6 ms·

Maybe I should send the Senator my comment on Comcast's blog when they posted their letter complaining about Netflix, which did not get approved by their modera

Maybe I should send the Senator my comment on Comcast's blog when they posted their letter complaining about Netflix, which did not get approved by their moderator: ==== I am a Comcast residential HSI customer, and have many clients who are business HSI Comcast customers. At the same time, I do maintain servers in my own racks at a datacenter. What is not mentioned in this letter, is that Comcast is already being paid - by me, and by every other customer, for access to the content. Note that Comcast has never said that the Level3/Netflix issue is about users exceeding their allotted bandwidth (currently at about 250GB/month for residential); presumably, were a Comcast user to use 249GB of bandwidth downloading cute pictures of cats, Comcast would have no objection. It appears to be the specific issue that Netflix is a possible competitor to Comcast's TV business, that somehow causes Comcast to decide that there is a problem. Understand this: every Netflix video to be streamed, is specifically requested by a Comcast user, operating under the Comcast-advertised "High Speed Internet" service and presumably within the bandwidth caps that Comcast's own contract allows. That Comcast presumes to have the right to limit, modify, or decide for me which pieces of the Internet I can have access to, removes Comcast's common carrier protections, calls into question the truth of your (meaning Comcast) advertisements for the HSI service, and raises the issue of whether Comcast is dealing in bad faith with each and every Comcast HSI subscriber. ====

mikeryan 16y ago
I'm probably going to get downmodded for this because its unpopular to side with the big guys. But.. The Netflix/Level3/Comcast dustup was not a net neutrality issue. It was a peering disagreement. Comcast pays Level3 to be a transit provider, so they pay to connect to Level3's network. Traditional CDN's such as Akamai and Limelight pay Comcast in order to get a direct pipe into Comcast's network. Level3 in the meantime was charging Netflix as a CDN since they already had a direct pipe into Comcast's network as a transit provider. So in essence Comcast was paying Level3 to act as a CDN as opposed to the other way around. While Level3 quickly screamed "Net Neutrality" when Comcast wanted to fix the agreement, that was just a smokescreen for a peering issue. EDIT (Shimon has covered this as well http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2121472 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2121472)
- mattmcknight 16y ago
  Peering agreements have been falling apart for years. There are numerous cases where it is not clear, even to a disinterested observer, who should be paying whom. If we get net neutrality or the like, I think at some level the thing that will ultimately disappear is the unlimited traffic packages available to the consumer as the heavily connected are being subsidized by those paying for a high speed connection but not sucking large amounts of data. If the ISPs can't charge the providers of those packets, they are going to have to charge the people requesting them.
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  The reality is that Comcast never raises the issue over transit to e.g. ICanHasCheezburger. Do you not see that Netflix competes directly with the Comcast sister offering of cable TV and video on demand? This is a test case to determine how to "tax" every content provider for access to Comcast customers; who as I mention, are already paying for access to the Internet.
  - mikeryan 16y ago
    Comcast never raised this issue with Netflix specifically. They raised it with everyone using Level3 as a CDN, if ICanHasCheezburger is using Level3 as a CDN then it got raised. Netflix's volume of traffic over Level3 is likely what made it a pressing concern. I'm well aware of Comcast's dislike of Netflix. Probably better then most. But a vast amount of data being thrown around on these networks is video, most of it by Netflix. While there are net neutrality concerns there, there are also legit network stability and infrastructure concerns.
    - patrickgzill 16y ago
      You say "there are also legit network stability and infrastructure concerns" I would like to ask, "how do you know this"? Also, would reference my original point - "Comcast has a residential cap of 250GB/month as being acceptable usage by a customer" - if a Netflix user is staying within that limit, and if Comcast is having problems - they deliberately under-engineered their network, yes?
dantheman 16y ago
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Do you think Akamai should pay to transfer data to Comcast? (They Do) If yes, why shouldn't L3? If not, then how should peering agreements work?
- jbri 16y ago
  Interestingly, if Akamai had decided to terminate their peering agreement with Comcast and route their traffic through Level 3 instead, the situation from Comcast's end would be basically the same. Would that still be justification to cry foul? Would Level 3 be abusing their situation as a top-level transit provider by ... providing transit?
wmf 16y ago
It appears to be the specific issue that Netflix is a possible competitor to Comcast's TV business, that somehow causes Comcast to decide that there is a problem. Actually, I think Comcast's plan is to increase profit margins by squeezing everyone, regardless of what business they're in. Hence the deliberately congested Tata transit links. removes Comcast's common carrier protections Sigh. Common carrier never applied to ISPs to begin with.
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  The congested Tata links are a problem. I am close to dumping Comcast and going with the other monopoly (DSL via telco) but am not sure how switching between two companies in what is essentially a duopoly helps things... They are not common carriers, but, they are given protection similar to common carrier in both the DMCA and certain other laws/regs that cover similar ground.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    They are not common carriers, but, they are given protection similar to common carrier in both the DMCA and certain other laws/regs that cover similar ground. The protection is similar but the concept is completely different. Common carrier is based on providing a public or general service and, in return, being indemnified from certain damages. ISPs have no such requirements or responsibilities, they just have complete indemnity. You seem to think they have a responsibility to not discriminate. They don't. They never have. That's what net neutrality is trying to do, but until then they're basically free and clear.

mikeryan 16y ago

I'm probably going to get downmodded for this because its unpopular to side with the big guys. But.. The Netflix/Level3/Comcast dustup was not a net neutrality issue. It was a peering disagreement. Comcast pays Level3 to be a transit provider, so they pay to connect to Level3's network. Traditional CDN's such as Akamai and Limelight pay Comcast in order to get a direct pipe into Comcast's network. Level3 in the meantime was charging Netflix as a CDN since they already had a direct pipe into Comcast's network as a transit provider. So in essence Comcast was paying Level3 to act as a CDN as opposed to the other way around. While Level3 quickly screamed "Net Neutrality" when Comcast wanted to fix the agreement, that was just a smokescreen for a peering issue. EDIT (Shimon has covered this as well http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2121472 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2121472)

mattmcknight 16y ago
Peering agreements have been falling apart for years. There are numerous cases where it is not clear, even to a disinterested observer, who should be paying whom. If we get net neutrality or the like, I think at some level the thing that will ultimately disappear is the unlimited traffic packages available to the consumer as the heavily connected are being subsidized by those paying for a high speed connection but not sucking large amounts of data. If the ISPs can't charge the providers of those packets, they are going to have to charge the people requesting them.
patrickgzill 16y ago
The reality is that Comcast never raises the issue over transit to e.g. ICanHasCheezburger. Do you not see that Netflix competes directly with the Comcast sister offering of cable TV and video on demand? This is a test case to determine how to "tax" every content provider for access to Comcast customers; who as I mention, are already paying for access to the Internet.
- mikeryan 16y ago
  Comcast never raised this issue with Netflix specifically. They raised it with everyone using Level3 as a CDN, if ICanHasCheezburger is using Level3 as a CDN then it got raised. Netflix's volume of traffic over Level3 is likely what made it a pressing concern. I'm well aware of Comcast's dislike of Netflix. Probably better then most. But a vast amount of data being thrown around on these networks is video, most of it by Netflix. While there are net neutrality concerns there, there are also legit network stability and infrastructure concerns.
  - patrickgzill 16y ago
    You say "there are also legit network stability and infrastructure concerns" I would like to ask, "how do you know this"? Also, would reference my original point - "Comcast has a residential cap of 250GB/month as being acceptable usage by a customer" - if a Netflix user is staying within that limit, and if Comcast is having problems - they deliberately under-engineered their network, yes?

dantheman 16y ago

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Do you think Akamai should pay to transfer data to Comcast? (They Do) If yes, why shouldn't L3? If not, then how should peering agreements work?

jbri 16y ago
Interestingly, if Akamai had decided to terminate their peering agreement with Comcast and route their traffic through Level 3 instead, the situation from Comcast's end would be basically the same. Would that still be justification to cry foul? Would Level 3 be abusing their situation as a top-level transit provider by ... providing transit?

wmf 16y ago

It appears to be the specific issue that Netflix is a possible competitor to Comcast's TV business, that somehow causes Comcast to decide that there is a problem. Actually, I think Comcast's plan is to increase profit margins by squeezing everyone, regardless of what business they're in. Hence the deliberately congested Tata transit links. removes Comcast's common carrier protections Sigh. Common carrier never applied to ISPs to begin with.

patrickgzill 16y ago
The congested Tata links are a problem. I am close to dumping Comcast and going with the other monopoly (DSL via telco) but am not sure how switching between two companies in what is essentially a duopoly helps things... They are not common carriers, but, they are given protection similar to common carrier in both the DMCA and certain other laws/regs that cover similar ground.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  They are not common carriers, but, they are given protection similar to common carrier in both the DMCA and certain other laws/regs that cover similar ground. The protection is similar but the concept is completely different. Common carrier is based on providing a public or general service and, in return, being indemnified from certain damages. ISPs have no such requirements or responsibilities, they just have complete indemnity. You seem to think they have a responsibility to not discriminate. They don't. They never have. That's what net neutrality is trying to do, but until then they're basically free and clear.