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

[SunnyD]

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.

Ooooooorrrrrr.... the providers would jack up per-byte rates insanely high in order to "control congestion" (that's code for 'pad their corporate pockets') and not bother to re-invest said profits into infrastructure to handle more capacity. But this would NEVER happen, right? Right???

See: The entire telecom industry, especially the wireless industry. Offering ANYTHING usage-based is a bad thing for consumers unless the industry is heavily regulated (ie: public utilities).

 

[zokudu]

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.

I think what your missing in your whole water analogy is that Comcast has a contract with Level3 for X amount of data. Level3 now wants to increase the amount of data but doesn't expect to get charged more for it?

Why does the burden have to go to the Comcast consumer. If anything it should go to the netflix consumers who are causing the "clogging of the pipes" if you will. How's the best way to achieve this? Charging Level3.

I don't subscribe to Netflix why should I have to pay extra because Netflix has seen a burst of popularity why not make the people who DO have Netflix pay for the required increases in bandwidth.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Again, the bottom line is simple.

They should set up a pricing schedule based on the usage of the pipes, not on who or what is being transmitted.

You set caps or meters in both directions, make them applicable to ALL that subscribe to certain programs.

Now, the problem occurs when a company uses another carrier to get onto the net. If Level 3 gets onto the net with, say, FiOS and then a bunch of people start streaming their stuff across Comcats, it should not fall directly back on Level 3 to pay.

So how can you set up a payment schedule that works, is fair, and that you can understand w/o a degree in Nonlinear Algebra?

Indirectly, maybe. How? Simple. Comcast says "Hey, Veri$on! You are streaming XX googlie-bytes over our network! You owe us a bajillion dollars for last month according to our scheduled rates!"

Veri$on gets billed by Cablevi$ion, Veri$on then bills Level 3.

You only charge whoever is responsible for dumping that traffic on your system, not the end users. Let their providers handle that end.

Also, do not promise what you cannot deliver. Start capping your rates and BW (maybe after that magic 250GB your speed goes down to old DSL rates...), but tell people what you are doing, why and when it will be enforced.


The problem is, it is not as simple as a BW cap. Just like tolls, some bridges charge less when you come in "off peak". I believe NYC did that for a bit too, but they may have reversed that (I will have to check). Prime time BW is the key here, not the torrent you are serving at 3am.....

 

[videogames101]

I'm most disappointed by Level 3's response, have some balls. But I guess that netflix contract is too good to jepordize...

 

[sactoking]

So, here's my question about this whole scenario.

Having listened to the arguments put forth by spidey07, Platypus, et al I can understand and accept what they have said. However, my understanding of that position is that it hinges upon Comcast's insistence that this is about Level3's unwillingness to adhere to a 'standard peering contract' or whatever you wish to call it. From reading the original Bloomberg article and a further statement released by Level3 today it seems like that scenario is not universally accepted; Level3 maintains that Comcast is unilaterally charging fees against specific types of traffic it deems unwelcome.

So, given that Comcast maintains Level3 is in breach of contract (a scenario that is perfectly plausible) and that Level3 maintains Comcast is discriminating and targeting specific content traffic (again, a scenario that is perfectly plausible) and that no independent 3rd party has emerged with a valid analysis of the true underpinnings, why exactly should we be so quick to accept Comcast's word on the subject? I have never been a Comcast customer and had no knowledge of Level3 prior to this "story" yet I know that Comcast has a terrible reputation pretty much across the board. Given the unfounded allegations currently coming from both sides of the issue how has Comcast earned the benefit of the doubt?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Because ComCast is your friend...........


TRUST in ComCast!


We ALL LOVE ComCast!

 

[zokudu]

So, here's my question about this whole scenario.

Having listened to the arguments put forth by spidey07, Platypus, et al I can understand and accept what they have said. However, my understanding of that position is that it hinges upon Comcast's insistence that this is about Level3's unwillingness to adhere to a 'standard peering contract' or whatever you wish to call it. From reading the original Bloomberg article and a further statement released by Level3 today it seems like that scenario is not universally accepted; Level3 maintains that Comcast is unilaterally charging fees against specific types of traffic it deems unwelcome.

So, given that Comcast maintains Level3 is in breach of contract (a scenario that is perfectly plausible) and that Level3 maintains Comcast is discriminating and targeting specific content traffic (again, a scenario that is perfectly plausible) and that no independent 3rd party has emerged with a valid analysis of the true underpinnings, why exactly should we be so quick to accept Comcast's word on the subject? I have never been a Comcast customer and had no knowledge of Level3 prior to this "story" yet I know that Comcast has a terrible reputation pretty much across the board. Given the unfounded allegations currently coming from both sides of the issue how has Comcast earned the benefit of the doubt?

The reason I'm personally siding with Comcast is it seems they had no issues with the increased bandwidth from Akamai over the past 2 years. It would seem to me that Level 3 is arguing something that likely took place before but did not realize would be an issue when bidding for the Netflix contract/

 

[bfdd]

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.

They should be in violation of their contracts if they can't supply 99.999% of the bandwidth 99.999% of the time. You expect 5 nines in web hosting, you should expect it from your ISP as well.

 

[spidey07]

They should be in violation of their contracts if they can't supply 99.999% of the bandwidth 99.999% of the time. You expect 5 nines in web hosting, you should expect it from your ISP as well.

Real ISP contracts are written exactly like that with penalties for not meeting it. Complete with latency and packet loss SLAs.

 

[Homerboy]

Real ISP contracts are written exactly like that with penalties for not meeting it. Complete with latency and packet loss SLAs.

For clarification by "Real ISP", Spidey means (and I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth here) on a commercial level. Not on an end-user level.

 

[spidey07]

For clarification by "Real ISP", Spidey means (and I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth here) on a commercial level. Not on an end-user level.

Yes, wholesale as well.

More on the story, it looks like comcast is in the right here and the peering turned into a lopsided one with level3 making out like a bandit if they didn't pay.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/30/technology/netflix_level3_comcast_traffic/

After Level 3 (LVLT) inked the deal, it went to Comcast and asked permission to send twice the amount of traffic to the cable and Internet provider's network as it had done before.

But Comcast says that with the new Netflix load, Level 3's traffic to Comcast's network would be five times more than the cable company is driving to Level 3's network. So Comcast demanded that Level 3 pay for that traffic increase.

What about this?

Yet Level 3 found itself in Comcast's shoes back in 2005. Feeling its peering agreement with fellow Internet backbone Cogent Communications (CCOI) unfairly taxed its network, Level 3 made the exact same argument that Comcast is making today, and even temporarily pulled the plug on its connection to Cogent, cutting off some parts of the Internet for millions of Cogent customers.

 

[CZroe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v9IwQTkG6A

 

[CZroe]

I like how Comcast keeps talking about how many times more traffic "Level3" will be putting on their network without acknowledging that it's all simply shifted from another source and is not additional traffic. Even if it were additional traffic, that's stifling future uses for the bandwidth they promised to their customers.

 

[Homerboy]

Yes, wholesale as well.

More on the story, it looks like comcast is in the right here and the peering turned into a lopsided one with level3 making out like a bandit if they didn't pay.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/30/technology/netflix_level3_comcast_traffic/





What about this?

LOL coming from the (ex)Sales side of this, I will bet $20 this deal was RAMMED through from the sales department. With little to no feedback or interaction with high-level network engineering involvment (maybe a sales engineer or two). The dollars involved were too big for L3 NOT to bid and win on this, and hope that the network all "works itself out" and if it doesn't then they will all go to the drawing board together. Which, as I know, and L3 (sales) is now learning, is not how it works.

I hope the sales rep/team that booked this Netflix deal at L3 hasn't spent that commission check yet

 

[zokudu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v9IwQTkG6A

Thats cool and all but this isn't a Net Neutrality issue at all.

 

[Homerboy]

I like how Comcast keeps talking about how many times more traffic "Level3" will be putting on their network without acknowledging that it's all simply shifted from another source and is not additional traffic. Even if it were additional traffic, that's stifling future uses for the bandwidth they promised to their customers.

The problem is that the traffic DID shift sources. And the new source is not able (likely contractually) to push that much traffic directly to Comcast. THAT is the problem.

 

[spidey07]

I like how Comcast keeps talking about how many times more traffic "Level3" will be putting on their network without acknowledging that it's all simply shifted from another source and is not additional traffic. Even if it were additional traffic, that's stifling future uses for the bandwidth they promised to their customers.

Again, that is NOT the point. They are sending much more data into comcast's network without receiving a similar load. That is what you call a lopsided peering arrangement and ANYTIME that happens one side (the one sending much more than they are receiving) will have to pay the other. This is common.

Peering agreements are MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL to both providers. I give you reachability to a lot of other networks and take your traffic, you in turn give me a lot of reachability to your other networks and take my traffic. BOTH PARTIES benefit from such an agreement. When one is sending much more into the other than they are receiving the ISP dumping all that traffic onto the other network is taking advantage of that ISP because they aren't giving the same in return.

 

[apac]

I'm finding it hard to feel bad for Comcast's costs going up. They've charged ~$50/mo for cable internet for years now, and likely profited 10x on the customers that use a fraction of the bandwidth available to them. I'm sure my parents web browsing and email use adds up to less than 1GB per month. Now people are using more of the bandwidth available to them (parents watch Netflix streaming), and Comcast decides it needs to earn more money for that usage?

Sounds like greed to me. They have an image problem, so they don't want to charge the customer, but they still want to offset increased costs with increased profits. The root of the issue is there's no competition so they can do whatever they want, and bully around the small fishes.

 

[spidey07]

I'm finding it hard to feel bad for Comcast's costs going up. They've charged ~$50/mo for cable internet for years now, and likely profited 10x on the customers that use a fraction of the bandwidth available to them. I'm sure my parents web browsing and email use adds up to less than 1GB per month. Now people are using more of the bandwidth available to them (parents watch Netflix streaming), and Comcast decides it needs to earn more money for that usage?

Sounds like greed to me. They have an image problem, so they don't want to charge the customer, but they still want to offset increased costs with increased profits. The root of the issue is there's no competition so they can do whatever they want, and bully around the small fishes.

LOL! Yeah, those small fishes like Level 3. Real small fish there bud.

 

[apac]

LOL! Yeah, those small fishes like Level 3. Real small fish there bud.

Small fishes = other ISPs. Level 3 might be a big fish but I'd still bet it gets the raw end of the deal here, because if they drop Comcast someone else will pick them up. Doesn't matter what Comcast does because they are a huge business, with virtually no competitors where they operate, and if people want to serve any kind of internet traffic to the public it goes through them.

If Comcast did as Level 3 did vs CCOI (cut off service), Netflix would just find another company to serve their network, because they can't afford not to work with the ISP.

 

[spidey07]

Small fishes = other ISPs. Level 3 might be a big fish but I'd still bet it gets the raw end of the deal here, because if they drop Comcast someone else will pick them up. Doesn't matter what Comcast does because they are a huge business, with virtually no competitors where they operate, and if people want to serve any kind of internet traffic to the public it goes through them.

If Comcast did as Level 3 did vs CCOI (cut off service), Netflix would just find another company to serve their network, because they can't afford not to work with the ISP.

Umm, level 3 is a much larger ISP than Comcast.

 

[apac]

Umm, level 3 is a much larger ISP than Comcast.

If I'm understanding the issue here correctly, it's that Netflix serves it's streaming through Level 3, which passes that on to Comcast, and then the customer.

Are you saying Netflix would not be able to find an alternative to Level 3, should they not come to an agreement with Comcast? One who would gladly pay Comcast's fees? I bet they could.

edit: This is assuming Comcast doesn't get shut down in court and just pass the costs to the customer. Who gets equally shafted because Comcast holds a monopoly in many areas.

 

[zokudu]

If I'm understanding the issue here correctly, it's that Netflix serves it's streaming through Level 3, which passes that on to Comcast, and then the customer.

Are you saying Netflix would not be able to find an alternative to Level 3, should they not come to an agreement with Comcast? One who would gladly pay Comcast's fees? I bet they could. .

And how is that Comcasts fault if Level3 wants to throw a stink over having to pay for the additional bandwidth. Thats capitalism.

 

[Homerboy]

If I'm understanding the issue here correctly, it's that Netflix serves it's streaming through Level 3, which passes that on to Comcast, and then the customer.

Are you saying Netflix would not be able to find an alternative to Level 3, should they not come to an agreement with Comcast? One who would gladly pay Comcast's fees? I bet they could.

edit: This is assuming Comcast doesn't get shut down in court and just pass the costs to the customer. Who gets equally shafted because Comcast holds a monopoly in many areas.

Netflix just signed a contract with L3. I am willing to bet it is a long term (3+ yrs deal) Netflix isn't going to jump out of L3 datacenters anytime soon after they just spent lord knows how long and how much to move it.

 

[torpid]

I don't have enough knowledge or information to have a well-informed opinion on this. Is comcast double-dipping by having two contracts with both the old and new netflix provider wherein it gets additional money for the traffic? Did L3 win the netflix contract through shady accounting that assumed no increase in peer contract rates?

If there is roughly equal traffic now, doesn't that mean that there was a previous big imbalance before comcast got into the streaming business itself?