|
to fifty nine
Re: TATAsaid by fifty nine:said by WernerSchutz:Using their monopolistic / collusion techniques without restriction, of course. Of course. And Level 3 is just a saint, aren't they? Compared to CC, yes. |
|
|
to fifty nine
You are correct in that L3 has no choice in order to reach Comcast subscribers, which is the problem.
And no, Comcast through monopolistic nature does not have a right to TAKE profit from another company in order for said company to reach their Comcast subscribers per their own customers request.
If their operating cost go up, then they need to adjust their rates for their consumers and L3 is not one of their consumers. This would be true if their insurance, salaries, pension, or electricity goes up and they want to maintain or increase their bottom line.
You claiming otherwise is making a blanket acceptance that anytime some application/content on the web comes along that increases ANY traffic (strain or not) on an ISP, they should be able to charge the company profiting from that new app / content. That goes against everything about the internet and violates NN. |
|
1 edit
2 recommendations |
to fifty nine
Re: Comcast lying?said by fifty nine:Absolutely. But how much P2P foreign TV is legal and non infringing? And how significant a percentage of internet traffic is it, compared to file sharing for copyright infringement? You know, pushing that argument beyond some limits gets old. Most foreign TV is not infringing, but ENCOURAGED by the broadcasters. Watching German news so I can see what happens in the world internationally besides US news that talk only about fucking panda's in China or some rat infestation in Mexico is legal no matter how much you try to push it as being questionable. As far as percentage I do not care or know, it was a reply to your Linux distros red herring. |
|
WernerSchutz |
to markofmayhem
said by markofmayhem:I'm on Comcast. How do I upload P2P foreign TV from my home in the USA? I want to upload something, I have no use for it right now and this sounds interesting. Does it come in the mail on DVD? Do I need a C-band satellite? How exactly do I upload foreign television on a Comcast network? www.tvunetworks.com . The player uses a p2p distributed engine to deliver data. |
|
|
to hottboiinnc4
Re: TATALOL, you keep your head in the sand. It makes kicking your butt in factual arguments that much easier.
As pointed out numerous times, and yet you still choose to ignore it, L3 had no choice but to agree to pay at this time and then pursue action. As is often the case in disputes like this. If they did not agree, then their traffic would have been routed through TATA and received the obvious lower level of service thus putting Netflix in a bind, thus putting L3 in a bind.
They agreed to it and now they are taking the needed action to have Comcast's wrongful actions brought to light and dealt with, yet again. |
|
|
to markofmayhem
Level 3 is playing victim here. But trust me, they are no victim, especially given how they are abusing their peering agreements to boost their CDN business. |
|
markofmayhemWhy not now? Premium Member join:2004-04-08 Pittsburgh, PA |
to WernerSchutz
Re: Comcast lying?I see, said the blind man. |
|
1 recommendation |
to Skippy25
Re: TATASee this is the thing. You are saying that Comcast is taking profit, when it is in fact Level 3 that is abusing their relationship with Comcast in order to boost their CDN business.
Comcast is simply protecting their interests and enforcing an agreement which was already in place.
Level 3 wants to boost its new venture (CDN) at Comcast's expense and when they don't get their way, they scream "net neutrality!!!!!!!" to the FCC. |
|
markofmayhemWhy not now? Premium Member join:2004-04-08 Pittsburgh, PA
1 recommendation |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:Level 3 is playing victim here. But trust me, they are no victim, especially given how they are abusing their peering agreements to boost their CDN business. How are they "abusing"? They are a reseller. Comcast appears, appears, to be congesting alternative ports to leverage their position for higher cost to input direct. That is, if true, the very definition of collusion. |
|
|
|
to fifty nine
And Akamai and LLNW will still be paying Comcast and will pass it onto their customer (netflix, etc). |
|
|
to nybbu
It's worse; ALL traffic from non-peering providers (except for Qwest and maybe a few others) goes over TATA. From what I've seen, this slows down transfer speeds in peak hours significantly if you are, say, surfing Engadget (ATDN, reached via TATA). For me, there aren't a whole lot of packets going over TATA to reach a destination due to the sites I surf...other than Engadget/TUAW. Both of which load rather slowly and I wasn't sure why until this came up. |
|
iansltx |
to hottboiinnc4
Not that easy. Comcast would probably charge exorbitant colo fees because...you know...Netflix competes with their cable TV service.
Also, it takes a lot of money to build a CDN. Particularly one that's deep within an ISP. That's why Akamai is so xpensive... |
|
iansltx |
to Skippy25
Not only that, but in all likelihood the transfer of Level3 traffic to TATA would've pegged ALL of the TATA circuits 24x7, making even more websites completely unusable. Not good for anyone :/ |
|
iansltx |
to devnuller
Re: Pick one link and throw mud??Easy answer: DSLReports speedtests are conducted mostly on Comcast's network, as are speedtest.net tests, as are comcast.net speed tests. I'll hunt around later for a speed test site running over TATA and show you what happens then... |
|
iansltx |
Re: TATAActually, scratch that. AOL now peers with Comcast. Probably pays for it too. |
|
|
to markofmayhem
said by markofmayhem:said by fifty nine:Level 3 is playing victim here. But trust me, they are no victim, especially given how they are abusing their peering agreements to boost their CDN business. How are they "abusing"? They are a reseller. They are not a reseller. They are a transit provider and also have a settlement free interconnect agreement with Comcast. Comcast appears, appears, to be congesting alternative ports to leverage their position for higher cost to input direct. That is, if true, the very definition of collusion. That's what people who want to make Level3 appear to be the innocent party in this will have you believe. Read Comcast's letter to the FCC. It is pretty damning on Level 3's part and so far Level 3 has not disputed any of Comcast's claims. |
|
|
to markofmayhem
Re: Comcast lying?It actually works well. I watch while eating in my kitchen some German train channel that shows views from trains rolling there. Drives my wife crazy, but I have lots of model trains so... |
|
|
to patcat88
Re: TATAsaid by patcat88:And Akamai and LLNW will still be paying Comcast and will pass it onto their customer (netflix, etc). What a shocker. Bandwidth costs money. |
|
neufuse join:2006-12-06 James Creek, PA |
humm..so I guess Comcast told everyone to suck from the tata hehe... |
|
|
to iansltx
Re: TATAsaid by iansltx:Not that easy. Comcast would probably charge exorbitant colo fees because...you know...Netflix competes with their cable TV service.
Also, it takes a lot of money to build a CDN. Particularly one that's deep within an ISP. That's why Akamai is so xpensive... Actually Akamai is not that expensive when you consider what you're getting for the money. Of course Level 3 is cheaper, but now we pretty much know why. |
|
fifty nine |
to WernerSchutz
Re: Comcast lying?Yeah keep pushing that same old bullshit.
The fact is that most P2P traffic is infringing. Legal content is in the minority by far. |
|
MxxCon join:1999-11-19 Brooklyn, NY ARRIS TM822 Actiontec MI424WR Rev. I
|
to fifty nine
6month old list » p2peducation.pbworks.com ··· rontPagein the last week blizzard(world of warcraft) alone generated more legit bittorent traffic than all the other US p2p traffic combined! |
|
|
|
to WernerSchutz
Re: TATAsaid by WernerSchutz:said by fifty nine:said by WernerSchutz:Using their monopolistic / collusion techniques without restriction, of course. Of course. And Level 3 is just a saint, aren't they? Compared to CC, yes. Ah yes, the old "comcast is eeeeevil" argument. Never gets old, I see. |
|
|
to fifty nine
Akamai charges per GB of transfer, not for storage. Their cost per GB is higher than that of any other CDN (Highwinds, MaxCDN, BitGravity, LLNW), even when you don't include Level3. |
|
wierdo join:2001-02-16 Miami, FL
1 recommendation |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:They are allowed to profit. Comcast is also allowed to make a business decision that protects their profit and doesn't suddenly increase their operating costs. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. This "increases operating costs" thing is a bunch of BS. Level3 has presence in every metro area in which Comcast operates. They can pass traffic to Comcast in the same data centers the Akamai and Limelight caching servers are located. What it will do is reduce the amount of money Comcast gets to charge Akamai and Limelight. You've got it backwards, bud. |
|
wierdo |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:Of course Level 3 is cheaper, but now we pretty much know why. They're cheaper because they have their own nationwide data network over which they can transfer the data. No need to pay someone else for transit. They offered to pay Comcast for the hardware necessary to upgrade their interconnects and offered to cold-potato the traffic across their own network to the closest point at which Comcast is willing to interconnect. How much easier on Comcast could they have made it? |
|
|
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:Ah yes, the old "comcast is eeeeevil" argument. Never gets old, I see. Of course not, because it continues to be. |
|
KylemaulLovin' My Firefox Premium Member join:2001-03-30 Puyallup, WA
1 recommendation |
to fifty nine
Re: Comcast lying?said by fifty nine:...and the fact that the return frequencies are much lower... This just makes me want to come get the hook out of your mouth. We can't possibly run upstream at a higher frequency! |
|
|
to kcblack
Re: so, upgrade...said by kcblack:Seriously, I'm the customer so they should spend some of those ridiculous profits to upgrade the backbone links to provide me with a fast, cheap pipe to the net for whatever I want to do with it. They should just do that because you say so, huh? How about this: It's their company, they provide the service, you pay the bill. That's the deal. Anytime you're unhappy with the service, choose another ISP. That's your right as a consumer. Vote with your wallet - that is how capitalism and competition work in the real world. But don't ever think that YOU know what's best for someone else's company to do with its profits - which you describe as ridiculously large, without ever having (I'm guessing here, but comfortably so) seen their financials. Amazing how easy it is to fancy yourself an expert on someone else's company. I'm guessing you've never owned or run a business. If so, shame on you, you know better than that. |
|
|
to fifty nine
Re: Comcast lying?said by fifty nine:Yeah keep pushing that same old bullshit.
The fact is that most P2P traffic is infringing. Legal content is in the minority by far. As said above: "6month old list »p2peducation.pbworks.com/w/page/···rontPage in the last week blizzard(world of warcraft) alone generated more legit bittorent traffic than all the other US p2p traffic combined!" |
|