3 ms·

To be clear, this is a discussion of "net neutrality" in that the author alleges that Comcast is prioritizing (and not charging for) traffic for its Xbox stream

To be clear, this is a discussion of "net neutrality" in that the author alleges that Comcast is prioritizing (and not charging for) traffic for its Xbox streaming media application, which works like a Video-on-Demand service. Comcast claims that this is similar to a standard Video-on-Demand service based in a cable box and can legally be prioritized because it is the functional equivalent of traditional VOD. Comcast doesn't see anything wrong with not charging for bandwidth used for set-top-box VOD, and analogizes that to Xbox VOD, even though the two may use different underlying technologies. The author says that it shouldn't be treated like VOD because it is delivered over an IP network rather than old-school cable and Comcast has no right to prioritize video packets for its own IP video service over those for other IP video services (e.g., Netflix). Which is more "neutral" is an interesting question: neutrality over the mechanism by which Comcast delivers its VOD service to cable subscribers, or neutrality between IP-based video streaming services?

bdb 14y ago
Hi. I'm the author of the original post; thanks for your comment. To be clear, VOD streams to your STB are delivered over IP, just not through your cable modem, router and home network. You're right, of course, that Comcast claims these streams are no different than that VOD service. The point where I think Comcast's argument falls apart is that streams to their Xbox app are delivered through the exact same network elements both inside and outside your home, as e.g., Netflix streams.
- ismarc 14y ago
  This is a point that is frequently missed and ends up muddying the actual net neutrality discussion. For cable providers, Internet (big I internet, not just a network that uses the same protocols) is carried on certain channels with vod and normal cable channels carried on other channels. For providers like Uverse, it's not separate frequency channels, but separate vlans with dedicated bandwidth on each (very similar model, though, big I internet traffic is separate from other services). Where the neutrality line is crossed is when all traffic on the big I Internet segment isn't treated equally. In this case, the separation of billing is giving that traffic preferential treatment over other big I Internet video streaming.
dfxm12 14y ago
Comcast must envision a future where their set top boxes will be replaced with other appliances that can run the Comcast VOD "app" currently available for XBox. They're trying to set a precedent now, so that when there is no non-video streaming "analogy" or "equivalent" to this service they can claim that it is OK to not cap their own service since they've always done it that way. This is one of those things that seems OK from the point of view from the users short term, so there is really not too much backlash against Comcast. However, long term (as more and more people "cut the cable"), this is will bad as Comcast is setting the stage to be able to give themselves an unfair advantage in the streaming video market.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

bdb 14y ago

Hi. I'm the author of the original post; thanks for your comment. To be clear, VOD streams to your STB are delivered over IP, just not through your cable modem, router and home network. You're right, of course, that Comcast claims these streams are no different than that VOD service. The point where I think Comcast's argument falls apart is that streams to their Xbox app are delivered through the exact same network elements both inside and outside your home, as e.g., Netflix streams.

ismarc 14y ago
This is a point that is frequently missed and ends up muddying the actual net neutrality discussion. For cable providers, Internet (big I internet, not just a network that uses the same protocols) is carried on certain channels with vod and normal cable channels carried on other channels. For providers like Uverse, it's not separate frequency channels, but separate vlans with dedicated bandwidth on each (very similar model, though, big I internet traffic is separate from other services). Where the neutrality line is crossed is when all traffic on the big I Internet segment isn't treated equally. In this case, the separation of billing is giving that traffic preferential treatment over other big I Internet video streaming.

dfxm12 14y ago

Comcast must envision a future where their set top boxes will be replaced with other appliances that can run the Comcast VOD "app" currently available for XBox. They're trying to set a precedent now, so that when there is no non-video streaming "analogy" or "equivalent" to this service they can claim that it is OK to not cap their own service since they've always done it that way. This is one of those things that seems OK from the point of view from the users short term, so there is really not too much backlash against Comcast. However, long term (as more and more people "cut the cable"), this is will bad as Comcast is setting the stage to be able to give themselves an unfair advantage in the streaming video market.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]