Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
from the we're-helping! dept
About a year ago we noted how Comcast has a weird tendency to prevent its broadband users from being able to use HBO Go on some fairly standard technology, including incredibly common Roku hardware. For several years Roku users couldn't use HBO Go if they had a Comcast connection, and for just as long Comcast refused to explain why. Every other broadband provider had no problem ensuring the back-end authentication (needed to confirm you have a traditional cable connection) worked, but not Comcast.HBO Go is part of the cable and broadcast industry's "TV Everywhere" initiative, the shortfalls of which we've tackled previously. HBO Go, as part of the TV Everywhere initiative, requires you prove you're a traditional cable customer before you can access most online content. For example, if you want to watch HBO Go on your Roku 3, the HBO Go app simply needs Comcast servers to quickly confirm that you are a paying cable customer. Comcast's refusing to make this part of the connection process work, effectively restricting users from using bandwidth they pay for, over hardware they own, to access content they also pay for.
The goal of course is to keep as many users as possible on Comcast's X1 set top platform and away from the most popular Internet video devices. Last I saw, Roku sells around 30% of all streaming video hardware sold in any given month. Comcast clearly can't admit they're being shifty, so when pressed on why it takes them years to set up a simple authentication mechanism, the company usually makes up a rotating crop of bullshit excuses:
"With every new website, device or player we authenticate, we need to work through technical integration and customer service which takes time and resources. Moving forward, we will continue to prioritize as we partner with various players."Roku had to file an FCC complaint to get Comcast to finally stop doing this. At the time, the filing argued that while "throttling" and "blocking" get all the attention as weapons of discrimination, the TV Everywhere authentication model is also a useful weapon for large cable providers when it comes to harming competing services:
"While an ISP can throttle content delivery speeds to effect anti-competitive discrimination, throttling is only the most transparent of a long list of discriminatory actions than an ISP with market power can undertake. [Additional discriminatory actions may] include control over data caps and authentication to hinder content and platforms that directly compete with the ISP's own or affiliated content."And the problem wasn't just with Roku. When HBO Go on the Playstation 3 was released, it worked with every other TV-Everywhere compatible provider, but not Comcast. When customers complained in the Comcast forums, they were greeted with total silence. When customers called in to try and figure out why HBO Go wouldn't work, they usually received incorrect statements from front level support (it should arrive in 48 hours, don't worry!).
Fast forward nearly a year since the HBO Go Playstation 3 launch (it still doesn't work), and Sony has now announced an HBO Go app for the Playstation 4 console. And guess what -- when you go to activate the app you'll find it works with every major broadband ISP -- except Comcast. Why? Comcast still won't really say, but the company appears to have backed away from claims that the delay is due to technical or customer support issues, and is now telling forum visitors the hangup is related to some ambiguous business impasse:
"HBO Go availability on PS3 (and some other devices) are business decisions and deal with business terms that have not yet been agreed to between the parties. Thanks for your continued patience."Since every other ISP (including AT&T, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable) didn't have a problem supporting the app, you have to assume Comcast specifically isn't getting something from Sony or HBO it would like (read: enough money to make them feel comfortable about potentially cannibalizing traditional TV/HBO viewers). Comcast's basically using the TV Anywhere authentication mechanism -- as opposed to outright blocking or throttling -- to prohibit its customers from accessing content in a way Comcast doesn't approve of. In this way Comcast's behavior, while not necessarily a net neutrality offense on its surface, is certainly part of the conversation in regards to gatekeeper power.
Fortunately for users in this instance, HBO's about to launch a stand alone app that won't need cable authentication, taking Comcast out of the equation anyway. Still, this is a good example of how crafting net neutrality rules is only part of the conversation about mega-ISP power. It's great to have rules governing the pipes themselves, but they don't mean much if other anti-competitive behaviors can just be hidden behind half-answers and faux-technical nonsense for years on end without repercussion.
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: blocking, hbo go, net neutrality, playstation 4
Companies: comcast, hbo, sony
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can tell you why
Not saying I agree with it, but I'm pretty sure that's the attitude with the corporate folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can tell you why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can tell you why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can tell you why
I'm a bit confused about whether this is active sabotage or willful neglect. Has Comcast gone out of its way to block HBO Go, perhaps similar to the way that Comcast intentionally sabotaged Bittorrent traffic by forging RST packets? (and yes, Comcast lied about that caper for ages until finally caught red-handed)
https://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-affair
Or, assuming that HBO Go requires something more than just a dumb pipe [which we call The Internet] was this more a case of dragging their feet when it came to performing the technical upgrades (if such a thing even exists) that might have been necessary to make HBO Go work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I can tell you why
Either way, the fact that streaming is very trendy right now and HBO can not provide a streaming service to a large number of customers is probably helping to motivate HBO to bring a non-channel based product to market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I can tell you why
That strikes me as semantics for the sole benefit of Comcast. They refused to provide "necessary support" for Roku for THREE YEARS, the end result being people unable to use their broadband connection the way they'd like.
As the article notes it's clearly not a "purely technical issue."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I can tell you why
And if that's the case, then it's not hard to see the strategic commercial advantage this gives Comcast for not fixing HBO Go.
It would indeed be interesting to learn if Comcast had been in negotiations with HBO, trying to include HBO shows as part of its XFINITY service -- and then failing to work out an agreement, *coincidentially* dragging its feet on making HBO Go work properly on Comcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I can tell you why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I can tell you why
No one that I am aware of that would know the reasons have spoken publicly about why HBO / (MiddleMan) / Comcast have not made the HBO Go product universally available. Anything we say is pure speculation, for all we know HBO wants a greater fee from cable operators when their customers have access via alternate methods and/or Comcast may want an implementation fee from the device provider and/or HBO to implement another device.
The reality is the TV Everywhere initiative is horrible for consumers as it helps to keep them locked in to the old "mafia style" model of cable TV packages. In this model the customer cannot express choice because of bulk packages and is at an extreme disadvantage to both the cable TV operators and the content distributors (i.e. HBO, ESPN) - a very anti-free market theme if there ever was one.
Comcast may still have aspirations about their X1 platform and being the device of choice by consumers, though I think that ship sailed about 7 years ago and about $5 per month in device rental fees hikes ago. Like NetFlix we want to think HBO is the good guy in this, but the rumored price point of $15 per month for HBO Now should help remind everyone that content distributors are just as much responsible if not more so than cable operators for the high cost of content and the limited choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I can tell you why
How people are upset that I'm suggesting this is even part of the net neutrality conversation seems bizarre to me. People are going to have to open their eyes wider, as the net neutrality discussion has broadened as ISPs get more clever about these abuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I can tell you why
You are correct in that they both result from Comcast being a dick, but you can't regulate that out of somebody. If they're a dick, they'll always find a new way to be a dick.
Once again, nothing t all to do with Net neutrality and the Internet, everything to do with TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I can tell you why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can tell you why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can tell you why
Who cares what Comcast invested in HBO shows? If people buy them from Comcast, great for Comcast. If people buy them elsewhere and use their Comcast service, that they pay for, to access it, Comcast doesn't get to have a say. There isn't even a quasi-legal, piraty or think-of-the-children argument to be made here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how that works isn't it?
You know, that sounds remarkably like the little spat they had with Netflix, where they demanded Netflix pay them for the 'privilege' of carrying their service, even though both Netflix and Comcast's customers had already paid their share.
Sadly, I'm sure the humor based upon their hypocrisy is lost on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny how that works isn't it?
I hear crickets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny how that works isn't it?
Now I personally would thoroughly enjoy a settlement free interconnection with NetFlix (hopefully later this year or next?), but it was Comcast's decision to not. Highly dubious motivation, I'm sure, but their decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can tell you why
You still have to have a cable/satellite HBO subscription to get HBO Go. So this isn't directly about cord cutters, though maybe Comcast is thinking ahead (hard to imagine) and doesn't want their customers getting used to the idea of getting TV from the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can tell you why
"The three companies that mutually own Hulu — 21st Century Fox, the Walt Disney Company and NBCUniversal — said Friday that instead of selling the pioneering streaming video Web site, they would make a new investment of $750 million and use Hulu’s technology to compete against other online distributors like Netflix..The companies have clashed repeatedly over Hulu for years; meanwhile, the third owner, NBCUniversal, has been a silent partner since being acquired by Comcast in early 2011. (At that time the government barred Comcast from being involved in Hulu’s business affairs, for fear that it would try to impose restrictions on Hulu to protect its core cable business.)"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/business/media/owners-of-hulu-call-off-sale-and-plan-to -invest-750-million.html?_r=0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fear not, Sony console owners and revenue providers to future SOPA bills, HBO Go, when released to the public, will play on all consoles without need of a cable subscription, provided you subscribe to the possible $15/mo subscription instead.
These apps have been updated for the new non-cable subscription model (and giving you one more reason to drop Comcast's cable).
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neutral networks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neutral networks
"We're uh, just negotiating and ironing out last minute business negotiations...suggesting this is any way a gatekeeper abuse of a dominant market position is the very height of absurdity!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neutral networks
However, I think it goes a bit too far to say we want neutrality to include compelling ISP's like Comcast (as much as I dislike them) to integrate with random walled-garden applications like HBO Go. That makes as much sense as Blackberry's "app neutrality" idea.
As @Chronno S. Trigger said in another comment, HBO could solve this by simply offering an unbundled (or PPV) service. Likely they're too chicken, for their own reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
I absolutely think this falls under the net neutrality umbrella. It's Comcast getting in the way of people using their connections and hardware as they see fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
This HBO Go thing relates to how the destination of the traffic responds, not to how the traffic is carried over the pipes. So it's not a NN issue. Saying that isn't to say that it's not an issue that deserves to be addressed, just that it's beyond the scope of the NN effort.
As it should be, in my opinion. If we expand the debate to "should content providers be forced to provide content in a specific way", then we're not only mixing apples and oranges, but the the whole situation becomes very problematic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
Here, Comcast is just using a different mechanism (refusal to set up a simple authentication process) for the same end result (preventing users from accessing the content they want on their own hardware).
The definition of net neutrality is expanding as ISPs get more clever about seeking out said pound of flesh. Whether that's blocking Google Wallet on phones to give your own mobile payment service a leg up, or failing to enact authentication so users can access a common app you don't like, it's all part of the same conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
I think dragging the HBO issue into net neutrality confuses Comcast as a cable company with Comcast as an ISP. One delivers HBO to subscribers, the other delivers IP packets, hopefully unmolested, to the world. Common-carrier status should apply to the IP packets, not regulate how customers can or cannot get their favorite "cable shows".
If HBO wants to limit their subscribers to those with "cable", and Comcast is happy with their customers only getting half of HBO's service, then that sounds like "business" to me. Call Comcast and cancel your HBO if you don't like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
The end result is the same. It's part of the same conversation.
You buy a Roku 3. You already pay for cable and HBO. You hook it up but just need Comcast servers to basically say "yes, he's a paying cable customer," something that's not a problem for every other ISP. But Comcast refuses to provide this for YEARS, never really telling you why. But the reason is they want you watching HBO content on THEIR X1 set top boxes and platforms.
You really don't see how this is at least related to the entire net neutrality debate? Punishing HBO for what Comcast is doing doesn't really accomplish anything here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
I'm not saying that OK. I'm saying that isn't, and shouldn't be, part of "net neutrality". It should be handled as a separate issue entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
You seem to be showing quite a sense of entitlement. You bought all these things, and then you seem to believe in a "right" that they work the way you want them to. And further, that someone else should be compelled to make that happen. And your main justification is that you paid for them, and other companies have chosen to make it happen, so Comcast should be forced to do it too.
Punishing HBO for what Comcast is doing doesn't really accomplish anything here.
It's called "voting with your wallet". If you don't like the service, don't buy it. I don't buy your claim that HBO is a victim here, and you've provided little evidence of it. When they start losing business, perhaps they'll consider other business arrangements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
I think his point is that just because you bought a Roku doesn't mean Comcast should have to support it. The problem really is not Comcast, it's the fact that your only option is Comcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
I wholeheartedly disagree. If HBO provided an internet service that I could buy without being a cable subscriber, and Comcast tried to fiddle with that, it would be the same thing.
Here's the thing. If we want to really solve the neutrality problem, we need to disaggregate or unbundle the content from the delivery. HBO Go and TV Everywhere are simply ways to keep the old model working "on the internet". If we really want the freedom I think you're asking for, the old model needs to go. Then Comcast will be stuck delivering my unfettered bits and I can pick and choose the content I'm interested in rather than the whole "premium bundle" with tons of crap I don't want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
Zero rated apps sound great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why not work to increase the profits of the company that's going to be paying your salary in a few years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The stand-alone HBO subscription can't come soon enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The stand-alone HBO subscription can't come soon enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The stand-alone HBO subscription can't come soon enough
To reduce "network collisions", of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The stand-alone HBO subscription can't come soon enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The stand-alone HBO subscription can't come soon enough
What's to stop them from pulling this "technical difficulty" crap in the future when they'd just rather not live up to their customers' expectations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Glad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ask Netflix how badly their balls got squeezed by Verizon before claiming Comcast does not have HBO by the balls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality...
If HBO Go requires no work on Comcast's part to implement then it is simply network traffic, and Comcast should not interfere. Same as supporting BitTorrent traffic, or passing any other bits along.
On the other hand, if implementing HBO Go requires Comcast do something specific to make it work, it falls outside of Net Neutrality issues in the same way that blackberry app development/support does.
And on the gripping hand, if Comcast is not supporting some standard network service incidentally used by HBO Go, then we can ridicule their half-arsed internet implementation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Net Neutrality...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
The difference with HBO Go is due to how the app authenticates itself. The app goes out to Comcast and authorizes that the service has an active HBO subscription before going to HBO Go to stream. For reasons that I don't fully understand, this is done on a per device basses.
The PS4 app has a different signature than the Android app or any other version of the app. There's a database of valid signatures somewhere that Comcast looks at to see if the app your using is real or some third party, unauthorized thing. Comcast has decided that they're not going to update their database of signatures, so the PS4's app is considered to be fake and, thus, denied.
The easier way to do that is for Comcast to provide an authentication code that HBO Go can use to authenticate a user. Then, any app that logs in with that username and password can access the service. HBO would keep that authentication code and every now and again check with Comcast to make sure the code is still valid. HBO would then be responsible for keeping track of what apps are authorized or not, but that should be HBO's problem anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
"I'm not sure you can get away with calling this a net neutrality violation"
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140305/14254626446/comcast-still-blocking-hbo-go-roku- now-playstation-3-incapable-explaining-why.shtml
It's great that Techdirt has such an informed commenting community to fill us in on the gaps, omissions, and/or misleading ambiguities in the article. Otherwise, those of us who don't already understand how HBOGo works might all be left scratching our heads wondering -- or left with a completely wrong impression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
No, they're passively doing that. This is a result of their inaction, not action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
Verizon's inaction in upgrading their nodes and screwing Netflix was still considered a net neutrality issue.
This shows that Net Neutrality is far more complicated than an ISP actively degrading or blocking a service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
I didn't say it's not a NN issue because it's passive. I think it's not a NN issue for other reasons, I was just pointing out that the problem here is Comcast not doing something, rather than Comcast doing something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
You're free to believe it, but there's no regulation about being incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
Not necessarily, though they might be doing that. All that's necessary is that the device send authentication data to Comcast. I assume Comcast then forwards the authentication response to HBO (they wouldn't want to rely on the client to do it, or it would be too easy to circumvent their control). What Comcast is doing with the data other than authenticating I couldn't say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
I assume this is their way of blocking you from giving your password out to multiple friends.
And it's not just for devices behind your router, I can access streaming content from either XFinity GO or HBO GO from anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't a net neutrality issue
As other have stated, the solution is to drop HBO through Comcast and pick up an unbundled HBO subscription when it is offered later this year. Comcast is shooting itself in the foot here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't a net neutrality issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't a net neutrality issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't a net neutrality issue
Just because Comcast is using the authentication process -- and not an outright throttle or filter -- to accomplish this shouldn't matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a net neutrality issue
That's not a core component of net neutrality. The core component of net neutrality is that everyone's packets should be treated the same. That's where it starts and ends.
"Just because Comcast is using the authentication process -- and not an outright throttle or filter -- to accomplish this shouldn't matter."
I think it matters a lot. I am supremely uncomfortable telling businesses who they can or cannot do business with (which is what the HBO Go thing boils down to).
That's a lot different than enforcing the notion that ISPs shouldn't play favorites with data packets.
I understand your point, that Comcast isn't playing fair with HBO Go. I agree, even. But that's a problem of a different type and scope from net neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a net neutrality issue
Just because they use different network-related mechanisms to reach the same goals doesn't somehow mean it's not part of the same conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't a net neutrality issue
Thus, this very much is a network neutrality issue as packets for the same app on different devices are being handled differently by an ISP (Comcast). Comcast doesn't even have to be your ISP for your packets to be discriminated against, as you could have Comcast for TV service and Frontier for internet and you will still be denied authentication for your choice of device, not your choice of app.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a net neutrality issue
No, they're being handled by a cable provider. Comcast also happens to be an ISP. This is very relevant from a high level perspective on why they're doing this and the impact it has, but it has nothing to do with these packets.
Comcast doesn't even have to be your ISP for your packets to be discriminated against,
1. Those aren't your packets, they're directed to Comcast. 2. They're not being discriminated against, they're being delivered as normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a net neutrality issue
Very much *not* network neutrality.
You make my point without acknowledging it. Comcast couldn't possibly interfere with packets on someone else's network and it still doesn't work. That means it's nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not blocking tcp/udp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not blocking tcp/udp
I've always loved reading Karl Bode's articles, but I think this one is missing some critical information, as it badly needs to at least briefly explain how HBO Go's setup works. Otherwise, many people might get the mistaken impression that Comcast is once again forging packets or other shenanigans that the service has been caught doing in the past to block services such as Bittorrent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: not blocking tcp/udp
That is exactly what's happening. Not just Comcast of course, but you have to have a cable/sat HBO subscription from somebody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: not blocking tcp/udp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: not blocking tcp/udp
I should be able to control my hardware the way I want to. Right Sony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not blocking tcp/udp
... their HellDesk will desperately attempt to understand what language you're speaking, then try to find the relevant responses canned for them into the support database (note they may not even be native English speakers, but this needn't be a problem).
Linux (Unix) users long ago learned it was up to themselves to learn and understand what they need to know to make things happen. I don't expect Win*/Apple types to understand Linux/Unix technical minutia ("ifconfig? Don't you mean ipconfig?"), not when all they have to work with is GUI wizards wrapping the complexity (good for them; feature!), backed up with corporate massaged-for-mere-users "Help".
Yes, you should. Well, you ought to be able to, but Sony's a special case of thieves. I prefer to not give my hard earned cash to vendors who presume the right to re-write the deal after the sale. You thought you were buying mere hardware, and they presumed you were buying into "The Sony Way." Your mistake, or "just don't buy from those who pull !@# like that!".
It is quite easy to work with both MS and Apple tech support if you understand their limitations. You may need to throw away most of what they say and dredge for details, but they can both be useful, even if they appear to have no clue as to what's going on at the moment.
TL;DR: if you're a Linux/Unix user, you know what you're doing, no sympathy if you don't. It's not others' fault if it doesn't work. It's yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: not blocking tcp/udp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not blocking tcp/udp
What they are doing now is rejecting the same authentication requests from the same HBO Go app using the same protocol if they happen to originate from a different device such as the PS3/4 or Roku.
Therefore, Comcast is choosing to accept or reject login requests based on what device sent the request rather than the HBO Go app itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hum, i guess this is why we need net neutrality. Comcast should not be authenticated each new website, device or player. Additionally, the 'players' should not have to 'partner' with comcast in order for their websites, devices, or players to work on the FUCKING INTERNET.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In this case, Comcast was the only company that couldn't be bothered (quite intentionally) to get relatively simple authentication systems up and running. They're using authentication as an intentional obstacle, preventing its customers from accessing the content they want on hardware they own and bandwidth they pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And you're saying that should be illegal?
They're using authentication as an intentional obstacle, preventing its customers from accessing the content they want on hardware they own and bandwidth they pay for.
What is your definition of net neutrality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't matter whether Comcast is using de-prioritized packets, blocking, or intentionally refusing to authenticate users, the end result is the same: they're using their gatekeeper power to keep people OFF of other platforms, and ON their platforms. It's all one giant conversation. And if the net neutrality rules include interconnection, usage caps, zero rated apps and other shenanigans, I believe this kind of trickery is part of the dialogue.
Or we can just ditch the term neutrality here and use "anti-competitive behavior" if the semantics bother people so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think anyone would argue with that term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think this would be an excellent idea, since that's what's really being discussed here. NN is a tiny subset of that larger scope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The part I don't like is forcing content through Comcast's platform. I'm still a little sore at them for not providing PAC12 sports Network to customers on the much of the East Coast. And even if the did, you have to access online streams through Comcast while every other Cable Company just authenticates and then lets the stream come direct from the PAC12 Network webpage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I repeat myself because this is something that's important to understand as the net neutrality debate moves forward. ISPs know they can't throttle or block content, so they're going to start getting more creative. More creative, elaborate bullshit excuses are going to be built trying to defend anti-competitive behavior using pretty flimsy, faux-technical justifications.
People all insisting this isn't a net neutrality violation simply because they're using a different mechanism to the same end is really only beneficial to Comcast.
If semantics are really the issue we can just call this "anti-competitive behavior" and not a pure net neutrality violation, but it's part of the neutrality conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like a railroad
Same thing with many ISPs. They don't seem to understand that they are in the transportation business. They move data from point A to point B. Why is that so hard to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It has entirely to do with Content Rights and Agreements and business models around them.
You could make an argument that it's anti-competitive, but that would be a stretch in this case.
These examples are closer to this issue than a discussion about violations of net neutrality:
The Showtime Anytime app does not run on the PlayStation 4.
There is no non-jailbroken version of an iOS Grooveshark app.
Companies pay a lot of money to acquire content rights. The spend is directly related to a business model. Of course they want to make a profit. Duh. They want to protect their investment.
There's a lot of misinformation and hysteria around Comcast and net neutrality and a tendency to jump right to "they're blocking my _fill-in-the-blank_"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WELL THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--EuEWs6WO--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ svulzaoqhy6gp1rkefcc.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ESPN 3 (or 360 or whatever) isn't available on many ISPs including mine and I'm not blocking a thing. ESPN charges ISPs for access to their service and as a business decision, I (and many others) don't pay them for that access. I have to pay for every subscriber I have to access ESPN 3, whether they will ever use it or not.
That's the Net Neutrality I care about... content providers forcing me to pay for their garbage just like the cable TV subscription model.
There's not enough evidence here to say what's going on., but Comcast hasn't blocked anything yet, so I'll reserve my decision until someone technical reports on the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you had DirecTV service and Comcast Internet, I bet it would work just fine.
If you had an HBO subscription directly with HBO, you could do this on Comcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The three companies that mutually own Hulu — 21st Century Fox, the Walt Disney Company and NBCUniversal — said Friday that instead of selling the pioneering streaming video Web site, they would make a new investment of $750 million and use Hulu’s technology to compete against other online distributors like Netflix..The companies have clashed repeatedly over Hulu for years; meanwhile, the third owner, NBC Universal, has been a silent partner since being acquired by Comcast in early 2011. ( At that time the government barred Comcast from being involved in Hulu’s business affairs, for fear that it would try to impose restrictions on Hulu to protect its core cable business.)"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/business/media/owners-of-hulu-call-off-sale-and-plan-to -invest-750-million.html?_r=0
Comcast was an original distribution partner at Hulu's start in 2007.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The victim - HBO & Comcast & the public
I watched hulu and Fancast (became Xfinity) from the beginning. The owners of the content had to be dragged into internet streaming with force. They fought back with DRM, device selection, authorization methods and all the stuff we never hear.
You can bet both HBO and Comcast have a huge fight on every device and platform CONTENT is displayed. I get it a playstation or xxx box should be allowed to display CONTENT without restriction. Not going to happen until a legal contract between device manufacturer and CONTENT providers happen.
Maybe we should get Sony (Viacom) to explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PS - Hollywood is messing up
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141218/06355229476/mpaas-secret-war-net- neutrality-is-key-part-its-plan-to-block-sites.shtml
Blocking a box via selective authorization is just as easy, if not easier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]