dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
32
share rss forum feed


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

1 edit

2 recommendations

reply to vzguy71

Re: TATA

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.


fifty nine

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

1 recommendation

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.


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

WernerSchutz

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


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
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.


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).


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 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.

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.

WernerSchutz

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

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to fifty nine
And that again is why you are wrong as Level 3 is not abusing anything. They are simply delivering data to Comcast customers as they request it. The fact that they are a CDN for the data being requested is irrelevant. Level 3 is not forcing data on Comcast network. This is data that is being requested by Comcast's own subscribers. Just as it would be if any other company in the world was their CDN. What if Microsoft that had the content delivery contract with Netflix? Who then would they be trying to charge to allow those packets to get to their subscribers that requested it?

If Comcast really has a problem with the amount of data their customers are requesting, they need to deal with their customers on that by implementing restrictive caps with high overage charges or selectively reduce the quality of service for the content they are requesting too much of. OOPS! Thats right, Restrictive caps are bad PR for them and selectively reducing the quality of any service on the network has been deemed a violation of net neutrality and thus more bad PR.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to fifty nine
Shill much? Comcast is abusing their position, clearly.

Level3 is right in their claims.


NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO
reply to fifty nine
Their operating costs to revenue generated is very small. Just look at their SEC statements. Was it not Comcast who said they spent a few million to upgrade all their customers to DOSCIS 3.0?

I'd rather Comcast save some money demanding that retransmission fees be lowered. It's time Hollywood took a pay cut like the rest of the world has over the last few years.


NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO
reply to fifty nine
You fail to realize that the originator of the traffic is COMCAST CUSTOMRES. How hard of a concept is this?

Operators have been aware that ISP traffic is top heavy for years, yet they act surprised that traffic increases. If they're so worried invest some R&D into better video codec's that use less bandwidth and sell them to Netflix and other companies. You reduce your customers bandwidth usage, and you profit from royalties.

miscDude

join:2005-03-24
Kissimmee, FL
said by NOCMan:

You fail to realize that the originator of the traffic is COMCAST CUSTOMRES. How hard of a concept is this?

Operators have been aware that ISP traffic is top heavy for years, yet they act surprised that traffic increases. If they're so worried invest some R&D into better video codec's that use less bandwidth and sell them to Netflix and other companies. You reduce your customers bandwidth usage, and you profit from royalties.

Except under the way the internet has traditionally worked, It's not comcast customer's originating the traffic. Its Comcast Customer's terminating traffic which originated elsewhere. The internet, unlike old circuit switched methods, is basically a lot of one-way traffic. Think of it like old mail order catalogs. You send a quick little order form with your request for data, and the catalog on the other end then sends you a large package with what you requested in it.

As for eyeball ISP traffic being top-heavy....traditionally, yes, absolutely. What complicates much of this situation is that Comcast's network isn't set up like a "traditional ISP". They have enough wholesale/colo type customers (Including their own Comcast Media Center) which produce traffic that it ultimately helps even out their network traffic to a more balanced level. It may still be slightly top heavy, but not by much. Definately not to traditional ISP levels.

But, both of those are issues more related to the L3/Comcast dispute instead of the TATA question raised here.


Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
reply to WernerSchutz
Let me get this straight Level3 is having trouble with a truck????

Sorry


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

What a shocker. Bandwidth costs money.

It does? I thought it was just beams of light. Actually, according to quite a few sources, bandwidth costs almost nothing.

..now to lay the fiber to supply the bandwidth, that's a different story.. but if the fiber is already there, how is lighting it up costing money (besides electrical/equipment costs)?

I swear there's going to be another dot com collapse when people get pissed enough. What would happen to Comcast if they suddenly lost half of their customers?
--
Bresnan 18M/1M
MyWS[E5200@3.75GHz,4GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2GHz,2GB RAM,120GB HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1GHz,512MB RAM,18GB HDD,SMC 8432BTA,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,Intel Pro/1000MT,IBM Gigabit Ethernet-SX,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,Gentoo Linux]

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to fifty nine
Your corporatist defense knows no boundaries. It's kind of ridiculous how far you'll go to defend Comcast's practices. I don't see how they've done anything for you to defend them so.

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

1 edit
reply to Transmaster
Without a picture of Lisa Kelly the truck loses a lot of its charm.

»connect.in.com/lisa-kelly-truck/···60d.html

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:

Your corporatist defense knows no boundaries. It's kind of ridiculous how far you'll go to defend Comcast's practices. I don't see how they've done anything for you to defend them so.

$ ?

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to miscDude
said by miscDude:

Except under the way the internet has traditionally worked, It's not comcast customer's originating the traffic.

So you are claiming Netflix, thus L3, is just randomly sending traffic to Comcast users?

Under the traditional way the internet has ALWAYS worked and will continue to do so well beyond this conversation, a node (user or device) request information and then that information is sent to them from the node that has that information. So yes no matter how you try to spin it, it is Comcast user's initiating and requesting the data. Without their request, no data is sent to Comcast network. Regardless of how Comcast setup their network (which has absolutely no relevance to any of this), it is their subscribers requesting the data they are claiming they are receiving too much of.

miscDude

join:2005-03-24
Kissimmee, FL
said by Skippy25:

said by miscDude:

Except under the way the internet has traditionally worked, It's not comcast customer's originating the traffic.

So you are claiming Netflix, thus L3, is just randomly sending traffic to Comcast users?

Under the traditional way the internet has ALWAYS worked and will continue to do so well beyond this conversation, a node (user or device) request information and then that information is sent to them from the node that has that information. So yes no matter how you try to spin it, it is Comcast user's initiating and requesting the data. Without their request, no data is sent to Comcast network. Regardless of how Comcast setup their network (which has absolutely no relevance to any of this), it is their subscribers requesting the data they are claiming they are receiving too much of.

Yes, Comcast customer's are requesting the data that is sent to them.

But on the actual transport level of the network, It's all just one way data. You aren't opening a dedicated 2-way circuit to communicate end-to-end with the other computer on the network. This is the point I'm making.

The economics of the internet have always worked on a basic "where is this packet I'm transporting going?" With all the traffic going back and forth, and the fact each packet is not tied to any other packet until you dig thru a couple of the outer wrappers, means that on the network level there has never been a way to determine if the incoming packet is from the originator or the receipient of the initial communication between the 2 end points.

DPI makes this kind of tracking a bit more possible these days, but with the shear amount of traffic and the fact that each individual packet could theoretically take a different route still makes it not extremely useful when talking about tracking individual communications.

Interconnection agreements traditionally accounted for if you were a eyeball network or production network in their costing, but this has become much more complicated since Comcast has both, and the Tier 1 Backbone of Level 3 is adding their own content.