dslreports logo
 story category
Comcast is Exempting its New Streaming Service From Usage Caps

Comcast last week launched its creatively named streaming video service "Stream" in Boston. This week, the company has announced it's now offering the service in Chicago. For $15 a month, the service provides Comcast's Internet-only customers access to live channels from all the major broadcast networks and HBO as well as "thousands of on demand choices."

Click for full size
It's the latest cable industry attempt to keep cord cutters in house in the face of slow but steady subscriber losses.

"We recognize that there's another audience that we might not be catering to, and that audience is an Internet-only customer whose primary consumption pattern tends to fall on mobile devices," Comcast said of the slowly-expanding launch.

Here's the interesting bit. The service doesn't count against Comcast usage caps. When asked, the company declared that the service "is an IP cable service delivered over our managed network to the home."

That's the same response Comcast gave when it was criticized for exempting its own streaming services delivered via the Xbox 360 (which it just discontinued). Net neutrality critics (and Netflix) complained in 2012 that the practice gave Comcast's own services an unfair advantage against competing services that do count against usage caps.

Those charges are certainly going to be levied again here once the general media realizes this is happening (in about a month).

It should be interesting to see what the FCC thinks about Comcast's latest dance with net neutrality, as the company slowly but surely expands caps into dozens of new markets. It's also worth noting that this decision would appear to violate Comcast's NBC merger conditions.

Interested users can give the service a spin (free for one month) by using the Xfinity TV app or the online portal. Comcast plans to make Stream TV available across its entire service area by early 2016. Those interested can find more detail over at the Comcast Stream website.

Most recommended from 84 comments



ctaranto
join:2011-12-14
MA

26 recommendations

ctaranto

Member

IMO, different than the T-Mobile case

Here we have Comcast, the provider of a paid streaming service and the ISP, exempting it's own service their usage caps.

T-Mo doesn't provide a paid streaming service. Heck, not even a free streaming service.

Poo poo on you, Comcast.
--
Cord cutter since Feb 2014
DB8e antenna -> HDHomerun Plus -> Win7 WMC -> Ceton Echos & Amazon Fire TV
FiOS 75/75 Internet

buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Limestone, ME
·Vestalink

15 recommendations

buzz_4_20

Member

How is this not a Monopoly?

Comcast implements caps system wide. This discourages the use of online video services.

Then they exempt their own service from the caps. Further pushing their own service above others.

This is Comcast being a big bully. They already extorted money from Netflix, now they're going to skew the playing field so that they're offering is the only game in town.
This isn't a company getting with the times, they are just trying to bend the consumer back to the old-fashioned broadcast model.
symbiance
join:2012-06-03
Ambridge, PA
·Xfinity

5 recommendations

symbiance

Member

The caps were never about congestion

the caps were never about congestion, comcast just wanted to run their service like a cell phone carrier would.. except charge you for speeds and cap..

If comcast was worried about bandwidth, they would migrate to mpeg4, use only HD channels if there are dupe SD/HD and have the HD channel downres for SD TVs, implement the technology (I forget whats it called) that only the channel you want to watch is being sent to you.

But i do feel this whole "stream" is a violation of bet neutrality as it gives a unfair advantage over competitors
shmerl
join:2013-10-21
kudos:1

5 recommendations

shmerl

Member

FCC's turn now?

Is anyone still claiming it's not an anti-trust and net neutrality violation? Such kind of exemptions are actually good for the user - they'll eventually cause caps to be forbidden for good.

Flyonthewall
@teksavvy.com

4 recommendations

Flyonthewall

Anon

New revenue source

Make more money by exempting from their arbitrary caps (which will generate more congestion - separate issue), which may mean that Comcast isn't the one raising their rate, it's the provider of the service they want to use over their pipes (no free rides on Comcast pipes!).

And the FCC doesn't think this is a Net Neutrality issue...

Someone shove some coffee up their noses.
Flyonthewall

4 recommendations

Flyonthewall

Anon

Black and White

If I offer a paid internet service and allow anyone to stream their product over it cap free, that is not a NN violation since everyone is treated the same (data is data). If I offer a product that doesn't count against caps, but other products do, that is a NN violation, and the only people that can't see that are paid not to see it.

How about ..