  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue
An example:
»thenextweb.com/us/2010/08/07/wha···t-stake/
What this means is that Google would write a check to Verizon, and in return content from Google would load on the Verizon network much faster. So if you’re a Droid user, those YouTube videos would play instantly, while you’d still be waiting to see similar offerings from Veoh.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt offers another definition of net neutrality:
“I want to make sure that everybody understands what we mean [by net neutrality]. What we mean is that if you have one data type, like video, you don’t discriminate against one person’s video in favor of another. It’s OK to discriminate across different types…There is general agreement with Verizon and Google on this issue.
| |
|
 | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue Were an ISP to use its size as leverage to force anybody (content or last mile company) to pay a new strange toll simply to reach their consumers, that would absolutely violate network neutrality. Not saying for certain that's what's happening here, but erecting new tollbooths has always been precisely what neutrality is focused on ever since AT&T's CEO unveiled his free ride fantasy.
Without seeing the Level3 and Comcast agreement it's all been armchair speculation about specifically what kind of financial arrangements this is. Of course Level3 did agree to it. It's up to the FCC to decide whether or not this is simply a peering dispute or a real violation, though the smart better knows where to place his money when AT&T lobbyists and the FCC are concerned. | |
|
| | | | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue So in other words it's nothing but a plot by ISP's to bring in more money for doing absolutely nothing different than they have been since the internet even existed? | |
|
| | | | said by Karl Bode:Were an ISP to use its size as leverage to force anybody (content or last mile company) to pay a new strange toll simply to reach their consumers, that would absolutely violate network neutrality.
And this is what it is not. It is not strange, it is not new, and it's not a toll.
This is about Level 3 demanding that Comcast provide additional connectivity and capacity at its expense for Level 3's CDN business and Comcast refusing to do so. | |
|
| | |  amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue It's about Comcast trying to double-dip. | |
|
| | | |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue said by amarryat:It's about Comcast trying to double-dip.
Or trying to make it harder for their customers to get Netflix, which is a competitor to their core offering. | |
|
| | | | | amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue said by Matt:said by amarryat:It's about Comcast trying to double-dip.
Or trying to make it harder for their customers to get Netflix, which is a competitor to their core offering. Yes, make Netflix sluggish and unattractive, and then highlight their own responsive attractive offerings. | |
|
| | | | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue said by amarryat:Yes, make Netflix sluggish and unattractive, and then highlight their own responsive attractive offerings.
And what are those attractive offerings from Comcast?
P.S.>> My Netflix viewing at home on Comcast, and this is using the so-called old slow way before Level 3's new fast connections, was entirely reliable and fast. So I don't see where Netflix was ever sluggish. | |
|
| | | | | | | amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue said by Romney2012:[
And what are those attractive offerings from Comcast?
who knows.
Just going forward, where Netflix has really taken off, Comcast can expect more traffic. By throttling Netflix, they can make their own VOD look more attractive. Or they can double-dip and get paid by Level 3. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue Cable VOD is better anyway as far as the waiting game of 28 days. And it's just going to get worse with NF as Hollywood and MSOs/IPTV providers want the titles delayed more and more for them. Next thing is to raise the price per title and go for 35 days. | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by amarryat:said by Matt:said by amarryat:It's about Comcast trying to double-dip.
Or trying to make it harder for their customers to get Netflix, which is a competitor to their core offering. Yes, make Netflix sluggish and unattractive, and then highlight their own responsive attractive offerings. You're making shit up. This was never about slowing down Netflix. This was about which contract Level 3 could use to stream their Netflix data, the free peering contract or the paid delivery contract. It's essentially a business to business dispute. No one ever even hinted at a consumer level slowdown. | |
|
| | | | | | | amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue said by MyDogHsFleas:You're making shit up. This was never about slowing down Netflix. This was about which contract Level 3 could use to stream their Netflix data, the free peering contract or the paid delivery contract. It's essentially a business to business dispute. No one ever even hinted at a consumer level slowdown.
So what happens if Level 3 doesn't pay? | |
|
| | | | | | | |  FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue Then Comcast will block it. Ala net neutrality | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue Net neutrality does NOT exist let alone- the FCC has NO legal power over anything that covers that. Done been there with the Courts. and Comcast will be happy to go back along side ATT. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue Comcast has no say in what traffic gets priority either. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | said by FBGuy:Comcast has no say in what traffic gets priority either.
Comcast can and does. Just not at the last mile. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue so your saying it is different when they do it to aggregate data instead of customer data? I didn't know there was a difference. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | private network; they own it all the way. Not the FCC nor the gov't. Wanna compete- build out. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue the data that flows on it is not theirs. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by amarryat:said by MyDogHsFleas:You're making shit up. This was never about slowing down Netflix. This was about which contract Level 3 could use to stream their Netflix data, the free peering contract or the paid delivery contract. It's essentially a business to business dispute. No one ever even hinted at a consumer level slowdown.
So what happens if Level 3 doesn't pay? You can still get Netflix, you'll just be sent over purposefully over-capacity Tata transit links. In other words, Netflix will become sluggish and unattractive. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue said by Matt:said by amarryat:said by MyDogHsFleas:You're making shit up. This was never about slowing down Netflix. This was about which contract Level 3 could use to stream their Netflix data, the free peering contract or the paid delivery contract. It's essentially a business to business dispute. No one ever even hinted at a consumer level slowdown.
So what happens if Level 3 doesn't pay? You can still get Netflix, you'll just be sent over purposefully over-capacity Tata transit links. In other words, Netflix will become sluggish and unattractive. Tell that to the poster whose dog has fleas. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue said by amarryat:Tell that to the poster whose dog has fleas.
I was.  | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | said by Matt:said by amarryat:said by MyDogHsFleas:You're making shit up. This was never about slowing down Netflix. This was about which contract Level 3 could use to stream their Netflix data, the free peering contract or the paid delivery contract. It's essentially a business to business dispute. No one ever even hinted at a consumer level slowdown.
So what happens if Level 3 doesn't pay? You can still get Netflix, you'll just be sent over purposefully over-capacity Tata transit links. In other words, Netflix will become sluggish and unattractive. No, it will be via Akamai which is faster than Level 3 CDN. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue said by fifty nine:No, it will be via Akamai which is faster than Level 3 CDN.
Faster? Eh, not so much.
said by »blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdail···-akamai/ :
BusinessofVideo blogger Dan Rayburn reported the news in a post this morning. “At the beginning of this year, Akamai took the Netflix business away from Level 3 and become the primary CDN for Netflix with at least 51% of their traffic,” he writes. “While it was a big win for Akamai at the time, it appears that it was short lived. Due to poor performance issues that Netflix has experienced with the Akamai network, Netflix now plans to move all of their traffic off Akamai in the coming months and will go back to only using Level 3 and Limelight.”
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Matt:said by amarryat:said by MyDogHsFleas:You're making shit up. This was never about slowing down Netflix. This was about which contract Level 3 could use to stream their Netflix data, the free peering contract or the paid delivery contract. It's essentially a business to business dispute. No one ever even hinted at a consumer level slowdown.
So what happens if Level 3 doesn't pay? You can still get Netflix, you'll just be sent over purposefully over-capacity Tata transit links. In other words, Netflix will become sluggish and unattractive. First, Level 3 already paid. They are just trying to beat up Comcast because they had to.
Second, if Netflix's distribution deals send data over badly over-capacity peering links, whose fault is it? Comcast's? They are not responsible for deals made by Netflix and Level 3 and whoever else (Netflix has many). | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | said by amarryat:said by MyDogHsFleas:You're making shit up. This was never about slowing down Netflix. This was about which contract Level 3 could use to stream their Netflix data, the free peering contract or the paid delivery contract. It's essentially a business to business dispute. No one ever even hinted at a consumer level slowdown.
So what happens if Level 3 doesn't pay? If Level 3 doesn't pay then they get routed via some alternate route which costs THEM money. Or Netflix would simply go through Akamai. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by amarryat:said by MyDogHsFleas:You're making shit up. This was never about slowing down Netflix. This was about which contract Level 3 could use to stream their Netflix data, the free peering contract or the paid delivery contract. It's essentially a business to business dispute. No one ever even hinted at a consumer level slowdown.
So what happens if Level 3 doesn't pay? They already did. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by Matt:said by amarryat:It's about Comcast trying to double-dip.
Or trying to make it harder for their customers to get Netflix, which is a competitor to their core offering. How so? Netflix is still available through Akamai, which is peered deep within Comcast. If anything it will be faster. Sure it'll cost Netflix more because Akamai charges more than Level 3 but it will be faster for the end user. | |
|
| | | | | | said by amarryat:It's about Comcast trying to double-dip.
Level 3 is trying to double dip here... free transit from Comcast while collecting $$$ from its CDN customers (Netflix included). | |
|
| | | | | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue Level3 always games the system they contract with a customer and then want dirt cheap or free peering on everybody else's networks. The traffic volume tends to be very one sided in L3 favor. | |
|
| | | | |  C_Kill The SocialistsPremium
join:2001-03-19
kudos:3 | said by fifty nine:said by amarryat:It's about Comcast trying to double-dip.
Level 3 is trying to double dip here... free transit from Comcast while collecting $$$ from its CDN customers (Netflix included). wrong wrong wrong  , there is no transit, all traffic is terminating at comcast and comcast customers are requesting the traffic, level 3 doesn't owe comcast a cent until comcast starts passing off netflix traffics to other isps
--
"and no matter how drunk you get .. don't lick the wall socket to test polarity..." | |
|
| | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Level 3 peering dispute not a net neutrality issue said by C_:said by fifty nine:said by amarryat:It's about Comcast trying to double-dip.
Level 3 is trying to double dip here... free transit from Comcast while collecting $$$ from its CDN customers (Netflix included). wrong wrong wrong , there is no transit, all traffic is terminating at comcast and comcast customers are requesting the traffic, level 3 doesn't owe comcast a cent until comcast starts passing off netflix traffics to other isps Not sure why you are stating this is only about "transit". Since when did the Internet change to where mutual balance of traffic is no longer a requirement for settlement free traffic between carriers?
In your view are all content aggregators/providers (Akamai, Google, Microsoft, porn providers, etc) entitled to free access to Comcast unless they are looking for transit to another provider?
Great new world for senders of traffic.... all cost shifting to consumers however. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | That isn't at all clear. There have been statements made that the agreements between Level3 and Comcast are not as peers but more as a customer and provider were Level3 is providing the transit for Comcast's traffic. After all Comcast is an information sink for all of this incoming Level3 traffic. It's not as though Level3 is sending traffic on to the Comcast network that would then move on to another network (which would be expected in a classical peering relationship.)
In any case the discussion is moot from our standpoint as all we have to go on is what the respective parties say. Without having the contracts in hand it's impossible to say what the real relationship between Comcast and Level3 is supposed to be. I see it as a customer (Comcast) and provider (Level3) relationship but it's entirely possible the contract defines it to be something else. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| I think that network neutrality includes the principle that you not only don't pay a toll to reach certain services, but you also don't pay a toll to reach services with normal bandwidth. In other words treat traffic neutrally, don't discriminate among legal traffic, if you apply network management, do it across all comers. I think it also includes transparency by carriers about their terms, conditions, and network management practices. | |
|
| | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | I call this extortion | |
|
| | | |
| | | | what is network neutrality? No such thing exist let alone has regulation/rules/laws to protect it. so yah- the ISPs can do as they wish. The FCC has NO legal power over the Internets. | |
|
| | | | It's the very same idea as the UBB bill from the CRTC in Canada that has been overtuned. Personally I call it extorsion.
--
Cheers! | |
|
| | | |
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| How can penalizing your competition (3rd party video) with extra expense to help protect your own lucrative PayTV subscriptions NOT be considered a violation?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | |
| | and they will get away with it.. The FCC is being rendered powerless by the new Congress. ISPs and cable companies will be able to charge whatever they want. After all, they contributed enough millions to buy the new Congressmen. | |
|
| | | Re: and they will get away with it.. the FCC was already powerless. they do NOT have the power to rule on the Internet. And more and more of their power will be stripped as they over step their rule making process and guidelines. | |
|
|
| |
decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 | power This crap needs to stop. Now | |
|
| | wait a minute So Comcast sells a data connection to its customers...with a 250gb cap. Then you have a company like Netflix who contracts out to a CDN, in this case Level 3, who has infrastructure built to deliver content from commercial clients. Now you have Comcast customers who are demanding Netflix content on a growing basis with that data connection they pay for up to 250gb and Comcast is telling Level 3 that because they are a carrier of a popular content provider that there must be an extra fee? What the hell is the customer paying for anyway? Without that content provider like Netflix, Amazon, whoever there would be no need for the high speed network. At least not in its current DOCSIS 3.0 state.
So my question to those who are saying Level 3 is getting a free ride is: If the customer and Level 3 are already paying for data connections then why should Comcast charge Level 3 more for content that Comcast customers are requesting? It doesn't make sense. | |
|
| | | Re: wait a minute If the sendor NO LONGER pays (senders have in the past... Level 3 wants an exception FOR THEM) then only the customer pays.
Free for others = more for us | |
|
|  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by ST Brandon :So my question to those who are saying Level 3 is getting a free ride is: If the customer and Level 3 are already paying for data connections then why should Comcast charge Level 3 more for content that Comcast customers are requesting? It doesn't make sense. Free peering is based around general equity in costs of transporting the data.
So in a traditional model, the content provider would pay a transit provider for Internet bandwidth, and the ISP would pay a transit provider for Internet bandwidth. Breaking away from this model is part of the reason that bandwidth is getting cheaper, because certain companies are finding it beneficial to bypass an intermediate transit provider and exchange traffic directly for much lower costs.
This gets more complicated in the Level(3) / Comcast model because Level(3) fits in multiple roles:
$$$ - Level(3) collects cash from Netflix to host and transport their video content
$ - Level(3) builds cache pools in all the major locations where Comcast has hubs, typically in the same building so it's essentially LAN traffic.
$$$ - Comcast takes that traffic and transports it from the hub cities across their own network (using fiber predominantly leased from Level(3)) to all of the cities that they service.
If I'm Level(3), of course I want to get free connections to Comcast!
The costs to transit bits within a building are not the same as the costs to transit bits across the country, and that's the key point of disagreement.
Still, the net effect for the end-user is either Level(3) pays up and Netflix spreads the costs across their user base (including Netflix users who aren't Comcast subscribers), or Comcast submits and the costs are spread out across the Comcast subscriber base (including Comcast subscribers who don't subscribe to Netflix). Either way, the subscribers of one of these services are going to end up paying. | |
|
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Flat rates disappears This is why flat rates for unlimited downloads are going to disappear. Comcast has already placed the 250 cap. You may end up seeing three parts to your ISP bill in the future.
1. Connection fee
2. Speed fee
3. Usage levels fee
Video has changed the equation and flat rates no longer work. You need the ISP as much as you need the content to get the content. No one sees the value in the the dumb pipe and the ISPs don't plan to be a dumb pipe. I am not sure you want them to be a dumb pipe just look at the example of DSL after it was built it has not really been upgraded until Fios and Uverse replaced it in some areas. The connection fee does not pay for the upgrades so they don't happen. It was only when they added TV content to the package that you got higher internet speeds. | |
|
 Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | I wonder.. ..what a fractured internet would be like. In order to access a site through another ISP's network, you have to pay a fee or have awful speeds if you don't.
If you want to go back to the days of AOL, it's getting close. | |
|
| | Inter-carrier compensation This is just about some networks not want to pay others for heavy imbalance. This is not tolls, blocking or all the other rhetoric. When 1 network sells anothers infrastructure without investment it really isn't fair. | |
|
 firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
·Frontier Communi..
| And the real issue is... Thousands of people downloading the same exact content but it requiring that same exact content to be duplicated thousands of times because they have to flip a DRM bit in there to protect it. Remove the DRM bit, cache it at the ISP, save money and let those who want the DRM cry while making the same exact money.
or... not have the system so screwed up that netflix doesn't want to house their hardware inside the isp's walls that would serve whatever size the isp is. Which isn't what an isp would want because most likely then they would be paying some costs when transporting around their own network that they don't 100% own or would rather farm out bandwidth for money rather than their own customers needs.
or in reality quit letting everyone on each end getting charged and then letting other stick their fingers in the pot in the middle to skim more cash off. | |
|
jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL | *I* am already paying to access Level3! nice try but a portion of my monthly Comcast fee of $45 goes to cover whatever is needed to happen so that I can see the Internet, Netflix included! | |
|
| | | Re: *I* am already paying to access Level3! said by jagged:nice try but a portion of my monthly Comcast fee of $45 goes to cover whatever is needed to happen so that I can see the Internet, Netflix included!
The cost of true network is not only the consumer. It is a combination of the consumer and the producer or aggregator of content. If content aggregators no longer pay (i.e. expects their side to be free) then your $45 flat rate no longer covers the full cost of network. Level3 wants to get into the CDN business and shift all costs to the consumer. | |
|
| | | | Re: *I* am already paying to access Level3! Uh... no. Cost of bandwidth is pretty darn cheap. Comcast is using their position to double dip. | |
|
|
| |
| |  birdfeedrPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:5 | Re: gee... Brilliant riposte! | |
|
|
Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
| I pay COMCRAP 50 bucks a month for Internet service... ....and as long as what I pull down is legal and under their 250 gB monthly cap, it's none of their fu**ing business!! How DARE they 'double dip'? Who do you think will ultimately PAY for their greed? WE WILL in the form of higher Netflix monthly charges!! Or do you honestly believe that Level 3 won't pass this charge onto Netflix who will then pass it on to US?
This is a way for Comcrap to sneak a rate increase past the regulators....pure and simple! | |
|
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: I pay COMCRAP 50 bucks a month for Internet service... How are they sneaking it past the regulators? Are the peering revenues not part of the revenues regulators consider when they set rates? | |
|
| | Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: I pay COMCRAP 50 bucks a month for Internet service... said by rradina:How are they sneaking it past the regulators? Are the peering revenues not part of the revenues regulators consider when they set rates?
The states? I highly doubt it. | |
|
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: I pay COMCRAP 50 bucks a month for Internet service... If the rates Comcast charges are regulated and they get more revenue from Level3, which in turns gets more from NetFlix, which in turn raises rates on the end consumer, isn't it possible Comcast's CATV rates will drop or not rise as much?
Doesn't the extra peering revenue help offset operating expenses?
In the end, is this all a wash? | |
|
|
|
·