Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Hit With FCC Complaint Over Net Neutrality Violations (streamingmedia.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Non-profit public interest group Public Knowledge has filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission regarding Comcast's Stream TV service. The complaint says that Comcast excludes Stream TV traffic from its own data cap, which is both a violation of its merger agreement and counter to the FCC's Open Internet rules. Stream TV is a $15 per month offering for Xfinity internet customers. It includes local channels, some basic cable, HBO, and the use of a cloud DVR. Most content is streamed over the home network. Public Knowledge's senior staff attorney, John Bergmayer says, "Comcast's actions could result in fewer online video choices for viewers nationwide, while increasing its dominance as a video gatekeeper. If its behavior persists, prices will go up, the number of choices will go down, creators will have a harder time reaching an audience, and viewers will have a harder time accessing diverse and independent programming."
When we moved from many, many ISPs to just a few Cable Providers in the 1990's we mistakenly made only a few large telco and cable companies responsible for the internet. This is by definition monopoly power. It disgusts me that we trust an organization with this level of evil with ensuring free and fair communication. Why do we put up with this?
As long as competitor content isn't slowed down to make your content more attractive, it seams reasonable to me to put caps on out of network usage, but no caps on usage from servers which are wholly owned by the ISP.
I think anything we can do to limit access to the crap on TV can only be a good thing.
Comcast is like a Succubus. Or a crack dealer. You start out with a reasonable rate, and six months later, you look at your bill for $200 and wonder how you got here for a few channels and Internet. Comcast thinks that because they have essentially a monopoly (and why was it not OK for Microsoft, but it's OK for Comcast), that they can continue to squeeze people. Unfortunately, they are probably right.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
'Comcast's actions could result in fewer online video choices for viewers nationwide, while increasing its dominance as a video gatekeeper," Bergmayer says. "If its behavior persists, prices will go up, the number of choices will go down, creators will have a harder time reaching an audience, and viewers will have a harder time accessing diverse and independent programming.' - Note active voice "Comcast's response is that Stream TV doesn't go over the internet, but is delivered over the same closed path as its cable streams, and so is exempt from the rules. It calls Stream TV a cable service, not an OTT service." - Note passive voice
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
...Note active voice "Comcast's response is that Stream TV doesn't go over the internet, but is delivered over the same closed path as its cable streams...
That's a diversion. It's the same coax going into the house, it's the same overall bandwidth on that coax. Comcast is playing with words.
so will they force you to rent software / hardware to view it change outlet fees per system like they do on there cable tv system?
"Comcast's response is that Stream TV doesn't go over the internet, but is delivered over the same closed path as its cable streams, and so is exempt from the rules. It calls Stream TV a cable service, not an OTT service." - Note passive voice
Ugh, so flagrant violation of NN it's sickening. And defending it by saying 'omigosh, its OUR OWN intranet!' It's a good defense, and precisely why content providers need to be separated from internet providers, or be forced to play by NN rules. This is exactly what NN exists to prevent. Almost feels like Comcast looked at pro-NN discussion and decided to pick the most blatant violation they could find and do it.
Does rather feel like a gauntlet being thrown down at the FCC, "We're violating NN rules. Whacha gunna do now?" :P Let's just hope the consequences are enough to discourage the behavior, rather than be an 'acceptable price of doing it.'
That's a diversion. It's the same coax going into the house, it's the same overall bandwidth on that coax. Comcast is playing with words.
If it doesn't leave their AS, is it really "Internet"?
Remember, the FCC issued an "Open Internet Order", not an "Open Private Network Order".
(Maybe you have to get really specific and the service has to stay on the same layer 2 LAN? :)
I am not familiar with this product. Could someone please explain the details so that I may decide for myself whether this is an internet service -- should be common carrier -- or whether it is an other type of services -- that should be exempt from common carrier.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Hit Comcast with revocation of all FCC licenses and ban Comcast from all Federal bidding for 40-years.
Ha ha
If it doesn't leave their AS, is it really "Internet"?
Yes, absolutely. An ASN is NOT required to interconnect private networks.
Remember, the FCC issued an "Open Internet Order", not an "Open Private Network Order".
The Internet is an interconnected global federation of public and private networks. Lets break down the particulars of stream service using this definition.
"Interconnected networks":
Yes - Comcast is interconnecting with customers network. Two separate networks. Both privately owned and managed by respective parties.
Global federation - Yes, from same network address customer uses to access stream they can access any peer in the global federation.
Assuming you believe the definition of the Internet above is accurate and fair then stream is absolutely part of the Internet.
From a regulation standpoint, I think there should be a return to local data, and long distance data. The big data users, like Netflix (who already does this), will be able to set up lots of servers, all over the country, to minimize the amount of data sent over the internet. Or, maybe local distance (directly to the modem bank) intermediate distance (about 20 km away), and long distance data.
Oh you want to have data caps? Let's strike down all the horseshit laws preventing competing ISPs from moving into areas where Comcast, AT&T and the other shitbag companies operate. All that fiber laid with public funding is now available to be tapped into by competing ISPs that want to move in and provide fiber to the home, unmetered and uncapped lines and just plain better service than Crapcast and co.
All the legislation and red tape preventing non-shitbag ISPs from laying down fiber gets struck down too. City and state governments will have to work with ISPs to lay new fiber and install the last mile fiber links.
I don't think you understand what active and passive voice are. (Hint: both statements are active voice. "To respond," "to travel," and "to say" are active verbs.) Also, Comcast isn't quoted directly; they are paraphrased. Thus, you can't split hairs about the active voice/passive voice of the statement you're reading because it's not what Comcast actually said.
Global federation - Yes, from same network address customer uses to access stream they can access any peer in the global federation.
If they use NAT, that might not be true because they will have internal and external addresses. Also, the SERVER isn't globally federated (because you can't access it from another ISP.)
Albeit I've only read a few articles regarding Net Neutrality violations that have lead to nowhere and then had my own experience, I've come to the conclusion Net Neutrality as passed by the FCC is fucking lip service. It doesn't mean shit to service providers.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
If they use NAT, that might not be true because they will have internal and external addresses
Customers public IP address is used the whole way.
Also, the SERVER isn't globally federated (because you can't access it from another ISP.)
Customer is accessing server from the Internet thus stream is delivered over the Internet. Caps apply to user not server.
CDNs, such as those deployed by Amazon, Netflix, etc. are deployed *within* Comcast's network.
Even then Comcast caps the data to these things.
They do so purely for business reasons, and not so much for technical reasons.
That's got so much stupid in it, I don't even know where to begin.
-- As long as competitor content isn't slowed down to make your content more attractive, it seams reasonable to me to put caps on
-- out of network usage, but no caps on usage from servers which are wholly owned by the ISP.
So, I pay my ISP to connect me to the internet, their "Internet Service". I don't understand why it's OK to you to have to pay for that same connection/service multiple times, regardless of if it's slowed down, let run at-speed, or whatever. It's not OK to me to be multiple-charged by my "Internet Service Provider" for my "Internet Service".
Comcast has always pulled this shady crap. They make sure first-party services are unaffected by whatever crazy bandwidth shaping ruins third-party services in what is almost certainly a very deliberate attempt to push people towards their own first-party services. This is just business as usual for Comcast....
IMO, there's only one acceptable set of consequences, and that is forcing Comcast to spin off their physical infrastructure into a separate company so that multiple ISPs and cable companies can freely lease those lines and compete against Comcast.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Wireline Isp's that have data caps are stealing from their customers. Data is cheap and plentiful for an ISP.
Quick math:
Fact: Most cable companies can run the cable and support the network connectivity for about $15 / month / connection.
Fact: Quick price grab of commercial IP transit. $2600 for 10Gbps. this reduces down to $26 per month for 100Mbps transit.
Fact: Lets pretend the cap is 100TB of data. This is approx 10Mbps at 95th% usage. This costs $2.60 per month in transit costs.
Fact: Tier 1 providers like Comcast don't pay for most of their bandwidth due to peering, however they do pay fixed costs. so perhaps $0.50 per GBPS per month is a reasonable cost for comcast bandwidth.
Actual cost to provide 100mbit service if you are a cable company purchasing RETAIL bandwidth with no peering agreements and the customer actually uses the purchased bandwidth $41.00. Price for 100mbit service if available $80-$300 / month.
So, If you own your own cable modem, and have a 500GB cap your $89 plus tax 50Mbit capped service costs the Cable company $17.60 to provide (you pay the taxes) assuming they overprovision by 50%. Want faster speed? same cap! If you go over the cap? no problem, they will rip you off even more. No wonder they don't want competition. Quite the racket pretending that "internet" is scarce and expensive and must be metered.
The real problem is that the agreements that cable companies sign with cities is not defined properly. The internet and TV services are grouped into one contract.
So you have someone like Comcast working multiple services like VOIP, security, broadband, and TV. This would have never happened with standard phone service years ago. Its fine for Comcast to offer a perk to have streaming services that compete with the likes of Netflix. But its not OK to say you watch Netflix your data is counted against your cap and our's is not. This is a unfair advantage, which allows the cable company to nudge you into using their service because it does not count against you. I think data caps are wrong to begin with, this simply makes the problem worse and shows a bias and conflict of interest.
That's the only option. Just like highways are owned by government and people get to use it in return for paying taxes (unless they're rich enough to avoid them and whine that the smaller % of their massive fortune is more than the bigger % of the pittance of the middle class family, therefore they're paying more for shit that they get more from, the ignorant and bitchy bullshitters that they are), the information superhighway needs to be government owned and paid for out of taxes and then everyone gets to play ISP if they want.
A back slash in a amber alert ad like Time Warner.
Good grief were doomed.
This is one of the symptoms of monopoly-like corporate control that has a cure.
Make Internet providers fall under utility laws.
Again: The internet is now a utility - make them toe the line.
Quick tip for those trying to argue against this. You can't simply argue "Net neutrality good!" There's a real lowered economic cost with the way Comcast delivers these services - they locally host the servers which contain the streaming data, so the data doesn't have to get to them over the Internet. Consequently it doesn't cost them any bandwidth so they can provide it to you at lower cost. And since the data never has to travel over the Internet to get to them, net neutrality doesn't really apply.
The way you have to argue against this is that they're mingling the accounting between two different operations. Unless they can prove the service costs them exactly $15/mo per user or less (minus their normal profit margin), they're essentially taking money from other cable subscribers to subsidize this service. That should be pretty easy to prove given that HBO Now just by itself is $15/mo. Thus they're pricing it below their own cost, which given the local monopoly they hold is illegal. Add in the fact that they initially refused to accept the local servers Netflix offered to them for free precisely to eliminate the bandwidth charges, and you have a slam dunk of an anti-trust case.
Fundamentally, the problem is that the company which owns the pipes is also selling stuff transported through those pipes. That gives them an unfair advantage over competing companies trying to sell stuff transported through their pipes. The solution is to prohibit the company who owns the pipes from selling anything which is sent through it. Break the company up into two separate entities - a pipe maintenance company and a pipe content company.
Comcast is deliberately ABUSIVE. It's interesting to note that Comcast encourages employees to abuse customers, and Comcast employees interpret that as permission to also abuse Comcast.
Consumerist stories about Comcast.
One of the stories: Comcast: 2014 worst company in America.
6 Things Comcast Customers Can Try To Get Some Actual Customer Service
Isn't T-Mobile Binge On also doing the same thing - http://www.t-mobile.com/offer/...
Why are they allowed to do it?
With literally THOUSANDS of complaints, evidence of continual violates of deals they themselves signed, violations of net neutrality rules, abusing power, using tax payer dollars and fucking people in every aspect, I think the solution is clear:
Break Comcast up. Break them up into dozens of smaller companies that are forced to compete with one another. Remove all rules that allow Comcast, or any other ISP, to have a monopoly on the lines.
That's a diversion. It's the same coax going into the house, it's the same overall bandwidth on that coax. Comcast is playing with words.
That is incorrect; you don't understand how coax works. It is the same coax cable, but not the same bandwidth. Video is delivered on a separate spectrum in coax cable. Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) is used to transmit "classic" cable video and consumes spectrum. Most likely Comcast is reclaiming spectrum and using that to stream tv. Separate bandwidth, just as HAM radio and 4g cell networks consumer separate bandwidth.
They also are likely sourcing the content closer to the end user so they don't have to pay interconnect fees. It is also broadly well known that Comcast has a separate physical fiber backbone just for TV. See cbone vs ibone. Like it or not between separated spectrum and separate physical infrastructure this is most assuredly not "delivered over the internet".
Also, the SERVER isn't globally federated (because you can't access it from another ISP
Customer is accessing server from the Internet thus stream is delivered over the Internet.
The customer isn't accessing the server from the Internet. The server and the customer are on the same WAN.
The customer isn't accessing the server from the Internet.
What makes you say that?
The customer has an Internet IP and is using it to communicate with another private Internet network.
Is there some kind of distance requirement how many networks you have to transition before it is considered the Internet? If so can you point me to that definition?
The server and the customer are on the same WAN.
The customers network is a LAN which interconnects with Comcast's network just like every other node on the Internet interconnects with each other... One gigantic WAN.
Is there some kind of distance requirement how many networks you have to transition before it is considered the Internet? If so can you point me to that definition?...
The customers network is a LAN which interconnects with Comcast's network just like every other node on the Internet interconnects with each other... One gigantic WAN.
No. The Internet is a series of interconnected networks. It isn't centrally managed. A WAN is a single network (that is centrally managed) with nodes in multiple geographic locations. (A LAN is a single network (centrally managed) with nodes in a single geographic location.)
Comcast's WAN includes connections to customer LANs using cable modems. Comcast manages the cable modems, even though they are located at the customer site. (Even in cases where the customer OWNS the cable modem, only Comcast and not the customer is able to configure the cable modem.) Comcast's network ALSO includes a bunch of servers that can only be accessed from certain locations within their network. (This means that other ISPs customers' can't access these servers.) Finally, it includes interconnections to commercial networks. These connections are managed on Comcast's end by a router or switch which Comcast owns. Comcast can't manage anything past the router or switch. Comcast's WAN includes the switch or router that leads to the interconnect, anything past there is "on the Internet."