4 ms·

Lots of people seem to be forgetting that content providers want to connect to customers just as much as the customers want the content. Comcast:"L3 you want t

by pilom 16y ago

Lots of people seem to be forgetting that content providers want to connect to customers just as much as the customers want the content. Comcast:"L3 you want to connect to all my cable customers fast and you don't want to pay even more to get to me through AT&T so lets make a deal." It makes perfect sense that Comcast should be paid for access to their customers.

anonymous246 16y ago
Even though Comcast customers already pay Comcast to receive those bytes? As others have pointed out above.
- spindritf 16y ago
  Paid magazines often still sell advertising space, same is true for paid cable channels, so it's not unheard of to charge both the "broadcaster" and the "receiver".
  - jordan0day 16y ago
    But that is a model in which the advertises is "subsidizing" the effective cost to the end user. (Whether or not it's an actual subsidy or just a nice bit of profit for the cable network/provider is anyone's guess.) Obviously, without legislation, the internet will end up being no different, with Comcast, AT&T, and ultimately high-traffic sites like espn.com nickel-and-diming each other and end users. Sticking to the principles on which the web was (allegedly?) founded doesn't hold much water in a shareholders meeting. I hate to sound so cynical and resigned to this fate, but left to their own devices this seems like exactly what the big ISP's and sites will do.
    - pilom 16y ago
      I agree that it is very easy for this to lead to a bad situation for customers. But that subsidizing model still applies. You know how much it costs to connect a cable line to a house? That wiring costs 100s-1000s of dollars per house (why FioS went to apartment buildings first). Of course the end users are getting subsidies.
jordan0day 16y ago
"It makes perfect sense that Comcast should be paid for access to their customers." I disagree, heartily. Comcast's customers are paying Comcast for access to the entire internet, not just to the little segment of the network that Comcast owns.
- boredguy8 16y ago
  Exactly this, especially in markets where there isn't consumer choice (which is something I don't see anyone talking about on HN). Conceivably an ISP could charge customers for a connection AND charge providers for access to that base. For instance, magazines charge for both the subscription and the advertisements. However, I can decide if I want Harper's or US Weekly. If one provides value and the other doesn't, I get to pick. With ISPs, the same feature isn't at play: I either use Road Runner or I don't get high-speed bandwidth. At that point, ISPs have a larger obligation to protect the customers by not doing things like what Comcast is doing.
brown9-2 16y ago
And the bullshit part about this is that most of Comcast's customers have little choice in being a customer. They're trapped and have no ability to choose.

by pilom 16y ago

anonymous246 16y ago

Even though Comcast customers already pay Comcast to receive those bytes? As others have pointed out above.

spindritf 16y ago
Paid magazines often still sell advertising space, same is true for paid cable channels, so it's not unheard of to charge both the "broadcaster" and the "receiver".
- jordan0day 16y ago
  But that is a model in which the advertises is "subsidizing" the effective cost to the end user. (Whether or not it's an actual subsidy or just a nice bit of profit for the cable network/provider is anyone's guess.) Obviously, without legislation, the internet will end up being no different, with Comcast, AT&T, and ultimately high-traffic sites like espn.com nickel-and-diming each other and end users. Sticking to the principles on which the web was (allegedly?) founded doesn't hold much water in a shareholders meeting. I hate to sound so cynical and resigned to this fate, but left to their own devices this seems like exactly what the big ISP's and sites will do.
  - pilom 16y ago
    I agree that it is very easy for this to lead to a bad situation for customers. But that subsidizing model still applies. You know how much it costs to connect a cable line to a house? That wiring costs 100s-1000s of dollars per house (why FioS went to apartment buildings first). Of course the end users are getting subsidies.

jordan0day 16y ago

"It makes perfect sense that Comcast should be paid for access to their customers." I disagree, heartily. Comcast's customers are paying Comcast for access to the entire internet, not just to the little segment of the network that Comcast owns.

boredguy8 16y ago
Exactly this, especially in markets where there isn't consumer choice (which is something I don't see anyone talking about on HN). Conceivably an ISP could charge customers for a connection AND charge providers for access to that base. For instance, magazines charge for both the subscription and the advertisements. However, I can decide if I want Harper's or US Weekly. If one provides value and the other doesn't, I get to pick. With ISPs, the same feature isn't at play: I either use Road Runner or I don't get high-speed bandwidth. At that point, ISPs have a larger obligation to protect the customers by not doing things like what Comcast is doing.

brown9-2 16y ago

And the bullshit part about this is that most of Comcast's customers have little choice in being a customer. They're trapped and have no ability to choose.