Time Warner Defends Comcast In Level 3 Dispute 315
MojoKid writes "On December 21, the FCC will finally vote on adopting net neutrality rules. This may (or may not) have been caused by Comcast's spat with Level 3 after Level 3 won a big contract to handle Netflix's video streaming. Grind it all together, output it to Facebook and you get this campaign: 'Save the Internet: Stop Comcast from Blocking Netflix. Without strong net neutrality rules, companies like Comcast can demand fees from innovative companies like Netflix in an attempt to choke consumer freedom and coerce users to adopt its own video services instead.' Comcast insists that this has nothing to do with blocking the upstart Netflix's business but about how much of Level 3's traffic it must carry before they get to send Level 3 a bill. Level 3's traffic has greatly increased thanks to Netflix. On Thursday, Comcast's frienemy, Time Warner, issued a statement of support for Comcast that explained the pro-cable provider side of the fight."
Peering Agreement (Score:3)
Re:Peering Agreement (Score:4, Informative)
Don't they have some sort of peering agreement that covers this? Aren't they supposed to charge their peers, and their customers, more when their bandwidth usage goes up? Or am I missing something here? Obviously telcoms are greedy and will try to take whatever they can, but isn't there already a channel established for that?
Nope. You've got the gist of it.
Comcast and Level3 had a settlement free peering agreement based on a roughly 1:1 traffic exchange. Level3 now wants to send 5:1 more traffic to Comcast, meaning their settlement free peering agreement is no longer valid. Comcast is just trying to negotiate a new peering agreement.
Funnily enough, Level3 was in Comcast's EXACT position back in 2005 with Cogent. Cogent wanted to send more traffic than Level3 was sending, and Level3 said "Nope, no more settlement free agreement. Get out your wallet!"
Comcast has peering agreements with other CDN's, and Level3 wants to leverage their old peering agreement to bust into the CDN market here. They are trying to pass the cost of increasing their CDN presence off to Comcast and Comcast's customers rather than paying for it themselves.
If anything, consumers should be pissed at Level3, not Comcast, because this will directly increase Comcast's operating costs... and we all know those costs are passed on to the consumer.
Re:Peering Agreement (Score:4, Informative)
Why will this increase Comcast's operating costs? It's not going to affect Comcast's customers Netflix usage, so their overall traffic won't go up, it'll just be coming from a different peer.
Re: (Score:2)
That different peer might pay them.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, it won't change Comcast's operating costs at all. What's happened is that Comcast is no longer getting paid on both ends of the pipe because one of the customers got a better deal elsewhere. In response, Comcast want to send a bill to the competition who took that customer.
Re:Peering Agreement (Score:5, Informative)
Why will this increase Comcast's operating costs? It's not going to affect Comcast's customers Netflix usage, so their overall traffic won't go up, it'll just be coming from a different peer.
Akamai delivered Netflix (and other content) to Comcast's customers by buying colo rack space in Comcast's POPs and pulling in their own private lines. Level 3 is dumping the traffic onto Comcast at a much smaller number of peering points, thus Comcast has to use their long haul network to transport the traffic across the country instead of having it originate inside a POP nearer to it's final destination.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that this is content that was requested by Comcast's customers, who are already paying Comcast for the traffic. My understanding is that peering agreements are for sending information through a network to someone else's network.
ie. If I drive from New York to New Hampshire, and pass through Vermont. There would be an agreement between New York and Vermont (and/or Vermont and New Hampshire) for allowing me to pass through, while New Hampshire's costs would be covered by their citizens and businesses
Re: (Score:2)
If I want you to call me on the telephone, should I have to pay for your telephone line? No, we each pay for our own telephone line, and then you can call me as much as you like.
Re:Peering Agreement (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that Cogent was sending traffic across Level 3's network, when in this case Level 3 is sending traffic to Comcast.
If Level 3 and Comcast were peers in between two other endpoints, I could understand this. But that's not the case, Comcast is one of the end points. Doesn't Comcast owe their customers the ability to receive the traffic they want?
Also, it's not like Level 3 is suddenly going to quintuple traffic to Comcast and everything else stays the same. The fact that Netflix movies are going to be served from Level 3 means they are not being served by someone else, which should free up some of the ports they are so worried about.
Re:Peering Agreement (Score:5, Informative)
Comcast and Level3 had a settlement free peering agreement based on a roughly 1:1 traffic exchange. Level3 now wants to send 5:1 more traffic to Comcast, meaning their settlement free peering agreement is no longer valid. Comcast is just trying to negotiate a new peering agreement.
It's a little more complicated than that.
Here's what the dispute is really about: The way the Internet works (obviously) is that you buy access from your ISP (e.g. Comcast), they in turn (perhaps through some number of additional intermediaries) buy access to the backbone from a Tier 1 provider (like Level 3). If you were a big enough network, you could 'peer' without paying anything (since there was no particular reason for one network to pay the other vs. vice versa). The way it worked in the Old Days was that data centers would always be uploading more than they download, so the rule of thumb became that if you upload too much data without downloading, you can't peer for free -- a rule of thumb to distinguish data centers from ISPs and make them pay. But it is unheard of for a backbone provider to pay an ISP -- because it is inefficient. ISPs like Comcast always used to have approximately symmetrical load to their uplink providers: Their customers would download more than they upload, which means they would have "surplus" upload bandwidth "for free" which they could sell to local data centers. Selling to data centers like this is efficient because otherwise the surplus upload bandwidth is lost -- use it or lose it.
Some of these data centers in modern times turned into CDNs like Akamai. The CDNs kind of messed with the model. Instead of connecting Comcast's network to buy Comcast's surplus upload bandwidth to the backbone, they connected to Comcast networks to serve content only to Comcast's customers. In other words, they evened out Comcast's uplink to Level 3, not by increasing upload traffic as was the traditional model, but by decreasing download traffic from the backbone. But that still works.
So now what's happening with Level 3? Netflix is moving from Akamai to a data center operated by Level 3 which is only connected to Comcast through Level 3's backbone. What this does from Comcast's perspective is a) deprive them of the money Akamai was paying them, but b) give them a huge amount of "free" upload bandwidth. What Comcast is then supposed to do is the efficient thing: to shop this surplus bandwidth around to data centers. Or sell Comcast Business customers higher upload rates. Or whatever. They're supposed to sell it, because they can sell it most efficiently -- there is a pipe going into Comcast which is only full in one direction and the only way to fill it is to put something which uploads a lot on the Comcast side.
Comcast apparently doesn't want to do that. I can really only think of two possible reasons for this: First, there is so much upload bandwidth that no one would possibly want to buy it. (I find this to be pretty unfathomable. Supply and demand says that if the price is right, someone will pay.) And second, Comcast is double dipping and trying to sell access to their customers as a scarce resource; in other words, trying to force Level 3 to pay more for the bandwidth than it would sell for on the open market because buying it from Comcast is the only way to get access to Comcast's customers and they want to charge monopoly prices.
Funnily enough, Level3 was in Comcast's EXACT position back in 2005 with Cogent. Cogent wanted to send more traffic than Level3 was sending, and Level3 said "Nope, no more settlement free agreement. Get out your wallet!"
No, Cogent was sending traffic over Level 3's network to third party networks. In this case Level 3 is sending traffic to Comcast customers. Level 3 has no monopoly on access to third party networks. There are other backbone providers. Comcast has a monopoly over access to Comcast customers -- that's what makes it different.
Re:Peering Agreement (Score:5, Informative)
Peering agreements are what we typically see at back bone and transport level connections.
The bandwidth going either way is roughly even.
For example, if Level 3 wanted to get packets to an AT&T customer, and Comcast owned a network between those two points, Level 3 and Charter could have a peering agreement so that Level 3 could send data over Comcast's network and vice-verse. If Comcast is sending a lot more data out for transport over Comcast's network than Comcast is sending back, then there may be a fee included.
That's all fine and good. But, in this case, Level 3 isn't sending data to AT&T customers. They are sending data to Comcast's customers. Customers that requested the data. Level 3, being proactive for Netflix, is trying to get a direct connection to Comcast's network to reduce backbone data transfers. Even if this agreement falls apart, Level 3 will still be routing the data to Netflix, but it will be coming over an existing back bone connection. It will offer worse performance for Comcast's customers, and it would waste more bandwidth on the back bone.
This is a pretty clear case of Comcast taking two dips from the coffers. Once from the users who are paying for data to be transferred to them via Comcast's network, and again from Level 3 that is providing the requested data to Comcast.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3)
Good summary.
It also seems pretty obvious that Comcast is trying to protect its TV/Movie business. They figure if customers are not watching HBO or USA or whatever, but instead watching netflix, then Comcast will try to charge extra for the privilege. Their TV/Movie business may collapse but they can still collect fees off the streaming netflix business.
Re: (Score:2)
That's all fine and good. But, in this case, Level 3 isn't sending data to AT&T customers. They are sending data to Comcast's customers.
Two points:
1) Comcast almost certainly has multiple business units operating with their own budgets. It's pretty likely that one of the BUs is for Comcast's backbone, while another is for their residential customers.
2) CDNs (and Level 3 is acting as a CDN here) usually pay ISPs to host their servers locally. They usually do this with one ISP per geographical region, and other ISPs will still use the server. So it is very much a case where the CDN needs to pay to transport data across the network to other
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you've got the points, because this is the first intelligent response I've yet seen on the subject.
To add my two cents, Comcast's argument is with regards to Level 3 as a CDN, and how other CDNs are paying access fees.
Let's think about that for a moment... At some point an ISP like Comcast had the brilliant (if morally repugnant) idea of charging CDNs access to their customers. Since a CDN makes money off of reaching customers, their service is only valuable if they can reach the customers, which
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you have been following the details of this, yes they have existing agreements but they go like this..
If I provide content, and your users are consuming it, I don't pay you, your customers do as they are the content consumers. We work together making sure the pipes between us are big enough to keep up with demand without charge.
Comcast has changed it to:
If your content is really really popular and we need bigger connections between us, I am going to charge you for the larger connections on my side, becau
Re: (Score:2)
If your content is really really popular and we need bigger connections between us, I am going to charge you for the larger connections on my side, because most of my customers have no alternative to my service, the government isn't regulating my monopoly, and my second Yacht still wasn't big enough.
I think that's a little more accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on who's lying. Level 3 said they wanted the additional fee for video. Comcast says it's just an imbalance in the amount of data in their existing peering agreement, REGARDLESS of the type of traffic.
Personally, I'm more willing to believe Comcast here. Imbalances can happen for a huge number of different reasons. This one is obvious: they're going to be taking on a HUGE amount of extra data from Level 3 specifically because of Netflix.
Think of it this way, if roughly the same amount of data
Re:Peering Agreement (Score:4, Interesting)
Did Comcast become transit free when I was not looking? Nope they still buy transit L3 should grow a pair and cancel there settlement free peering with Comcast, worst case is they end up with an imbalance with another transit free provider. Right now comcast is not paying for the bandwidth L3 should grow a pair and make them pay for those bits even it's to att or similar. Time Warner is in the same boat. Look at it more as Comcast needs to find some source of packets to send to L3 to get the ratio's back inline if they want to play with the big boys. Take a look at there network http://www.robtex.com/as/as7922.html [robtex.com] Comcast is an obvious bad actor they like many of the cable co's chew through AS numbers because they don't want to have a backbone they do want everybody to do the hard work for them.
How is bill formed? (Score:2, Funny)
How much Intarweb must cary befoer send Intarweb teh bill?
I'm a believer in net neutrality, but... (Score:2)
In the end, I think the campaign's name is going to work against them. I'm a Comcast customer, I'm a Netflix customer, and I've had no trouble watching Netflix' streaming video.
Thing is, I understand what the underlying issue is (wrt net neutrality) - but the average person certainly won't in any detail. All they're going to say is "What do you mean, stop them from blocking Netflix? I'm having no trouble streaming Netflix over my Comcast cable, so it must not be a problem!"
A solution (Score:2)
As consumers of information we can not have a system in which certain players can create choke points on the internet to deny access and distort democracy. At the same time it is obvious that nothing in life is free and that one must accept that some kind of payment is required to build and maintain the physical infrastructure that makes such connectivity possible.
The government needs to establish simple rules regarding the exact nature of what these fees can be based on a universal formula for all in term
You forgot one link (Score:3, Informative)
... the one saying that Level 3's claims are complete bullshit and they have nothing to do with net neutrality
Here it is [techdirt.com]
Re: (Score:3)
If this is true, and the details do line up, it's rather stunning (and incredibly braindead) that Comcast would make such a demand right now, just as the merger is close to approval. You would think that someone in management would recognize the sort of backlash such a demand would bring. Of course, again, I'm wondering if there are more details here. I wasn't aware of an online movie offering from Level 3, and I'm wondering if Level 3 was actually trying to do something more involved rather than just letting users access online content through existing connections. I'm sure the details will come out soon enough...
followed by an update that links to another post that parrots Comcast's press release claiming the dispute is a peering issue. In short, the link you provide adds nothing to the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
IANACCIE, but how can this just be about peering?
My understanding is that peering focuses more on what network is going to serve as the middle-man to transfer data from one part of the world to the other; this is distinctly different from the L3/Comcast situation where Comcast is the end-point(and the endpoint for an asymmetric network at that). The traffic is meant for Comcast users, so Comcast has to accept it so that their users can get what they're requesting. Why would L3 need to pay for traffic Comcas
Geotargetting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conflict of interest (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the '90s, electricity deregulation was a big topic; I recall that the state of Maine ended up differentiating between the electricity providers and the electricity carriers--while before, there had been two monopolies (a biopoly?) serving different areas of the state, there was, afterwards, a number of smaller generating companies (content generation) and a couple of larger companies that provided and maintained the transmission and delivery equipment (broadband providers).
As my parenthetical notes indicate, I think that the same model could be effectively used--or, rather, ought to be enforced--for the current debate. Differentiate the providers of the connection from the providers of the content, and much of the impetus for the anti-neutrality standpoint will go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
The L3/Comcast issue became public after the December 21 net neutrality vote was announced, so no it didn't cause it. Secondly, from everything we've heard the net neutrality rules to be proposed will not effect on the L3/Comcast dispute as it is between network operators, and does not discriminate based on content type or source.
the big cable co's all help each other also I thin (Score:2)
the big cable co's all help each other also I think they try to use stuff like cable labs and indemand to make it look like a 3rd party is doing the stuff they do.
Why should comcast charge them for something... (Score:3)
...I am paying Comcast for already?
Re: (Score:2)
Because everybody who connects to Comcast's network needs to compensate Comcast in some way, regardless of who they are?
If you and I are both Comcast cable customers, and you request that I send you data, should Comcast give me a free cable internet connection? Because that's exactly what you're implying.
Time Warner CABLE (Score:2)
This is about Time Warner Cable, whereas the vague term Time Warner is often used to refer to Time Warner Cable and/or Time Warner Telecom which are separate companies. (granted, the does the same thing)
That said, having another company say that what Comcast is doing is unfortunate. Comcast is trying to bully L3 into settlement-based peering, but it is Comcast's end traffic (as an eyeball network, not a transit provider) that i
What Flavor Of Neutral? (Score:3)
Based on my admittedly limited understanding:
Backbone providers work on the assumption that data goes both ways: I don't charge you for shoving ten lumps of data down my tubes because you don't charge me for shoving what might be nine, might be eleven lumps of data down yours. We're all doing roughly the same thing so it all comes out in the wash.
When someone turns around and says, "Don't worry, I'll keep taking your ten lumps of data for free. Now here are the five hundred I'd like you to keep carrying for free, too. Oh, and by the way, yes I do charge the generator of all those lumps a hell of a lot for my transporting them to and dumping them on your tubes." then it's somewhat understandable to think the relationship's gone a bit one sided.
When Netflix is using fully 20% of prime time US bandwidth (source [pcmag.com]) and Level 3 are happily billing Netflix for the right to put that on the net, it's pretty understandable the other companies who have to shoulder what's become a very one sided relationship for free are a little touchy.
In this case, I'm tempted to agree it's not about stomping competition, not about charging one source more or less for a better or worse service, it's about whether the fundamental model for the backbone is being abused.
I'm for network neutrality. But isn't there also a degree to which neutral also means the neutral flow back and forth, not all of the data going one way with one company charging for it and expecting the others to just suck it up?
Re:What Flavor Of Neutral? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except you're missing one thing here: the traffic isn't crossing Comcast's network on it's way to some other network, it's on it's way to Comcast subscribers and was requested by those subscribers. Backbone providers carry other people's traffic (eg. carrier X handling traffic originating on network A and destined for network B because A and B both have connections to X but don't have a direct connection with each other). Comcast doesn't connect other networks to the backbone, it only connects it's own subscribers. If those subscribers are incurring bandwidth costs, Comcast ought to be billing them for it. In fact it is, I'm fairly sure Comcast sends every subscriber a bill every month for their connection and turns that connection off if the bill isn't paid. If Comcast wants Level 3 to pay, then what's that bill to the subscribers for?
Re: (Score:3)
That would be true except that each and every one of those five hundred lumps of data Level 3 puts on Comcast's network is because one of Comcast's customers requested it.
The only time balance is properly considered is when the agreement includes transit. So Comcast would be right to object if Level 3 said "here's 500 lumps of data, hand them to AT&T please", but that's not the case, they're saying "Here's the 500 lumps of data your customers requested".
Comcast will inevitably always be a data sink, the
Re: (Score:2)
"When someone turns around and says, "Don't worry, I'll keep taking your ten lumps of data for free. Now here are the five hundred I'd like you to keep carrying for free, too. Oh, and by the way, yes I do charge the generator of all those lumps a hell of a lot for my transporting them to and dumping them on your tubes." then it's somewhat understandable to think the relationship's gone a bit one sided."
On the other hand, Comcast has charged a hell of a lot to the consumers of those "five hundred lumps of da
Makes Sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but would that be more or less weird than you getting into bar fights?
Honestly? It depends on which fight you're talking about. I've been in some damn strange situations in my lifetime. I won't deny that.
Clearly I need to adjust my agreement with Comcast (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
please seed more.
Your torrent ratio must suck.
Note: I host a collection of open source torrents including the last 4 versions of ubuntu, my ratio for some of them is in the hundreds.
Not Netflix trafic but customer traffic. (Score:2, Insightful)
And those customers are paying Comcast to transit whatever data they want, not because it's today Netflix and tomorrow YouTube.
So I would see it as a breach of contract between Comcast and their customers when they try to levy toll on individual suppliers to their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't Netflix' traffic. It isn't Comcast cable customers' traffic. It's Level3's traffic. If you would like to send data to Netflix (via Level3), then it's your traffic. But you're not.
Free Market? (Score:2)
There seems to be something terribly wrong with the US ISP market (I am not American), such that consumers can't/won't leave Comcast for another ISP, because they want Netflix.
If the market was free, wouldn't this problem fix itself?
(OTOH, I do think regulation mandating net neutrality would be a good thing, for other issues)
Who owns the internet? (Score:2)
Can't operate the business? get out of business! (Score:2)
All these ISPs are out there to make money. We get it. But they are also in the business of providing internet access to their customers. If they block or limit access to certain points on the internet, they are failing in their business agreement and their mission. They are an ISP, not a OCPISP (Only Certain Parts of the Internet Service Provider).
The way I see it, if you can't do something right, you shouldn't do it. AT&T apparently got in over their heads with iPhone and the problem is only gett
SLASHDOT MODES: JUST STOP IT! (Score:2)
Please stop posting this! The same basic thing has been posted 3 days in a row, and every time all the +5 comments are the ones correcting it. Just stop. I'm tired of having friends say "We gotta cancel our Comcast, they are blocking NetFlix" and having to explain that the FCC is not voting to stop Comcast, and Comcast is not violating Network Neutrality. This was a simple peering dispute between two companies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
True, there are already plenty of reasons to leave Comcast. But in our case it involved moving too, since Comcast is our only option. :-(
Re: (Score:2)
May take - in a weird way... (Score:2)
This Internet didn't go everywhere, and to get on it, people needed a driveway from their garage to the onramps, so ISPs sprung up that provide those for people, for a price. Now some of the ISPs wanted to get the access fees from a lot more people, but the Internet was too f
Comcast is either right or nuts (Score:3)
Netflix feeds data to level 3 which distributes it out to its servers spread across the land. The stream then is handed off to Comcast for delivery to consumers. Comcast would have a valid point if the network looked like this:
Netflix -> L3 Los Gatos ->Comcast ->L3 Server ->Comcast ->user
In which case L3 would be using Comcast's network to keep its distributed servers current and Comcast's complaint would be justified.
The alternative picture, and what most of us presume is correct is looks like this:
Netflix-> L3 Los Gatos -> L3 fiber network -> L3 Server ->Comast ->user
In which case Comcast is on the receiving end and according to Comcast, they should be paid by L3 since more data flows their way than vice-versa. However, if that's true, then Comcast should pay me since more data flows to my PC from Comcast than vice versa.
So Comcast, do you owe me money?
If L3 pays Comcast, then Comcast pays me to watch Netflix movies.
I don't understand. (Score:2)
It's not like Level 3 is holding Comcast down and forcing data into them. Although that's an interesting mental picture.
Level 3/Netflix is providing a service that Comcast customers are buying. The traffic wouldn't exist if Comcast customers weren't using it. One of the reasons for choosing Comcast is that they advertise big tubes and fast throughput. In marketing terms, Netflix is an enabler for Comcast.
I've never really understood why the various broadband ISPs advertise huge download speeds and
Fix the problem in hardware (Score:2)
The question is whether the movie is on a server outside Comcast's network or on a server Inside Comcast's network. Why can't they act like grown-ups and decide on a division of costs for "co-locating" a movie server inside the comcast network? Netflix does not even offer "Live" content. How much would the hardware and electricity for a file-server cost? The entire library does not have to be on the server either; just the titles in the instant queue for people who subscribe to comcast. The netfl
Here we go Liberterians/Conservatives (Score:2)
You're the ones who are so staunchly anti-net neutrality because you think it's about a government takeover of the 'net or some such paranoid nuttery.
This is just the beginning. I guarantee it.
If Netflix is the Internet... (Score:2)
...there is nothing left to save.
The inequality is still artificially generated (Score:3)
Comcast, (along with other final mile ISP's) typically limit upload bandwidth. These artificial caps are just that.. artificial. By corollary, Comcast is deliberately setting themselves up to receive paychecks by limiting the reciprocation on their pipe by it's customers. If you must limit yourself for financial reasons over what bandwidth you could utilize I understand, however for the sake of peering that amount should still be symmetric.
If asymetric pipes are allowed to continue, then as long as it is monetarily beneficial to maintain a high receive to send ratio, that ratio should grow until it becomes unrealistic to maintain useful bandwidth. The download portion then becomes a marketing gimmick only as the limit will be the TCP ACK packets being sent back to the publishing application.
Feel free to correct where/if I am wrong
This is not a network neutrality issue (yet)! (Score:3)
I hate Comcast but they are technically correct. Level 3 is wrong. Network neutrality is discrimination based on traffic type or protocol. Comcast is saying that Level 3 must pay for all traffic in excess of the ratio regardless of type or protocol. Level 3 is merely trying to leverage the momentum behind network neutrality in order to get the government to make-up for their poor ability to calculate margins. And given that Comcast has a monopoly on a huge chunk of eyeballs it puts a lot of pressure on Level 3 to capitulate in order to make Netflix happy. It's really Level 3 that's screwed here, not Netflix (assuming the additional router hops do not degrade quality too much). Of course, Comcast also runs some risk of losing customers/increased support calls if the quality of Netflix degrades but it is largely insulated by its monopoly in most markets. If there is anything offensive about this whole scenario, it's Comcast using its monopoly to abuse Level 3, not a net neutrality violation against Netflix.
Of course the fishy bit is that most of this traffic just happens to be Netflix content and Comcast is a provider of similar content. Comcast claims this is merely co-incidental. That's kind of hard to believe but guessing about motives is murky business.
Both of them are being stupid though. Level 3 looks incompetent by claiming this is a net neutrality issue and appears to be rent seeking by seeking regulation. Comcast looks like a big bully while they are trying to acquire NBC. I wouldn't be surprised to see some regulation around acceptable peering ratios between monopoly last-mile networks and other networks come out of all of this. And given the assumptions built into the download/upload ratios of most consumer broadband connections 5:1 seems reasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
One concept may moving to a credit card type funding model.
If you charge the people who have less influence, or are more of a captive audience, in the deal, and then lower the prices or add perks to those who are not as much of a captive audience, then you get a lot more money through a large customer base. The people of the captive audience can't afford to buck the system, and the people who can don't know enough or care enough to.
Re:Double Dipping? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is double dipping, but not like you think.
I pay my ISP for bandwidth. ISPs want to charge Netflix for bandwidth too.
If i'm using more bandwidth now because of Netflix, that should be between me and my ISP, but ISPs don't want to mess with that relationship for fear of pissing off customers and spurring real competition in the marketplace. It's cheaper to buy legislation mandating your business model than to compete.
If we had real competition then net neutrality would be a non-issue because we could choose open networks over closed ones, but with the near-monopoly of the big operators in most markets, it's usually just a choice between their crappy service or another crappier, more expensive option.
Re:Double Dipping? (Score:5, Informative)
You need to ask your government why there is a lack of competition in the ISP market in your country.
Network Neutrality is a non-issue used to cover up the real problem. It is only an issue at all in the USA.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Your ISP doesn't come after you for more money because they have already sold you that 5 mbps connection. You are not using more than your alloted 5 mbps so they really have nothing to come after you for. The problem is that they have oversold their bandwidth. They sold that same 5 mbps connection to you, and to your neighbors hoping that you all would not use enough of that bandwidth at the same time to notice. So when something like Netflix comes along and everyone decides to use it at the same time t
Re:Double Dipping? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, Netflix does not pay Comcast. They used to, in a sort of indirect way. Netflix used to pay Akamai, a content delivery network, to deliver streaming video to customers. Akamai does this by having data centers all over the place that can serve up content faster than anything centralized. And Akamai pays to link their data centers to Comcast so they can do this.
Well, here comes Level 3. Traditionally a backbone provider, they go to Netflix with a sweetheart deal on delivering content. Netflix dumps Akamai for them, and Level 3 realizes they lack the bandwidth to Comcast needed to deliver Netflix's streaming video. So they want additional links to Comcast, like Akamai had, only they don't want to pay for them. And why? Because they're a backbone provider, peer links should be free.
So Level 3, not wanting to pay Comcast (probably because those costs were not factored into what they charged Netflix), is playing the Network Neutrality card to provide CDN services under the guise of a backbone provider. But in reality Comcast isn't saying they are going to degrade Netflix traffic. But that they won't provide additional bandwidth for one service for free.
At the end of the day the customer is going to pay Comcast to deliver that content one way or another. Whether it is directly in the form of higher internet prices, or indirectly through Netflix in the form of higher subscription fees; I see very little difference.
Anyway, Comcast's letter to the FCC [comcast.com] is worth reading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast customers paid for a specific amount of bandwidth to Comcast's internetwork, not to Netflix. That's the problem, Comcast can not be expected to provide end to end bandwidth to services not on their network. And I am sure their customer agreements to do not gurantee as much.
After all, why should Netflix partner with Level 3 at all? They could simply call themselves a backbone provider and demand free links to all of the different major ISPs.
Re: (Score:2)
"But in reality Comcast isn't saying they are going to degrade Netflix traffic. But that they won't provide additional bandwidth for one service for free."
Comcast has already been paid for that service by their own customers who are requesting the Netflix traffic. That's where the lie resides.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast has already been paid for that service by their own customers who are requesting the Netflix traffic. That's where the lie resides.
This.
One wonders why Comcast doesn't have to pay Level 3.
A.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop parroting the same old argument that Comcast is making. Comcast isn't a peer, it's a large endpoint. One could claim that Comcast isn't carrying *any* traffic for Level3 - it's all to the benefit of Comcast (and their customers). One conclusion is that Comcast should pay Level 3 for the privilege of connecting to Level 3.
(I'm aware there is danger in oversimplification, but come on)
A.
Re: (Score:3)
According to Comcast's letter, what Level 3 was offering Comcast was free connections from their network enable data to flow faster for Comcast users; and all comcast had to do was make the physical connection available. If Level 3 did not do this then Comcast would have had to bear the brunt of the traffic its self. That is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Otherwise Comcast would have purchase additional bandwidth connections to provide their customers with access to the data they are requesting
Re:Double Dipping? (Score:4, Informative)
Because that's how peering works. If you buy a connection from an ISP, or a socket in a datacenter, then you pay the upstream provider for bandwidth. They typically pay a big upstream provider for their connection. Sometimes, however, two networks will agree that it is mutually beneficial for them to be connected and so will agree to peer - i.e. neither pays the other for transit. The definition of a Tier 1 network is one that only has peering agreements, or agreements where others pay for transit (i.e. pays nothing for off-network traffic, and may be paid for it). A Tier 3 network is one that only has transit agreements (i.e. pays for all off-network traffic). A Tier 2 network is one somewhere in the middle, with a mixture of peering and transit agreements.
Typically, a peering agreement has an agreement that says that the amount of traffic flowing in one direction must be within some percentage of the amount flowing in the other direction. A lot of big ISPs have agreements like this, which are somewhere between a peering and a transit agreement - if the balance of traffic remains approximately equal, neither side pays, but if one side is sending more traffic to the other, then one side pays. Whether this counts as a peering or a transit agreement is largely based on which case is expected to be the most common.
In this case, L3 and Comcast have an agreement which regulates the amount of traffic that L3 can send to Comcast without paying. Recently, however, Netflix has moved from their previous network provider to L3. This has dramatically increased the amount of data that is flowing from L3 to Comcast, so L3 is liable to pay.
Normally, this would result in a fairly simple renegotiation of the peering or transit agreement, but because network neutrality is such a buzzwordy topic now, it's being spun as a network neutrality complaint, because Comcast operates a service that is vaguely similar to Netflix. All of the big networks and ISPs benefit from this, because it serves to muddy the waters surrounding network neutrality just as the FCC is about to rule on the issue, and detracts from the real issues at stake.
Presumably the aim is for L3 and Comcast to convince the FCC that this is what network neutrality means, and get them to impose network neutrality rules that require them to come to the same sort of transit agreement that they would normally have reached anyway. Then the FCC and the politicians can claim 'we did our part for network neutrality', ignorant voters are happy because their politician stood up for something that the media told them vaguely was important and in their interests, the ISPs are happy because there is no real regulation on network neutrality. The average customers and small businesses are fucked, but no one cares about them.
Re:Double Dipping? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh I think it *is* a network neutrality issue.
Then you have no idea what network neutrality means, no idea what the issue at question is, or both.
From the Comcast customers point of view, traffic originating on L3's network is being discriminated against if Comcast stops accepting that traffic even though its destination is Comcast.
L3 is going from a 1:1 peering agreement to a 5:1 traffic ratio. Do you think that Comcast should just keep letting them pay nothing? If so, great for every other ISP - they can now get a cheaper deal from L3 than from Comcast to carry traffic to Comcast's customers and there's nothing that Comcast can do about it.
Allowing this sort of thing sets up an easy way for all consumer ISP's to discriminate, making its own services far more competitive than they would be had there been a level playing field.
Allowing what sort of thing? Depeering is something that has happened loads of times before in the history of the Internet, and quite a few times in the last few years. It happens whenever the traffic ratio between two peers suddenly shifts, as happened when L3 gained Netflix as a customer.
This has absolutely nothing to do with network neutrality. Comcast is not rejecting traffic because it comes from Netflix. Comcast is not rejecting traffic because it is streaming video. Comcast is threatening to reject traffic because it is not covered under their existing peering agreement and they want a new transit agreement. Any other company would have to get a similar agreement. Without the ability to form these agreements, the Internet would not function at all.
Re:Double Dipping? (Score:4, Informative)
That's the closest someone has come so far in this discussion, but it's not quite accurate. Comcast and Level3 had an agreement where basically they just swapped traffic for free. Each side sent approximately the same amount of traffic, so an even exchange seemed fair. Now that agreement is about to expire, and at the same time the numbers have changed significantly. Now Level 3 is sending significantly more traffic to Comcast than Comcast is sending back, so the previous "even swap" agreement no longer makes sense, since it's not, you know, even. Netflix and net neutrality really have nothing to do with any of this, and as much as it pains me to say this, I agree with Comcast (though I'll continue to pray that they die a slow death and then rot in hell for all eternity).
Re: (Score:2)
So the solution is to have all Comcast users seed as many "Ubuntu Distributions" as possible. Equaling the bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast charges less to terminate traffic on their own network than to pass the traffic on to some other network... Comcast is trying to charge Level3 to move traffic over Comcast's network, just like every other network operator in the world.
Imagine the telephone analogy. If person A wants to call person B, they must each pay for a telephone line. What you're suggesting is that the telephone company should give person A a free telephone line because person B wants to receive the call. No, that's not how it
Re:Double Dipping? (Score:4, Insightful)
What you're missing from this equation is that this traffic used to be handled inside Comcast's network, likely at a lot of different locations, because Akamai used to be Netflix's CDN and Akamai colocates servers with ISPs for quicker response times.
In other words, this is new external traffic to the network, and I have a feeling no matter where it passes into Comcast's network, they're going to want an increase in money from whomever is passing it in.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. The fallacy here is that Comcast calls it "Level 3's traffic". It's not Level 3's traffic, it's their own customers' traffic that they've already been paid for.
Re:Double Dipping? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't how it works.
Even if Comcast drops Level3 completely, you will still get Netflix - Level3 will just pass off the traffic to someone who does peer with Comcast. It'll be slower than if Level3 directly peered with Comcast, but it will still get there.
Netflix doesn't need to pay Comcast anything. Netflix is already paying Level3 to be their CDN. Level3 just now needs to pay for the bandwidth they're using.
Huh? Aren't Comcast's customers, the one's who are streaming Netflix, already paying for that bandwidth that they're using? This sounds like Comcast wanting to double-dip.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod up. The end users are already paying Comcast for the bandwidth. Why should anyone else do it again?
Re:Double Dipping? (Score:4, Informative)
No, that's not quite how the Internet works. You're describing the legacy telecom interconnect that masquerades as the theory behind the Internet. In the old days, SS7 was used as the message to charge/clear/balance long distance calls and 'wire time'.
Comcast wants to make it tougher for Netflix to succeed over Xfinity offerings, because Xfinity competes directly at all levels with Netflix via Neflix's content delivery network/CDN, who is Level 3. Because the traffic is lopsided, e.g. downloads from L3 are huge, and the traffic from Comcast is small, Comcast feels they must charge for this imbalance.
In reality, the Internet was conceived with one of it's principals as equal access- meaning that if you stick a leg on to the network, your run whatever traffic in an unimpeded fashion, no matter what direction, what time of day, what protocols, etc. To help QoS, you might be nice and respect various QoS protocols so as to not screw up isochronous media types, like audio and video. But Comcast doesn't believe in that. They believe their cable system is unique and God-given, and therefore, the rules do not apply to them. Netflix/L3 caved, because if they didn't, your next flick w ou ld l ook li ke th is.
Re:Double Dipping? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know what reality that is, but it's not ours. If you want to connect to someone else's network, you either pay or agree to a ratio of traffic. Once that deal is made, THEN, yes, you can send any kind of content you want.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes you have it exactly right. In our reality companies like Comcast are supposed to PAY to connect to the internet (ie Level3) or agree to a ratio of traffic. They agreed to send Level3 as much data as they received. Now they can no longer meet that agreement and should be paying Level3 some money.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, Level3 should already be paying for the traffic they send to Comcast's network. That's usually how peering agreements work: you pay for traffic that you send to another network, but not traffic that you are receiving. Uploading costs money, downloading doesn't. It's why most broadband service is structured with low upstream bandwidth.
If Comcast doesn't like what Level3 is paying them to accept L3's traffic, they should renegotiate. It shouldn't matter if the upsurge in traffic is due to Netflix or str
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? The asymmetry to users is because of the way subscriber connections tend to be engineered (like DOCSIS cable modems and DSL) - they're built on the assumption that a "home" user sends small requests and gets large responses, and so that's the way they balance the available broadband bandwidth between send/receive. At the peering level, all the connections are symmetrical - there's no
Re: (Score:2)
If Comcast doesn't like what Level3 is paying them to accept L3's traffic, they should renegotiate. It shouldn't matter if the upsurge in traffic is due to Netflix or streaming porn.
That's exactly what's happening, and Level3 is throwing a hissy fit about it.
Re:Double Dipping? (Score:5, Informative)
If Comcast doesn't like what Level3 is paying them to accept L3's traffic, they should renegotiate.
That is what this is about, Comcast is telling Level3 that they need to renegotiate their peering agreement because Level3 is about to significantly increase the amount of traffic they send over Comcast's network. Netflix used to use Akamai as one of their primary ISPs. Akamai paid Comcast for the traffic they sent to Comcast's network. Level3 had a peering agreement with Comcast whereby they didn't pay to send traffic to Comcast because Comcast sent as much traffic to Level3's network as Level3 sent to Comcast's. That is about to change with Netflix switching from Akamai to Level3. Level3 is screaming because they undercut Akamai's price to provide service to Netflix on the basis of not paying Comcast to send data to Comcast's customers.
This has nothing to do with Netflix competing with Comcast (at leat not that anyone has so far offered any evidence for), this is about Level3 increasing the amount of traffic they send over Comcast's network without a similar increase in the amount of traffic that Comcast sends over Level3's network.
Re: (Score:2)
zactly. Unless Level3 is somehow using Comcast as a transit network, in which case Level3 needs more peers, and Comcast has a right to bitch. But, I doubt very much that's the case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Level 3 isn't using any of Comcast's bandwidth. Comcast's paying customers are requesting the videos from Netflix. Netflix pays for the bandwidth they are using from Level 3. Comcast's customers are paying for the bandwidth they are using from Comcast when the streaming video crosses their network.
What Comcast would like to do is get paid from their
Re: (Score:3)
If Level3 isn't using any of Comcast's bandwidth, I guess they won't mind then if Comcast shuts down all interconnections to Level3's network. Level3 can connect to Comcast's network through a third party.
Comcast does not want to get paid twice for the same data. They want all people who connect to their network, regardless of who they are (cable customer or ISP customer), to compensate them in some way. That, my friend, is how the internet works. That is how every network provider in the world operates.
Re: (Score:2)
Peering: [wikimedia.org]
Re:Double Dipping? (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't seem to have noticed the "exchanged" part of that definition. This implies that there is an equitable exchange going on here, which is what Comcast wants. An equitable exchange. Level3 doesn't want such an exchange.
And I think you missed this part:
The pure definition of peering is settlement-free or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic; instead, each derives revenue from its own customers.
Sorry, but this is bullshit. If Comcast is allowed to get away with this, then Time Warner can charge Level 3. Then AT&T can charge Level 3. Then Verizon and Sprint will charge Level 3. Then these companies will charge each and every web page and web service to be allowed access so their customers can access web content.
Eventually, you're going to end up with different ISP's having access to different web pages/services. For example, you might be allowed to only use Google, Netflix, and Slashdot on Time Warner. Comcast will grant you access to Yahoo, Redbox and Engadget. On your Microsoft phone, you will have access to Bing, MSN, and MSN (through payoffs to each carrier). Carriers/ISPs will advertise that they allow for more web pages than their competition and charge their customers (You and me) for the privilege to access the only the content served from the highest bidder. Meaning if you are content provider, you better have a big bank roll as the amount you are willing to pay will have a direct effect on the amount of customers that want to access your service.
Re: (Score:3)
then Time Warner can charge Level 3
They already do. Level3 pays either in money or bandwidth.
Then AT&T can charge Level 3.
They already do. Level3 pays either in money or bandwidth.
Then Verizon and Sprint will charge Level 3.
They already do. Level3 pays either in money or bandwidth.
Then these companies will charge each and every web page and web service to be allowed access so their customers can access web content.
They already do. Those web hosts pay for their connectivity, and each network along the wa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but you've been consistently wrong the entire time in this thread. Level 3 is a Tier 1, they do not pay other ISP's for the connections. This is part of the conditions of being a Tier 1. Level 3 in fact sells connections to Verizon (who happens to pay them a monthly fee for their customers to access the internet) as does Time warner, AT&T, Sprint and nearly every single other US ISP except other Tier 1's (Comcast is NOT a tier 1 nor have they ever been)
The fact is Comcast pays Level 3 a month
Re: (Score:3)
Thought experiment: I want to transfer data with you. I have Cable, you have fios and they have a peering agreement. We transfer roughly same amount and things work great. Then one day our business relationship changes and we both want me to transfer 10x as much data. My cable plan allows it and has enough bandwidth to handle it. Your fios plan also allows it and has enough bandwidth. However the interlink between cable and fios networks can't handle the new surge of traffic.
Who should pay for the new
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much.
I think people who put faith in corporations are fools. But likewise I think people who put faith in government are fools too. Either way you're getting squashed by a powerful organization that considers you an ant of no importance. The CEOs are trying to screw you, but so too are the Congresscritters. You're like an old abused dildo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just one question (Score:4, Insightful)
Service for cablemodems probably has gotten better since I ditched them quite a few years ago, but at that point they were actually going backwards in terms of actual service. Service was getting both slower and less reliable. DSL is getting faster, but at a much slower rate. And FiOS isn't available at all as far as I can tell, suspiciously enough they won't even tell you if there in a rough geographic area without asking for a specific address. Until recently they couldn't even locate my address let alone provide service.
A municipal ISP as a utility or Google coming in with their service is about the only way that any of the telecoms are going to care enough to make any effort at improving service. What's particularly embarrassing is that we've got it quite good compared with most of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you name some of these places where the gov't actually paid to lay the cable or did it themselves?
Incentivized others to do it? Sure, but I'm not aware of many, if any, places where the gov't itself actually owned or directly paid for the outside plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the cable companies will sue the local government for competing with the service it wasn't providing in the area and buy some politicians to make state laws passed that prohibit municipalities from providing internet service to its citizens. This literally has happened.
Re: (Score:2)
In San Antonio, we only have government utilies for our gas, water, and electricity. Trust me, the city plays the same price games that private companies have as well as having the abilty to declare certain levels in which water usage fees double. During the summer, you are ecven assigned watering days that are enforacele with fines