3 ms·
That's a great link, though a little confusing to me. Here's what I understand, with fake dollar amounts: CDN services need to be priced at $2. Netflix used
by justinsb 15y ago
That's a great link, though a little confusing to me. Here's what I understand, with fake dollar amounts:
CDN services need to be priced at $2.
Netflix used to use Akamai; Netflix paid Akamai $3, Akamai paid Comcast $1, and everyone was happy.
Netflix now moved to Level 3, who they pay $1, and Level 3 demand $1 from Comcast (because L3 makes a loss if they don't charge $2). Netflix saved $2, so is happy. Comcast is unhappy, because they're out that same $2.
So now Comcast is crying foul and looking at ways to recoup that $2. Netflix is engaging in a PR battle, but really caused all this by switching from Akamai to Level 3.
Is that accurate?
- luser001 15y ago> and Level 3 demand $1 from Comcast What? The closest I've heard is that Level 3 wants Comcast to charge $0 under their pre-existing peering agreement. Comcast claimed Netflix's traffic isn't covered by the agreement and asked for extra fees. Level 3 complied (under protest). This new thing Reed Hastings is talking about is different from that issue. AFAIK.
- justinsb 15y agoThe voxel article says it, but the GigaOM article it links to spells it out: "Akamai and Limelight pay Comcast to deliver their traffic to their end users. Level 3, on the other hand, is paid by Comcast, ostensibly for transit, but now, seemingly, to deliver traffic that Level 3 has already been paid for — by Netflix." I feel that Netflix is trying to rally the net-neutrality army to come to its aid, but may not be an entirely neutral player here.
- wmf 15y agoThese articles were written while the negotiations were going on. I'm pretty sure Level 3 is now paying Comcast.