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

[James Bond]

Not sure I follow the arguments in this article. It implies that netflix isn't already dumping that exact same content onto comcast's network via Akamai. How could that be true? Isn't this about comcast customers using netflix, or is comcast now the backbone route between Level 3 and some non-comcast netflix users?

I'm assuming that Akamai's network was getting the job done, but not ideal. If streaming a movie from Netflix happens at anything less than a broadband users downstream connection speed, then there is a bottleneck somewhere. It is likely that this bottleneck occurred on Akamai's network.

I don't know if they were a bottleneck for sure, but I'm assuming they were.

Level3 probably got the contract and decided to provide more bandwidth into the Netflix databases. So they want to expand.

Akamai could have upgraded their own network and caused the same "problem" to occur.

*This is speculation

 

[jersiq]

Comcast has grown out of control and needs to be broken up into "baby bells" that can compete with each other.

It simply has too much power and influence with little to no protection for the consumers, and now content providers, who are forced to deal with its BS

And that did wonders for those regional Bells didn't it?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Comcast has grown out of control and needs to be broken up into "baby bells" that can compete with each other.

So, if Comcast were to be broken up, would that make the resulting entities:

Multicasts? :biggrin:

Bada bing!

 

[her209]

To everyone who thinks Comcast is the culprit here:

http://blog.ioshints.info/2010/12/internet-peering-disputes-follow-money.html

It's been said by Spidey and others: This is nothing more than Level3 trying to get a free lunch. They know that everyone hates Comcast, and the words "net neutrality" make people freak out.

Facts first: Level-3 is trying to dump huge amount of data into Comcast’s network for free.

Follow the money: Comcast will eventually have to upgrade the network to carry the additional data. It cannot charge the end-users (or people will start screaming about net neutrality). Giving the users their fair share of bandwidth could be a problem - either due to outdated DOCSIS equipment or because Netflix streaming simply wouldn’t work on reduced amount of bandwidth ... raising new cries about violations of net neutrality.

I never understood how giving an end user a fair share of the core/access bandwidth is not neutral when the fair share happens to be too small to support the user’s application.

To support massive Netflix deployment, Comcast’s network would have to be upgraded. The party causing the massive increase in traffic (Level-3) is playing dumb and wants to get a free lunch. Comcast is trying to squeeze some money out of them. Business as usual.

No it won't. Its true that more data will be flowing from Level-3 to Comcast, but that's because the data is originating from Level-3's network destined for Comcast customers using Netflix, with some Level-3/Netflix traffic transiting Comcast's network.

Comcast is trying to make it seem like a huge amount of data is being dumped on its network claiming 5:1 ratio. Think of it this way. If Level-3 and Comcast don't renew the peering agreement, Netflix data would still be entering into Comcast's network to their customers, just not via the Level-3/Comcast peering connection. In other words, it would be exactly like when Akamai was the CDN.

Why is Comcast doing this? 1) So they can collect more money from Level-3. 2) So they can collect more money from their customers. 3) So they can protect their On-Demand Video service from competition.

 

[Homerboy]

No it won't. Its true that more data will be flowing from Level-3 to Comcast, but that's because the data is originating from Level-3's network destined for Comcast customers using Netflix, with some Level-3/Netflix traffic transiting Comcast's network.

Comcast is trying to make it seem like a huge amount of data is being dumped on its network claiming 5:1 ratio. Think of it this way. If Level-3 and Comcast don't renew the peering agreement, Netflix data would still be entering into Comcast's network to their customers, just not via the Level-3/Comcast peering connection. In other words, it would be exactly like when Akamai was the CDN.

Why is Comcast doing this? 1) So they can collect more money from Level-3. 2) So they can collect more money from their customers. 3) So they can protect their On-Demand Video service from competition.

Ummm how will it still get to Comcast if the Comcast pipes are full?
Traffic doesn't "spill over" to the next nearest path of least resistance. It just keeps trying to hammer its way into the full pipe. If anything whats going to happen is Netflix customers on Comcast are going to get shit service (as will all Comcast customers). Eventually Comcast will ahve to shit can Netflix traffic and everyone suffers.

 

[her209]

Ummm how will it still get to Comcast if the Comcast pipes are full?
Traffic doesn't "spill over" to the next nearest path of least resistance. It just keeps trying to hammer its way into the full pipe. If anything whats going to happen is Netflix customers on Comcast are going to get shit service (as will all Comcast customers). Eventually Comcast will ahve to shit can Netflix traffic and everyone suffers.

Why are Comcasts pipes full?

 

[Phokus]

To everyone who thinks Comcast is the culprit here:

http://blog.ioshints.info/2010/12/internet-peering-disputes-follow-money.html

It's been said by Spidey and others: This is nothing more than Level3 trying to get a free lunch. They know that everyone hates Comcast, and the words "net neutrality" make people freak out.

It's a piss poor explanation. This isn't a case where data is going from end to end and Comcast just happens to be a middleman, this is data that's serving Comcast's customers and making their product more enticing. If Comcast were to block netflix or level 3 decided to not deliver netflix to comcast customers, Comcast's product would be FAR less enticing. However, since Comcast is a monopoly in many areas, many of their customers could not simply just quit comcast and get another provider, they are trying to abuse their monopoly status by seeking economic rents. Of course if they tried to seek rents from their customers, there would be huge backlash in the media (they learned from time warner i guess), and possible political backlash as well, so they seek economic rents from the distributor of the data.

 

[Aharami]

Good article. Hammers home the entire point.

and the 2nd page explains further

"It strikes me as a little too easy and expedient for Comcast to resort to the Level 3 surcharge model,” says Frieden. "Bear in mind also that when Comcast charges $50+ for broadband—and recently raised its rates—a company has to expect that its subscribers expect payment to include access to Netflix and other sources of full-motion video. Why would it be okay to download hundreds of gigabytes per month, provided the upstream peer is not Level 3? This does not fully pass the smell test in light of Comcast's ulterior motive to raise the cost of a competitor, Netflix, and its preferred carrier.”

Several Ars staffers have experience in maintaining peering and transit connections both in the US and Europe, and each agreed that the situation here is unusual. That's because most "transit" deals, the ones where money was exchanged, historically focused on data that was simply traversing one network on its way someplace else. Why should one network operator bear the costs of building and maintaining a network just so that some other network operator could route all of his traffic over it for free? Peering, or direct network interconnection, generally took place when each network sent similar amounts of traffic to the other and it wasn't worth the expense or hassle of trying to account for every bit.


But the CDN traffic from Level 3 isn't in "transit" anywhere; it's going to the Comcast customers who want to watch Netflix movies. Level 3 is, in one sense, doing Comcast a favor by making a key Internet service better; it's not simply taking advantage of Comcast's network to get its own traffic somewhere else. That's what Werbach means when he talks about a "terminating access monopoly"; Comcast has a lock on its customers and can try to extract rents from anyone trying to send them data, even if it's data they requested.

In its defense, Comcast says that it has similar deals in place with other CDNs. ...



In fact, Level 3's choice to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war is "simply duplicitous," Comcast says. "When another network provider tried to pass traffic onto Level 3 this way, Level 3 said this is not the way settlement-free peering works in the Internet world. ...


This is in reference to Level 3's own dispute over peering with Cogent, in which Level 3 eventually discontinued peering with Cogent's network after reviewing the relationship and concluding that too much traffic was coming from Cogent. ...


Simply put, this means that, without paying, Cogent was using far more of Level 3's network, far more of the time, than the reverse. Following our review, we decided that it was unfair for us to be subsidizing Cogent's business.”



But note that this was traffic in transit, not traffic that was requested by Level 3 subscribers.

 

[Aharami]

To everyone who thinks Comcast is the culprit here:

http://blog.ioshints.info/2010/12/internet-peering-disputes-follow-money.html

It's been said by Spidey and others: This is nothing more than Level3 trying to get a free lunch. They know that everyone hates Comcast, and the words "net neutrality" make people freak out.

please read the arstechnica article linked earlier. Comcast is trying to charge for bits that have been paid for already - by their end user customers. L3 is not trying to get a free lunch because it is providing bit that are requested by Comcast users, bits that the users paid for already. Now if the bits were just passing thru comcast's pipes and going somewhere else, I'd understand comcast trying to charge money for it.

The arstechnica article explains it in detail - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ecame-a-toll-collecting-hydra-with-a-nuke.ars

edit: Looks like others touched on this subject already

 

[James Bond]

Aharami - Yeah. I completely see where you are coming from.

I am now totally unsure about this whole thing. Again.

 

[Crono]

"Comcast has a lock on its customers and can try to extract rents from anyone trying to send them data, even if it's data they requested."

That's the big issue at hand, and is where shouting (or quietly muttering ), "we want net neutrality" is appropriate.

 

[James Bond]

"Comcast has a lock on its customers and can try to extract rents from anyone trying to send them data, even if it's data they requested."

That's the big issue at hand, and is where shouting (or quietly muttering ), "we want net neutrality" is appropriate.

This still has nothing to do with net neutrality (unless I'm missing something).

 

[spidey07]

Comcast's letter to FCC. Explains everything with crystal clarity. Level3 is trying to get something for nothing and in peering agreements that doesn't happen. They must be mutually beneficial. This is nothing more than a peering fight, happens all the time.

http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcasts-letter-to-fcc-on-level-3.html

As we explained yesterday, despite Level 3's effort to portray its dispute with Comcast as being about an "open Internet," it is nothing but a good old-fashioned commercial peering dispute, the kind that Level 3 has found itself in before. Notwithstanding Level 3's claims, this is not about online video, it is not about "paid prioritization," it does not involve putting "toll booths" on the Internet, and it is not about net neutrality. Indeed, if anything, it is Level 3 that is seeking "non-neutral" treatment that would favor its network traffic over those of all its competitors.

 

[Ninjahedge]

I am still confused.

You would think that the only fees you would need to pay would be the ones involving what leaves your IP and what you take in at your IP.

The case being, if Comcast can't handle the extra bandwidth, it is not the doing of L3 or any other provider, but the fact that they do not throttle the bandwidth of their customers to what can be handled by their system.


The only thing I can see as being a problem would be if L3 uploaded through a 3rd party, it bounced to a Comcast trunk line, then jumped of to a Verizon line for final distribution.

It would not have any control of the speed over either end of the transmission and would have to find some way to either monitor what was being sent through OR find some other way to control what came from who on the network....

 

[child of wonder]

It seems Level3 rents co-location space from Comcast and demanded the facilities be improved and more connection points added after they got the deal with Netflix.

 

[sactoking]

Comcast's letter to FCC. Explains everything with crystal clarity. Level3 is trying to get something for nothing and in peering agreements that doesn't happen. They must be mutually beneficial. This is nothing more than a peering fight, happens all the time.

http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcasts-letter-to-fcc-on-level-3.html

As I asked above, why should we give Comcast the benefit of the doubt? Your explanation makes sense but only to the extend that the scenario Comcast has laid out is accurate. To my knowledge the actual facts in the case are still in dispute. Comcast and Level 3 are stuck in a he-said/he-said argument at this point. I said earlier that it would be nice to get some 3rd party evaluation; the Ars article had some "experts" though their impartiality may be in question. Everything else I've seen has either parroted the position held by Comcast or Level 3 with no neutral evaluation.

Given that it cannot even be agreed upon as to the issue at hand, why should I believe either Comcast or Level 3 at this point?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

the condensed version: comcast is double-dipping (or multi-dipping) and it will come out of customers' pockets.

 

[James Bond]

Spidey - I completely see where Comcast is coming from, but there is one thing that is keeping me hesitant to completely side with them.

If Level3 was using Comcasts network purely for transit to other networks, then without a doubt, I would think Comcast was right. At that point, they would be using Comcasts network as a service - a pathway to other networks.

The fact that this is all traffic requested by users on Comcasts network throws me off, though.

Can Comcast charge for any data requested by their users? It does seem like double dipping to me.

If there are 100,000 Qwest users all requesting Netlflix movies every night, and L3 determines that the best route to those users is through Comcast, then sure, pay up. But in this case I'm not so sure.

What am I not seeing?

And maybe this is just how it works. Maybe providers have to pay, even if the requests come from the destination network?

 

[spidey07]

As I asked above, why should we give Comcast the benefit of the doubt? Your explanation makes sense but only to the extend that the scenario Comcast has laid out is accurate. To my knowledge the actual facts in the case are still in dispute. Comcast and Level 3 are stuck in a he-said/he-said argument at this point. I said earlier that it would be nice to get some 3rd party evaluation; the Ars article had some "experts" though their impartiality may be in question. Everything else I've seen has either parroted the position held by Comcast or Level 3 with no neutral evaluation.

Given that it cannot even be agreed upon as to the issue at hand, why should I believe either Comcast or Level 3 at this point?

It is a case of he-said/she-said, but logically comcast's position makes much more sense. If level 3 wants to get something for nothing then it is of course good business sense for them to try and do so.

Here's a good article that presents both sides.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=201412&site=lr_cable&

The letter claims that Level 3 approached Comcast shortly after Level 3 reached a "low ball" Netflix deal about securing 27 to 30 new interconnection ports to support the delivery of more traffic to Comcast's network "for free." Waz said Comcast scrambled to provide it with six ports at no charge, and told Level 3 it would provide additional ports on a "commercial wholesale basis" as it does with other CDN providers.

 

[torpid]

The problem I have with charging Level 3 for the extra bandwidth of Netflix is twofold:

1) They can only reasonably do so if they stop charging akamai for the same bandwidth otherwise they could be triple-dipping

2) Although this issue is not new with Level 3 and has been going on for a while, Comcast seems to be gaining unnatural competitive advantages by charging Akamai/L3 for netflix services. Given that comcast has a vice grip on high speed internet in many of the regions in which it does business, and that they have a competing product to netflix, it is morally dubious to charge for the bandwidth that netflix (or any other competing product) uses to deliver content that their own customers request and paid for bandwidth to be able to request. That seems to be bordering on abusing their market position in high speed internet by way of a horizontal bundling of services that increases the barrier to entry for streaming video in those markets.

 

[Phokus]

Just a reminder that Spidey is a POS who sided with Time Warner when they wanted to cap cable internet 40 Gigs a month, so read all his posts with extreme skepticism.

As has been REPEATEDLY stated, this is comcast's own customers requesting netflix service.

The ONLY reason why Comcast is doing this is because they don't want Netflix competing with their cable TV product, so they'll extract their pound of flesh for them. If they charge level 3, that means level 3 will have to pass those costs onto Netflix (after their agreement runs out with them i guess). And Netflix will eventually raise costs on Comcast's consumers, so in effect, they are bypassing more obvious anti-net neutrality efforts with this sneaky heavy handed maneuver.

I have Optimum Online and they don't even cap our cable internet anymore and even provide us 100 Mbit/s connections. Comcast is full of fucking shit if they 'need' to extract rents from level 3 and their internet isn't even half as good as what i have.

 

[Homerboy]

Just a reminder that Spidey is a POS who sided with Time Warner when they wanted to cap cable internet 40 Gigs a month, so read all his posts with extreme skepticism.

As has been REPEATEDLY stated, this is comcast's own customers requesting netflix service.

The ONLY reason why Comcast is doing this is because they don't want Netflix competing with their product, so they'll extract their pound of flesh for them. If they charge level 3, that means level 3 will have to pass those costs onto Netflix (after their agreement runs out with them i guess). And Netflix will eventually raise costs on Comcast's consumers, so in effect, they are bypassing more obvious anti-net neutrality efforts with this sneaky heavy handed maneuver.

I have Optimum Online and they don't even cap our cable internet anymore and even provide us 100 Mbit/s connections. Comcast is full of fucking shit if they 'need' to extract rents from level 3 and their internet isn't even half as good as what i have.

And me and the others who agree with Spidey?
Based off the facts we have TODAY, I'm still saying what Spidey is preaching is right. I assure you, it pains me to say that

 

[Phokus]

And me and the others who agree with Spidey?
Based off the facts we have TODAY, I'm still saying what Spidey is preaching is right. I assure you, it pains me to say that

Except you and Spidey are wrong.

This is a case where Comcast has all the leverage and can dictate the terms of any agreement since they have monopoly status in many of their service areas.

If Level 3 chose the nuclear option and said, 'ok, no agreement? we're not serving comcast customers', they would lose BIG time because many, if not most, of comcast's customers simply couldn't switch to a competing network to get the Netflix service that they want.

What's to stop Comcast from doing this with other networks/content providers? After all, how much data do YOU upload vs. download? Of course there's going to be a huge disconnect. Most cable companies won't even let you run servers, so of course there's going to be an imbalance.

This is rent seeking, plain and simple.

 

[Homerboy]

Except you and Spidey are wrong.

This is a case where Comcast has all the leverage and can dictate the terms of any agreement since they have monopoly status in many of their service areas.

If Level 3 chose the nuclear option and said, 'ok, no agreement? we're not serving comcast customers', they would lose BIG time because many, if not most, of comcast's customers simply couldn't switch to a competing network to get the Netflix service that they want.

What's to stop Comcast from doing this with other networks/content providers? After all, how much data do YOU upload vs. download? Of course there's going to be a huge disconnect. Most cable companies won't even let you run servers, so of course there's going to be an imbalance.

This is rent seeking, plain and simple.

This is where your theory takes a bad turn. Comcast just doesn't do end-users. They have tons of commercial hosting, colo, the whole 9-yards. Peering arrangements between major carriers are always going to be for (near) equal exchange of traffic. Plain and simple. This is the way it has been since public and private peering points have been created. There can (and are) be paid-for-peering arrangments inplace between carriers when traffic is imbalanced. This is the scenerio that Comcast/L3 are now facing.

 

[Phokus]

This is where your theory takes a bad turn. Comcast just doesn't do end-users. They have tons of commercial hosting, colo, the whole 9-yards. Peering arrangements between major carriers are always going to be for (near) equal exchange of traffic. Plain and simple. This is the way it has been since public and private peering points have been created. There can (and are) be paid-for-peering arrangments inplace between carriers when traffic is imbalanced. This is the scenerio that Comcast/L3 are now facing.

Except this argument IS about the end users. This isn't Comcast's co-located servers requesting the netflix bandwidth; End users are the ones that are requesting all the download bandwidth for Netflix content. Again, how much do YOU upload vs download? Once you start charging Netflix, what's to stop Comcast from charging other services, thus indirectly raising the cost of those services and discouraging investment in new services? You would be a fool to think that Level 3 is the only provider who has an imbalance with Comcast. This is what it's all about.