Sony Put Video Service on Hold Due to Comcast Data Caps 348
suraj.sun writes with more fallout from Comcast's bandwidth caps that give preference to their own video services. From the article: "An executive from Sony said Monday that concerns about Comcast's discriminatory data cap are giving the firm second thoughts about launching an Internet video service, that would compete with cable and satellite TV services. In March,Comcast announced that video streamed to the Xbox from Comcast's own video service would be exempted from the cable giant's 250 GB monthly bandwidth cap. 'These guys have the pipe and the bandwidth,' he said. 'If they start capping things, it gets difficult.' Sony isn't the first Comcast rival to complain about the bandwidth cap. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has also blasted Comcast's discriminatory bandwidth cap as a violation of network neutrality. Comcast controls more than 20 percent of the residential broadband market, which means that Comcast effectively controls access to one-fifth of any American Internet video service's potential customers."
This is exactly why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mergers like Comcast/NBC should be illegal. Once content providers are also content distributers, they can pull shenanigans like these.
How about we just drop the cap entirely? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Aragon reportedly said Sony was 'waiting on clarity' ...about whether regulators would allow Comcast to exempt its own video services from the broadband cap."
This is probably how discussion on Net Neutrality starts. Hopefully this leads to some sort of law forcing ISPs to provide real evidence to justify implementing any sort of bandwidth cap.
As it stands, it's all bullshit. The difference between a light and a heavy user, as far as the ISP is concerned, is that the heavy user continues downloading/browsing/streaming heavily on off-peak hours (read: overnight). About the only major cost for the ISP, assuming they even HAVE the capability to lower their system capacity at night, would be the extra power usage for their network hardware, and even THAT becomes substantially cheaper at night.
As this is Slashdot:
It's like charging cars by the number of hours spent on the road because of traffic congestion, and as a result, taxing cars at a heavier rate for driving at 3 in the morning, when there's no congestion to contribute to.
But... but... but.... what about piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember when Comcast put on the extremely low 250GB caps per month, a lot of people around here said that anybody using more than 250GB a month was probably a pirate.
Does anybody still believe that?
What 250GB caps really means is that your ISP won't invest in infrastructure, because its expensive.
Re:This is exactly why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply the worst. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Verizon is so much better (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is exactly why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mergers like Comcast/NBC should be illegal.
When you start paying Congress as much cash as Comcast, NBC and General Electric pay, then you can make the rules.
Re:How about we just drop the cap entirely? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see the ads already. The government is trying to tell the internet how to operate! Call your senator today and tell him you don't want big government interfering in the Internet!
Re:This is confusing (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't allow Comcast the rights to broadcast Sony properties, including working with PS Network. I'm sure Comcast would concede.
Ahh and there's the beauty of it. Who would you believe to be violating some form of neutrality, if you were watching a hulu/youtube/redtube;) clip and it was blocked to you by the content owner because they didn't like your choice of ISP?
The thing is Comcast simply said "Oh normal data is so expensive, woe is us! But we're able to provide XFINITY content through a magical data pipe that doesn't need to worry about this!" With that, it becomes Sony's (and Netflix's!) fault for obviously creating (or having, in Netflix's case) a product that uses up so much magical interpipe juice.
Although what you say is very true, aside from signing distribution deals with Xfinity, the only way for the content providers to not get reamed (in the ATT pays Apple per iPhone sold sense), is to play some form of hardball with the ISPs. But my example of what the public perception would look like is exactly why these companies are taking the more passive and whiny route for now.
It's time... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want to have the advantages of a common carrier - free access to rights of way, and a monopoly on services, then they better behave like a content neutral common carrier. If they want to take the attitude that it's their network and they can control it any way they want, then they can also negotiate rights-of-way individually with the millions of property owners whose land their cables cross.
Re:This is exactly why... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really the same thing. When broadcast radio and TV "distributors" push their own content and suppress that of others, you have the choice to tune to a different channel. When an Internet operator pushes their own content at the cost of others, you're almost certainly screwed because it's very unlikely that you have a choice to not use Comcast. There is a valid analogy with Cable TV - but that's regulated, they have no choice but to carry all of the local TV stations.
It's also more subtle. They aren't banning SONY from transmitting data over their network - they're just imposing bandwidth caps.
This is clearly a bad thing - we *seriously* need net neutrality legislation to avoid this kind of problem.
Re:This is exactly why... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why in cases like this would vigilante justice be so wrong.
When the government is compliant in the raping of the peoples rights and refuses to put these people away.
I do not want free shit from my government. I just want them to protect the playing field and make sure that the rules apply evenly.
The government does not need to make us all the same. Just give us all the same chance.
Re:This is exactly why... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you don't need network neutrality, you need competition - the whole network neutrality issue is only an issue because there doesn't seem to be healthy competition within the US market.
In the UK market, we have BT as the main incumbent, Virgin Media as a secondary incumbent and a heavily regulated resale market.
Anyone here can buy capacity from BT, anything from a single provisioned ADSL line to a full unbundled service (you get the last mile, and then you can do whatever you wish with it) - and the costs of all of that are heavily regulated, to the point where BT Wholesale cannot charge BT Retail less than they charge Joe Blogs Internet Company.
However, Virgin Media as the lesser incumbent is under no such limitations - you cannot rent capacity on the Virgin Media network at all, other than as an end customer. They have a nice fiber and cable network, but you as an independent ISP cannot get access to that - so its very much like the US market.
So we end up with the situation where we have a huge competitive ADSL based market, but a minute cable market. Network neutrality is protected by the fact that literally anyone can go and get capacity from BT, and have it available pretty much anywhere in the UK - BT cannot impose limitations on your usage as a network provider, so they cannot force you to not be network neutral.
Re:This is exactly why... (Score:1, Insightful)
Speech is only protected if you use it against Christians, Whites, Males or Conservatives. All other speech is Racist.
Real issues never see a jury.
Voting is done by the masses and the dead. Winner is the person with the most TV ads.
Ammo will soon be illegal. (Guess why)
Re:This is exactly why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, in this case, a document (electronic or dead tree) or recording from Comcast offering the job on the condition that the merger is approved. Of course, everybody knows this so they make sure no such document or recording ever comes into existence.
Personally, I'm for getting rid of all lobbyists period but, there should, at least, be a conflict of interest gap, say 10 years, between being a government official or elected representative and being able to work for the organizations you had dealings with while you held that position.
Re:This is exactly why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Last time I explained the difference I got modded down, because it would seem no one actually wants a reasoned discussion on this topic - so Im just going to say that, yes, having an end point within a private network (Comcasts is private) is different to having an end point somewhere out there on the public network (the internet is public). There are peering quotas to balance for example.
But Im treading very close to what got me modded into oblivion before, so thats the last thing Im saying in this topic.
Some Honesty Here: It's probably not this cap... (Score:5, Insightful)
There probably is something else here, and Sony may just using Comcast's capping as an excuse...
a) Comcast's cap is not a "cap and charge overages", but a "cap, warn, and terminate or get them to upgrade to uncapped business service": Actually enforcing the cap for Comcast is very costly, because they lose customers. This makes it far less anticompetitive than other caps, but really targeted against abuse of service.
b) Comcast's cap is reasonably large. Netflix's HD stream is ~1.8 GB/hour, and other streams are less. So a 250 GB cap is >4.5 hours of HD video a day through streaming, which is a LOT.
I have a serious problem with other ISP's much lower "Cap and Overage" model, where the goal is to use the cap to increase revenue. And such caps are far more likely to be anticompetitive.
I suspect its Sony having issues with TV networks and other interests, and they are using Comcast's cap as an excuse.
Re:This is exactly why... (Score:4, Insightful)
It would make more sense for the State government to install 50-optical fiber bundles through the streets (which they already own), and then lease 1 fiber per company. Then customers could choose Comcast or Cox or Time-Warner or MSN or AppleTV or.....
Real choice. And we could tell comcast to "fuck off" when they invent these stupid 250 GB caps to effectively make Hulu, Amazon, Sony video streaming useless.
Re:This is exactly why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Racist speech is protected too. Why do you seem to think otherwise? The klan still holds rallies.
Ammo will not soon be illegal, you are just a nutcase.
You're thinking too small (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we need to get rid of lobbyists, but the phenomenon you speak of is a different animal. If lobbying were illegal, then she would have received some other cushy job at NBC Universal. This whole "screw over the voters/taxpayers for Acme Corp, then get a cushy job with Acme Corp" routine happens in just about every part of the government, even the military.
What we need to do is make it illegal for any high-ranking government employee to get a job with any corporation that is regulated by or a contractor for that employee's position. Generals can't get jobs with military contractors, FTC execs can't get jobs with Wall Street firms, FAA execs can't get jobs with airlines, etc., etc.
I know what I am proposing sounds draconian, but this tactic has an incredibly corrupting influence over government, and this is the only thing I can think of to put an absolute stop to it. If anyone has any other ideas, I'm more than willing to listen.
Re:This is exactly why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sony is quite capable of defeating itself. So cheer them on against Comcast, then watch them continue their stupid decisions as they spiral into irrelevance.
Re:This is exactly why... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the 1930s I imagine people would have believed you. They were dealing with crimes involving automatic weapons and would have welcomed that. Zoning and land use restrictions were already in place.
No crosses being visible is not a rule anywhere unless the taxpayer is paying for it. It was the rule then as well, just not enforced against the dominate religion. Thankfully today we recognize that it does apply to all religions equally.
You are a crazy person, please seek help.