Netflix and consumer groups like Free Press are unimpressed with Comcast’s announcement they plan to experiment with an increased usage cap in some markets and temporarily eliminating it in others.

A Netflix spokesperson issued a statement that says the company has dodged the real issue: discrimination against its traffic, which counts towards whatever Comcast usage cap the company eventually settles on, and doesn’t count towards Xfinity TV, which the cable company owns.

“Increasing the data cap is a small step in the right direction, but unfortunately Comcast continues to treat its own Internet delivered video different under the cap than other Internet delivered video,” says the Netflix statement. “We continue to stand by the principle that ISPs should treat all providers of video services equally.”

Free Press and Stop the Cap! share the belief the company’s usage caps are arbitrary and unnecessary and should be eliminated completely.

“Comcast has never had any legitimate reason to cap its Internet customers, and today’s announcement of new overage charges is just another example of the cable giant’s efforts to discriminate against and thwart online video competition,” said Free Press policy adviser Joel Kelsey. “Data caps are not a reasonable or effective way to manage capacity problems, which are virtually non-existent for Comcast.”

Kelsey also believes Comcast is still trying an end run around Net Neutrality.

“While the move to increase its caps is overdue, the notion that Comcast would charge an exorbitant rate for additional bandwidth — while continuing to exempt its own traffic under its Xbox deal — illustrates that Comcast is really trying to discourage subscribers from experimenting with online video alternatives,” Kelsey said. “We call on Comcast to drop the caps and these exorbitant overage fees entirely.”

Growing questions are being raised about whether Comcast is violating FCC and Department of Justice policies that prohibit the cable company from prioritizing its own content traffic over that of its competitors.

Comcast’s Xfinity Xbox app offers Comcast customers access to Xfinity online video content without eating into their monthly 250GB Internet usage allowance. Netflix has called that exemption unfair, because its content does count against Comcast’s usage cap. New evidence now suggests Comcast may also be prioritizing the delivery of its Xfinity content over other broadband traffic, a true Net Neutrality violation if proven true.

Bryan Berg, founder and chief technology officer at MixMedia, believes he has found proof the cable company is giving its own video content preferential treatment, in this somewhat-technical finding published on his blog:

What I’ve concluded is that Comcast is using separate DOCSIS service flows to prioritize the traffic to the Xfinity Xbox app. This separation allows them to exempt that traffic from both bandwidth cap accounting and download speed limits. It’s still plain-old HTTP delivering MP4-encoded video files, just like the other streaming services use, but additional priority is granted to the Xfinity traffic at the DOCSIS level. I still believe that DSCP values I observed in the packet headers of Xfinity traffic is the method by which Comcast signals that traffic is to be prioritized, both in their backbone and regional networks and their DOCSIS network.

Berg also contends Comcast’s earlier explanation that its Xfinity content should be exempt from its usage cap because it travels over the company’s private Internet network is also flawed:

In addition, contrary to what has been widely speculated, the Xfinity traffic is not delivered via separate, dedicated downstream channel(s)—it uses the same downstream channels as regular Internet traffic.

Berg

Broadband traffic management is of growing interest to Internet Service Providers, who contend it can be used to manage Internet traffic more efficiently and improve speed and time-sensitive online applications like streamed video, online phone calls, and similar services. But manufacturers of traffic management equipment also market the technology to ISPs who want to favor certain kinds of content while de-prioritizing or even throttling the speed of non-preferred content. The technology can also differentiate traffic that counts against a monthly usage cap, and traffic that does not.

Quality of Service (QoS) technology can be used to improve the customer’s online experience or help a provider launch Internet Overcharging and speed throttling schemes that can heavily discriminate against “undesirable” online traffic.

Berg further found that when he saturated his 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection, traffic from providers like Netflix suffered due to the bandwidth constraints.  Because he flooded his connection, Netflix buffered additional content (slowing his stream start time) and reduced the bitrate of the video (which can dramatically reduce the picture quality at slower speeds). But when he launched Xfinity video streaming, that traffic was unaffected by his saturated connection. In fact, he discovered Xfinity traffic was exempted from his normal download speed limit, allowing his connection to exceed 25Mbps.

While that works great for Xfinity fans who do not want their videos degraded when other household members are online, it is inherently unfair to competitors like Netflix who are forced to reduce the quality of your video stream to compensate for lower available bandwidth.

According to the consent decree which governs the merger of the cable operator with NBC-Universal, prioritizing traffic in this way is a no-no when the company also engages in Internet Overcharging schemes, namely its arbitrary usage cap:

“If Comcast offers consumers Internet Access Service under a package that includes caps, tiers, metering, or other usage-based pricing, it shall not measure, count, or otherwise treat Defendants’ affiliated network traffic differently from unaffiliated network traffic. Comcast shall not prioritize Defendants’ Video Programming or other content over other Persons’ Video Programming or other content.”

This graph shows Berg's artificially saturated 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection. The traffic in red represents Xfinity Xbox traffic, which is given such high priority, it allows Berg to exceed his usual download speed limit.

Comcast sent GigaOm a statement that denies the company is doing any such thing:

“It’s really important that we make crystal clear that we are not prioritizing our transmission of Xfinity TV content to the Xbox (as some have speculated). While DSCP markings can be used to assign traffic different priority levels, that is not their only application – and that is not what they are being used for here. It’s also important to point out that our Xfinity TV content being delivered to the Xbox is the same video subscription that customers already paid for and is delivered to their home over our traditional cable network – the difference is that we are now delivering it using IP technology to the Xbox 360, in a similar manner as other IP-based cable service providers. But this is still our traditional cable television service, which is governed by something known as Title VI of the Communications Act, and we provide the service in compliance with applicable FCC rules.”

Our View

Comcast, as usual, is talking out of every side of its mouth. In an effort to justify their unjustified usage cap, they have pretzel-twisted a novel way out of this Net Neutrality debate by paving their own digital highway on a Comcast private drive.

Comcast argues their 250GB usage cap controls last-mile congestion to provide an excellent user experience. That excuse completely evaporates in the context of its new toll-free video traffic. In fact, their earlier argument that its regionally-distributed streaming traffic should not count because it does not travel over the “public Internet” at Comcast’s expense does not even make sense.

Berg provides an example:

A FaceTime call from my house to my neighbor’s—which never leaves even the San Francisco metro area Comcast network, given that both of us are Comcast customers—goes over the “public Internet.”

Yet Comcast’s Xbox streams, which pass from Seattle to Sacramento to San Francisco through all of the same network elements that handle my video call (and then some!) are exempt from the bandwidth cap?

You can’t have it both ways, guys.

DOCSIS 3 technology has vastly expanded the last mile pipe into subscriber homes. If Comcast can launch their own private pipe for unlimited IPTV traffic that travels down the same wires their Internet service does, they can comfortably handle any additional capacity needs to support their “constrained” broadband service without the need to limit their customers’ use.

Usage caps remain an end run around Net Neutrality. Consumers given the opportunity to view content under a usage cap on the “public Internet” or using the “toll-free” traffic lane Comcast created for content from their “preferred partners” will make the obvious choice to protect their usage allowance. Comcast is certainly aware of this, and it is a clever way to discriminate through social engineering. It’s also less obvious. You don’t have to de-prioritize or block traffic from your competition to have an impact, you just have to limit it. Customers who repeatedly exceed their usage allowance face suspension of Comcast broadband service for up to one year. That’s a strong incentive to follow their rules.

Netflix is fighting to force Xfinity traffic to fall under the same arbitrary usage cap regime Netflix endures — a truly shortsighted goal. The real issue here is whether Comcast should be capping any of its Internet service.

Comcast has given us the answer, launching the very bandwidth-intense video streaming it used to decry was contributing to an Internet traffic tsunami.

It’s time for Comcast to drop its usage cap.

Comcast has changed its explanation why the company’s XFINITY TV service, streamed over Xbox 360 has been made exempt from the company’s 250GB usage cap.

Last week, the company claimed the service traveled over the company’s “private IP” network, exempting it from usage restrictions.  That created a small furor among public interest groups and Net Neutrality supporters because of the apparent discrimination against streamed video content not partnered with the country’s biggest cable operator.

Stop the Cap! argued what we’ve always argued — usage caps and speed throttles are simply an end run around Net Neutrality — getting one-up on your competition without appearing to openly discriminate.

Now Comcast hopes to make its own end run around the topic by changing the language in its FAQ:

Before:

After:

Although the words have changed, the story stays the same.

The key principle to remember:

Data = Data

Comcast suggests its Xbox XFINITY TV service turns your game console into a set top box, receiving the same type of video stream its conventional cable boxes receive.  The cable company is attempting to conflate traditional video one would watch from an on-demand movie channel as equivalent to XFINITY TV over the Xbox.  Since the video is stored on Comcast’s own IP network, the company originally argued, it creates less of a strain on Comcast’s cable system.

AT&T's U-verse is an example of an IP-based distribution network.

But the cable industry’s inevitable march to IP-based delivery of all of their content may also bring a convenient excuse to proclaim that data does not always equal data.  They have the phone companies to thank for it.

Take AT&T’s U-verse or Bell’s Fibe.  Both use a more advanced form of DSL to deliver a single digital data pipeline to their respective customers.  Although both companies try to make these “advanced networks” sound sexy, in fact they are both just dumb data pipes, divided into segments to support different services.  The largest segment of that pipe is reserved for video cable TV channels, which take up the most bandwidth. A smaller slice is reserved for broadband, and a much smaller segment is set aside for telephone service.

AT&T and Bell’s pipes don’t know the difference between video, audio, or web content because they are all digital data delivered to customers on an IP-based network.  Yet both AT&T and Bell only slap usage caps on their broadband service, claiming it somehow eases congestion, even though video content always uses the most bandwidth. (They have not yet figured out a way to limit your television viewing to “maintain a good experience for all of their customers,” but we wouldn’t put it past them to try one day.)

What last mile congestion problem?

Comcast’s argument for usage limiting one type of data while exempting other data falls into the same logical black hole.  Comcast’s basic argument for usage caps has always been it protects a shared network experience for customers.  Since cable broadband resources are shared within a neighborhood, the company argues, it must impose limits on “heavy users” who might slow down service for others.

We've heard this all before. Former AT&T CEO Dan Somers: "AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of (its) veins."

But in a world where DOCSIS 3 technology and a march to digital video distribution is well underway or near completion at many of the nation’s cable operators, the “last mile” bandwidth shortage problem of the early 2000s has largely disappeared.  In fact, Comcast itself recognized that, throwing the usage door wide open distributing bandwidth heavy XFINITY TV over the Xbox console cap-free.

As broadband advocates and industry insiders continue the debate about whether this constitutes a Net Neutrality violation or not, a greater truth should be considered.  Stop the Cap! believes providers have more than one way to exercise their control over broadband.

Naked discrimination against web content from the competition is a messy, ham-handed way to deal with pesky competitors.  Putting up a content wall around Netflix or Amazon is a concept easy to grasp (and get upset about), even by those who may not understand all of the issues.

Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles can win providers the same level of control without the political backlash.  Careful modification of consumer behavior can draw customers to company-owned or partnered content without using a heavy hammer.

Simply slap a usage limit on customers, but exempt partnered content from the limit.  Now customers have a choice: use up their precious usage allowance with Netflix or watch some of the same content on the cable company’s own unlimited-use service.

Nobody is “blocking” Netflix, but the end result will likely be the same:

• Comcast wins all the advantages for itself and its “preferred partners”;
• Customers find themselves avoiding the competition to save their usage allowance;
• Competitors struggle selling to consumers squeezed by inflexible usage caps.

It is all a matter of control, and that is nothing new for large telecom companies.

Back in 1999, AT&T Broadband owned a substantial amount of what is today Comcast Cable.  Then-CEO Dan Somers made it clear AT&T’s investment would be protected.

“AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of [its] veins,” Somers said, referring to streamed video.

Obviously Comcast agrees.

The Great Wall of Pay

Now that the cable industry’s “TV Everywhere” online video platform has been established, some programmers are discovering they can become lucrative revenue streams as well as a deterrent to cable cord-cutting.

Time Warner (no relationship to Time Warner Cable) and CBS have decided giving away live sports programming for free is unacceptable and will now charge for online viewing of certain March Madness basketball games.

Since 2006, the basketball tournament, which may include hoops from https://www.megaslam.com.au/adjustable-basketball-hoops/, has been available for free online viewing, but starting March 7, viewers will need to pay $3.99 for full access to all 67 games [and basic cable viewers will need to verify] they are current cable, satellite, or telco TV subscribers. [See clarification below.]

Online viewing of games televised on CBS will be available for free, but the new paywall will block free access to selected games shown on cable networks TNT, TBS, and TruTV in certain cases.

Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes sees charging for online viewing as a substantial new revenue stream.

Monetizing online viewing is a high priority for programmers, even though much of the programming will continue to carry commercial advertising.  Last year, an estimated 2.6 million daily visitors watched March Madness online.  At $3.99 each, that would net the two companies nearly $10.4 million dollars.

The madness will now cost you $3.99

In a separate announcement, Comcast says it will launch a new Netflix-like on-demand streaming service tomorrow for its cable subscribers.

Streampix (free for triple play customers, $4.99/mo for others) will offer on-demand movies and TV series licensed from NBC-Universal, Warner Bros., Sony Pictures, and Disney.

Selected content can be watched while on the go, but a substantial amount of what Streampix is expected to offer is already available through services like Hulu.

Streampix is designed to appeal to customers who currently pay $7-8 a month for Netflix or Hulu+.

The move establishes Comcast’s own “paywall” for a deeper catalog of online video content, supplementing programming it gives away at no charge to “authenticated” cable subscribers.

Comcast will not sell Streampix to non-Comcast customers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Comcast Streampix 2-21-12.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg reports Comcast’s Streampix service is unlikely to pose a major challenge to services like Netflix.  (4 minutes)

Clarification:  A reader suggested we better clarify the viewing options.  It gets complicated depending on what kind of video/broadband subscription you have, where you want to watch, and what kind of feed you want:

CBS-televised games: Available for free with no restrictions from CBS website.

Basic Cable games: If you want to watch outside of the home, on certain portable devices, or do not have a combined broadband/cable-TV subscription, you will need to purchase a subscription for $3.99 from the NCAA.  Free streaming is only available to authenticated cable/broadband subscribers watching from their home broadband account on devices pre-approved by your pay television provider.

Open/Full Access: If you want full, unrestricted access you need to pay for the NCAA ® March Madness ® Live™ app ($3.99).  Since this app provides the NCAA’s own video and audio feeds, you don’t need a cable subscription.

Billboards sprinkled across Ft. Wayne, Ind., telling residents, “Frontier is pulling the plug on FiOS — Switch to Xfinity,” has infuriated Frontier Communications, who says it will continue to provide FiOS service in the area, at least for broadband, indefinitely.  Now the independent phone company has sent a “cease and desist” letter to Comcast officials demanding the billboards come down.

Frontier spokesman Matt Kelley accused Comcast of spreading false rumors in an effort to drum up business.

“Frontier is not planning on pulling the plug,” Kelly told WANE-TV. “We are going to continue providing FiOS service in Allen County and we have no plans to remove it.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WANE Ft Wayne FiOS Not Going Away 6-9-11.mp4[/flv]

WANE-TV in Ft. Wayne led its newscast with the dispute between Frontier Communications and Comcast over fiber optic television.  Is the plug really being pulled? (Loud Volume Alert!) (3 minutes)

But Comcast officials note Frontier has been pushing existing customers hard to switch to satellite television service, and Frontier earlier announced dramatic rate increases for its fiber cable television service — rates much higher than other competitors.

Comcast issued a statement about the dispute:

“Comcast continues to invest in these markets, while Frontier has taken a number of steps to discourage new customers from signing up for its service and encourage current customers to seek alternative services from satellite. We are using these ads to make consumers aware of our Xfinity TV service as a better choice for consumers.”

HissyFitWatch: Oooh... Comcast!

From our own Stop the Cap! investigation, both companies are partly correct.

We called Frontier this afternoon posing as a new FiOS customer in Ft. Wayne trying to sign up for television service.  The only option available, we were told, was satellite television service.  While Frontier was happy to sign us up for telephone and fiber broadband, the company representative told us she could not take our order for FiOS TV because, “it’s not available in your area.”

But Comcast’s claims about FiOS lack the very important detail that FiOS broadband and phone service will be offered by Frontier without any interruption — only television service appears to be at issue, and remains available to current customers.

We heard from several Ft. Wayne customers who are unhappy with Frontier’s handling of FiOS.

“While Comcast is being clever, the fact is Frontier wants TV customers to switch to satellite, which is simply a stupid idea,” says our reader Kevin.  “Why would I want a satellite dish when I have fiber.”

Lee, another Frontier customer, believes the company broke its promise of no rate increases after buying out Verizon’s local operations.

“They promptly raised the TV rate by around $30, and if you are a new FiOS customer, expect to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars for installation,” he says.

Last week, Frontier’s deadline for Comcast to pull down the billboards passed, but as of today those billboards are still on full display.  Comcast’s response to Frontier?

“We received their letter.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WANE Ft Wayne Deadline day for billboard back-and-forth 6-17-11.mp4[/flv]

WANE-TV in Ft. Wayne updates viewers.  Frontier’s unilateral deadline for Comcast to pull down their billboards came and went.  The billboards are still there.  Now what? (2 minutes)