Level3 Accuses Comcast Of Net Neutrality Violation Update: Comcast responds, insists this is just a peering dispute Level3 today accused Comcast of demanding an additional fee from Level3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast customers. According to a Level3 press release, Comcast informed Level3 earlier this month that they'd be requiring the supposedly new recurring fee, which Level3 believes violates not only the FCC's policy statements on neutrality (which have shown to not be worth much on the enforcement front) and Comcast's previous proclaimed dedication to an open Internet. Says Level3: On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast's customers who request such content. By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation's largest cable provider. On November 22, after being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment was 'take it or leave it,' Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions. The release is skimpy on details, and it would be nice to see more specifics before dragging Comcast to the public square for flogging. Comcast has yet to comment about the allegations, and we've contacted them for a statement. Comcast's merger with NBC is up for review, so of course it's a good time to frame any and all anti-competitive behavior by Comcast as a network neutrality violation to maximize attention. Zoom also complained that Comcast was engaged in neutrality violations earlier today. That said, on the surface this looks exactly like the troll-under-the-bridge behavior AT&T dreamed of when they began the modern neutrality debate in 2005, then-CEO Ed Whitacre proclaiming they were going to start charging other companies a "because we can" surcharge to connect to AT&T subscribers. Level3 did just re-obtain Netflix's streaming business, so the timing is right if Comcast wants to violently leverage its massive subscriber base as a weapon against Internet video and truly open networks. Update: Comcast has posted the following statement to their blog: Level 3 has inaccurately portrayed the commercial negotiations between it and Comcast. These discussions have nothing to do with Level 3's desire to distribute different types of network traffic.
Comcast has long established and mutually acceptable commercial arrangements with Level 3's Content Delivery Network (CDN) competitors in delivering the same types of traffic to our customers. Comcast offered Level 3 the same terms it offers to Level 3's CDN competitors for the same traffic. But Level 3 is trying to gain an unfair business advantage over its CDN competitors by claiming it's entitled to be treated differently and trying to force Comcast to give Level 3 unlimited and highly imbalanced traffic and shift all the cost onto Comcast and its customers.
To quantify this, what Level 3 wants is to pressure Comcast into accepting more than a twofold increase in the amount of traffic Level 3 delivers onto Comcast's network -- for free. In other words, Level 3 wants to compete with other CDNs, but pass all the costs of that business onto Comcast and Comcast's customers, instead of Level 3 and its customers.
Level 3's position is simply duplicitous. When another network provider tried to pass traffic onto Level 3 this way, Level 3 said this is not the way settlement-free peering works in the Internet world. When traffic is way out of balance, Level 3 said, it will insist on a commercially negotiated solution.
Now, Level 3 proposes to send traffic to Comcast at a 5:1 ratio over what Comcast sends to Level 3, so Comcast is proposing the same type of commercial solution endorsed by Level 3. Comcast is meeting with Level 3 later this week for that purpose. We are happy to maintain a balanced, no-cost traffic exchange with Level 3. However, when one provider exploits this type of relationship by pushing the burden of massive traffic growth onto the other provider and its customers, we believe this is not fair. As we suggested was a possibility, Level3 appears engaged in a little showmanship. This is starting to look more like a peering dispute dressed up as a network neutrality violation to bring greater attention to the complaint. It worked, since Level3's initial chicken little press release was dressed up to read exactly like Ed Whitacre's 2005 dream scenario. Still, such peering disputes are usually between tier one providers, and Comcast still may be acting anti-competitively by demanding additional compensation for traffic delivery to their customers -- who already pay for service.
|
 | | I wouldn't have... I wouldn't have agreed to the terms. Instead, I'd put up a message to all comcast customers blaming comcast. | |
|  | | | Re: I wouldn't have... Agreed, why agree then whine about it. Should have brought it to public attention first. Wonder if it would hurt Comcast if level3 breaks all peering with them. | |
| | | | | Re: I wouldn't have... Of COURSE it would hurt them. I know I'll cancel my Comcast account if I can't get Netflix streaming. | |
|
|  plkLil' Duffer Burger BarnPremium
join:2002-04-20
Ogden, IA | I agree.... very foolish to agree to it. They blew a chance to bring this issue to light.
I would have blocked content from Comcast and redirected to a page explaining why.
Net neutrality is a no brainier.
For you free marketers. I will pay the deficit all 12 trillion for every road, street alley etc for the central 1/3 of the USA.
Call it Road Neutrality
The police fire etc drive on my roads free for enforcing my rules.
The car industry can deliver cars for free for providing chips to disable cars driving for free on MY roads.
To get to work, it will cost you 8 dollars per mile. Unless you work for our partner(s).
To go shopping will cost you will cost you 32 dollars round trip unless you shop at our partner walmart. Which will cost you 50 cents.
I think you get the picture. | |
| |  ctgreybeardOld dogs can learn new tricksPremium
join:2001-11-13
Bethel, CT | That has my vote! Cut us (the subscribers off) and I'm one of those subscribers but I think L3 out to stand up to Comcast!
Of course this seems to be the reverse of the HBO and ESPN deals ... and we are always right in the strike point on the anvil!
--
Old dogs can learn new tricks! | |
| | | | agreed. make the ISP look like the goon that it is. | |
| | | | I agree, but then some clown would sue Level3 like Time Warner was sued during the FOX blackout because FOX wanted more money. | |
|
Parth
join:2010-08-16
Poughkeepsie, NY | Still think regulations will "hinder innovation?" Is anyone really surprised?  | |
| | | | Re: Still think regulations will "hinder innovation?" This Why I rather tether than use comcast. Even if it is just 5gb max. | |
| | | | See, that's the problem. To Comcast, this is "innovation". | |
|
| |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Comcast has a legitimate beef said by hescominsoon:http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2286782
The commenter at that link makes the case that those who think Comcast will eat the costs without getting revenue to offset the costs are crazy. Comcast will get revenue to offset their higher costs one way or another.
It's not about content, it's about volume and flows, and who pays for the infrastructure build necessary to handle them.
What amounts to poaching other people's resources works well right up until you drive that other party into the wall and force them to spend a crapload of money for which they receive nothing in return. That is, they don't receive any renumeration for the additional expense - but you do!
This is the base problem with all overcommitted services where the business model is predicated on fractional use of maximum possible resource consumption. When that model is violated costs go up dramatically. This is ok provided the person who has the cost also gets the revenue that is occasioned by the violation of the original model.
But in the case at hand, Netflix and similar get the revenue, but Comcast gets the cost.
I saw this one coming a mile away. If L3 manages to get the FCC involved and Comcast is prohibited from doing this they will be forced instead to either cap-and-charge customers or dramatically raise their prices, which will also blow back on the content folks like Netflix.
Suddenly that $8 "video any time" subscription becomes not $8, but $28 as Comcast adds another $20 to your monthly cable internet bill.
And there goes the pricing model that everyone loves so much about Netflix! | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·ViaTalk
| Re: Comcast has a legitimate beef Last time I checked Comcast send the users a bill every month. They are being paid to maintain and upgrade Comcast end of the infrastructure.
What this basically boils down to is Netflix type streaming is killing Comcast video profits and they want to put a stop to it. | |
| | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | said by Linklist:The commenter at that link makes the case that those who think Comcast will eat the costs without getting revenue to offset the costs are crazy. Comcast will get revenue to offset their higher costs one way or another.
Such as the subscription fees that all users pay? Or charging heavier fees to heavier users? You know, the way it has worked for years and years?
The balls.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | |
3 edits | I'm confused. The customer pays a fee for internet access. Level3 pays a fee for access as well. Does Comcast want another charge on top of this? I mean, Level3 is already paying and providing for their internet access. Why would Comcast get a fee from them to carry data across the free internet to their customers? I mean the paying customer has requested that this data come to them from Netflix ( whose ISP is basically Level3).
Is this a peering agreement dispute? I mean, the internet is supposed to be a group of interconnected networks. If Comcast or Level3 for that matter, don't connected to one another, how is that the internet? It's a group of non-interconnect networks.
It sounds like this is a case where government intervention is warranted. Comcast is acting aggressively against its paying customer base by denying them access to the open and free internet. | |
| | | |  NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Re: Comcast has a legitimate beef The only way I can see what comca$t saying making any sense is if Level3 is using comcast as a transit network to another ISP. If the traffi comcast is talking about is coming from Level 3 to comcast customers, then comcast needs to shut the hell up.
I'll switch to qwest if I have to for an ISP. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Comcast has a legitimate beef said by NOCMan:I'll switch to qwest if I have to for an ISP.
Congrats on being one of the relatively few Americans who can make that a switch to a different ISP from Comcast (or any other cable incumbent). I sure as hell cannot. No, Verizon FiOS is not an option. franchise agreement be damned, they stopped building out just under a city block away. | |
|
| | | | | "Is this a peering agreement dispute?"
Basiclly, yes. I think that the exchange between the two companies is not balanced and one is trying to charge the other for the difference. Both sides are firing up the PR machine for the possible depeering that will happen if they don't come to an agreement. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Comcast has a legitimate beef yep! that's what it is and L3 does it all the time- at least once every year to every 2 years. L3 will get pissy and the'll pull their peer and Comcast customers will be left in the dark like all the others. L3 is too big and needs to be split. | |
|
|  GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | No, they don't. The bandwidth is paid for. Netflix pays for it on their end, Comcast customers pay for it on their end. Nowhere is somebody not getting paid or compensated for traffic. This is how the internet works; each side of a connection pays for their bandwidth.
In short, Comcast wants to double-dip; they want to charge two different people for the same thing.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org | |
| | | | | Re: Comcast has a legitimate beef said by Guspaz:No, they don't. The bandwidth is paid for. Netflix pays for it on their end, Comcast customers pay for it on their end. Nowhere is somebody not getting paid or compensated for traffic. This is how the internet works; each side of a connection pays for their bandwidth.
In short, Comcast wants to double-dip; they want to charge two different people for the same thing.
Actually, the Comcast CABLE VIDEO subscribers are also subsidizing the cost of the bandwidth for the rest of the subscribers(This is borne out by the fact that Verizon refused to build their FiOS network until they could get video franchises from states) . However, as cable video subscribers transition from bandwidth subsidizers (cable video) to bandwidth consumers (netflix, hulu, espn3.com, etc.), the cost to provide the video bandwidth gets shifted directly onto comcast instead of the actual people who are viewing video. | |
| | | |  amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Comcast has a legitimate beef said by lakerfan82:This is borne out by the fact that Verizon refused to build their FiOS network until they could get video franchises from states
I wish they had been able to do that in my state. Instead they had to scratch backs in one town at a time, buying firetrucks or whatever for the town before they were allowed to build out. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Comcast has a legitimate beef NJ gave them a state wide Video franchise and they still selectively rolled out FIOS.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. | |
| | | | | | amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Comcast has a legitimate beef said by pende_tim:NJ gave them a state wide Video franchise and they still selectively rolled out FIOS.
Statewide agreement doesn't mean that they would light the whole state.
I was told for example, that in RI, their agreement was also statewide. The state was divided into 5 zones, and Verizon was free to light whichever zone(s) they wanted. The catch was that if they started a zone, they had to finish it.
Could that be how it is in NJ? | |
| | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Comcast has a legitimate beef No, county seats must be wired regardless of density, families per mile on street otherwise I believe. | |
|
| | | | said by Guspaz:No, they don't. The bandwidth is paid for. Netflix pays for it on their end, Comcast customers pay for it on their end. Nowhere is somebody not getting paid or compensated for traffic. This is how the internet works; each side of a connection pays for their bandwidth.
In short, Comcast wants to double-dip; they want to charge two different people for the same thing.
Oh, I get it - like the phone companies do for texting ? | |
|
| bemis
join:2008-07-18
Reading, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
| from the link:
It's not about content, it's about volume and flows, and who pays for the infrastructure build necessary to handle them.
IF this were true, then Comcast would be attempting to charge any high volume streaming sight--Hulu, Apple, Amazon, etc. Instead they are targeting someone in the middle in an attempt to grab a slice of the pie that frankly is not theirs. Maybe Level3 should charge Comcast for allowing their customers to access Netflix? After all, someone needs to pay for Level3's extensive fiber network build out!
As you say, it's about volume and flows... great... so basically Comcast paid to build out their network, and they charge a fixed price per month... well that sucks for them, they get the same amount of money each month no matter how many bits they shuffle around... they want more cents for those bits... so it seems like in you opinion that means that high consumption (by content provider or user) should be met with increased payments for utilizing a greater portion of the network... that's fine if you and Comcast think so, go ahead and start capping users to prevent them over taxing your network (oh, you already do that?)... and why not introduce some overage charges or possible start to meter bits? ... yeah good luck with that.
Pure and simple, they can't wring any more cash out of their subscribers because they are facing competition from above (FIOS and other FTTP competitors) and from below (lower cost DSL, mobile broadband, etc)... so they go after whoever else they can which in this case is effectively the other ISP. | |
| | | | No They Do Not have a legit grief.They are scum and they want to milk you of your money.and they want to screw you for wanting toi watch streaming video not from their website.
if you agree with comcast i feel sorry for you.guys like you will help to create a toll booth internet | |
| | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Comcast has a legitimate beef said by gorehound:No They Do Not have a legit grief.They are scum and they want to milk you of your money.and they want to screw you for wanting toi watch streaming video not from their website.
if you agree with comcast i feel sorry for you.guys like you will help to create a toll booth internet
baloney. There's a thread on NANOG that explains what is going on very nicely...if you take of your Comcast hater blinders you'll see this for what it really is. All other CDN's(as part of delivering content close to it's users) colo their servers inside Comcast's hubs. The CDN's pay for this of course which is only right. L3 wants to be a CDN but NOT have to bear the expense of colocation and therefore pushing the costs to Comcast..which Comcast refuses to do..L3 is the "wrong" party here not Comcast. L3 was just trying to make a new business model where it did not pay the colo part of CDN's..Comcast called them on it:
»market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=···2&page=3
If you want to see the wall of text head here:
»www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.c···ves/2603
--
Carpe Ductum - "Grab the Tape"
www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com | |
| | | |
GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | Begun, the net neutrality wars have. This is the first real shot fired in the net neutrality wars. No small-time stuff like talking about fast-lanes and that sort of stuff. This is plain up "Pay us or we block your content". And unlike the past, this isn't a plan or a proposal, this happened. Comcast laid the cards down, and Level3 paid. Past tense.
I'm *really* glad that this is forbidden in Canada. Section 36 of the telecommunications act expressly forbids ISPs to "control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications they carry" without prior approval from the CRTC (the regulatory body).
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | Level3 vs Cogent The shoe is on the other foot and Level3 changes their tune
»www.prnewswire.com/news-releases···572.html
--
"Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
Reviews:
·Charter
| They are just following hulu Yet again we see that the FCC needs to step in and take control. They are really taking the idea of blocking content from hulu. Honestly hulu shouldn't have been allowed to block Time Warner and other users from the service. Comcast figures if hulu can do this to help Fox and other carriers then why can't comcast use it to get money from companies to boost their own profits? Both are bad and neither should be allowed. | |
| | | | Re: They are just following hulu not the same. stop asking for gov't control. | |
|
 ironweaselWeezyPremium
join:2000-09-13
Belen, NM
kudos:1 | Good job! ----- /points to avatar
Thanks, Comcast, for yet another reason why you (as a company) deserve this illustrious award. | |
| Reviews:
·Charter
| .. It's about time to stop doing business with cable operators. They're all going to impose caps and anally retentive rules to prevent you from watching TV or movies anywhere but through them.
I hate to say it but AT & T is looking better than they have in years because they don't make the bulk of their money from selling overpriced TV service. Cable companies do. | |
| | | | | Re: Another Boon that won't fix anything. de-peering will actually stop you from obtaining your information and could increase your ping times which would prohibit you from watching NetFlix at a decent quality or even playing that online game. | |
|
NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Never understand their logic The user initiated the download not Level3. Users are faced with increases every year despite comcast's financials showing billion dollar profits over a hundred million dollars investment into the network which has been steady.
Netflix is the reason people pay higher fees for faster broadband connections. Why would anyone pay for more than 3mbit if they're just going to read webpages and pay online bills? | |
| |  GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | Re: Never understand their logic With higher speeds comes higher usage. Something Comcast shuns with its 250GB cap.
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
| | | | Um, afraid not.
Comcast spends BILLIONS with a B every year on infrastructure upgrades.
It's all publicy available information.
You should only speak to what you have knowledge of. | |
| | | NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Re: Never understand their logic As an investor I know what I'm talking about, I'm also a comcast user. If you do not believe me go look at their SEC filings and please post it for all of us to see. I also work for a national ISP and directly manage these upgrades, I know how much it costs. | |
| | | | | | Re: Never understand their logic their upgrades? Doc3. | |
| | | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
·Vitelity VOIP
| said by NOCMan:As an investor I know what I'm talking about, I'm also a comcast user. If you do not believe me go look at their SEC filings and please post it for all of us to see. Clearly not, because you seem to be confusing the direct costs of providing that specific line of business with the total costs of providing that service.
If you took just the "High-speed Internet" costs out of the financial statement you could not actually provide HSI service. The product relies on the hybrid fiber-coax network to provide the service to homes, but because the HFC network is shared with video and phone it's not a direct cost to "High-speed Internet."
Specifically from Comcast's most recent 10-K statement:
High-speed Internet expenses and phone expenses include certain direct costs for providing these services but do not fully reflect the amount of operating expenses that would be necessary to provide these services on a stand-alone basis. Other related costs associated with providing these services are generally shared among all our cable services and are not allocated to these items. The decreases in high-speed Internet expenses in 2009 and 2008 and phone expenses in 2009 were primarily due to lower support service costs that were the result of operating efficiencies. Phone expenses increased in 2008 primarily due to an increase in the number of customers, partially offset by operational efficiencies. Bolding is mine
So while Comcast "only" spent $519m on direct costs for expenses that only specifically support the HSI product, they also spent $2.245bn on things like Technical Labor.
Again, from the 10-K statement:
Technical labor expenses include the internal and external labor to complete service call and installation activities in the home, network operations, fulfillment and provisioning costs. Bolding is mine
It's easy to point at a number and make sweeping statements if you have no idea what that number actually represents, which is clearly the case here. | |
|
| | Just a preview.. of what happens after the merger of Comcast and NBC. They are not worried about the FCC; it an ineffective tool anyway. Besides, they own enough congressmen to make sure the FCC lets them do whatever they d*** well want. | |
|  GlennAllenSunny with highs in the 80s
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA | Well, If I ever thought that I might consider returning to Comcast for Internet service (or anything else), I definitely won't now. | |
|  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Well, what did you expect All of you cable apologists and corporate fluffers brought this on yourselves. As you kissed Brian Roberts' ass and shouted down anyone who dared speak ill of the glorious benevolence which is Comcast, they have been planning to shit in your mouth all along. You are not allowed to do anything that the folks in Pennsylvania can't mark up 500% and ...
(cut to Howard Beale meeting with Arthur Jensen in network)
You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations; there are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There is no third world. There is no west. There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast interwoven, interacting, multivariate multinational dominion of dollars. Petrodollars, electrodollars, reichmarks, rubles, rin, pounds and shekels. It is the international system of currency that determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic, subatomic and galactic structure of things today. It is the international system of currency that determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things. You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and you will atone! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and Democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only Comcast and AT &T and Verizon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state? Karl Marx? They pull out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, and minimax solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale! It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live to see that perfect world in which there is no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company for whom all men will work to serve a common profit and in which all men will own a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. You let this happen. | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
 DominokatHiPremium
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME
kudos:2
·RoadRunner Cable
| Internet as you know it... ...is slowly dying. Our monopolistic, lobbyist, lawyer laden providers are going to and are, slowly eroding the "open internet" as we know it. Soon, it will become just like our cellular companies, in that if you want ANYTHING beyond their "walled garden" then you are either screwed, or have to pay big. Our ISPs are going to go "walled" and will make you or content providers, THAT ALREADY PAY FOR INTERNET ACCESS pay big, (double billing in this case.)
Does any part of our government care? Hell know! Lobbyist are filling their pockets. Who gives a crap about the American citizen anymore, unless of course, they pay!
I hate the way our Government has been take over buy corporations, lobbyists, and layers that give no shit about anything then the money they can make.
I am for Cooperation's and businesses making money, fine. But to erode and exploit our right to choose (ie: Who and what we want to watch for video on the internet. Such as blocking "Hulu" or "Netflix" for example. _note I said "example!"_ ) .... that is just too much. But I know in the end. The lobbyist and people with the deep pockets are going to win over us consumers so I guess I better get used to this new way of the "future internet" providers. | |
| |  Woody79_00I run Linux am I still a PC?Premium
join:2004-07-08
united state | Re: Internet as you know it... said by Dominokat:...is slowly dying. Our monopolistic, lobbyist, lawyer laden providers are going to and are, slowly eroding the "open internet" as we know it. Soon, it will become just like our cellular companies, in that if you want ANYTHING beyond their "walled garden" then you are either screwed, or have to pay big. Our ISPs are going to go "walled" and will make you or content providers, THAT ALREADY PAY FOR INTERNET ACCESS pay big, (double billing in this case.)
Does any part of our government care? Hell know! Lobbyist are filling their pockets. Who gives a crap about the American citizen anymore, unless of course, they pay!
I hate the way our Government has been take over buy corporations, lobbyists, and layers that give no shit about anything then the money they can make.
I am for Cooperation's and businesses making money, fine. But to erode and exploit our right to choose (ie: Who and what we want to watch for video on the internet. Such as blocking "Hulu" or "Netflix" for example. _note I said "example!"_ ) .... that is just too much. But I know in the end. The lobbyist and people with the deep pockets are going to win over us consumers so I guess I better get used to this new way of the "future internet" providers.
Yes it is sad
however the day any isp puts up a walled garden with a plan for access to certain sites and i must pay extra for others is the day i pull the plug.
I don't have to have the internet, i will enjoy the last few free years of the net while it lasts...but the walls are coming and they day they do is the day i shut it off...simple...
--
Raygen's Basement | |
|
 jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Comcast on the L3 Issue From »blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast···l-3.html
Comcast Comments on Level 3
Posted by Joe Waz, SVP, External Affairs and Public Policy Counsel, in Public Policy
Level 3 has inaccurately portrayed the commercial negotiations between it and Comcast. These discussions have nothing to do with Level 3's desire to distribute different types of network traffic.
Comcast has long established and mutually acceptable commercial arrangements with Level 3's Content Delivery Network (CDN) competitors in delivering the same types of traffic to our customers. Comcast offered Level 3 the same terms it offers to Level 3's CDN competitors for the same traffic. But Level 3 is trying to gain an unfair business advantage over its CDN competitors by claiming it's entitled to be treated differently and trying to force Comcast to give Level 3 unlimited and highly imbalanced traffic and shift all the cost onto Comcast and its customers.
To quantify this, what Level 3 wants is to pressure Comcast into accepting more than a twofold increase in the amount of traffic Level 3 delivers onto Comcast's network -- for free. In other words, Level 3 wants to compete with other CDNs, but pass all the costs of that business onto Comcast and Comcast's customers, instead of Level 3 and its customers.
Level 3's position is simply duplicitous. When another network provider tried to pass traffic onto Level 3 this way, Level 3 said this is not the way settlement-free peering works in the Internet world. When traffic is way out of balance, Level 3 said, it will insist on a commercially negotiated solution.
Now, Level 3 proposes to send traffic to Comcast at a 5:1 ratio over what Comcast sends to Level 3, so Comcast is proposing the same type of commercial solution endorsed by Level 3. Comcast is meeting with Level 3 later this week for that purpose. We are happy to maintain a balanced, no-cost traffic exchange with Level 3. However, when one provider exploits this type of relationship by pushing the burden of massive traffic growth onto the other provider and its customers, we believe this is not fair. To use Level 3's own words:
"To be lasting, business relationships should be mutually beneficial. In cases where the benefit we receive is in line with the benefit we deliver, we will exchange traffic on a settlement-free basis. Contrary to [other ISPs] public statements, reasonable, balanced, and mutually beneficial agreements for the exchange of traffic do not represent a threat to the Internet. They don't represent a threat to anyone other than those trying to get a free ride on someone else's network."
See also »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering
and
»www.comcast.com/peering/
--
JL
Comcast | |
| |
See 11 replies to this post | |
| | Thanks FCC This is a lot in response to the FCC threatening to make internet traffic common carrier status, bringing with it a whole new set of rules.
And this is some of the type of increased costs you can expect to be added to your bill in the end because the FCC want's to play games.
Everyone that passes bits off to the other guy will charge him (a lot like what happens now with every phone call between different "carriers"), and they will be charged back. If the data sent isn't equal, the guy paying up is going to increase his costs to who's using the bits. That means you Mr Google TV watcher.
So, let's review.
Bitching about Bittorrent throttling? Got you download caps.
Bitching about net neutrality? About to increase the cost of your internet. Probably put you on a plan where you pay per megabyte.
Government is fun! And makes even MORE money for companie's at YOUR expense!
Good job US Government! :/ | |
| |  wyo
@bresnan.net | Re: Thanks FCC Good job corrupt polititions, lobyists and greedy corporations would be more accurate. | |
| | | | I don't think i totally agree with that.
Bit Torrent: Thanks to the thieves, thanks to the guys whose computers sat there 24/7 sending out stolen stuff. Yes, I know, it can be used for good, but 90% of bittorrent traffic was not for good and look what it got us.
Don't blame the government, hell, don't even blame the ISPs, blame the thieves.
Now, net neutrality and google TV... Well, if Comcast and the rest would enter the modern age and offer channels ala carte, perhaps those of us who don't watch enough TV to warrant 120usd bills for 300 channels we never watch wouldn't be turning to netflix or googletv or appletv or online watching to see the handful of shows we want to watch.
If Comcast wants me to pay them to watch the shows I like, then let me pick the channels I want to watch and stop shoving 300 crap channels i don't need down my throat.
I don't think it's government making more money for companies, I just think it's the wave of the future. Everyone is stuck on this "All for one price" model, where Comcast enjoys what? 50% 80%? by their own admission 99% of their customers who never come anywhere near the bandwidth they pay for. Comcast loves grandma checking her email for 59 bucks a month. They don't want to have to start charging her the 2 bucks she actually should charge, instead they whine about the 1% who are actually using what they pay for an more.
If we go to a "pay as you use" model, Comcast and the rest are not going to see more profits, at least not in the near future, unless they change their business model to wayyyy over charge for every megabyte downloaded so they can still screw grandma and get Mr. GoogleTv / Netflix to pay the 120 bucks they want for his TV service and the $30 from Mr. Skype for their phone service.
As long as we have cable companies who offer TV and phone service in charge of the gates their competitors need to walk through to deliver their own products, it's going to be more and more gov. intervention.
What we need are ISPs who are ISPs, but oh wait, Comcast Got FREE FREAKING access to run cables in my backyard and until wireless can compete we are stuck with just them, because no one else can run cables.
And that was the governments fault.
I still say, Comcast wants a monopoly? They want to "fairly charge" for bandwidth, then they can start paying all of us who have their cables and their workers in our backyards a "fair access fee" too. | |
|
jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL | Maybe it's time to stop feeding the pig Comcast It is becoming ever so harder for me to justify funding Comcast with my dollars. I'm running out of excuses.
Maybe it's time to cancel. Clearwire just launched in South Florida, good time as any to test them out
On Level3's part, what pussies. Biggest network in the world and CDN, why would you fold when you hold the cards. Lame! | |
| | | | Re: Maybe it's time to stop feeding the pig Comcast I believe that Comcast owns a stake in Clearwire. So you wouldn't be getting completely aware form Comcast. | |
| | | jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL | Re: Maybe it's time to stop feeding the pig Comcast still it doesn't benefit them in the way we do now and have in the past with $160/month bills | |
|
 DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:78 | I know this is just a observation/stupid question... but wasn't congent (another backbone provider like level3) trying the same types of tricks that got them disconnected from a few different networks? | |
| | | | Re: I know this is just a observation/stupid question... said by David:but wasn't congent (another backbone provider like level3) trying the same types of tricks that got them disconnected from a few different networks?
Yep. And one that Cogent was disconnected from is Level3. But that was in the past and Level3 thinks these tricks are good business now.  | |
|
| | WOULD LEVEL3 ALLOW ANOTHER ISP TO DO THIS TO THEM? Seriously? Did Level3 give free end to end network access to Akamai and Limelight who previously carried Netflix traffic? If Netflix is really 20% of Internet traffic you can expect this to be an issue with every one of Level3's peers (of which other CDNs pay today)
Level3 wants to steal Akamai's business by undercutting them and shifting all the network costs to their peers (in turn their customers) | |
| |
See 15 replies to this post | |
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Just the start....Comcast and others will continue adding more and more fees
We will soon be paying much more for access to much less of the web than we used to | |
| | Reviews:
·EPB Fiber Optics
| Re: Just the start....Comcast and others will continue said by Van:adding more and more fees
We will soon be paying much more for access to much less of the web than we used to
Don't forget the $7.00 modem rental fees.
»rate hike | |
| | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Just the start....Comcast and others will continue said by MonkeyLick78:said by Van:adding more and more fees
We will soon be paying much more for access to much less of the web than we used to
Don't forget the $7.00 modem rental fees. » rate hike if you don't want to rent the modem go buy your own. I'll take the 7 bucks as when it dies they give me a new one...
--
Carpe Ductum - "Grab the Tape"
www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com | |
|
| |
|
|
·