Topic 'Re: TATA' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: TATA

Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:58:38 EDT

vferrari posted : taking something from a nanog post, you can clearly see the Level 3 view and what comcast does to suppress across carriers. It's not wrong, they have their reasons, but if they were a peer they would not have access to these communities.

Community: North_America
Lclprf_100
Level3_Customer # Level 3 thinks they are a customer
United_States
San_Jose
EU_Suppress_to_Peers
Suppress_to_AS174 # Cogent
Suppress_to_AS1239 # Sprint
Suppress_to_AS1280 # ISC
Suppress_to_AS1299 # Telia
Suppress_to_AS1668 # AOL
Suppress_to_AS2828 # XO
Suppress_to_AS2914 # NTT
Suppress_to_AS3257 # TiNet
Suppress_to_AS3320 # DTAG
Suppress_to_AS3549 # GBLX
Suppress_to_AS3561 # Savvis
Suppress_to_AS3786 # LG DACOM
Suppress_to_AS4637 # Reach
Suppress_to_AS5511 # OpenTransit
Suppress_to_AS6453 # Tata
Suppress_to_AS6461 # AboveNet
Suppress_to_AS6762 # Seabone
Suppress_to_AS7018 # AT&T
Suppress_to_AS7132 # AT&T (ex SBC)

So it would appear Comcast is a transit customer of Level 3. There was nothing to abuse. You can argue that comcast didn't want to extend their relationship with Level 3 due to the increase in traffic, but stop with the peering thing.

Re: TATA

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:25:46 EDT

miscDude posted :

said by Skippy25:

Sorry but there is no relevance in the argument you are making for Comcast as the transport side of Comcast has nothing to do with this. This isn't Comcast's "production network" side disputing with L3, it is the ISP side.

As far as Netflix (thus L3) is concerned in this matter, and the internet as a whole, Comcast is nothing more than an eyeball network when their own ISP subscribers are requesting the data. That would be true of any Tier 1 provider regardless who Netflix's CDN was. L3 is doing absolutely no routing over Comcast network of Netflix data that is not EXPLICITLY requested by Comcast's own subscribers. Period end of story.

But Comcast doesn't have 2 networks. Comcast has 1 network. That one network services both types of customers, Eyeball and production.

Net Neutrality says that traffic is traffic, so you can't be for net neutrality, and then say that comcast's consumer eyeball customers should have their traffic handled differently than Comcast's wholesale customers.

Comcast's, network can pretty reliably be classed as Tier 2 at this point. So there network would not be subject to the traditional Tier 3 pricing in that they would be paying for all interconnects with other major networks and just having end user type customers. As a tier 2 network they would have interconnects that are settlement free, comcast paying the other network, and the other network paying them.

From what I'm gathering from your logic, it sounds like you believe that the internet economics should be funded on the eyeballs, since obviously content servers/producers are never going to REQUEST data. If that's the case, other than for colo space and power, why would anybody ever pay to have their site or content on the internet? Why pay for hosting?

The way I see it is that Level 3 was trying to use their existing relationship as a Tier one network and piggyback their CDN business on top of that. If it was a 3rd party CDN, Level 3 would charge that CDN to recoup any costs incurred due to throwing their backbone interconnects out of sync with their existing interconnection agreements.... but since it's L3's own CDN business, they are crying foul.

How is this any different than if another large ISP was connected to the internet solely thru Cogent's Backbone? or Verizon's UUNet backbone? That eyeball network would pay the other Tier 1 provider for net access, but because L3's CDN traffic would need to cross over the other T1's network, it would end up throwing the traffic balance out of wack between L3 and Cogent/UUNet. Would Cogent/UUNet be wrong to complain about the traffic flow, even if it was still technically their customer's requesting the data? (3rd party ISP is the customer of Cogent/UUNet afterall).

The way I'm looking at it is that Comcast has a backbone network. Comcast then has a Consumer ISP which is a customer of that backbone, just like Comcast has wholesale customers which are a customer of that backbone. The only difference between Verizon UUNet and AT&T at this point and Comcast is that Comcast is still all under the same legal corporate entity, Vs. AT&T and Verizon which still have a legal subsidiary separation because of the way they obtained their backbone network.... They bought their Tier 1 network (and Tier 1 status), vs. Comcast who has built their network from scratch.

It's not like at Comcast the same people/group/organization that monitors and controlls the backbone network also provision and maintain your cablemodem and CMTS'. Just like Verizon/AT&T don't have the same people managing their backbone who maintain your DSLAM.

My whole point is that I don't see why Comcast should have to treat their backbone interconnects any differently than any other backbone provider interconnections. Why should they be treated any differently then anybody else? I understand there is a huge hatred for Comcast, and they've made some doozy bad and shady moves in the past that has arguably earned them a critical eye, But why should Comcast's Backbone interconnections with Level3 be treated any differently than Verizon's Backbone interconnection with Level3?

And for the record, From everything I've read on both sides of the argument, It's not like Comcast said "OH! You got Netflix.... so now you must pay for all of your interconnection bandwidth with us!" Comcast is keeping the existing settlement free interconnection (which for Level3 to agree too in the first place by their own peering policy, they had to believe there was value for them to interconnect), and even added 6 10gig ports to the existing FREE relationship, but is only charging for the ADDITIONAL ports on top of all the free ones covered under their existing contract. Netflix traffic could still EASILY travel over the 290gigs (give or take using the 500gig total number Comcast mentioned) of interlinking bandwidth Level3 is getting free, along with all of Level3's existing traffic.... however then it may cause latency which would impact either Level 3's commitments to it's paying backbone customers to have traffic delivered, or their CDN customers.

Re: TATA

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:30:22 EDT

Skippy25 posted : Sorry but there is no relevance in the argument you are making for Comcast as the transport side of Comcast has nothing to do with this. This isn't Comcast's "production network" side disputing with L3, it is the ISP side.

As far as Netflix (thus L3) is concerned in this matter, and the internet as a whole, Comcast is nothing more than an eyeball network when their own ISP subscribers are requesting the data. That would be true of any Tier 1 provider regardless who Netflix's CDN was. L3 is doing absolutely no routing over Comcast network of Netflix data that is not EXPLICITLY requested by Comcast's own subscribers. Period end of story.

Re: TATA

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:27:04 EDT

rebus9 posted :

said by fifty nine:

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

Pay attention.... Level3 buckled under and is PAYING Comcast to deliver the CDN traffic, because they didn't have much choice. Without conceding to Comcast's extortion, Level3 would have to deliver the CDN traffic via Comcast's transit interconnects, which would effectively degrade Netflix streaming to the point of being essentially worthless.

Re: TATA

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:59:09 EDT

miscDude posted :

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.

Re: TATA

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:57:03 EDT

Skippy25 posted :

said by miscDude:

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

Re: TATA

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:39:20 EDT

WernerSchutz posted :

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.

$ ?

Re: TATA

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:37:20 EDT

WernerSchutz posted : Without a picture of Lisa Kelly the truck loses a lot of its charm.

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

Re: TATA

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 01:00:19 EDT

sonicmerlin posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:48:09 EDT

Simba7 posted :

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]

WHO is TATA or WHAT is TATA?

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:39:16 EDT

Linklist posted : WHO IS TATA or WHAT IS TATA?

Any relation to the Indian conglomerate?

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:56:33 EDT

Transmaster posted : Let me get this straight Level3 is having trouble with a truck????

Sorry ;) :D

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:25:37 EDT

miscDude posted :

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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:29:37 EDT

NOCMan posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:26:39 EDT

NOCMan posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:45:33 EDT

KrK posted : Shill much? Comcast is abusing their position, clearly.

Level3 is right in their claims.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:54:46 EDT

Skippy25 posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:00:28 EDT

WernerSchutz posted :

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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:48:05 EDT

wierdo posted :

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

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:44:02 EDT

wierdo posted :

said by fifty nine:

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. ;)

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:35:47 EDT

iansltx posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:56:50 EDT

fifty nine posted :

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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:54:16 EDT

fifty nine posted :

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. :)

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:51:41 EDT

fifty nine posted :

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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:50:49 EDT

fifty nine posted :

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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:48:58 EDT

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

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:42:50 EDT

iansltx posted : 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 :/

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:41:28 EDT

iansltx posted : 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...

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:39:08 EDT

iansltx posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:39:03 EDT

patcat88 posted : And Akamai and LLNW will still be paying Comcast and will pass it onto their customer (netflix, etc).

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:32:17 EDT

markofmayhem posted :

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

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:31:15 EDT

fifty nine posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:28:13 EDT

fifty nine posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:15:45 EDT

Skippy25 posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:07:30 EDT

Skippy25 posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:05:12 EDT

WernerSchutz posted :

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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:01:14 EDT

markofmayhem posted :

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

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:51:04 EDT

Skippy25 posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:48:49 EDT

fifty nine posted :

said by WernerSchutz:

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

Of course. And Level 3 is just a saint, aren't they?

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:39:06 EDT

WernerSchutz posted :

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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:44:35 EDT

anon posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:32:20 EDT

fifty nine posted :

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.

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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:25:07 EDT

jjoshua posted :

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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:13:43 EDT

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

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:13:02 EDT

fifty nine posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:10:59 EDT

PhoenixDown posted : 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 ~

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:49:58 EDT

hottboiinnc posted : 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.

Re: TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:45:08 EDT

jjoshua posted :

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.

TATA

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:41:20 EDT

vzguy71 posted : 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.