Apple Reportedly In Talks With Comcast For Separate Apple Streaming Path

An anonymous reader writes "Apple is reportedly in talks with Comcast to obtain a network pathway dedicated to live and on-demand programming for subscribers of unspecified Apple services. In other words, Apple traffic would be separated from the rest of the public's internet traffic. This deal is different from the one Netflix made with Comcast in that Apple is reportedly asking for separate traffic in the path from Comcast facilities to consumer homes; the Netflix deal only gains Netflix direct access to the Comcast network. While net neutrality rules no longer restrict ISPs from monetizing their traffic prioritization, Comcast is still bound in that respect until 2018 as part of the conditions for its acquisition of NBCUniversal in 2011."

Comments

S C U M B A G S

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how the internet dies : Toll roads.

Re:S C U M B A G S

[Nexus7]

Or, it could mean that municipalities, Google, and others who view internet access as an utility, have 7 years to get their act together.

Re:S C U M B A G S

[Nexus7]

Oh wait, it isn't 2011. 3 years, then.

Re:S C U M B A G S

[DigiShaman]

You know, I honestly don't care anymore. If there's a war brewing over how to deliver media content over the web and into our homes, fuck it. At this point, perhaps the only winning move is to not play. I have better things to do with my time anyways.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:S C U M B A G S

[goombah99]

As much as I deplore the kow tow to Comcast, I hardly think google is messaiah here. Google has been buying up dark fiber as well as building out its own networks in cities. I doubt this is benevolence at work. All your data will be sold. Just a different profiteering model that a monopoly can impose.

Re:S C U M B A G S

[DaMattster]

You know, I honestly don't care anymore. If there's a war brewing over how to deliver media content over the web and into our homes, fuck it. At this point, perhaps the only winning move is to not play. I have better things to do with my time anyways.

Just my 2 cents.

You have a good point. The best way to beat this is by not paying to play. However, you and I would be in a minority because most folks out there are enthralled with media content and games. The reality of this is that we would be pretty hard pressed to convince most to do without this. Therefore, people may gripe and grumble, but in the end, it's all a bunch of hot air.

Re:S C U M B A G S

[kaiser423]

I currently access the Play Store on a forked Android derivative. There's nothing to keep me from doing so and Google makes no effort to keep me from doing so. But if you're a company and you want to ship the Google Play Store on your devices by default, Google does require some dollars and deals to ensure that your device is supported and to handle the development and bug squashing associated with supporting that device, etc. Basically, a company can't just install all of Google's apps and act like it's a supported configuration without it actually being supported....Seems reasonable to me.

Rent-seeking?

[SkunkPussy]

The floodgate of pay to play has been unleashed.

Re:Rent-seeking?

[AmiMoJo]

It will be interesting to see if Apple are forced to charge a higher price because of this. If not it would look like monopoly abuse, using their dominant position to cut margins to levels others couldn't sustain and paying for exclusive access to customers.

It does seem rather un-Apple like though. Normally they just tell service providers they should be privileged to have Apple products on their network and must provide a minimum level of service to them, like the did with the iPhone. Maybe it's due to Jobs not being around any more, maybe Comcast learned from the mobile carrier's mistakes.

Re:Rent-seeking?

[Revek]

They have the cable tv mentality. I work for a small cable company and I can assure you that the ultimate goal is to leverage the small guys out of business. Tell me one large company in this country that isn't set up like a despots dream. Its funny how america is about democracy on the surface but allows non democratic entity to attain the vote in the country.

Re:Rent-seeking?

[MightyYar]

Apple has nothing even approaching a monopoly in any of their markets. Perhaps in dedicated MP3 players, if anyone still cares about that market... I think they had something like 70% of that at one time.

Comcast is a terrible company, and I wish them luck trying to sell pieces of their Comcrapstic pipe. So long as it doesn't affect my internet service, I don't really care what they fill it with. Right now it is filled with useless (to me) channels.

Re: Rent-seeking?

[Karlt1]

If not it would look like monopoly abuse, using their dominant position to cut margins to levels others couldn't sustain and paying for exclusive access to customers.

Response 1: What monopoly?
Response 2: You mean how Google uses it's monopoly on search to fund Android and give it away for free - reducing the margin to 0?

Re: Rent-seeking?

[nitehawk214]

If not it would look like monopoly abuse, using their dominant position to cut margins to levels others couldn't sustain and paying for exclusive access to customers.

Response 1: What monopoly?
Response 2: You mean how Google uses it's monopoly on search to fund Android and give it away for free - reducing the margin to 0?

Response 1: What monopoly?

Re:Rent-seeking?

[MightyYar]

Apple couldn't crush Samsung if they sunk their last dime into it. The smartphone ecosystem is one of the most exciting, dynamic, and competitive there has been in technology in my lifetime. Well, there was the early PC and video game market, but I was a little young to appreciate those.

Re:Rent-seeking?

[Lumpy]

For the unenlightened? yes.
The rest of us will start forming a shadow internet under it all to get around the ISP tricks. Kind of like TOR but better built with tricks to hide what it really is from the ISP. There are already people working on it, now it will have a use for those that want to use the internet as intended and not as the corporate overlords decide it should be used as.

Because you know that it is only a few years away befoer they start double dipping and not only charging NEtflix for access, but charging the user as well for access to netflix.

Executives in the comcast, verizon, and AT&T board rooms are wetting themselves over how high they can drive their profits without spending a single dime.

Re:Rent-seeking?

[noh8rz10]

who has apple litigated into bankruptcy? the only major litigation from apple has been with samsung, and they're not bankrupt. I think you're full of bee ess. In short, links or it didn't happen.

"We're going to be needing an Ipath"

[rmdingler]

It's not unbelievable Apple would desire this, and to speak it out loud means they think there's a chance of getting it implemented, but fear not:

There is just no way our honorable representatives are going to let some monopolistic shite like this get shoved down our throats.

The rest of you voted for the honest candidate...Right?

Re:"We're going to be needing an Ipath"

[fustakrakich]

The rest of you voted for the honest candidate...Right?

Yes... Kodos

CDNs do not violate Network Neutrality

[ElBeano]

I'm sure we'll see a rush to judgment that these deals are the end of network neutrality, blah, blah. From the outside looking in, we don't really know what added value is being provided to the content providers. Quite possibly, likely in my view, Comcast is providing CDN services to Netflix, and may be doing so for Apple as well. If so, there are benefits all around, in terms of Comcast, Netflix and reducing backbone congestion. A CDN is quite different from a toll road.

Re:CDNs do not violate Network Neutrality

[CastrTroy]

Possibly, but if the content is going to start coming from my ISPs own network, it better not be counted in my monthly usage either. This would be a nice way for it to turn out, but I'm pessimistic that it will actually work out that way.

Re:CDNs do not violate Network Neutrality

[Registered Coward v2]

Possibly, but if the content is going to start coming from my ISPs own network, it better not be counted in my monthly usage either. This would be a nice way for it to turn out, but I'm pessimistic that it will actually work out that way.

It make sense not to count it. If Apple gives Comcast a cut of the revenue in exchange for the pipe, Comcast would have a vested interest in having customers use Apple's services. They already are getting your money for the pipe, so any Apple' money is just more revenue and it would be counter productive to do something to limit it. In addition, by getting deals in place they can start building for a future where subscribing to traditional cable dwindles in favor of al la carte delivery by companies such as Apple and the content owners. Apple is not the enemy, Google is because if they ever make significant inroads in the major metropolitan areas they will be able to deliver content separate from cable and the cable ISPs; which would cripple them financially.

Re:CDNs do not violate Network Neutrality

[tlhIngan]

Possibly, but if the content is going to start coming from my ISPs own network, it better not be counted in my monthly usage either. This would be a nice way for it to turn out, but I'm pessimistic that it will actually work out that way.

And that's probably what Apple wants - people who use Netflix get billed on their quota, but people who use Apple's service gets it "for free" without it counting on their quota.

Because Apple doesn't want people who use their streaming service to suddenly get shocked with huge bills because they watched 1TB of movies and music that one month.

It's just a CDN

[lseltzer]

Private lines from Apple to Comcast endpoints, just like what Akamai, etc do

Re:What does this even mean?

[Hognoxious]

The headers will have the hipster bit set?

Trojan Horse

[advantis]

I'm not sure if I'm reading it right, but it feels like:

1. Get dedicated wires laid down by Comcast for you;
2. Start with Apple-only services on your new national network that Comcast gladly laid down for you;
3. A bit later, start offering general Internet services through your brand new national network that Comcast can't take away from you no matter how much they scream in horror;
4. Be ahead of Google Fiber in term of reach, since Comcast were so helpful in helping you compete with them;
5. Profit!

Did I miss anything?

Re:Trojan Horse

[spacepimp]

They'll just use up bandwidth that would otherwise be slotted for customers of Comcast, which were heavily subsidized by US tax dollars.

Bullshit! CDNs are just another name for the same

[bigpat]

CDNs are exactly the same as a toll road. There is limited bandwidth over the wires and in this case Comcast is going to be bumping some other content providers off the road in order to make way for Apple exclusive use.

We the Customers

[bigpat]

What is being glossed over when the CEOs come out and say that Netflix and other content providers want a "free ride" is that it isn't Comcast that is paying for this network infrastructure and their customers aren't their property... We the customers are paying for this network infrastructure with our money and we are being told we are getting a level of bandwidth service to the "Internet".

For CEOs of Comcast and Verizon to demand that Netflix or others raise their prices and pass along those price increases to the customers of Verizon and Comcast if they want to connect to these networks is fundamentally a dishonest argument for fairness since it is the customers of Verizon and Comcast that want to access these Internet services in the first place and it is the Verizon and Comcast customers that are already paying both companies in order to do so.

It is way past time for government regulation. Either at the state, federal or local level to demand net neutrality. And if localities can't impose net neutrality in their licensing, permit or franchise agreements because the big companies have bought off the Feds again, then municipalities should just put up their own wires.

Re:If only it were simply toll roads

[BitZtream]

Ironic that you talk about bundling as being bad ... your Internet pipe is a 'all or nothing bundle' by definition. You don't want that changed because theres a VERY good chance you'll (as a techie) be in a group that pays a fuckton more than others since you aren't going to be the standard generic type of user who helps share the cost of the services they use.

You will almost certainly be an outlier.

And they ALREADY CHARGED YOU.

When you pay you internet provider, do you not feel that your agreement with them is for a pipe to the Internet and that ALL traffic over it is created equal? Why do you seem to think you should not only pay for the bandwidth ... but then pay extra because you use someone specific?

Why are you arguing the get charged twice for the same service?