Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Businesses The Almighty Buck The Internet

Level 3 Wants To Make Peering a Net Neutrality Issue 182

Posted by Soulskill
from the first-among-peers dept.
New submitter thule writes "A story at Gigaom talks about how Level 3 is trying to pull peering into the net neutrality issue. Regulating peering could hamper how the Internet is interconnected, potentially turning it into a bureaucratic mess. Should peering be regulated?" Reader raque points out that Netflix CEO Reed Hastings is banging the net neutrality drum, too: "Some major ISPs, like Cablevision, already practice strong net neutrality and for their broadband subscribers, the quality of Netflix and other streaming services is outstanding. But on other big ISPs, due to a lack of sufficient interconnectivity, Netflix performance has been constrained, subjecting consumers who pay a lot of money for high-speed Internet to high buffering rates, long wait times and poor video quality. ... Once Netflix agrees to pay the ISP interconnection fees, however, sufficient capacity is made available and high quality service for consumers is restored. If this kind of leverage is effective against Netflix, which is pretty large, imagine the plight of smaller services today and in the future. Roughly the same arbitrary tax is demanded from the intermediaries such as Cogent and Level 3, who supply millions of websites with connectivity, leading to a poor consumer experience."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Level 3 Wants To Make Peering a Net Neutrality Issue

Comments Filter:
  • by saloomy (2817221) on Friday March 21, 2014 @04:09PM (#46546289)
    It's not like any local government entity grants them monopo... Oh wait!
    • Users who pay for high bandwidth connections should change away from providers who's poor peering arrangements degrades their experience....
      • And if we had more than 2 choices, we would. Right now, it's a duopoly and neither incumbent is willing to rock the boat.

        What really needs to be done is to separate the providers from the last mile connection. A lot of ISPs could get in to the game if they only had to get their fiber to a local substation.

  • by bhcompy (1877290) on Friday March 21, 2014 @04:14PM (#46546369)
    I get it, but it's not like establishing this interconnectivity is free or cheap(I've seen articles from Anand and other technical websites indicating ~$10k per peer for the configuration and support). Who's going to pay for it? How is it not going to raise our fees we already pay as end users?
    • Re:Sure, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 21, 2014 @04:25PM (#46546493)

      Who's going to pay for it? The people who pay for internet... maybe? What else should they be doing with $75/month that people pay for internet?

    • Re:Sure, but.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by FuegoFuerte (247200) on Friday March 21, 2014 @04:54PM (#46546645)

      I understand you probably don't work with this type/scale of equipment/network on a regular basis, but the fact is $10k *is* extremely cheap. It's also probably a bit of a bogus number, or at least incorporates a whole lot of stuff beyond the actual connection (not just the cost of the optics, but some of the cost of the blade/chassis, and cost of power and rack space over an X year period, etc). The optics themselves are pretty cheap now - probably no more than $800/side, and with the scale of the large operators it's a good bet they're paying $500/ea for 10g SFPs. Believe me, a network operator of this size sneezes 10g optics without thinking about it - their on-site guys probably play dominoes with the spares.

      A little fun math: Let's say for the sake of easy math that the average customer pays $42/month for broadband, or $500/year. Let's say the average lifecycle of a 10g optical link and the associated routers is 3 years, and the single cross-connect costs $10k, spread across those 3 years, for a cost of approximately $3500/yr. So, ignoring the cost of the last-mile infrastructure (partly because the vast majority is in place and has probably been paid off for years), the cable company would have to add 7 customers to pay for each new cross-connect. Again using nice round decimal numbers for the sake of easy math, at a cap of 50mbps per subscriber, you could have 200 customers fully saturating their links before you would saturate the 10gbps cross-connect, assuming ALL customer traffic was being routed that way. So if your first 7 customers paid for the cross-connect, and we're talking about 3-year equipment lifecycles, that leaves just shy of $290k for the ISP to spend on their other infrastructure and overhead.

      Summary: I think they'll be just fine, and not need to raise your fees (they probably will raise them anyway, but that's an entirely different discussion).

      • by PortHaven (242123)

        Dang, I wish I could get $42/month internet. Comcast raised mine to $68/month.

        • Right, that was mostly to make a nice even $500/yr, I think mine is actually closer to $75. And of course, a lot of the entry level plans are quite a bit cheaper, and there's all the discounting and such that happens, and a fair portion of bills is taxes and fees.

          But, using $42/month as a starting number gives a very generous cushion for the numbers - given what's actually charged to most customers, the $10k for a peering link seems even more insignificant.

    • by Bengie (1121981)
      100gb/s of non-blocking full speed uncongested peering costs about $5k/month. Are you trying to argue that $0.05/mbit is expensive?
  • They have been playing the oh were not throttling were just over saturated to this peer we don't like for awhile. Sure it's not as targeted as they would like but it gets them there.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The way traffic is currently handled is ridiculous. As it stands a Verizon subscriber makes a request to Netflix to send data. Netflix then pays Cogent to send the data who then pays Verizon to receive the data that Verizon requested in the first place! That's like me charging the post office to deliver a package I ordered from Amazon.

      • It's more like Phil's Hobby Shop paying UPS Mail Innovations to deliver a package. The seller pays UPS, and UPS comes and picks up packages. UPS then sorts them by region and delivers them to local post offices. Then UPS pays each post office to deliver the packages to the buyers.
        • by Anonymous Coward

          Except you left out the crucial detail in your analogy: The buyer is ALSO paying the post office for the same step in the process.

          • Let me take a shot at incorporating this detail: The buyer is paying the post office's parent company for construction and maintenance of post roads [wikipedia.org].
            • Let me take a shot at incorporating this detail: The buyer is paying the post office's parent company for construction and maintenance of post roads [wikipedia.org].

              Come on. Are you even trying to make a coherent argument?

              In the case of the Internet, paying for the "construction and maintenance" of infrastructure is the same thing as paying to have the bits go back and forth across the networks that make up the Internet.

              Or are you seriously saying telecomms are charging to "move" ones and zeroes separately from the infrastructure and energy through which those ones and zeroes "move"?

              • Or are you seriously saying telecomms are charging to "move" ones and zeroes separately from the infrastructure and energy through which those ones and zeroes "move"?

                Some of what telecoms charge goes toward having built the infrastructure, in the sense that telecoms finance building this infrastructure with debt in the hopes of repaying the debt with subscriber revenue. Some pays for repair to this infrastructure when a backhoe goes in the wrong place or (in my case) a squirrel chews up a subscriber's outside line. And some pays for administration of the infrastructure, such as managing policies on the core routers. Finally, some goes to the investors that assume the ri

                • I think you're ignoring the obvious. Or maybe you're actually saying something of value and I can't parse. Maybe you're trolling.

                  So, telecoms charge to build and run infrastructure that transports packet traffic.

                  Internal distinctions a company makes about where to invest revenue and resources to build and run that infrastructure do not change the fact that building and maintaining that infrastructure is the same phenomenological process that moves data across the Internet's networks.

                  All the bureaucratic det

                  • A business doesn't want to lose a lot of money. This means it doesn't want to be forced into investments in its infrastructure that cause it to lose a lot of money. This means it doesn't want to offer products or services that would force it into money-losing investments. This ends up causing the pricing structure for the services to at least vaguely reflect the cost of providing each service. (It's not perfect, given some of the tying practices to which monopolies have access, but it's still a tendency.)

                    • by Bengie (1121981)
                      It didn't standardize on "sender pays". Where do people keep getting this FUD? 1gb down and 0.1gb up? Pay for 1gb/s. 1gb up and 0.1gb down? Pay for 1gb/s. 1gb up and 1gb down? Pay for 1gb/s. It doesn't matter. At least this is how most whole-sale transit and IX connection costs go.
                    • by tepples (727027)
                      Who pays whom for 1gb/s?
    • Verizon did that to my connection to YouTube. It worked great over when I VPNed but I couldn't even stream more than 5% of a video without VPN. That was one of several reasons I dropped FIOS.
  • Two Words (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Friday March 21, 2014 @04:36PM (#46546547) Homepage Journal

    Let's call a duck a duck, shall we? All this "Netflix throttling" and other shady dealings of the ISPs controlling what content customers can view, reasonably, on the connections those customers are paying for, is nothing more than service theft.

    Maybe we can put this whole net neutrality debate to bed with one good class action lawsuit, on behalf of all customers of ISPs who commit this type of service theft.

    • A class action lawsuit will get you a t-shirt, ball cap, and a bag of peanuts (airline size, which holds about three peanuts). The proper solution is to turn the pipes into public infrastructure, like water, lights, and sewage, and allow service managers, not providers to sell time share.

      • A class action lawsuit will get you a t-shirt, ball cap, and a bag of peanuts (airline size, which holds about three peanuts).

        It might also get a legal ruling setting the precedent that throttling certain services that your customers pay for is service theft, and get the ISPs who fail to comply with the ruling fined in a huge way.

        Which is the part I care about - nobody with a lick of sense joins a class action lawsuit for money. Well, anyone who's not a lawyer.

        The proper solution is to turn the pipes into public infrastructure, like water, lights, and sewage, and allow service managers, not providers to sell time share.

        Which probably won't happen until somebody (or rather, a large collective of somebodies) sues the holy living shit out of the service "providers."

        Because we sure as hell can

        • Because we sure as hell can't trust our "representatives" to do their jobs, that's for sure.

          So why does everybody keep voting for them? The whole system is being driven by some kind of mass psychosis.

          • by sconeu (64226)

            Because otherwise the wrong lizard might get elected.

          • Because we sure as hell can't trust our "representatives" to do their jobs, that's for sure.

            So why does everybody keep voting for them?

            Because the system is gamed so that only members of a certain, elite ruling class can afford to campaign, thereby assuring that no matter who you vote for, they all have the same interests at heart.

            For example, my district recently threw out an incumbent in favor of a "fed up" Tea Party candidate in the last election; however, the only thing that changed was the name on the placard. Ol' Tea-Billy wasn't even in DC for 24 hours before sidling up to the lobbyists feeding trough, just like his predecessor.

      • A class action lawsuit will get you a t-shirt, ball cap, and a bag of peanuts (airline size, which holds about three peanuts). The proper solution is to turn the pipes into public infrastructure, like water, lights, and sewage, and allow service managers, not providers to sell time share.

        No, a class action lawsuit gets you coupons for 20% off your next purchase at the corporation you sued. And since you were suing a corporation, you were probably not going to patronize it; so they win.

        Well, the lawyers get paid in cash, so they are the actual winners.

  • If you can't control the spam like the original and former Slashdot could, then do the right thing and drop this crap (that NOBODY who visits this site wants).

    Seriously, give us what we ASK for and not what you THINK we need. Don't think. We'll do that for you.

    If you can't get it right, I for one will go somewhere else for my news and .. unfortunately not discussions, because no really good discussion site exists.

    • You can do what I just did:
      1.) go to pref's, and assign a '-5' modifier to your foes, then mark those spam-post authors as 'foe' and reload page.

      Or:

      2.) join in the discussions at SoylentNews [soylentnews.org].
      I have been spending more time there than on /. lately. The discussions are more like /. was before Dice took over, and it started as a direct result of /.Beta.

      The the SN community is still small(but growing), and the SN team has been extremely responsive to community feedback, unlike here.
      As a side effect(of the abov

    • by rts008 (812749)

      Sorry to double-reply, but SoylentNews underwent an announced shutdown for maintainance last night, and apparently something went arwy, the site is currently down as of a few seconds ago....

    • Honestly, I'm starting to think I should check out MyCleanPC. If SO MANY anonymous posters recomend it, it must be something special!

  • by brtech (1019012) on Friday March 21, 2014 @04:39PM (#46546561)

    Since the beginning of peering, the rules have always been that if you have roughly the same amount of traffic inbound and outbound, peering has no charge. If one direction generates more traffic than the other, the source pays for the asymmetry. If you give me 200 GB per minute average, and I give you 100 KB per minute average, you have to pay me for the traffic you are giving to me to deliver to my customers.

    Streaming video has this problem - it's all one way. Peering should cost video streaming sources. The RATE charged has to be reasonable, but they don't get free peering.

    • by borcharc (56372) * on Friday March 21, 2014 @04:51PM (#46546627)

      Since the beginning of peering, the rules have always been that if you have roughly the same amount of traffic inbound and outbound, peering has no charge. If one direction generates more traffic than the other, the source pays for the asymmetry.

      This model is outdated, in the good old days networks had a mix of eyeballs and content, now we have completely separate eyeball and content networks. This is mostly the result of the cable/telco monopolies. In the new normal, traffic will never be balanced. I am paying comcast for internet access, it is their responsibility to provide be high quality service. In order to accomplish that they should have an open peering policy and connect at all public exchanges. If the large providers don't get on board with more open peering policies they are going to eventually run into a consumer or small NSP brought anti-trust lawsuit.

      • by brtech (1019012)

        You can't sweep the problem of real cost under a claim that we have lots of asymmetry. If I generate about as much traffic as I get from a peer, then our costs to deal with the traffic are roughly equal. If he sends me 10X what I send him, my costs are higher than his. If the costs are different, at some point, the price is different.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Traffic is not sent randomly, if something is sent it's because it was requested. It would make more sense to have the recipient pay instead of the sender, the same way the buyer of goods pay.
          It would have a few more advantages:
          - no need for ads anymore, every time you view a webpage, the content provider gets paid a little bit.
          - no more "piracy", "pirates" would pay by eating their bandwidth.

          Now the problem is shady content providers sending useless content to inflate the bill. But that would not be differ

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Traffic is not sent randomly, if something is sent it's because it was requested. It would make more sense to have the recipient pay instead of the sender, the same way the buyer of goods pay.
            It would have a few more advantages:
            - no need for ads anymore, every time you view a webpage, the content provider gets paid a little bit.
            - no more "piracy", "pirates" would pay by eating their bandwidth.

            Now the problem is shady content providers sending useless content to inflate the bill. But that would not be different from them bombarding us with ads and creating parking websites.

            Small issue here. Bandwidth isn't worth the same as the content that consumes it. Not by a long shot in the most fevered dreams of Comcast executives. In fact, this is what scares them so much. They've been exploiting this asymmetry since the end of the national cable rollout in the 80s. They know that once they've payed off the fixed costs of hardware, the prices they charge do not reflect in any way the ongoing costs of maintenance. Bits are cheap. The pipes they travel over have all already been payed fo

        • by Anonymous Coward

          If you (in the form of paying customers from your network) are requesting data, you don't get to charge the provider of that data for the privilege of sending it to you.

        • by borcharc (56372) *

          That does not mean you can not work out effective deals where everyone wins. If I peer with you in several geographic locations, it takes load off your backbone links, lowering your cost (L3 example). If I am a small operator peering in one area, an arrangement could be worked out where my prefixes are only advertised in the region through the use of bgp communities, reducing the other providers backbone costs. This is effectively what should have been done with netflix. L3 taking this issue up is a major g

        • by Anonymous Coward

          If he sends me 10X what I send him, my costs are higher than his.

          And that's offset by the millions of customers paying you $50-$100/month that he doesn't see a penny from.

    • by thule (9041)

      Since the beginning of peering, the rules have always been that if you have roughly the same amount of traffic inbound and outbound, peering has no charge.

      That must have been *very* early on. I remember reading an article in the late 90's that stated that Yahoo! only payed for half of their total bandwidth requirements. Transit was costing them too much money. So they peered with large ISP's to cut their transit costs. They were connecting eyeballs to content. Both sides of the equation won because ISP's would take traffic off of their transit connection and so did Yahoo!. Yes, it does cost money to peer, but for Yahoo! it saved them money. How is this any di

      • by brtech (1019012)

        No different I think. Yahoo would pay for peering if it's bandwidth was asymmetric, but it would probably pay less to peer directly than through a transit network. Before peering, they would pay an ISP for access. After peering, they would pay the peering partner for the asymmetry, but that would be less than what they were paying for transit. If Yahoo users generated more traffic to a peer than they consumed, the peer would pay Yahoo. That probably didn't happen.

        • by thule (9041)

          No, I believe the article stated that Yahoo! was getting the bandwidth for "free". That is, Yahoo! is its own national network with POP's in all the big cities. Yahoo! is like an ISP, but unlike an ISP, Yahoo! did not sell transit. The only point of their network was to peer with large ISP's. They would drop in a router and get as many ISP's to connect their POP's to their router for free.

          The difference today is that Netflix has a lot more data. A LOT more. Gone are the days of simple web sites. Depending o

          • by Bengie (1121981)
            It's not just "paying for a port". According to Level 3, these ISPs are trying to charge more for peering than Level 3 charges for transit. Level 3 will charge less for dedicated bandwidth from LA to London than Comcast will charge to go down the street.
          • by alen (225700)

            in the old days Yahoo was an ISP and probably had links to a lot of network providers

    • The issue is... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PortHaven (242123) on Friday March 21, 2014 @05:03PM (#46546727) Homepage

      I THE !@#$ COMCAST CUSTOMER AM PAYING FOR THAT DELIVERY

      So !@#$ give it to me, or let me have the fun of bashing the Comcast CEO's head repeatedly with a nerf baseball bat.

      And yes, I am yelling slashdot, because I'm pissed and sick and tired of it. And my congressmen are dickheads.

      • Re:The issue is... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by brtech (1019012) on Friday March 21, 2014 @05:10PM (#46546775)

        Yeah, you are paying for it, and they should deliver it to you.

        But both ends pay. Netflix, or whomever, pays their ISP, you pay your ISP. Netflix doesn't get a free ride.

        When people talk about net neutrality, they worry that Neflix has to pay twice, once to their ISP, and once to your ISP. We don't want that.

        But Level(3), one of Netflix's ISPs, may have to pay Comcast if Level(3) sends more traffic to Comcast than Comcast sends to Level(3).

        Then again, Comcast better handle that traffic equally well, and better have the capacity to exchange the traffic fairly.

        • by JoelKatz (46478)

          They're paying twice, but they're paying for two different things. Netflix pays their ISP for the cost of delivering their traffic to Comcast. But they also pay Comcast for half the difference between their ISP's delivery costs and Comcast's delivery cost.

          Say I want to send a package to you and we agree to split the cost of delivery. I might pay a courier to take the package to a pickup point and you might pay a courier to take the package from the pickup point to you. But if your courier is more expensive

        • by rk (6314)

          You're hitting it pretty close to the mark here. It comes down to the line between good traffic engineering and violating net neutrality is not a clear one. While I think Something Should Be Done(tm), I sometimes worry the cure may be worse than the disease. I work for a CDN and I can kind of see everyone's side simultaneously.

          I think the difference here is in this case, it is Comcast's own customers that are requesting the traffic. Calling Comcast a "peer" like LVLT in this situation is a little bit murky,

          • by rk (6314)

            And that's "we apologize", not "we're apologize". Derp. Even previewed and didn't catch it until half a second AFTER I pressed "post".

      • There are two different markets here. In the long haul market, the sender pays. In the last mile market, the endpoint pays.
        • by Bengie (1121981)
          In the long haul market, the one who moves the data the least distance pays. If one side moves the data 100 miles and the other only has to move it 10 miles, the one the moves it 10 miles pays, unless they can get symmetrical data usage. It doesn't matter which way the data is flowing, the one that moves the least distance pays.
      • by JoelKatz (46478)

        No, you should pay half the cost of the delivery. The sender should pay the other half. This is why the Internet has, for decades, used settlement-based for asymmetric flows. Otherwise, folks like Netflix and Google won't be paying half the costs.

        It is fundamental to Netflix's business model that they will have a small number of sources that produce large amounts of traffic to a large number of destinations. It is common sense that this means that Netflix will, in the absence of settlements, pay less than h

    • Since the beginning of peering, the rules have always been that if you have roughly the same amount of traffic inbound and outbound, peering has no charge. If one direction generates more traffic than the other, the source pays for the asymmetry.

      And to think: I have been paying my ASDL provider, when I should have been charging them.

    • No, peering costs should just be part of the business and spread out to all thew customers as part of the bill. This is probably how it would work, if not for the communications cartels writing the rules and protecting the monopoly.

    • by reg (5428) <reg@freebsd.org> on Friday March 21, 2014 @05:48PM (#46546999) Homepage

      But that's not how my peering arrangement works with my ISP! I connect my network with theirs and they charge me for all the traffic they send me! Hint: there is really no such thing as peering, only a network-of-networks that makes the Internet. Any other definition is the not the Internet. The only rational model is for the sink to pay for the asymmetry, like the power grid.

      Regards,
          -Jeremy

      • by JoelKatz (46478)

        You don't have a peering arrangement with your ISP, you have a transit arrangement with them. These things are *completely* different. You use your ISP to reach other networks. Netflix doesn't want to use Comcast to reach anyone else.

        • by reg (5428)

          No they are not. They are just semantic terms for paying or free. You've bought the lie.

          • by JoelKatz (46478)

            I'll put this in terms that are as simple as possible, since you clearly don't understand the difference between peering and transit. When you want to reach a network in Sweden, your ISP carries that traffic for you. When your ISP wants to reach a network in Sweden, they can't ask you to carry it. That's why you pay your ISP. It has nothing to do with ratios or directions -- it's because your ISP is providing you with transit and you are not providing your ISP transit.

    • by sgt scrub (869860)

      This is why the physical portion should be owned by the state. Let the wireless, cellular, and last hop be distributed by providers, including last hop pots. Companies rent the physical and sell the service. It serves to maintain the resource without tossing it into one, or the other, downward spiral. For example, it limits the stagnation affect caused when the state controls resources and forces a balance between companies that want to gouge customers and what people believe is reasonable. The only th

    • by TheSync (5291)

      the rules have always been that if you have roughly the same amount of traffic inbound and outbound, peering has no charge.

      I'm curious why this was the rule - is it because most network interfaces are inherently bi-directional? Or was it a feeling that information is valuable, so if your network absorbs valuable information from the outside, it should provide an equivalent amount of valuable information back out?

    • you have to pay me for the traffic you are giving to me to deliver to my customers

      Your customers already paid you. If you don't deliver, they will be happy to pay someone else.

      Of course the providers will either legislate themselves into a monopoly or oligarchy and the customers get screwed.

    • by ckedge (192996)

      Peering is for peers. For backbone providers.

      Comcast is not a peer. Comcast is an end user. Comcast should pay for both the inbound and outbound traffic onto a backbone.

      Nowwww, this gets complicated as hell if Comcast owns or bought a backbone network.

      I don't know. Maybe the old model just doesn't work any more, because in the old days "soruces" and "sinks" were spread out, now they're not, they're all segregated, network A is all sinks, network B is all source. And the idea that "source pays" seems ki

      • And the idea that "source pays" seems kind of stupid.

        It's always seemed kind of stupid to me that you pay your ISP to let some third party send you data, with the ISP paying some upstream transit provider to be on the receiving end, when the postal service and package delivery have always worked the other way around. When you order goods online you pay the retailer for the cost of shipping, and they in turn pay someone to deliver the goods to you. A fixed rate for maintaining a connection to your ISP would be reasonable, much like paying for your own local ro

      • by JoelKatz (46478)

        Comcast is not an end user, they are a peer. When two networks exchange traffic as peers, that means they exchange only traffic that originates on one of their networks and terminates on the other. This is precisely what Comcast and Netflix want to do -- exchange traffic that originates on one network and terminates on the other. That is, by definition, peering.

  • by markzip (1313025) on Friday March 21, 2014 @05:22PM (#46546843)

    (Sorry, a properly grammatical title would not fit in the space allotted)

    Netflix & Level 3 Only Telling Half The Story, Won’t Detail What Changes They Want To Net Neutrality [streamingmedia.com]

    In a fairly deep and interesting article over at StreamingMedia.com, Dan Rayburn argues that there is more to the story here and that neither Netflix nor Level 3 are giving us their proposed solutions. He goes through both the Netflix [netflix.com] and the Level3 [level3.com] blog posts, taking them apart very carefully.

    It is not a network neutrality problem, but rather a business problem. Worthwhile read.

    • by thule (9041)
      Yup! It is a business problem. I really don't want to see government get involved.
    • by guises (2423402)
      That was a bunch of hooey. His whole argument seems to be that whenever Comcast, et. all, decides to degrade Netflix performance by neglecting Netflix's peering partners, then Netflix should just switch peering partners. See? It's clearly Netflix's fault.

      What a bunch of bunk.
  • ..intermediaries such as Cogent and Level 3

    Calling companies like these "intermediaries" is disingenuous at best, they are backbone providers and there wouldn't BE an Internet without them.

    • by Shados (741919)

      They're intermediaries because from the customer's point of view (customer in this context being residentials and office), they're behind their ISP. The ISPs deal with them, make deals with them, call them when there's an issue, not you or me.

  • They don't want to be accountable for what's on their network (dumb pipes), yet they want control over what's flowing in said pipes. Have their cake and eat it too?

    Besides, people are paying for connectivity at specified speeds, what they do with it doesn't matter if it's Youtube, Netflix, or anything else...

    Why should Netflix pay? what about ABC, CBS, NBC, Youtube, Porntube, and all the others? What about web sites? Facebook?

  • Netflix and Google need to go on the offensive. When Comcast asks for extortion money, shut them off and pay for advertisements for its competitors like Verizon or RCN.

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Working...