dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3266
share rss forum feed

vzguy71

join:2006-02-11
Albany, NY
kudos:1

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
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit

2 recommendations

said by vzguy71:

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.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to vzguy71

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
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

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.
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply 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,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
reply to hottboiinnc

I dont believe that can be done, the content providers will not allow it.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts



jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply 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
kudos:2

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
reply to hottboiinnc

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
reply 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
kudos:2

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

reply to vzguy71

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
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
reply 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.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply 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
reply 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

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to hottboiinnc

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
kudos:2
reply 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

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply 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
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply 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.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply 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
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
reply to vzguy71

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

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
reply to hottboiinnc

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

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply 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

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to iansltx

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



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply 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

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply 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

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply 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

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply 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
kudos:2
reply 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
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

reply 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.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.