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

[Platypus]

not at all.

you are providing bandwidth to comsumers who pay for

they are not charging level 3 because they are already charging US. do they charge a radio station that steams? what about youtube? cnn?

its double charging no matter how you look at it.

they are providing a service you use that you pay for, then charge them anyways?

It's not 'double charging,' L3 already pays Comcast a fee based on their already established peering arrangement... that payload is now doubling and with that, the arrangement needs to get updated.

 

[spidey07]

not at all.

you are providing bandwidth to comsumers who pay for

they are not charging level 3 because they are already charging US. do they charge a radio station that steams? what about youtube? cnn?

its double charging no matter how you look at it.

they are providing a service you use that you pay for, then charge them anyways?

But that's not how the internet or peering works. The reason peers don't charge each other is it's based on a generally equal split of the traffic in BOTH directions. Once that starts getting lopsided the agreements are changed (and in fact fees and penalties are in the agreement) and the ISP SENDING you more than they are RECEIVING/DELIVERING to their respective autonomous systems need to pay. This happens all the time, this is not unusual, this is standard internet behavior.

I am growing extremely weary of trying to explain how the internet works on a tech forum.

 

[Wyndru]

I am growing extremely weary of trying to explain how the internet works on a tech forum.

Then don't.

 

[Platypus]

Then don't.

Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, just because Comcast is a fucking shitty evil company, what they're doing in this case is not at all out of the ordinary or wrong.

 

[spidey07]

Then don't.

I have to stomp out all the misinformation and unfounded paranoia with facts.

You can identify the folks that know about networking and The Internet, they are the ones that know this is totally normal.

 

[Wyndru]

Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, just because Comcast is a fucking shitty evil company, what they're doing in this case is not at all out of the ordinary or wrong.

I didn't say I didn't like him (or mention that he is wrong), I just responded to his comment about trying to explain stuff to us. If he doesn't like explaining stuff to us, then don't. Simple solution. I didn't mean any disrespect by it, I just see a lot of people on here that are get annoyed posting things, I don't understand why they just don't post (or post less).

Then again, half the thread was trying to get him to post, so...

 

[Platypus]

I didn't say I didn't like him (or mention that he is wrong), I just responded to his comment about trying to explain stuff to us. If he doesn't like explaining stuff to us, then don't. Simple solution. I didn't mean any disrespect by it, I just see a lot of people on here that are get annoyed posting things, I don't understand why they just don't post (or post less).

Then again, half the thread was trying to get him to post, so...

Ah I thought were part of the dogpile forming on him before he even posted, my mistake, sorry to misinterpret your intent.

 

[Zargon]

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?

does the power company bill you and your tv manufacturer when you watch alot of TV? no they just bill you.

they are already charging for usage, on the USER END. I'm sure level 3 is already paying for bandwidth from a provider, and now comcast is trying to charge them access to their network.

both ends of that already pay for service, comcast is trying ot make a 3rd charge.

But that's not how the internet or peering works. The reason peers don't charge each other is it's based on a generally equal split of the traffic in BOTH directions. Once that starts getting lopsided the agreements are changed (and in fact fees and penalties are in the agreement) and the ISP SENDING you more than they are RECEIVING/DELIVERING to their respective autonomous systems need to pay. This happens all the time, this is not unusual, this is standard internet behavior.

I am growing extremely weary of trying to explain how the internet works on a tech forum.

so what happens when a ton of comcasts customers cancel because they cant get netflix? do we see others trying to do this?

to me the bottom line is this.

comcast doesnt want to pay the bill to deliver service it promised, so its trying to get everyone else to pay for it, or lower the quality of service they provide without charging less for it.

they have been doing this forever, ie 'unlimited internet' as longa syou dont go over 250gb.

if this slope continues the future is simple

internet 'unlimited' - 19.99
netflix? 9.99
youtube? 4.99
pandora? 4.99

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The more they tighten their grip, the more house holds will sip through their fingers.

It is ridiculous to charge a flat rate for a limited utility! We should be paying per-megabyte for internet usage.

 

[her209]

It's not 'double charging,' L3 already pays Comcast a fee based on their already established peering arrangement... that payload is now doubling and with that, the arrangement needs to get updated.

If anyone is paying anyone anything, its Comcast who is paying Level-3 Communications to use their network.

 

[Patranus]

The more they tighten their grip, the more house holds will sip through their fingers.

It is ridiculous to charge a flat rate for a limited utility! We should be paying per-megabyte for internet usage.

The ironic thing about your post is that is essentially what Comcast is trying to do with Level3.

Because Level 3 is sending more data to Comcast than Comcast is sending to Level 3, they want Level 3 to pay more for usage.

 

[Zargon]

It's not 'double charging,' L3 already pays Comcast a fee based on their already established peering arrangement... that payload is now doubling and with that, the arrangement needs to get updated.

ok well that makes some more sense.

Because Level 3 is sending more data to Comcast than Comcast is sending to Level 3, they want Level 3 to pay more for usage.

lets not forget one is supposed to be an internet service provider to business and end users, and one is providing internet content.

comcasts intererests are not in their end users favor as shutting down netflix providers means they sell more on demand shit movies for 9.99

you cant point out the points where comcast may be in the right without also acknowledging their alterior motives.

 

[Patranus]

so what happens when a ton of comcasts customers cancel because they cant get netflix? do we see others trying to do this?

That would be the consumer exercising their rights in a free market.
That would spur competition and growth.
The providers who have users who can get Netflix will make a profit.
Those providers who have users who cannot get Netflix will lose money.
Those providers who have users who cannot get Netflix then have a decision to make if they want to set it up so their users can get Netflix.
Conversely, the majority of users might not care so there is no incentive for them to change.

See how the free market works? Isn't it amazing?

It is your responsibility as a consumer to look at all of the products offered and weigh the benefits against the cost.

Some will cost more, some will cost less. Some will be faster, some will be slower.

 

[Genx87]

does the power company bill you and your tv manufacturer when you watch alot of TV? no they just bill you.

they are already charging for usage, on the USER END. I'm sure level 3 is already paying for bandwidth from a provider, and now comcast is trying to charge them access to their network.

both ends of that already pay for service, comcast is trying ot make a 3rd charge.




so what happens when a ton of comcasts customers cancel because they cant get netflix? do we see others trying to do this?

to me the bottom line is this.

comcast doesnt want to pay the bill to deliver service it promised, so its trying to get everyone else to pay for it, or lower the quality of service they provide without charging less for it.

they have been doing this forever, ie 'unlimited internet' as longa syou dont go over 250gb.

if this slope continues the future is simple

internet 'unlimited' - 19.99
netflix? 9.99
youtube? 4.99
pandora? 4.99

You simply arent getting it. These networks have agreements that allow traffic to pass between their networks. This is generally based on both networks sending near equal traffic. If one network starts sending more than they are recieving the network that is taking on that extra load would need to be compensated. This has little to do with with the end consumer paying 30-50 bucks a month to comcast for an internet connection. It has everything to do with Level 3 utilizing comcasts network at higher than agreed rates.

This also helps explain the increase in netflix subscription fee's at the end of the year. Which is fine, becuase the people who are paying for the new agreement are the people who are actually utilzing this increase in network resource consumption. Not comcast end users.

 

[Homerboy]

Spidey (and others) is dead on on this one. If L3 is now dumping PILES more bandwidth onto Comcast via their peering arrangement, then that open peering arrangement is now dead. And a pay-to-play arrangement will have to be struck between the two. Likely it will be just a paid-peering arrangment which would just allow the interchanging of traffic between the two networks (not full routing tables).

But this is how it works on the highest levels of the internet. The top of the pyramid. Its as simple as that. Does it suck? Yes. But this is all ripples down to Netflix looking for the lowest bidder too. L3 won the bid, and is now reaping what they sew.

I don't use Netflix.
I don't use Comcast.
I do feel sorry for those paying the price.

 

[Patranus]

lets not forget one is supposed to be an internet service provider to business and end users, and one is providing internet content.

comcasts intererests are not in their end users favor as shutting down netflix providers means they sell more on demand shit movies for 9.99

you cant point out the points where comcast may be in the right without also acknowledging their alterior motives.

Completely irrelevant.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my first post. Someone even hints about network neutrality and it spurs an emotional response. Things that are irrelevant start to enter the picture.

Even if the FCC passed net neutrality, Comcast would still be charging level 3 for the volume of data.

Net neutrality is the race card of the internet.

 

[Zargon]

That would be the consumer exercising their rights in a free market.
That would spur competition and growth.
The providers who have users who can get Netflix will make a profit.
Those providers who have users who cannot get Netflix will lose money.
Those providers who have users who cannot get Netflix then have a decision to make if they want to set it up so their users can get Netflix.
Conversely, the majority of users might not care so there is no incentive for them to change.

See how the free market works? Isn't it amazing?

It is your responsibility as a consumer to look at all of the products offered and weigh the benefits against the cost.

Some will cost more, some will cost less. Some will be faster, some will be slower.

your statement would applicable if we had a free market. we dont, so toss that shit aside. internet is largely provided by goverment regulated agencies call phone and cable companies. often ones that are the sole owner of rights for areas for both, so you get stuck with whatever jackass paid to be able to screw you


full discloser: comcast is my internet provider, and the only one I can have. before I moved I was on AT&T DSL as I had a choice between the two.

I also do not use netflix FWIW in this discussion.


lol @ comcasts inability to compete in the market they are trying to shut down being irrelevant btw, really? seriously? LOL.

 

[IGBT]

how much extra infrastructure does it take for a ISP to handle the extra download volume?

 

[Homerboy]

how much extra infrastructure does it take for a ISP to handle the extra download volume?

That is NOT the problem though.
Its the UNEVEN exchange of of traffic via (what was) an open peering arrangement. It is NOT in Comcast's interest, or in the general theory and practice that the top-most levels of the internet operate on, to take on an UNEVEN amount of traffic via peering.

Shit if Comcast is open to uneven peering, the I think I'm going to email peering@comcast.com and get some free transit!

To answer your question though, to increase available throughput, at these levels (these guys are not going to be deploying anything other than 10GBps lines at this point and level) it costs approximately a shit-ton of money.

 

[Zargon]

You simply arent getting it. These networks have agreements that allow traffic to pass between their networks. This is generally based on both networks sending near equal traffic. If one network starts sending more than they are recieving the network that is taking on that extra load would need to be compensated. This has little to do with with the end consumer paying 30-50 bucks a month to comcast for an internet connection. It has everything to do with Level 3 utilizing comcasts network at higher than agreed rates.

This also helps explain the increase in netflix subscription fee's at the end of the year. Which is fine, becuase the people who are paying for the new agreement are the people who are actually utilzing this increase in network resource consumption. Not comcast end users.

OK. I do get that.

I have accidentally brought in baggage from a comcast thread from say august? where they were allowedto start traffic shaping end users, I just see this as their next step in internet overlording when may only be losely related, sorry.

 

[geno]

n/m

 

[spidey07]

But they want to charge the content provider. Should they hit up Youtube next and say "You owe us because our customers want your content the most"? It makes no sense.

What does any of this have to do with NetFlix?

That's the whole point, it has nothing to do with netflix and just two top tier ISPs fighting over their peering agreements because of an imbalance in traffic.

 

[ShawnD1]

It is ridiculous to charge a flat rate for a limited utility! We should be paying per-megabyte for internet usage.

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

 

[Homerboy]

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

Yeap.
In the grand scheme of things, if you could go back in time, ISPs would switch to a usage based pricing structure IN A HEART BEAT. And it makes sense for them.

I'm glad hindsight is 20/20 in this case, and that they F'ed up

 

[PingSpike]

If its uneven peering then why doesn't comcast just throttle their connection like they do on the other end when they detect 'bad bandwidth use'?