7 ms·

I think your issue is here: "Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or Level 3) tries to

I think your issue is here: "Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or Level 3) tries to push more data through that, which causes congestion, it seems like a contractual fact that Comcast is either holding up their end of the bargain or not." Level 3 doesn't buy the connection from Comcast. Comcast buys a connection from Level 3. Comcast needs to do this because they're selling a connection to the "Internet" to their customers, not a connection to the servers Comcast owns, and to other Comcast customers. Comcast's paying customers are requesting data from the Internet, data that Comcast doesn't have on its network. To get there those bits travel over Level 3's (or Cogent, or another major provider) network. The issue at hand is not one of Level 3 (or Netflix) trying to PUSH data onto Comcast's network. It is one of Comcast's customers trying to PULL data from Level 3, over a connection that Comcast refuses to upgrade.

exelius 12y ago
This would all be fine and good if Level3 didn't make money from selling bandwidth. Comcast doesn't have to buy a connection from Level3; Level3 will give Comcast a link for free because they know they can turn around and charge their own customers for access to it. Comcast is really just cutting out the middleman here; and that scares Level3.
- mixologic 12y ago
  But they cant cut out the middleman. Comcast doesnt have a direct connection to netflix or anywhere else on the internet. I think Level 3 should straight up shut off their peering agreement with comcast and watch how all the last mile customers blame comcast for the issue, until such time as comcast stops playing games.
  - exelius 12y ago
    But the Internet doesn't work that way: if Level3 shut off their peering with Comcast, Level3's customers would just find another transit provider and route around L3 because those companies are still in business to make money. They don't care about squabbles between Comcast and L3; they just want their monetized traffic to get delivered. The last-mile customers probably wouldn't even notice; but Level3's customers would likely be forced to pay more for transit from another company. But they would still pay.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    That assumes they blame Comcast. Maybe they blame Netflix for not working. If you get to set the narrative such that one side or the other as the only ones who gain from the interconnection, this becomes trivial, but the hard facts are that both sides want the interconnection, but to try as hard to pretend that the other side is the more desperate one in the deal.
    - mixologic 12y ago
      Comcasts customers pay Comcast for service. If every website they went to didnt work, they'd be calling, and blaming, Comcast.
  - pdonis 12y ago
    > Comcast doesnt have a direct connection to netflix They do now that a deal has been worked out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/23/comcasts-deal-with-netflix-makes-network-neutrality-obsolete/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/23...
    - mixologic 12y ago
      All of their customers will still have to go through middlemen. Thats how the internet functions.
      - pdonis 12y ago
        > All of their customers will still have to go through middlemen. Not if they're watching Netflix. As I read the deal, Comcast and Netflix will be directly connected, so if you're a Comcast customer watching Netflix, your packets only traverse Comcast's and Netflix's networks; no third parties are involved.
- cortesoft 12y ago
  They could only cut out the middle man if they built their own global network; they don't have any fiber running to Europe or Asia or elsewhere. If there were no middle man, Comcast customers could only reach other Comcast customers.
  - exelius 12y ago
    But they are cutting out the middleman with respect to large traffic sources. Netflix won't be the only one to pay for an interconnect; AWS, Google and Facebook will likely follow suit shortly. Take that business away from the transit providers and it hurts.
    - cortesoft 12y ago
      Someone is still going to have to send that data across the ocean and other long distances.
wdewind 12y ago
Thanks a lot for your response (and to the others who responded as well, appreciate it!). What you're saying makes sense, but just to play devils advocate... Disclaimer: The blog I'm about to post was linked from Comcast's blog. They claim he is independent, I know nothing about him. "Netflix could use multiple providers to connect to ISPs and could also use third party CDNs like Akamai, EdgeCast and Limelight, who are already connected to ISPs, to deliver their traffic. In fact, this is how Netflix delivered 100% of their traffic for many, many years, using third-party CDNs. Netflix likes to make it sound like there is only one way to deliver videos on the Internet when in fact, there are multiple ways."[1] It would seem to me that if Comcast is using all the bandwidth they've purchased from Level 3 than it's a simple reality for them that they'll need to increase that bandwidth or they'll see reduced service. I don't see why this is explicitly either side's problem. It seems like it would be great if they could figure out a mutually beneficial situation, but I guess I fail to see the moral hazard. If Comcast doesn't want to upgrade their network who cares? Barring, of course, the monopoly argument, I see no moral hazard here. I also see no reason that this has anything to do with net neutrality. It seems like Netflix is simply so big they have to act more like an ISP than they used to. [1] http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/03/netflix-level-3-telling-half-story-wont-detail-changes-want-net-neutrality.html http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/03/netflix-level-3-telli...
- xhrpost 12y ago
  If the ISP is letting a connection become saturated in order to place pressure on a third party provider to provide settlement, they are doing so at the cost of any other providers running over those trunks. Since switching to AT&T, I've noticed decreased Netflix performance and sometimes Imgur loads like I'm on dial-up again. I haven't checked the routes but it has me wondering if it's shared congestion. To your point, I'm not sure this is a moral hazard yet but it does seem like one of those things that could be very bad for the customer and the ISP can simply get away with it due to lack of competition.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    I have two net connections, and both are generally reliable, but I've noticed that the DSL connection (over Windstream) is very slow for certain sites like imgur and tumblr and AWS, so I've set those to use the cable modem (Time Warner) connection, where they work great. Since I have 2 connections I definitely have competition in my area. (Wireless is another option.) So I don't get why if a connection has issues, it's always the DSL one, and always with certain other sites.
preinheimer 12y ago
Part of the issue is the monopoly most broadband providers have in the US and Canada. If you had two truly distinct cable options, say Comcast and TascCom. Your friends with Comcast say Netflix sux, low quality, lots of problems. Your friends with TascCom say netflix is awesome, great HD content, too bad there's only like 8 3D movies! You'll sign up for TascCom. Comcast's board will get angry they're losing customers, and fix their interconnects. But it's all a dream, there is no TascCom, there's only Comcast.
- wdewind 12y ago
  Yeah, this does seem to be a core issue. How can we make it easier for people to start last-mile ISPs? It seems like a pretty capital intensive business to get involved in :)
  - jeffasinger 12y ago
    The core issue isn't at the last mile, but in connecting a last mile network to the internet? Maybe we make Cable companies share their last mile networks like we did with DSL?
    - rayiner 12y ago
      > Maybe we make Cable companies share their last mile networks like we did with DSL? Which killed investment in DSL. Who wants to spend billions on infrastructure they are forced to lease out at wholesale rates to competitors?
      - bryanlarsen 12y ago
        Yet somehow we manage to spend trillions of dollars on streets, sewers and other infrastructure
        GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
        For now.
spindritf 12y ago
You cannot pull anything from the Internet. Merely request that someone sends data to you. EDIT: I understand it's an emotional issue but it's true. You can only send packets and hope others will talk to you.
- dasil003 12y ago
  You are downvoted not because of emotion, but because your comment is not germane to the discussion. The reason the GP phrased it the way he did is to make it clear whose volition is at play in the data transfer. The technical details at the TCP level couldn't matter less.
wpietri 12y ago
> Comcast needs to do this because they're selling a connection to the "Internet" to their customers, not a connection to the servers Comcast owns, and to other Comcast customers. Only, I'm sure, because it's untenable to do that. Yet. Cable execs really, really like their model of charging people for channels; it lets them extract maximum revenue. If they can do that with the Internet, they will. It may be difficult to do that on the consumer side yet, but what they're doing with Netflix is basically a complicated way to sneak more Comcast charges on to their customer's bills. In this case, via the Netfilx bill.

exelius 12y ago

This would all be fine and good if Level3 didn't make money from selling bandwidth. Comcast doesn't have to buy a connection from Level3; Level3 will give Comcast a link for free because they know they can turn around and charge their own customers for access to it. Comcast is really just cutting out the middleman here; and that scares Level3.

mixologic 12y ago
But they cant cut out the middleman. Comcast doesnt have a direct connection to netflix or anywhere else on the internet. I think Level 3 should straight up shut off their peering agreement with comcast and watch how all the last mile customers blame comcast for the issue, until such time as comcast stops playing games.
- exelius 12y ago
  But the Internet doesn't work that way: if Level3 shut off their peering with Comcast, Level3's customers would just find another transit provider and route around L3 because those companies are still in business to make money. They don't care about squabbles between Comcast and L3; they just want their monetized traffic to get delivered. The last-mile customers probably wouldn't even notice; but Level3's customers would likely be forced to pay more for transit from another company. But they would still pay.
- danielweber 12y ago
  That assumes they blame Comcast. Maybe they blame Netflix for not working. If you get to set the narrative such that one side or the other as the only ones who gain from the interconnection, this becomes trivial, but the hard facts are that both sides want the interconnection, but to try as hard to pretend that the other side is the more desperate one in the deal.
  - mixologic 12y ago
    Comcasts customers pay Comcast for service. If every website they went to didnt work, they'd be calling, and blaming, Comcast.
- pdonis 12y ago
  > Comcast doesnt have a direct connection to netflix They do now that a deal has been worked out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/23/comcasts-deal-with-netflix-makes-network-neutrality-obsolete/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/23...
  - mixologic 12y ago
    All of their customers will still have to go through middlemen. Thats how the internet functions.
    - pdonis 12y ago
      > All of their customers will still have to go through middlemen. Not if they're watching Netflix. As I read the deal, Comcast and Netflix will be directly connected, so if you're a Comcast customer watching Netflix, your packets only traverse Comcast's and Netflix's networks; no third parties are involved.
cortesoft 12y ago
They could only cut out the middle man if they built their own global network; they don't have any fiber running to Europe or Asia or elsewhere. If there were no middle man, Comcast customers could only reach other Comcast customers.
- exelius 12y ago
  But they are cutting out the middleman with respect to large traffic sources. Netflix won't be the only one to pay for an interconnect; AWS, Google and Facebook will likely follow suit shortly. Take that business away from the transit providers and it hurts.
  - cortesoft 12y ago
    Someone is still going to have to send that data across the ocean and other long distances.

wdewind 12y ago

Thanks a lot for your response (and to the others who responded as well, appreciate it!). What you're saying makes sense, but just to play devils advocate... Disclaimer: The blog I'm about to post was linked from Comcast's blog. They claim he is independent, I know nothing about him. "Netflix could use multiple providers to connect to ISPs and could also use third party CDNs like Akamai, EdgeCast and Limelight, who are already connected to ISPs, to deliver their traffic. In fact, this is how Netflix delivered 100% of their traffic for many, many years, using third-party CDNs. Netflix likes to make it sound like there is only one way to deliver videos on the Internet when in fact, there are multiple ways."[1] It would seem to me that if Comcast is using all the bandwidth they've purchased from Level 3 than it's a simple reality for them that they'll need to increase that bandwidth or they'll see reduced service. I don't see why this is explicitly either side's problem. It seems like it would be great if they could figure out a mutually beneficial situation, but I guess I fail to see the moral hazard. If Comcast doesn't want to upgrade their network who cares? Barring, of course, the monopoly argument, I see no moral hazard here. I also see no reason that this has anything to do with net neutrality. It seems like Netflix is simply so big they have to act more like an ISP than they used to. [1] http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/03/netflix-level-3-telling-half-story-wont-detail-changes-want-net-neutrality.html http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/03/netflix-level-3-telli...

xhrpost 12y ago
If the ISP is letting a connection become saturated in order to place pressure on a third party provider to provide settlement, they are doing so at the cost of any other providers running over those trunks. Since switching to AT&T, I've noticed decreased Netflix performance and sometimes Imgur loads like I'm on dial-up again. I haven't checked the routes but it has me wondering if it's shared congestion. To your point, I'm not sure this is a moral hazard yet but it does seem like one of those things that could be very bad for the customer and the ISP can simply get away with it due to lack of competition.
- danielweber 12y ago
  I have two net connections, and both are generally reliable, but I've noticed that the DSL connection (over Windstream) is very slow for certain sites like imgur and tumblr and AWS, so I've set those to use the cable modem (Time Warner) connection, where they work great. Since I have 2 connections I definitely have competition in my area. (Wireless is another option.) So I don't get why if a connection has issues, it's always the DSL one, and always with certain other sites.

preinheimer 12y ago

Part of the issue is the monopoly most broadband providers have in the US and Canada. If you had two truly distinct cable options, say Comcast and TascCom. Your friends with Comcast say Netflix sux, low quality, lots of problems. Your friends with TascCom say netflix is awesome, great HD content, too bad there's only like 8 3D movies! You'll sign up for TascCom. Comcast's board will get angry they're losing customers, and fix their interconnects. But it's all a dream, there is no TascCom, there's only Comcast.

wdewind 12y ago
Yeah, this does seem to be a core issue. How can we make it easier for people to start last-mile ISPs? It seems like a pretty capital intensive business to get involved in :)
- jeffasinger 12y ago
  The core issue isn't at the last mile, but in connecting a last mile network to the internet? Maybe we make Cable companies share their last mile networks like we did with DSL?
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > Maybe we make Cable companies share their last mile networks like we did with DSL? Which killed investment in DSL. Who wants to spend billions on infrastructure they are forced to lease out at wholesale rates to competitors?
    - bryanlarsen 12y ago
      Yet somehow we manage to spend trillions of dollars on streets, sewers and other infrastructure
      - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
        For now.

spindritf 12y ago

You cannot pull anything from the Internet. Merely request that someone sends data to you. EDIT: I understand it's an emotional issue but it's true. You can only send packets and hope others will talk to you.

dasil003 12y ago
You are downvoted not because of emotion, but because your comment is not germane to the discussion. The reason the GP phrased it the way he did is to make it clear whose volition is at play in the data transfer. The technical details at the TCP level couldn't matter less.

wpietri 12y ago

> Comcast needs to do this because they're selling a connection to the "Internet" to their customers, not a connection to the servers Comcast owns, and to other Comcast customers. Only, I'm sure, because it's untenable to do that. Yet. Cable execs really, really like their model of charging people for channels; it lets them extract maximum revenue. If they can do that with the Internet, they will. It may be difficult to do that on the consumer side yet, but what they're doing with Netflix is basically a complicated way to sneak more Comcast charges on to their customer's bills. In this case, via the Netfilx bill.