Is Comcast Thumbing Its Nose At FCC's Open Internet Rules By Exempting Xbox VOD From Data Cap?
from the sure-seems-that-way dept
As was somewhat expected, this week Comcast announced its plans to offer Xfinity video on demand via the Xbox 360... which will require customers to subscribe to both Xfinity TV and the broadband service, meaning that this isn't a solution for getting around your cable subscription (of course, because Comcast doesn't want you ditching your cable TV). But what's getting much more attention is the announcement that such streaming video won't count against Comcasts' broadband caps, raising some significant questions concerning whether or not Comcast is following the FCC's open internet rules -- the same rules that were put in place to stop Comcast from degrading certain services in favor of others. Comcast, for it part, insists that the rules don't apply to this VOD service, since it's coming over its private network, rather than the public internet, but it's certainly tiptoeing along a fairly fine line. I think the bigger issue is why the cap exists in the first place. But, in the long run, Comcast is definitely trying to back its way into being able set up "most favored nation" status with certain providers, which really does impinge on the internet's basic end-to-end principles.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bandwidth caps, broadband, fcc, net neutrality, vod, xbox
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or did the put into place 150 gig limits on DSL, and 250 gig limits on uverse, with uverse content not supposed to be counted towards that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Note: Your usage is not yet available for display. You should not be concerned about your usage for billing purposes. AT&T will keep you informed about your data usage via email.
To learn more about how to manage your usage, please visit www.att.com/internet-usage.
While I don't have a Netflix account, I do regularly watch videos via YouTube, Vimeo, Apple Trailers, etc. I also work from home via VPN and transfer sizeable files (200M - 1G+) over the connection on a regular basis. Add in the other 10+ internet connected devices in the house and I'm certainly not a low-usage customer. To date, I've received zero notices regarding my usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It was mostly users who said anything, the people watching out for "us" were awfully quiet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the bandwidth cap is for internet usage, not streaming video from a server that's not on the internet. Its the same principle on how their voip system works. Should the FCC becoming down on them that their VOIP service doesn't count toward their usage limit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are no Internet issues involved here at all since no traffic ever leaves or enters their network. It's essentially the same as saying to you or I that what we do with our LAN is anyone else's business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If we were talking about a healthy competing market for internet service, they would lose subscribers who preferred the internet-based streaming over the local net streaming. However, the nature of the market is such that many of those subscribers have very few options.
The fear is that all of those very few ISPs could implement such services and move to increasing restrictions on open internet (favoring their services). This would lead to a fundamental breakdown of what makes the internet what it is as more services moved to private networks out of necessity.
This move, and others like it, indicate ISPs that don't respect the nature of the internet and whom are trying whatever they can to encroach upon it. They are trying to get their foot in the door, and slamming it shut is very important to making sure they don't try to go farther next fiscal cycle.
Note that this is very much like when the US Congress passes a law that kind of, but not really, while maybe tramples your rights, and is why the wording of the Bill of Rights has a lot of "Congress shall make no law." The state of US law right now has trampled all over several amendments, citing technicalities and court cases, because there were no immediate backlashes that would even think of entering that ground.
Intent is as important as the letter of the law. If the regulations technically allow this, we need to update the regulation to close the loophole, not let them get away with it. No, we won't punish them for the behavior, not unless it continues past the update. That is all the protection a technicality should provide, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
banks
health insurance
major league sports
agricultural coops
unions
There is a verifiable lack of competition in the ISP marketplace which puts ISPs under scrutiny with regard to antitrust violations. The service being provided by said ISP is required in day to day activities and one cannot simply go elsewhere. Using this monopoly to their advantage, the ISP risks being subjected to anti trust hearings and government regulation. I'm sure they are well aware if this and therefore have placed their sock puppets loaded with cash in strategic locations. We can all expect to see their eventual attempt at exemption in the very near future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American consumers have the worst companies in the world, so it is no surprise that most American companies can't compete outside the US, this is the kind of thing that make people seek furiously for an alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet providers
My question is if the streampix app would work on a friend's fios or centurylink connection.
I'd already be paying for home connectivity and ugh streampix but I doubt it'd work on other isp networks. I thought portability was one of the fundamental rights of data access
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said, I beat the crap out of my current Comcast account and have never had an issue.
Actually, now that I think about it, that ISP was one of a few to not fold like a lawn chair in terms of user privacy so props to them...
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2011/isp-gets-identity-seeking-subpoena-vacated?utm_source=feedb urner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CitizenMediaLawProject+%28Citizen+Media+Law+Proje ct%29
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need a Glass-Steagal for the internet.
Cable and phone are anachronisms today. We don't need either because we have the internet and mobile communication devices. One day, there won't be a "cable network" or a "phone/cell network". There will only be "the network" and all the devices that can attach to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm at my limit now
I wouldn't be nearly as paranoid about it and pulling network cables out of my devices if it weren't for Comcast's absurd policy of completely cutting off people who go over the limit.
The only other viable alternative around here is Century Link, who has the same 250GB limit. I'm not sure what their policy on overages is (funny how they don't make that info easy to find), reviews from around here indicate their customer service is worse than Comcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm at my limit now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right?
Right???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
None of this would be a talking point if comcast would just upgrade their network to handle the users, their greed speaks louder every time they try a new PR stunk. It's good news, in theory, but it's a constant reminder that they put a limit on the amount of "unlimited" internets they give you. I'd be angry if they said they were going to exempt youtube videos of cats on the same grounds. They should have to play by their own rules or admit the limits are arbitrary and designed only to target people who use as much as the service as they can. Why shouldn't it be the ISP's responsibility not to give that customer too large of a pipe? Unless they can prove someone's maliciously abusing their network in a way that damages their equipment they should have to legally back off. The more they try and control what I can and cannot see with the cable money I gave them for a service the less I think this company has any right to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well they are getting creative
They used to just stick with "network congestion" as the reason to impose data caps. Then I guess someone realized that they keep saying there's too much traffic as they are trying to roll out more traffic (video), which sets up the situation of : If there is too much traffic already then why are you adding much much more, since the networks can't handle what is already there ???
Ummmm yeah... ummm .. Our private network, that's it. Our private network can handle all the traffic that you pay a lot for. Why don't we just use our private network to eliminate your data caps since you are our customer? Ummmm... hmmm... we'll get back to you on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well they are getting creative
Will Comcast further compress their existing video in order to make room for the new data? As much as they would like to think their "private network" has unlimited bandwidth, the laws of the physical world say otherwise.
The whole premise for "bw caps" was due to congestion within the last mile, what - that was not true? - say it isn't so ... lol.
This is a train wreck in slow motion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well they are getting creative
Slow motion? I bet Comcast is throttling it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traceroute?
Does it indeed never traverse the *regular* internet?
ie - via internet from central repository to their distribution nodes, then and only then, on the final leg to their consumer over their last-mile connection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two weeks later, Comcast issues a press release stating that increased usage by a "pirates" that are "stealing" copy written content along with pedophiles downloading kiddie porn have forced them to reduce the caps by 50%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They may be aware of what they want to do, however the rule of unintended consequences has other plans. Just look to AOL for an example of the "Walled Garden" business plan failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]