Comcast Starts Online Video ‘Toll Booth,’ Netflix Supplier Says

[Genx87]

Interesting that no one has mentioned the timing.
With Congress coming back in a lame duck session there are a lot of soon to be unemployed Congresspeople who are going to need jobs.

Good time for Comcrap to use its money to buy influence against Congressional action.

Uh the timing is based on Netflix going with a different provider for their service.

 

[Modelworks]

How do you know know what was in the agreement between Comcast and Akamai? That said what does that agreement have to do with this situation?

Comcast had no problems with the traffic when it was akamai delivering it.

 

[Genx87]

Comcast had no problems with the traffic when it was akamai delivering it.

Again I will ask, do you know what was in the agreement? Comcast may not have had a problem with Akamai because the agreement was built around their useage pattern. And Akamai was paying Comcast for the uneven traffic.

 

[Vette73]

What do you think a contract is? What you describe would be outlined within an enforeable contract. Level 3 has a current contract that is going to be voided because they are going to exceed and break the contract. Thus the renegotiation between the two networks.

I agree. But right now each of them sign some contract and then make legal threats, go to court, cut service, etc... years of pissing match.

While the only group that gets hurt is the end user.
If net neutrality was setup correct then it would be set that each bit/byte is treated and charged the same and there is no legal ground to differ.

 

[Platypus]

nvm, people have no interest in educating themselves.

 

[Modelworks]

Again I will ask, do you know what was in the agreement? Comcast may not have had a problem with Akamai because the agreement was built around their useage pattern. And Akamai was paying Comcast for the uneven traffic.

And ? that is what I said ,they had no problem with Akamai so they must have had a better contract or better lawyers.

 

[Modelworks]

Do you know the terms of that agreement? No of course you don't, so why are you assuming based on nothing?

Reading comprehension is failing in the USA.


Akamai didn't have this issue. I guess they had better contracts or lawyers.

 

[Platypus]

reading comprehension is failing in the usa.


akamai didn't have this issue. I guess they had better contracts or lawyers.

or they paid for the overage?

 

[Modelworks]

or they paid for the overage?

And where would that usage be documented at ? THE CONTRACT

 

[Genx87]

I agree. But right now each of them sign some contract and then make legal threats, go to court, cut service, etc... years of pissing match.

While the only group that gets hurt is the end user.
If net neutrality was setup correct then it would be set that each bit/byte is treated and charged the same and there is no legal ground to differ.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. This has everything to do with standard peering agreements. And if we did what you propose. Would Level 3 still not be on the hook because they are sending more traffic into Comcasts network than comcast is sending back?

Contract disputes will be handled via the legal system. I dont like the idea net neutrality would allow parties to void legal contracts and trample over another party with impunity.

 

[Genx87]

And ? that is what I said ,they had no problem with Akamai so they must have had a better contract or better lawyers.

Or they were paying like Level 3 will be doing. If Akamai paid the fee why are we up in arms when Comcast asks Level 3 to do it?

 

[techs]

You're going to pay for it regardless -- either through Comcast, increased Netflix fees or, more likely, a combination of both. Mass streaming of movies, etc. is still relatively new -- wait until the mail-in DVD models are basically gone and everything is done via internet streaming. Do you think Comcast and others are going to sit idly by while their network utilization quadruples or more? Of course not -- they'll charge more and those ISPs not utilizing tiered service pricing will quickly introduce service tiers.

Pardon my caps they're not directed at you IndyColtsFan:

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE? WHAT THE FUCK DO PEOPLE MEAN THAT THE CONSUMER IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER? BANDWIDTH COSTS ARE DECREASING EVERY YEAR. COMCAST HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH BANDWIDTH WHEN THEY GAVE PEOPLE ONLY 4-6 MB. BASICALLY ITS COMCAST TRYING TO MAKE MONEY WHILE GIVING PEOPLE MORE BANDWIDTH BUT NOT INCREASING THEIR CAPACITY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO USE THEIR BANDWIDTH.

COMCAST JUST POSTED AN INCREASE IN PROFITS DESPITE THE LOSS OF CUSTOMERS. YES, LESS CUSTOMERS, MORE PROFITS!

WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO IT, COMCAST IS PROTECTING ITS CORE CABLE TV BUSINESS. A BUSINESS THAT WAS BUILT ON A GOVERNMENT PROVIDED FRANCHISE AND ON BANK LOANS BASED ON THEIR EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE. THEY NOW HAVE SET THE BAR IN COSTS SO HIGH OTHER COMPANIES CAN BARELY BREAK IN AS COMPETITORS. VERIZON SOLD ITS NORTHEAST PHONE COMPANIES TO PAY TO WIRE UP JUST A FRACTION OF THE COUNTRY.

 

[Modelworks]

Or they were paying like Level 3 will be doing. If Akamai paid the fee why are we up in arms when Comcast asks Level 3 to do it?

Because business as usual doesn't make it right. What comcast is doing is what is wrong with the industry. It is like every home in a city turning on the tap and the city sending the bill to the water source to upgrade the cities pipes.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

They are, who do you think will ultimately pay for this fee? The netflix userbase.

Do I smell trickle down economics there?

 

[Genx87]

Because business as usual doesn't make it right. What comcast is doing is what is wrong with the industry. It is like every home in a city turning on the tap and the city sending the bill to the water source to upgrade the cities pipes.

Right and wrong is a moral subjective idea. What in your world makes it wrong for comcast to charge level 3 for sending for profit traffic when comcast isnt sending equal amounts of traffic back? Mind you this is a standard practice that has been agreed upon as an industry standard.

That analogy isnt very good because we dont pay mother earth for using her resources.

 

[Genx87]

Do I smell trickle down economics there?

I smell people not understanding the people who will pay for this fee are the people utilizing the network. What is the problem? People are so mixed up\confused on this issue they are proposing non-netflix users should be paying this fee lol

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Pardon my caps they're not directed at you IndyColtsFan:

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE? WHAT THE FUCK DO PEOPLE MEAN THAT THE CONSUMER IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER? BANDWIDTH COSTS ARE DECREASING EVERY YEAR. COMCAST HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH BANDWIDTH WHEN THEY GAVE PEOPLE ONLY 4-6 MB. BASICALLY ITS COMCAST TRYING TO MAKE MONEY WHILE GIVING PEOPLE MORE BANDWIDTH BUT NOT INCREASING THEIR CAPACITY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO USE THEIR BANDWIDTH.

Comcast is in the business of making money, as are all ISPs. Anyone with any sense saw this coming from a mile away when the monthly caps were put in place. Comcast can increase your personal bandwidth until they're purple, black, and blue, but guess what? As long as you have the SAME monthly cap in place, it doesn't help much. It is just a marketing trick.

COMCAST JUST POSTED AN INCREASE IN PROFITS DESPITE THE LOSS OF CUSTOMERS. YES, LESS CUSTOMERS, MORE PROFITS!

WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO IT, COMCAST IS PROTECTING ITS CORE CABLE TV BUSINESS. A BUSINESS THAT WAS BUILT ON A GOVERNMENT PROVIDED FRANCHISE AND ON BANK LOANS BASED ON THEIR EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE. THEY NOW HAVE SET THE BAR IN COSTS SO HIGH OTHER COMPANIES CAN BARELY BREAK IN AS COMPETITORS. VERIZON SOLD ITS NORTHEAST PHONE COMPANIES TO PAY TO WIRE UP JUST A FRACTION OF THE COUNTRY.

Comcast is doing many things, one of which you bolded above. They're trying to stave off the Netflixes of the world because, quite frankly, if Netflix had everything you wanted to watch, why would you need to pay Comcast for TV?

Similarly, infrastructure costs are not necessarily static. Just because Comcast may have the same number of subscribers from one year to the next doesn't mean that their overall network utilization has remained unchanged and therefore, they don't need to do anything. Upgrading and investing in additional infrastructure can be expensive and Comcast is going to let Netflix, via Level 3, subsidize that cost for them. This means that Netflix users will ultimately help Comcast build out their infrastructure. Netflix won't be able to only hit Comcast users with an upgraded subscription fee; they're going to spread whatever fees Level 3 passes on to them over their entire subscriber base so in fact, even though I am not a Comcast user, I will be paying a small amount to them via the fees.

 

[Vette73]

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. This has everything to do with standard peering agreements. And if we did what you propose. Would Level 3 still not be on the hook because they are sending more traffic into Comcasts network than comcast is sending back?

Contract disputes will be handled via the legal system. I dont like the idea net neutrality would allow parties to void legal contracts and trample over another party with impunity.

How would net neutrality "trample over another party with impunity"? It would do the opposite and treat them each the same.

Its comcast that wants to break the contract. Level3 did their agreement with netflix based on their current agreement with comcast and others. If that agreement has a time frame cutoff or limit of data then fine cancel it or start working on a new one. But it sounds like comcast did not have a good contract setup and now they see they messed up.

Could be wrong but would have to read the contract/agreement to see. Right nwo its they said to they said.

Again I don;t think either one is 100% right. Easiest thing is treat/charge all data the same. 1 byte for 1 byte.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Doing this would put kill P2P a lot faster than anti-P2P laws would. Instead of seeding things 24/7, people would kill the torrent as soon as it finished downloading. The entire P2P network would suck balls. Then it would die. Then the demand on the network would be less

That would be great!

Unless we're talking about 0.000001/MB, which is more than fair for current capacity allocation.

250gb @ $40 comes out to .015625 cents per MB; I would expect something more along the lines of .16-30 C/ MB simply because I expect on average 12-25gb is present average utilization...

Fair isn't the point, encouraging an increase in available bandwidth because it makes money for the company to do so is the point.

The truth is that the present system was good for people like us because so many people use so little internet connectivity; but with TVs and XBoxes integrating frat-boy Mc2.5 kids is using a lot more bandwidth it is time to start giving the provider a reason to fill capacity.

If the providers got paid per MB they would allocate much much more to offering more MB and much less to getting grand-ma to sign up for a Gold-package so she can check her email.

 

[James Bond]

And where would that usage be documented at ? THE CONTRACT

Yes.

Comcast likely had a contract with Netflix's old service provider, Akamai, and they were being paid compensation equal for the amount of traffic that was ingressing.

Comcast was not getting paid by L3. But now that L3 is the provider for Netflix, they should.

End.

Edit: It is likely that the old contract with Akamai will be renegotiated as well.

 

[Modelworks]

Right and wrong is a moral subjective idea. What in your world makes it wrong for comcast to charge level 3 for sending for profit traffic when comcast isnt sending equal amounts of traffic back? Mind you this is a standard practice that has been agreed upon as an industry standard.

That analogy isnt very good because we dont pay mother earth for using her resources.

My world is the world where you don't ask someone to pay for something YOUR customers have already paid for. It may be standard practice but so was the practice of organized crime making stores pay protection to sell their goods.

As for the analogy, CA doesn't get their drinking water delivered to the city for free and they sure aren't charging the states that bring it to them more because CA residents drink more.

 

[ch33zw1z]

im curious how many movies do you watch to get to the 250 GB cap. Im curious because id be hard presses to hit 250 do illegal things

I don't have it just for movies, my instant queue is setup exclusively for my kid (who at times watches many shows). My wife and I watch almost everything of our stuff through Netflix, on a Xbox360 which pulls it in HD (720p) IIRC. A normal usage month is between 150GB-250GB. So I don't always hit it, but I have to watch it just to make sure. We chose this setup because it's much more cost effective compared to buying cable, and it's available when we want it.

edit: a little more detail. When watching with the Wii you press the 2(IIRC) and it shows you current bandwidth. Even the kids cartoons go between 1-4mbps, I'm not sure what the X360 uses for the HD streams..but it can't be less.

 

[Murloc]

Huh?

Comcast isn't trying to charge Netflix so why do you bring up content providers.

It is the VOLUME of data not the TYPE of data that Comcast wants to charge for.

If you use more electricity do you not get charged more?

Users pay for the volume of data that gets trasmitted to their PCs.
And why don't they make a generalized charge for content providers?
why are they asking single big websites that got the money for sure instead of doing it in a clear and trasparent manner?

 

[Genx87]

How would net neutrality "trample over another party with impunity"? It would do the opposite and treat them each the same.

Its comcast that wants to break the contract. Level3 did their agreement with netflix based on their current agreement with comcast and others. If that agreement has a time frame cutoff or limit of data then fine cancel it or start working on a new one. But it sounds like comcast did not have a good contract setup and now they see they messed up.

Could be wrong but would have to read the contract/agreement to see. Right nwo its they said to they said.

Again I don;t think either one is 100% right. Easiest thing is treat/charge all data the same. 1 byte for 1 byte.

You were talking about net neutrality alleviating these issues. These are contractual issues. That is where I got that from. I may have misunderstood what you were saying.

Level 3's contract with Netflix has no bearing on Level 3's contract with Comcast. Why or how would you think one contract will alter another? That doesnt make any sense.

Sounds to me like comcast had a contract with level 3 that specified peer traffic. Level 3 signed a big contract that will increase their use of comcast's network by 50% with netflix. And level 3 wants the current contract that didnt account for a 50% increase in traffic to apply. Basically for comcast to eat the costs. I dont think you will find any business that would stand by a contract that makes them eat costs and doesnt apply anymore.

 

[Genx87]

My world is the world where you don't ask someone to pay for something YOUR customers have already paid for. It may be standard practice but so was the practice of organized crime making stores pay protection to sell their goods.

As for the analogy, CA doesn't get their drinking water delivered to the city for free and they sure aren't charging the states that bring it to them more because CA residents drink more.

What are their customers paying for exactly? Internet access? Netflix access?

The water analogy really is silly. It doesnt apply to this situation at all. The organized crime one is even worse.