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

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

Andres3605

Senior member
Nov 14, 2004
927
0
71
If the traffic is going to other networks then comcast has a case, otherwise it's insane trying to charge providers for content your subscribers are requesting.

What is it stopping lvl3 for setting up server farms to download constant data from comcast networks to "balance" the peering?.
 
G

Good4Me

Member
Feb 25, 2000
46
0
66
I admit to not having read this full thread, but I have a question. By the logic of those backing comcast, should the consumer be able to charge comcast for the bandwidth comcast is sending to their networks? Clearly the data sent into each users network is larger than that going out.
 
her209

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Homerboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
God I hope Level-3 ends the current peering agreement with Comcast. Then Level-3 can renegotiate the agreement and make Comcast pay for the bandwidth that is being used by Comcast/Netflix users on their network.
 
Zebo

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
:whiste:

Originally Posted by Zebo 11-01-2010, 04:10 AM
Netflix whole business model is dependent on unlimited bandwidth which is gonna change as hard caps start going into place. Also, netflix is still giving free subscriptions, not exactly a service in demand. I'd short netflix.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
B

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
This is obvious Comcast trying to bully more money out of someone. Fact is the Netflix data being sent to and over the Comcast network is primarily for Comcast users, they are the ones requesting the data. Not people outside of the Comcast network in which L3 would use Comcast's pipes as a bridge between networks, but for the Comcast network itself. L3 should just pull their contract and tell Comcast users they're sorry, but Netflix cannot be sent to Comcast because Comcast is trying to double/triple dip to pull a profit. People will get pissed at Comcast which has been tarnishing its own reputation for years now.
 
B

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Zebo said:
I told y'all so
Click to expand...

Netflix offers no one a free service and they will get what they want. They are to big and have to many contracts. If Comcast won't budge other ISPs will see a surge in sales. People <3 Netflix, people don't <3 Comcast or their Telcos/Cable companies. Not to mention many other players are joining the streaming game because that's the future of media distribution.
 
Phokus

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
James Bond said:
Here's another article. He doesn't completely state which side it is on, but it does a good job describing what makes this situation different from normal peering agreements.

http://packetlife.net/blog/2010/dec/1/comcast-vs-level-3/
Click to expand...

I think all of the big backbone providers should just shut Comcast out and literally block most of the content for Comcast customers. Comcast's actions sets a very bad precedent. The backbone providers need to go with the nuclear option and cripple Comcast's internet service.

It doesn't matter if you're a tech savy person who uses usenet/netflix and saturates your bandwidth or you're a grandma who only knows how to check your email and visit cnn.com. EVERY user downloads more than they upload. This is the most pathetic excuse to go about rent seeking that i've ever heard.
 
Zebo

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
bfdd said:
Netflix offers no one a free service and they will get what they want. They are to big and have to many contracts. If Comcast won't budge other ISPs will see a surge in sales. People <3 Netflix, people don't <3 Comcast or their Telcos/Cable companies. Not to mention many other players are joining the streaming game because that's the future of media distribution.
Click to expand...

TANSTAAFL - If FCC gets involved and Comcast (and othes to come) is prohibited from doing this they will be forced to raise prices to cover build out costs netflix is costing them by tacking on another $20 or so to everyone. Either way you will pay. But you're right netflix could be saved.

If it's a cap and charge basis OTOH maybe not. Because your ISP will charge significantly more for netflix users.
 
Last edited:
Phokus

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Zebo said:
TANSTAAFL - If FCC gets involved and Comcast (and othes to come) is prohibited from doing this they will be forced to raise prices to cover build out costs netflix is costing them by tacking on another $20 or so to everyone. Either way you will pay. But you're right netflix could be saved.

If it's a cap and charge basis OTOH maybe not. Because your ISP will charge significantly more for netflix users.
Click to expand...

"Forced to"

I have infinitely better cable in optimum online (uncapped internet, unlike comcast, and the max speed i can purchase is 100 mbit/s) in a very unprofitable part of the country for cable operators (connecticut). Comcast is full of fucking shit if they say they're getting squeezed.
 
B

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Zebo said:
TANSTAAFL - If FCC gets involved and Comcast (and othes to come) is prohibited from doing this they will be forced to raise prices to cover build out costs netflix is costing them by tacking on another $20 or so to everyone. Either way you will pay. But you're right netflix could be saved.

If it's a cap and charge basis OTOH maybe not. Because your ISP will charge significantly more for netflix users.
Click to expand...

Sorry it's not going to happen Zebo. Most cable companies and telcos are already screwing the customer, but some less than others. If Comcast wants to keep screwing customers they will lose them.
 
Phokus

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
bfdd said:
Sorry it's not going to happen Zebo. Most cable companies and telcos are already screwing the customer, but some less than others. If Comcast wants to keep screwing customers they will lose them.
Click to expand...

They have a monopoly in most areas, the whole point is that Comcast has leverage and wants to fuck someone with that leverage.
 
Zebo

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
You guys just don't understand. Internet video has matured and thus cost of internet is going up. Routers/switches and everything else that makes internet go have to be paid for. They can not let one company use an added 20&#37; of bandwidth for free. They will either have to choke it, limit it or charge more for it. All hurt netflix.
 
T

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Zebo said:
TANSTAAFL - If FCC gets involved and Comcast (and othes to come) is prohibited from doing this they will be forced to raise prices to cover build out costs netflix is costing them by tacking on another $20 or so to everyone. Either way you will pay. But you're right netflix could be saved.

If it's a cap and charge basis OTOH maybe not. Because your ISP will charge significantly more for netflix users.
Click to expand...

Zebo said:
You guys just don't understand. Internet video has matured and thus cost of internet is going up. Routers/switches and everything else that makes internet go have to be paid for. They can not let one company use an added 20% of bandwidth for free. They will either have to choke it, limit it or charge more for it. All hurt netflix.
Click to expand...

That bandwidth is already being used. It is being moved from one source to another but ultimately there is no net impact on comcast for the l3 traffic increase in the immediate term. It's coming from a different source but comcast already has the hardware and costs associated with supporting that 20% of traffic.

The argument about build-out costs has to do with the future of netflix and a potential for further increases in utilization. But that should be an argument between comcast and comcast's customers OR between comcast and L3, not BOTH.
 
S

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
torpid said:
That bandwidth is already being used. It is being moved from one source to another but ultimately there is no net impact on comcast for the l3 traffic increase in the immediate term. It's coming from a different source but comcast already has the hardware and costs associated with supporting that 20% of traffic.

The argument about build-out costs has to do with the future of netflix and a potential for further increases in utilization. But that should be an argument between comcast and comcast's customers OR between comcast and L3, not BOTH.
Click to expand...

It was my understanding that Akami was already paying Comcast for the load imbalance. So sure, the traffic moved entry points and as such Level 3 should pay.
 
F

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
spidey07 said:
Good article. Hammers home the entire point.
Click to expand...

Thats not the entire truth. The primary reason why ISP started having peering agreements between each other is to avoid paying for transit. The amount of data going in each direction is not that important. It's clear that Comcast is just trying to protect its TV cable business. You can see it the other way, Comcast should thank L3 that they are willing to provide Comcast customers for free what they really want, Netflix service. This sets a very bad precedent of paid peering. (this is traffic under a peering agreement - not transit). It's clear that a larger was is going on, a Tier 1 provider like L3 going into the CDN business
 
Last edited:
ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,572
126
spidey07 said:
It was my understanding that Akami was already paying Comcast for the load imbalance. So sure, the traffic moved entry points and as such Level 3 should pay.
Click to expand...

this is my understanding as well. if akamai was paying comcast then i have no problem with L3 paying similarly.
 
T

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
spidey07 said:
It was my understanding that Akami was already paying Comcast for the load imbalance. So sure, the traffic moved entry points and as such Level 3 should pay.
Click to expand...

As long as Akamai is no longer being charged for that bandwidth, then yes, that is "reasonable" insofar as they are not changing their practices. It doesn't really follow from the arguments laid out in the post I quoted, but comcast could make the argument.

However, a bigger argument that needs to be examined is whether Comcast, which has overwhelming market share of high speed internet customers in many regions, really should be allowed to charge the amount they are asking. Because they have an overwhelming market share in many regions and it is or was government-granted, they should only be allowed to charge their real costs incurred; otherwise they are exploiting their market share in an anti-competitive manner by undercutting competition to fancast.
 
F

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
RedCOMET

RedCOMET

Platinum Member
Jul 8, 2002
2,836
0
0
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Claims-Resurface-Concerning-Congested-Comcast-TATA-Links-111818

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/14/1335235/Comcast-Accused-of-Congestion-By-Choice

I know slashdot and Dslreports may not always be the most reliable places for sources, but this adds another dimension to the ongoing dispute between L3 and Comcast. Perhaps it being framed as a "peering" dispute between the two parties is without merit.


I hope that the NANOG post that is linked in the Dslreports.com article is not true.
Quoted from the Dslreports link:
Remember that this is not TATA's fault, Comcast is a CUSTOMER of TATA. TATA cannot force Comcast to upgrade its links, Comcast elects to simply not purchase enough capacity and lets them run full. When Comcast demanded that Level (3) pay them, the only choice Level (3) had was to give in or have its traffic (such as Netflix) routed via the congested TATA links. If Level (3) didn't agree to pay, that means Netflix and large portions of the Internet to browse would be simply unusable for the majority of the day for Comcast subscribers.
Click to expand...
 
her209

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
HybridSquirrel said:
i frequently hit the 250gb cap downloading porn from brazzers
Click to expand...
Porn leading the way...

:D

But seriously, its only a matter of time before Netflix and/or the movie studios offer multi-gigabyte downloadable files that include a high-definition video and surround sound audio track.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom