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

[her209]

Bye-bye Net Neutrality.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...l-booth-netflix-web-partner-level-3-says.html

 

[helpme]

Lame, Comcast already has a 250GB cap, so they shouldn't even be trying this.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Fuck Comcast.

 

[Crono]

I hope everyone fights Comcast with their wallets.

If they don't, the other ISPs might try this garbage.
Luckily for me Cablevision (Optimum Online) is a much more consumer-friendly ISP. For now.

 

[Anubis]

pretty sure some of us said this is exactly what would happen without net nut laws in place to prevent it

 

[techs]

pretty sure some of us said this is exactly what would happen without net nut laws in place to prevent it

Q.F.T.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Too bad Comcast is my only feasible option. This is unfortunate for sure, I have a hard enough time staying under the cap, all we do is stream from Netflix and other sources. I guess I could move on to illegal downloading...

 

[techs]

pretty sure some of us said this is exactly what would happen without net nut laws in place to prevent it

And we will be right when Comcast and the other cable companies end over the air free tv.

 

[Wyndru]

I'm surprised it took this long. Others will follow, especially with netflix accounting for more than 20% of peak traffic.

 

[sswingle]

I'm surprised it took this long. Others will follow, especially with netflix accounting for more than 20% of peak traffic.

I thought it was the evil torrenters using it all up.

 

[techs]

I'm surprised it took this long. Others will follow, especially with netflix accounting for more than 20% of peak traffic.

Yes, because Comcast couldn't possibly be expected to expand their capacity. It is only possible to keep charging more until people won't use the internet for anything but casual web surfing and email.

/sarcasm

 

[Anubis]

I thought it was the evil torrenters using it all up.

P2P still uses a lot its just the everything else is now using more so it makes what P2P is using look a lot smaller in comparison

 

[bignateyk]

I fought them with my wallet as much as I could. I dropped to the lowest internet subscription, and basic cable. Unfortunatly I can't get satellite for TV because of all the trees around where I live, and I am out of range of the OTA channels. There is no FIOS or other option for internet for me, so I am pretty much forced to use comcrap unless I don't want internet or TV at all...

 

[Anubis]

Too bad Comcast is my only feasible option. This is unfortunate for sure, I have a hard enough time staying under the cap, all we do is stream from Netflix and other sources. I guess I could move on to illegal downloading...

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

 

[Dulanic]

I hope everyone fights Comcast with their wallets.

If they don't, the other ISPs might try this garbage.
Luckily for me Cablevision (Optimum Online) is a much more consumer-friendly ISP. For now.

Unfortunately, I can only push back so hard. Cities all over around me have FIOS available, but I literally can only get Comcast for internet. Screw Comcast is right, I've switched everything else off of them, but I can't drop them for internet. I'd go wireless but the speeds/lag are not resonable. I don't even have DSL available because Verizon ran fiber to the poll outside this home not copper.

 

[Modelworks]

This is why I was completely against the comcast nbc merger. With the merger they now control what hulu does. People said that comcast wouldn't dare charge extra for outside providers and access based on content. I knew better.

"How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe.
Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is
use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this
capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some
mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're
using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

"The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have
made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo!, or Vonage or anybody to expect
to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!”


“There's no such thing as a free lunch on the Internet,’ according to Verizon CEO
Ivan Seidenberg, who said Thursday that providers of bandwidth-intensive
Internet applications, including Google and Microsoft, should ‘share the cost’ of
operating broadband networks.”

 

[PingSpike]

pretty sure some of us said this is exactly what would happen without net nut laws in place to prevent it

I actually saw some one say that 'this' is why we can't have net neutrality laws when referring to the torrent freak domain seizure....but uh...we don't have NN and that did happen? So....

Anyway, NN is a band aid to hold together the mess we have in the US for ISP and "competition" (LOL). It ain't great, but I'd say it'll have to do because there's no way those local monopolies and their campaign contributions and lobbying are going to go away any time soon.

 

[Wyndru]

Yes, because Comcast couldn't possibly be expected to expand their capacity. It is only possible to keep charging more until people won't use the internet for anything but casual web surfing and email.

/sarcasm

The problem is that netflix traffic increased extremely quickly over the past 2 years, and the companies have no way of magically "flipping a switch" and allowing more bandwidth overnight. I don't know if they are hitting peaks that is affecting performance in their pipes, but I'm sure they aren't too thrilled about all of this new traffic they need to manage.

I agree they should be regularly increasing bandwidth, and this does look like a cash grab. They probably look at it as punishing the bandwidth abusers, as they do with the caps. I'm surprised they are doing it in conjunction with a bandwidth cap though, that is ballsy.

 

[Crono]

The problem is that netflix traffic increased extremely quickly over the past 2 years, and the companies have no way of magically "flipping a switch" and allowing more bandwidth overnight. I don't know if they are hitting peaks that is affecting performance in their pipes, but I'm sure they aren't too thrilled about all of this new traffic they need to manage.

I agree they should be regularly increasing bandwidth, and this does look like a cash grab. They probably look at it as punishing the bandwidth abusers, as they do with the caps. I'm surprised they are doing it in conjunction with a bandwidth cap though, that is ballsy.

I don't feel sorry for ISPs. They advertise and sell based on connection speeds. They should be able to offer unlimited bandwidth for whatever connection speed they advertise instead of essentially "overselling".

 

[Modelworks]

A little background about netflix recently that some may not know. Netflix previously was using akamai for content delivery. The contract with them ran out and so netflix a few weeks ago asked for bids from other companies, level 3 won that bid. Netflix is estimated to use 20% of all internet traffic in the USA during evening hours.

If comcast has a problem with the usage then they need to take care of it in the regular contracts not just come out of the blue with a new fee. Level 3 doesn't have to use comcast , they could cut off comcast customers from netflix. Imagine the backlash to comcast for that.




Press release from level 3

“On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content. By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation’s largest cable provider.
“On November 22, after being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment was ‘take it or leave it,’ Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions.
“Level 3 operates one of several broadband backbone networks, which are part of the Internet and which independent providers of online content use to transmit movies, sports, games and other entertainment to consumers. When a Comcast customer requests such content, for example an online movie or game, Level 3 transmits the content to Comcast for delivery to consumers.
“Level 3 believes Comcast’s current position violates the spirit and letter of the FCC’s proposed Internet Policy principles and other regulations and statutes, as well as Comcast’s previous public statements about favoring an open Internet.
“While the network neutrality debate in Washington has focused on what actions a broadband access provider might take to filter, prioritize or manage content requested by its subscribers, Comcast’s decision goes well beyond this. With this action, Comcast is preventing competing content from ever being delivered to Comcast’s subscribers at all, unless Comcast’s unilaterally-determined toll is paid – even though Comcast’s subscribers requested the content. With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’ Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content.
“It is our hope that Comcast’s senior management, for whom we have great respect, will closely consider their position on this issue and adopt an approach that will better serve Comcast and Comcast’s customers.
“While Comcast’s position is regrettable, Level 3 remains open and willing to work through these issues with Comcast. However, Level 3 does not seek any ‘special deals’ or arrangements not generally available to other Internet backbone companies.
“Given Comcast’s currently stated position, we are approaching regulators and policy makers and asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by a few institutions with dominant market power that have the means, motive and opportunity to economically discriminate between favored and disfavored content.“

 

[MrX8503]

The problem isn't the 250GB data cap. The issue is the instant huge influx of increased bandwidth. It doesn't matter if Comcast users are reaching the data cap or not. The problem is that too many of them are using a lot more data.

With Netflix increasing in users streaming everyday, this puts a huge strain on Comcast that they weren't prepared for and its only going to get worse.

Comcast being the greedy bastards they are aren't happy with the amount of bandwidth being used so they have to look elsewhere to collect their monies. We could very well see increased prices, whether it be from Netflix or through Comcast, when streaming becomes more prevalent.

 

[her209]

A little background about netflix recently that some may not know. Netflix previously was using akamai for content delivery. The contract with them ran out and so netflix a few weeks ago asked for bids from other companies, level 3 won that bid. Netflix is estimated to use 20% of all internet traffic in the USA during evening hours.

If comcast has a problem with the usage then they need to take care of it in the regular contracts not just come out of the blue with a new fee. Level 3 doesn't have to use comcast , they could cut off comcast customers from netflix. Imagine the backlash to comcast for that.

Hahaha... I'd imagine Comcast users would have a shitstorm if Netflix/Level-3 said, we're blocking access to Comcast users, similar to what happened with the Fox/Cablevision dispute.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Bastards, get rid of my 250GB cap dammit!

 

[911paramedic]

Back at the Comcast offices:

"We are losing more and more money to satellite providers, what should we do?"
"We could lower bandwidth caps on our broadband customers. That would force them to pay for higher priced plans with higher caps."
"Sounds good, do it. Anybody else?"

"How about charging from the other end?"
"Tell me more..."
"Sure. We don't only charge the customer, we charge the provider of content."
"Hmmm. Like charging the Sun for itself for providing solar power. I love it!"

"Our customers love us so much."
"No kidding, we're awesome!"

gg
gg

 

[techs]

Gee, you think Comcast just "magically" upgrading speeds without actually expanding the capacity to handle increased data flow is the problem?

Internet companies should be in violation of their contracts if they can't supply say, at least 95 percent of their advertised speed at least 95 percent of the time.

Oh, and no bandwidth caps.