6 ms·

Limiting bandwidth is one thing. My local Cable company is proish-NN (they have publicly stated that they have no plans to implement prioritization even if the

Limiting bandwidth is one thing. My local Cable company is proish-NN (they have publicly stated that they have no plans to implement prioritization even if the FCC passed this vote), they still impose data caps and network management practices on consumer plans. While I hate these practices (hence paying extra for a business connection), that's not what the NN issue is about. Comcast refused to upgrade their peering connections to the networks used by Netflix (Level3 I believe was one of them?) to extort money from them. Netflix doesn't get service from Comcast, yet Comcast decided it could charge them to get access to their customers. The internet is built upon no-fee exchanges between Tier 1 providers, but since Comcast (and some others like CenturyLink, Verizon, AT&T) is both a consumer ISP AND a major transit provider they try to make arguments like "you're sending us more traffic than we send you, this isn't fair" even though their customers are the ones requesting the data. It's total bullshit, and they will milk this for everything it's worth.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
As with any other system where a product is delivered over someone else's product, a negotiation will take place, money will change hands, and business will resume. That's normal. Google and Netflix wanted to implement rules prohibiting a perfectly normal transaction in business because it would cost them money, and framed it as the public good. I'm entirely okay with the two giants having to pay more, it provides Google and Netflix's competitors additional room to breathe and innovate.
- rev_bird 9y ago
  >As with any other system where a product is delivered over someone else's product, a negotiation will take place, money will change hands, and business will resume. I don't think this is always true, is it? The price of a phone call isn't contingent on the contents of the call. Regarding the internet, though, I'd feel better if there was any guarantee at all that these "negotiations" would be on a level playing field. If you're a startup that wants to complete with some Comcast streaming service, the Comcast ISP side of things can kill you day one. There's no negotiation possible when one party has all the power. Maybe that's the system working as intended, but if that's the case, then the system creeps me out.
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    If there was one company that was making 30%+ of calls at peak times, you bet there would be negotiations.
    - rev_bird 9y ago
      That's a good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.
- nkassis 9y ago
  Actually the competitors would have trouble competing with Google and Netflix in this scenario due to the fact that they would be harder for them to beat out what Google and Netflix would pay. This also ignores the fact that consumers have paid the ISP for general internet access, no where did it stipulate some services you want to access should pay extra for us to carry their data to you.
- raesene9 9y ago
  LOL that's not what's going to happen here. You're right Google and Netflix et al will cut a deal with the major US ISPs to get their traffic delivered, they have the money to do so. But innovation... the next up and coming netflix (or any other data heavy service) isn't going to have a good time. Start-ups can't afford to pay for the same as rich incumbants, so they have no chance. Why would a US ISP agree to carry a data heavy service without recompense now, when they can charge incumbants with deep pockets for the same bandwidth. This seems very likely to hurt innovation , not help it.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    The mistaken concept that startups would have to pay "for the same" seems to hinge on not understanding that bandwidth cost is relative to bandwidth use. Nobody else even sits on the same order of magnitude as Google and Netflix: These are the only two companies who will need to pay extra. (Combined, Google and Netflix together account for up to 70-80% of all US Internet traffic.) If anyone else was ever to be charged extra, comparatively, it would be ridiculously minimal in comparison.
    - munk-a 9y ago
      You are working on an assumption that any charges would be based off of usage in a logical manner. In reality Netflix might offer to pay a little more to comcast if comcast is willing to up the costs on their competitors, or other such arrangement. The problem with removing NN is that we're inviting oli/monolopy forming to occur, which the free market cannot deal with.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Title II actually exempts telecoms from FTC regulation. Rather than pushing for special-cased laws to mandate how the Internet is operated (which bans a lot of things I don't think are justifiable to actually ban), we should be pushing for a reawakening of antitrust enforcement. Anticompetitive behavior is already illegal, and the tools already exist, in law, to deal with it. Let's get the FTC back in the business of busting up monopolies and fining anticompetitive behavior, regardless of what industry they are. Anticompetitive behavior is a problem that exists well beyond just telecoms, and getting back into trustbusting would do wonders across the board for consumers. Google, one of net neutrality's principal backers, obviously is not fond of this approach.
rhino369 9y ago
Comcast isn't a Tier 1 provider. Cogent, the netflix ISP at issue, claims to be, but that is very debatable. The internet isn't built on two T2 or T3 providers doing no-fee exchanges. Net Neutrality doesn't prevent peering disputes.
- snuxoll 9y ago
  Comcast is by all intents a tier 1 provider. They have a huge national backbone they own and operate, have settlement-free interconnects with many other providers, etc. Just because a majority of their revenue (as far as data transit is concerned) comes from consumer services doesn't change anything. You're right NN doesn't necessarily solve peering disputes, but one could argue extortion like this falls right in line with it (under a proper regulatory framework crap like this wouldn't fly, "no we aren't throttling netflix, we're in a peering dispute" would be seen through by the courts pretty quickly when documentation of them demanding money from netflix is submitted).
  - eggnet 9y ago
    Major CDNs don't use Tier 1 providers to reach major eyeball networks in the United States. There are no ISPs who have sufficient capacity to the other networks. I'll cover why later. Netflix is what... 37% of Internet traffic? They aren't sending anything to Comcast other than Comcast traffic, guaranteed. Same with Verizon, AT&T, Cox, etc. Also, Comcast's backbone isn't large enough for someone like Netflix to inefficiently deliver data. Netflix is delivering the data locally, not using Comcast's national backbone. So sure... Comcast might offer "Tier 1" internet services, but they don't have enough connectivity to other ISPs to matter to major CDNs. Why? Because the other major eyeball networks in the US employ the same tactics as Comcast! They all want to force major CDNs to connect directly, for different reasons. Some ISPs do it to avoid paying "tier 1" internet providers, allowing CDNs to peer settlement free. Others do it to extort CDNs.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

As with any other system where a product is delivered over someone else's product, a negotiation will take place, money will change hands, and business will resume. That's normal. Google and Netflix wanted to implement rules prohibiting a perfectly normal transaction in business because it would cost them money, and framed it as the public good. I'm entirely okay with the two giants having to pay more, it provides Google and Netflix's competitors additional room to breathe and innovate.

rev_bird 9y ago
>As with any other system where a product is delivered over someone else's product, a negotiation will take place, money will change hands, and business will resume. I don't think this is always true, is it? The price of a phone call isn't contingent on the contents of the call. Regarding the internet, though, I'd feel better if there was any guarantee at all that these "negotiations" would be on a level playing field. If you're a startup that wants to complete with some Comcast streaming service, the Comcast ISP side of things can kill you day one. There's no negotiation possible when one party has all the power. Maybe that's the system working as intended, but if that's the case, then the system creeps me out.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  If there was one company that was making 30%+ of calls at peak times, you bet there would be negotiations.
  - rev_bird 9y ago
    That's a good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.
nkassis 9y ago
Actually the competitors would have trouble competing with Google and Netflix in this scenario due to the fact that they would be harder for them to beat out what Google and Netflix would pay. This also ignores the fact that consumers have paid the ISP for general internet access, no where did it stipulate some services you want to access should pay extra for us to carry their data to you.
raesene9 9y ago
LOL that's not what's going to happen here. You're right Google and Netflix et al will cut a deal with the major US ISPs to get their traffic delivered, they have the money to do so. But innovation... the next up and coming netflix (or any other data heavy service) isn't going to have a good time. Start-ups can't afford to pay for the same as rich incumbants, so they have no chance. Why would a US ISP agree to carry a data heavy service without recompense now, when they can charge incumbants with deep pockets for the same bandwidth. This seems very likely to hurt innovation , not help it.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  The mistaken concept that startups would have to pay "for the same" seems to hinge on not understanding that bandwidth cost is relative to bandwidth use. Nobody else even sits on the same order of magnitude as Google and Netflix: These are the only two companies who will need to pay extra. (Combined, Google and Netflix together account for up to 70-80% of all US Internet traffic.) If anyone else was ever to be charged extra, comparatively, it would be ridiculously minimal in comparison.
  - munk-a 9y ago
    You are working on an assumption that any charges would be based off of usage in a logical manner. In reality Netflix might offer to pay a little more to comcast if comcast is willing to up the costs on their competitors, or other such arrangement. The problem with removing NN is that we're inviting oli/monolopy forming to occur, which the free market cannot deal with.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      Title II actually exempts telecoms from FTC regulation. Rather than pushing for special-cased laws to mandate how the Internet is operated (which bans a lot of things I don't think are justifiable to actually ban), we should be pushing for a reawakening of antitrust enforcement. Anticompetitive behavior is already illegal, and the tools already exist, in law, to deal with it. Let's get the FTC back in the business of busting up monopolies and fining anticompetitive behavior, regardless of what industry they are. Anticompetitive behavior is a problem that exists well beyond just telecoms, and getting back into trustbusting would do wonders across the board for consumers. Google, one of net neutrality's principal backers, obviously is not fond of this approach.

rhino369 9y ago

Comcast isn't a Tier 1 provider. Cogent, the netflix ISP at issue, claims to be, but that is very debatable. The internet isn't built on two T2 or T3 providers doing no-fee exchanges. Net Neutrality doesn't prevent peering disputes.

snuxoll 9y ago
Comcast is by all intents a tier 1 provider. They have a huge national backbone they own and operate, have settlement-free interconnects with many other providers, etc. Just because a majority of their revenue (as far as data transit is concerned) comes from consumer services doesn't change anything. You're right NN doesn't necessarily solve peering disputes, but one could argue extortion like this falls right in line with it (under a proper regulatory framework crap like this wouldn't fly, "no we aren't throttling netflix, we're in a peering dispute" would be seen through by the courts pretty quickly when documentation of them demanding money from netflix is submitted).
- eggnet 9y ago
  Major CDNs don't use Tier 1 providers to reach major eyeball networks in the United States. There are no ISPs who have sufficient capacity to the other networks. I'll cover why later. Netflix is what... 37% of Internet traffic? They aren't sending anything to Comcast other than Comcast traffic, guaranteed. Same with Verizon, AT&T, Cox, etc. Also, Comcast's backbone isn't large enough for someone like Netflix to inefficiently deliver data. Netflix is delivering the data locally, not using Comcast's national backbone. So sure... Comcast might offer "Tier 1" internet services, but they don't have enough connectivity to other ISPs to matter to major CDNs. Why? Because the other major eyeball networks in the US employ the same tactics as Comcast! They all want to force major CDNs to connect directly, for different reasons. Some ISPs do it to avoid paying "tier 1" internet providers, allowing CDNs to peer settlement free. Others do it to extort CDNs.