 GB monthly bandwidth cap. 'These guys have the pipe and the bandwidth,' he said. 'If they start capping things, it gets difficult.' Sony isn't the first Comcast rival to complain about the bandwidth cap. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has also blasted Comcast's discriminatory bandwidth cap as a violation of network neutrality. Comcast controls more than 20 percent of the residential broadband market, which means that Comcast effectively controls access to one-fifth of any American Internet video service's potential customers."

27 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. This is exactly why... by nebaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mergers like Comcast/NBC should be illegal. Once content providers are also content distributers, they can pull shenanigans like these.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:This is exactly why... by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was illegal until...if I recall correctly, the FCC commissioner approved it. Then, only a few months later, the commissioner resigned to take a high-paying top level exec job at Comcast. Its obvious what happened but unfortunately, this form of bribery is also legal so long as it can't be proven. Back on topic...these discriminatory data caps obviously do not promote competition in business...One could hardly call this capitalism.

    2. Re:This is exactly why... by Peristaltic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mergers like Comcast/NBC should be illegal.

      When you start paying Congress as much cash as Comcast, NBC and General Electric pay, then you can make the rules.

    3. Re:This is exactly why... by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 5, Informative

      Meredith Attwell Baker. Four months after approving the deal, she was hired to serve as senior vice president for government affairs for the Comcast-controlled NBC Universal. In other words, after approving the deal, she left the FCC to become one of Comcast's top lobbyists. I say get rid of all corporate lobbyists in Washington. They don't belong there.

    4. Re:This is exactly why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      this form of bribery is also legal so long as it can't be proven

      That is a feature, not a bug.

    5. Re:This is exactly why... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is a difficult issue, not as straight forward as you might think.

      There was no problem when the distributors who owned licenses to broadcast over the airwaves were the ones who also provided the content.

      There was no problem when the distributors who owned cable networks were the ones who also provided the content.

      But all of a sudden because the internet is involved, its now an issue - but only in that very select portion of the distributor/provider area, its still not an issue in the above scenarios.

      What you mean to complain about is when content providers and distributors now have a general access product - an ISP element. Thats the problem here.

      What I want to know is whether Comcast have actually denied Sony or anyone else the right to put a service end point within the Comcast network, and run a private line back to their main servers - in the same manner as the Comcast Xbox service - or have refused to exempt such a setup in the same manner. Anyone?

    6. Re:This is exactly why... by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >>>It was illegal until...if I recall correctly, the FCC commissioner approved it. Then, only a few months later, the commissioner resigned to take a high-paying top level exec job at Comcast.

      Wow.
      Sony just needs to sue Comcast.
      The Sherman Antitrust law is still in effect, forbids companies from using their monopoly or near-monopoly for unfair competitive advantage, and the FCC can't overrule that law.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    7. Re:This is exactly why... by englishknnigits · · Score: 4, Informative

      The real problem is that consumers have little to no choice of internet providers due to government regulations. In my area, I basically have the choice between Comcast and no internet. That isn't really a choice so they have a monopoly. The government is supposed to break up and prevent monopolies, not enforce and encourage them. If there were more providers they would be heavily incentivized to have no cap so that they could snatch up mine, and countless others, business from Comcast. I would gladly switch to such a provider and be willing to pay more for the service. We have no such alternative, that is the problem.

    8. Re:This is exactly why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not really the same thing. When broadcast radio and TV "distributors" push their own content and suppress that of others, you have the choice to tune to a different channel. When an Internet operator pushes their own content at the cost of others, you're almost certainly screwed because it's very unlikely that you have a choice to not use Comcast. There is a valid analogy with Cable TV - but that's regulated, they have no choice but to carry all of the local TV stations.

      It's also more subtle. They aren't banning SONY from transmitting data over their network - they're just imposing bandwidth caps.

      This is clearly a bad thing - we *seriously* need net neutrality legislation to avoid this kind of problem.

    9. Re:This is exactly why... by hypergreatthing · · Score: 4, Funny

      But if they did that i wouldn't know who to root for.
      On one hand, Sony is a terrible company that needs to be made obsolete.
      On the other hand, Comcast is one of the worst cable companies.

      Best scenario is they both go under.

    10. Re:This is exactly why... by TheReaperD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly, in this case, a document (electronic or dead tree) or recording from Comcast offering the job on the condition that the merger is approved. Of course, everybody knows this so they make sure no such document or recording ever comes into existence.

      Personally, I'm for getting rid of all lobbyists period but, there should, at least, be a conflict of interest gap, say 10 years, between being a government official or elected representative and being able to work for the organizations you had dealings with while you held that position.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    11. Re:This is exactly why... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Racist speech is protected too. Why do you seem to think otherwise? The klan still holds rallies.

      Ammo will not soon be illegal, you are just a nutcase.

    12. Re:This is exactly why... by cbope · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is not government regulation... this is LACK of government regulation. Get it right for once.

      It's funny, I live in a small country (Finland) with only 5.2 million people, but I have a choice of at least a dozen internet providers and mobile operators (individually, not combined). Every time I visit the US, it seems at best you have 2 or 3 sources for either and none of them are good. Here we have real competition, good prices and good service. No caps either on broadband or mobile. You have unregulated free market capitalism that is running crazy, but not in a good way.

    13. Re:This is exactly why... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the 1930s I imagine people would have believed you. They were dealing with crimes involving automatic weapons and would have welcomed that. Zoning and land use restrictions were already in place.

      No crosses being visible is not a rule anywhere unless the taxpayer is paying for it. It was the rule then as well, just not enforced against the dominate religion. Thankfully today we recognize that it does apply to all religions equally.

      You are a crazy person, please seek help.

  2. no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm nowhere near my monthly data c

  3. dirty dealers by Phusion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comcast has been up to no good for years. We all remember the torrent throttling and god knows what else. They need to have the thumb screws put to them so they stop trying to squeeze every penny out of every MB by throttling traffic, applying data caps and the like. I hate Comcast's business practices but they're usually pretty damn fast.... there needs to be another choice. 20% is too large for a dickweed company that pulls this bull-shlaka.

    --
    640k ought to be enough for anyone.
  4. How about we just drop the cap entirely? by MukiMuki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Aragon reportedly said Sony was 'waiting on clarity' ...about whether regulators would allow Comcast to exempt its own video services from the broadband cap."

    This is probably how discussion on Net Neutrality starts. Hopefully this leads to some sort of law forcing ISPs to provide real evidence to justify implementing any sort of bandwidth cap.

    As it stands, it's all bullshit. The difference between a light and a heavy user, as far as the ISP is concerned, is that the heavy user continues downloading/browsing/streaming heavily on off-peak hours (read: overnight). About the only major cost for the ISP, assuming they even HAVE the capability to lower their system capacity at night, would be the extra power usage for their network hardware, and even THAT becomes substantially cheaper at night.

    As this is Slashdot:

    It's like charging cars by the number of hours spent on the road because of traffic congestion, and as a result, taxing cars at a heavier rate for driving at 3 in the morning, when there's no congestion to contribute to.

    1. Re:How about we just drop the cap entirely? by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would Comcast want to agree to net neutrality now? They've just shown the value of being able to dictate the terms of use to people intending to serve data over the internet. They'll probably strike a deal with Sony where Sony pays them several million a year and in exchange doesn't get hit by Comcast's data caps. It's a huge new untapped revenue stream for an ISP. The fact that they can decide not to play ball with companies that might compete with its own cable service is just icing on the cake. You can bet that Comcast's senators are getting well greased right now and are ready to go to bat to prevent anything like Net Neutrality from ever really being implemented.

      I can see the ads already. The government is trying to tell the internet how to operate! Call your senator today and tell him you don't want big government interfering in the Internet!

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  5. But... but... but.... what about piracy? by tkrotchko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I remember when Comcast put on the extremely low 250GB caps per month, a lot of people around here said that anybody using more than 250GB a month was probably a pirate.

    Does anybody still believe that?

    What 250GB caps really means is that your ISP won't invest in infrastructure, because its expensive.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  6. AT&T 150GB cap by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Informative

    AT&T capped my 6mb DSL account at 150GB a month.

    What happens if you exceed your data plan?

    You will receive a notice the first time your usage exceeds the data plan. We will send you alerts if your usage approaches or exceeds the amount of data included in your plan. If you exceed your monthly data plan a third time we'll charge you $10 for each additional 50 GB of data provided to you that month. You'll be charged $10 for every incremental 50 GB of usage beyond your plan.

    AT&T.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  7. Simply the worst. by Tommy+Bologna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a reason Comcast won Comsumerist's Worst Corporation in America contest in 2010. Comcast should be disassembled and shot into space toward the sun.

  8. Re:This is confusing by XiaoMing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't allow Comcast the rights to broadcast Sony properties, including working with PS Network. I'm sure Comcast would concede.

    Ahh and there's the beauty of it. Who would you believe to be violating some form of neutrality, if you were watching a hulu/youtube/redtube;) clip and it was blocked to you by the content owner because they didn't like your choice of ISP?

    The thing is Comcast simply said "Oh normal data is so expensive, woe is us! But we're able to provide XFINITY content through a magical data pipe that doesn't need to worry about this!" With that, it becomes Sony's (and Netflix's!) fault for obviously creating (or having, in Netflix's case) a product that uses up so much magical interpipe juice.

    Although what you say is very true, aside from signing distribution deals with Xfinity, the only way for the content providers to not get reamed (in the ATT pays Apple per iPhone sold sense), is to play some form of hardball with the ISPs. But my example of what the public perception would look like is exactly why these companies are taking the more passive and whiny route for now.

  9. It's time... by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to come down with hard regulation on such ISPs.

    If they want to have the advantages of a common carrier - free access to rights of way, and a monopoly on services, then they better behave like a content neutral common carrier. If they want to take the attitude that it's their network and they can control it any way they want, then they can also negotiate rights-of-way individually with the millions of property owners whose land their cables cross.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  10. it could be considered neutral by Chirs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As long as they apply the same rules to everyone, it could be considered neutral to not count "internal" traffic towards the cap. My own ISP has said that their upstream internet costs are significant and growing so this isn't so far-fetched.

    The logical solution is for Sony to install a local caching server inside the Comcast network--if Comcast were to prevent that, then it would violate net neutrality.

  11. Some Honesty Here: It's probably not this cap... by nweaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There probably is something else here, and Sony may just using Comcast's capping as an excuse...

    a) Comcast's cap is not a "cap and charge overages", but a "cap, warn, and terminate or get them to upgrade to uncapped business service": Actually enforcing the cap for Comcast is very costly, because they lose customers. This makes it far less anticompetitive than other caps, but really targeted against abuse of service.

    b) Comcast's cap is reasonably large. Netflix's HD stream is ~1.8 GB/hour, and other streams are less. So a 250 GB cap is >4.5 hours of HD video a day through streaming, which is a LOT.

    I have a serious problem with other ISP's much lower "Cap and Overage" model, where the goal is to use the cap to increase revenue. And such caps are far more likely to be anticompetitive.

    I suspect its Sony having issues with TV networks and other interests, and they are using Comcast's cap as an excuse.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
  12. You're thinking too small by Benfea · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, we need to get rid of lobbyists, but the phenomenon you speak of is a different animal. If lobbying were illegal, then she would have received some other cushy job at NBC Universal. This whole "screw over the voters/taxpayers for Acme Corp, then get a cushy job with Acme Corp" routine happens in just about every part of the government, even the military.

    What we need to do is make it illegal for any high-ranking government employee to get a job with any corporation that is regulated by or a contractor for that employee's position. Generals can't get jobs with military contractors, FTC execs can't get jobs with Wall Street firms, FAA execs can't get jobs with airlines, etc., etc.

    I know what I am proposing sounds draconian, but this tactic has an incredibly corrupting influence over government, and this is the only thing I can think of to put an absolute stop to it. If anyone has any other ideas, I'm more than willing to listen.

  13. Ah, the old victim routine... by Benfea · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What is it about conservative/authoritarian political movements that causes them to do this? The Nazis were convinced they were being persecuted by Jews even as they stuffed them into ovens en masse. Apartheid South Africans were convinced they were being persecuted by dark-skinned Africans. And of course American conservolibertarians are convinced that the rich are being persecuted by the poor, men are being persecuted by women, Christians are being persecuted by homosexuals, whites are being persecuted by minorities, etc.

    It's not just that they are convinced they are victims. They are convinced they are victims when precisely the opposite is happening. I cannot fathom the level of delusion necessary to make people think this way, but it seems that every major conservative political movement does this.