dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
3383
nybbu
join:2006-02-11
Albany, NY

nybbu

Member

TATA

Ok so if Level 3 gives in and pays Comcast to peer directly, and avoid TATA, Netflix traffic is saved...but what about the other traffic that is still being affected by saturated TATA links? How does this affect day to day browsing for Comcast customers? Comcast is still refusing to upgrade these links just to screw with providers like Level 3? Doesn't sound any better than their Sandvine stunt.

jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ

1 edit

2 recommendations

jjoshua

Premium Member

said by nybbu:

Comcast is still refusing to upgrade these links just to screw with providers like Level 3?

No. Comcast is screwing its customers.

It's like paying for a buffet and finding the food trays empty because comcast can't fill them fast enough. Other companies (Level3) can fill the trays with food but comcast wants to also charge them money to do so.

It seems like L3 is doing a favor for comcast by providing data for free instead of comcast having to buy more bandwidth on its own. Instead, comcast wants to charge L3 for the privilege of delivering the data?

If I were running L3, I'd tell comcast to screw off and make it a point to let every comcast subscriber know why their netflix isn't working well.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to nybbu

Member

to nybbu
L3 already agreed to pay Comcast. They admited that. So they actually believe in a paid internet model by paying. They could have said "NO" but didn't

But it would be smart for Netflix to co-lo in to the ISPs. Hell they'd save $$$$$ out the ass by avoiding CDN all the way. Drop a few servers in side the Comcast, ATT, VZ, WOW, TWC and other large networks and be done with it. They'd avoid a helleva lot of issues with L3 and the other CDN providers.

PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium Member
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY

PhoenixDown

Premium Member

In some ways that would be more expensive and incur extra overhead and headache for netflix as they would have to manage each colo and maintain multiple agreements with various isp's.

And the cost of that colo would only go up as every other provider wanted to do the same (Amazon, redbox, etc) since each would have to provide equipment, not use the already existing L3 equipment. Space and Power are huge issues at some colo sites.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

1 recommendation

fifty nine to jjoshua

Member

to jjoshua
Except that Level3 is profiting from this immensely via its CDN business.

Level3 can't tell Comcast to screw off because then they'd lose the free peering so critical to their cut rate CDN business.

swintec
Premium Member
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME

swintec to hottboiinnc4

Premium Member

to hottboiinnc4
I dont believe that can be done, the content providers will not allow it.

jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ

jjoshua to fifty nine

Premium Member

to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

Except that Level3 is profiting from this immensely via its CDN business.

Level3 can't tell Comcast to screw off because then they'd lose the free peering so critical to their cut rate CDN business.

Why shouldn't L3 be allowed to profit? Comcast feels that they are entitled to L3's profits because comcast's customers are the reason for L3's existence?

L3 should cut off comcast's links for 1 day to teach them a lesson.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

said by jjoshua:

said by fifty nine:

Except that Level3 is profiting from this immensely via its CDN business.

Level3 can't tell Comcast to screw off because then they'd lose the free peering so critical to their cut rate CDN business.

Why shouldn't L3 be allowed to profit? Comcast feels that they are entitled to L3's profits because comcast's customers are the reason for L3's existence?

L3 should cut off comcast's links for 1 day to teach them a lesson.

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.

As I've said before, Level3 has more to lose from this because if they cut off Comcast, nothing but Level 3's bottom line is affected. Netflix traffic will find its way through Akamai or LLNW. Level 3 has no choice but to play ball here.

Mattxdc
@sbcglobal.net

Mattxdc to hottboiinnc4

Anon

to hottboiinnc4
Until one day Comcast changes the lock on the server room and refuses to let Netflix in anymore (probably the same day they place a whole bunch of new properties on their TV Everywhere platform). You can't tame the lion by placing your head in its mouth.
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

WernerSchutz to fifty nine

Member

to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

said by jjoshua:

said by fifty nine:

Except that Level3 is profiting from this immensely via its CDN business.

Level3 can't tell Comcast to screw off because then they'd lose the free peering so critical to their cut rate CDN business.

Why shouldn't L3 be allowed to profit? Comcast feels that they are entitled to L3's profits because comcast's customers are the reason for L3's existence?

L3 should cut off comcast's links for 1 day to teach them a lesson.

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.

Using their monopolistic / collusion techniques without restriction, of course.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

said by WernerSchutz:

Using their monopolistic / collusion techniques without restriction, of course.

Of course. And Level 3 is just a saint, aren't they?
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25 to nybbu

Member

to nybbu
I have been making this argument from the beginning as I saw right through Comcast as I educated myself on them.

Comcast links with a couple other T1 providers as well and already has agreements with them in which they pay Comcast to reach Comcast ISP consumers. They do not pay Comcast to reach other users on the internet, just Comcast subscribers.

Thus, if someone wants to reach Comcast consumers and is willing to pay they go through those links so that they get "preferred" treatment. If you are not willing to pay to get to Comcast ISP consumers you go through TATA. Guess which one a company that relies on good bandwidth to survive will chose? As L3 has shown, they have no choice but to pay up or be reduced to TATA level of service.

Comcast has essentially implemented per service / application "tubes" that they will collect additional fees on as it "prioritizes" bits thus violating net neutrality rules.

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem to fifty nine

Premium Member

to fifty nine
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?

In this particular case, new evidence leans towards Level 3 being a victim. I really don't care if the eat dogs and spit on trees, for this topic it is leaning that Comcast is using collusion techniques which raise rates on internet services to provide the service (trickle all the way up and then back down again) by artificially reducing supply.
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

WernerSchutz to fifty nine

Member

to fifty nine
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.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to fifty nine

Member

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.
Skippy25

Skippy25 to hottboiinnc4

Member

to hottboiinnc4
LOL, 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.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine to markofmayhem

Member

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.
fifty nine

1 recommendation

fifty nine to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
See 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.

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

1 recommendation

markofmayhem to fifty nine

Premium Member

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.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to fifty nine

Member

to fifty nine
And Akamai and LLNW will still be paying Comcast and will pass it onto their customer (netflix, etc).
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx to nybbu

Member

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

iansltx to hottboiinnc4

Member

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

iansltx to Skippy25

Member

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

iansltx

Member

Actually, scratch that. AOL now peers with Comcast. Probably pays for it too.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine to markofmayhem

Member

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.
fifty nine

fifty nine to patcat88

Member

to patcat88
said 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.
fifty nine

fifty nine to iansltx

Member

to iansltx
said 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

fifty nine to WernerSchutz

Member

to WernerSchutz
said 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.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx to fifty nine

Member

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

wierdo to fifty nine

Member

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.