6 ms·

Comcast claims that the app turns the XBox into essentially a set top box and that all data is streamed over Comcast's "private" network capacity and do not use

Comcast claims that the app turns the XBox into essentially a set top box and that all data is streamed over Comcast's "private" network capacity and do not use any of the traditional public facing internet infrastructure. Standard usage of "On Demand" programming from a DVR or other set top box do not count against the existing data cap quotas. If this app essentially allows an XBox to plug into this private network capacity like any other set top box, I think this is an important distinction.

ajross 15y ago
It pains me deeply to agree, but this is pretty much right. Comcast is, after all, a company founded on building a private (analog) network over which it delivers paid content to its subscribers. No one cared about "net neutrality" when they were trenching the cable in the 1980's. The fact that this private content is being delivered over an IP network shared with its "public" internet service changes things a little, but not enough I suspect. Which brings up the question: what does net neutrality mean for the last-mile ISP? It seems not a lot. It ensures equal treatment of sites on the public internet, but if a Microsoft or whoever wants to pay for "premium" service over a private network, they'll always be able to.
- Drbble 15y ago
  Are you aware that Comcast's network was built as a joint venture with local governments with special easements to access underground public and private property, and is therefore a regulated monopoly, not a private enterprise? I didn't give Comcast the right to dig under my house for nothing.
nextstep 15y ago
I think you are right, and when they frame this new service as "turning your existing Xbox into a set top box", it sounds benign and rational. But I'm afraid of the dangerous precedent that this sets. TV-style subscription-based services work with users as consumers: the pipes go one-way, because each subscriber is just a dumb set of eyes with a wallet. But with the internet, and new disruptive content models, everyone is also a creator. The real danger of losing net-neutrality is that individuals will become unable create new media for the internet.
mikeryan 15y ago
Its true (full disclosure I used to work for Comcast - via an acquisition) One of Comcast's biggest (and most hated) capex expenditures are the cable boxes. They hate with an unholy passion having to upgrade boxes. In this context they're basically trying to get the users to upgrade their boxes on their own dime. When I put on my consultant hat and talk to analysts in this area we've been talking more and more about how connected tv's and OTT Boxes can be beneficial to cable operators. One of the downsides of cable cards is that you never got a guide with it. Combine a cable card and a Samsung Connected TV and you can really do both and get rid of the card all together. Second they're quickly realizing that maintaining two on-demand infrastructures (Web and traditional VOD) the really sensible thing is to move as much as possible to delivering via your cable modem as opposed to the broadcast channels. Of course as they do so they're going to have to do something about the bandwidth caps. Stories like this put Comcast in a strange position. They want to deliver more "TV" video content over their internet pipes but apparently can't do so and maintain a cap at the same time.
- twoodfin 15y ago
  That's another reason why the cable companies will be thrilled to help Apple sell televisions next year. Those sets will probably look a lot like your box-less solution on the inside, with the added benefit of a "real" computer and OS developed by a company that has some experience with such things. The main reason, of course, is that their biggest threat will be taken away: An ever-growing segment of their customer base cancelling $100+ TV service in favor of $50 IP-only service, with the other $50 being spent on NetFlix, iTunes, Hulu.... Required "Apple TV" plans will include whatever mix of traditional signal and IP is needed to deliver a "magical experience" and will be priced accordingly.
  - drzaiusapelord 15y ago
    Well, they had the option to do this with Tivo and instead they developed their own shitty boxes instead of going with a world leader in DVR and interfaces. Why would they go with Apple when they've already dismissed Tivo and are extremely hostile when you try to get cable card service "whats that? Oh , we'll need a contract from you and a large deposit." I'm not sure if the grandfather's post is accurate. Yes those boxes cost money but Comcast and other video providers have been very hesitant to give up the proprietary video cash cow for over the internet solutions that may cut them out of a revenue stream or make people realize they don't need to buy the "gold" package.
brown9-2 15y ago
Does streaming content from the Xfinity site on your laptop/iPad cost against your data quota? The article implies it does, even if you are connected to the Internet via Comcast.
- jakejake 15y ago
  Yes it does
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    Then doesn't this destroy the public/private network argument? Presumably you only need to use Comcast's "private" network to access their streaming site/service when using their ISP.
    - jakejake 15y ago
      It's definitely an interesting question because technically there isn't a huge difference between streaming video from Netflix and watching on-demand programs through your cable box. They're both just streaming video. So, the flipside of this argument is whether your regular cable programming should count against your bandwidth. In order for net neutrality to work property that might have to become the case one day because otherwise there's a lot of gray area.
drzaiusapelord 15y ago
Yeah, it sounds like they have a deal with MS to put local caches at Comcast data centers and just have those CDNs mirror content instead of every client stream the content on demand. So this goes over Comcast's super fast DOCSIS network and never over any internet gateways. Not sure if this is the NN violation others are assuming it is. It seems like a simple "can we put our junk on your LAN to save bandwidth" deal.

ajross 15y ago

It pains me deeply to agree, but this is pretty much right. Comcast is, after all, a company founded on building a private (analog) network over which it delivers paid content to its subscribers. No one cared about "net neutrality" when they were trenching the cable in the 1980's. The fact that this private content is being delivered over an IP network shared with its "public" internet service changes things a little, but not enough I suspect. Which brings up the question: what does net neutrality mean for the last-mile ISP? It seems not a lot. It ensures equal treatment of sites on the public internet, but if a Microsoft or whoever wants to pay for "premium" service over a private network, they'll always be able to.

Drbble 15y ago
Are you aware that Comcast's network was built as a joint venture with local governments with special easements to access underground public and private property, and is therefore a regulated monopoly, not a private enterprise? I didn't give Comcast the right to dig under my house for nothing.

nextstep 15y ago

I think you are right, and when they frame this new service as "turning your existing Xbox into a set top box", it sounds benign and rational. But I'm afraid of the dangerous precedent that this sets. TV-style subscription-based services work with users as consumers: the pipes go one-way, because each subscriber is just a dumb set of eyes with a wallet. But with the internet, and new disruptive content models, everyone is also a creator. The real danger of losing net-neutrality is that individuals will become unable create new media for the internet.

mikeryan 15y ago

Its true (full disclosure I used to work for Comcast - via an acquisition) One of Comcast's biggest (and most hated) capex expenditures are the cable boxes. They hate with an unholy passion having to upgrade boxes. In this context they're basically trying to get the users to upgrade their boxes on their own dime. When I put on my consultant hat and talk to analysts in this area we've been talking more and more about how connected tv's and OTT Boxes can be beneficial to cable operators. One of the downsides of cable cards is that you never got a guide with it. Combine a cable card and a Samsung Connected TV and you can really do both and get rid of the card all together. Second they're quickly realizing that maintaining two on-demand infrastructures (Web and traditional VOD) the really sensible thing is to move as much as possible to delivering via your cable modem as opposed to the broadcast channels. Of course as they do so they're going to have to do something about the bandwidth caps. Stories like this put Comcast in a strange position. They want to deliver more "TV" video content over their internet pipes but apparently can't do so and maintain a cap at the same time.

twoodfin 15y ago
That's another reason why the cable companies will be thrilled to help Apple sell televisions next year. Those sets will probably look a lot like your box-less solution on the inside, with the added benefit of a "real" computer and OS developed by a company that has some experience with such things. The main reason, of course, is that their biggest threat will be taken away: An ever-growing segment of their customer base cancelling $100+ TV service in favor of $50 IP-only service, with the other $50 being spent on NetFlix, iTunes, Hulu.... Required "Apple TV" plans will include whatever mix of traditional signal and IP is needed to deliver a "magical experience" and will be priced accordingly.
- drzaiusapelord 15y ago
  Well, they had the option to do this with Tivo and instead they developed their own shitty boxes instead of going with a world leader in DVR and interfaces. Why would they go with Apple when they've already dismissed Tivo and are extremely hostile when you try to get cable card service "whats that? Oh , we'll need a contract from you and a large deposit." I'm not sure if the grandfather's post is accurate. Yes those boxes cost money but Comcast and other video providers have been very hesitant to give up the proprietary video cash cow for over the internet solutions that may cut them out of a revenue stream or make people realize they don't need to buy the "gold" package.

brown9-2 15y ago

Does streaming content from the Xfinity site on your laptop/iPad cost against your data quota? The article implies it does, even if you are connected to the Internet via Comcast.

jakejake 15y ago
Yes it does
- brown9-2 15y ago
  Then doesn't this destroy the public/private network argument? Presumably you only need to use Comcast's "private" network to access their streaming site/service when using their ISP.
  - jakejake 15y ago
    It's definitely an interesting question because technically there isn't a huge difference between streaming video from Netflix and watching on-demand programs through your cable box. They're both just streaming video. So, the flipside of this argument is whether your regular cable programming should count against your bandwidth. In order for net neutrality to work property that might have to become the case one day because otherwise there's a lot of gray area.

drzaiusapelord 15y ago

Yeah, it sounds like they have a deal with MS to put local caches at Comcast data centers and just have those CDNs mirror content instead of every client stream the content on demand. So this goes over Comcast's super fast DOCSIS network and never over any internet gateways. Not sure if this is the NN violation others are assuming it is. It seems like a simple "can we put our junk on your LAN to save bandwidth" deal.