Slashdot Mirror


Level 3 Shaken Down By Comcast Over Video Streaming

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like the gloves are really coming off; Level 3 Communications had to pony up an undisclosed amount of cash to keep Netflix streaming to Comcast customers. Perhaps now the FCC might actually do something to ensure that the internet remains open. Level 3's Chief Legal Officer, Thomas Stortz, said: 'Level 3 believes Comcast's current position violates the spirit and letter of the FCC's proposed Internet Policy principles and other regulations and statutes, as well as Comcast's previous public statements about favoring an open Internet. While the network neutrality debate in Washington has focused on what actions a broadband access provider might take to filter, prioritize or manage content requested by its subscribers, Comcast's decision goes well beyond this. With this action, Comcast is preventing competing content from ever being delivered to Comcast's subscribers at all, unless Comcast's unilaterally-determined toll is paid — even though Comcast's subscribers requested the content. With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a 'closed' Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content.'"

7 of 548 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Not to be a dick but nextflix by Pinhedd · · Score: 5, Informative

    Considering that Comcast posted a net income of over 3.5 billion last year I think asking them to reinforce their infrastructure so they can be competitive is not outside the realm of being reasonable.

  2. Or is it Just A Noisy Peering Dispute? by 1sockchuck · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comcast says the issue with Level 3 is a peering dispute and says it "offered Level 3 the same terms it offers to Level 3s CDN competitors for the same traffic." The issue seems to be that the Level 3's addition of Netflix as a customer may have altered the balance of the traffic exchange between Level 3 and Comcast. In other words, Comcast says the volume of traffic is the issue, while Level 3 says the type of traffic is the issue.

    1. Re:Or is it Just A Noisy Peering Dispute? by ZaMoose · · Score: 4, Informative

      Precisely. All the Network Neutrality pushers are being played for suckers by Level 3. It's dirty pool on their part -- they're trying to get a better price in a market that was previously covered by "gentlemen's agreements" between ISPs and are attempting to incite a NetNeut flashmob in order to get their pricing.

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    2. Re:Or is it Just A Noisy Peering Dispute? by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wonko, you raise a lot of good points. I don't think anybody actually bothered to read the one comment you linked to:

      What happened here is that they moved traffic from Akamai, which was pulling private lines into and/or buying colo space with ISPs at their own expense (to avoid being charged for transport) and was billing that back to Netflix over to Level 3, which was not doing that. This "saved" Netflix lots of money as LVLT agreed to do the distribution for much less money than Akamai was charging.
      Level 3 thought they would just shove the bits down a peering connection and force Comcast to carry it on their long haul and regional network at their expense. In short, Netflix tried to poach on Comcast's buildout and got caught.

      So, Akamai delivered content to your home by paying big money to pull a private line into your ISP's local POP. From that point your ISP would transport the traffic on the local last mile to your house. Level 3's solution is to dump all of the traffic onto your ISP at a handful of peering points and ask the ISP to transport the traffic across the country for them at no cost.

      I'm surprised that Comcast is the only ISP complaining about this. I'll have to do some traceroutes when I get home and see where my Netflix movies are coming from now. Wonder if Time Warner is running into the same issue now? I've looked at traceroutes for Netflix before and they always originated inside the TW network only 4 or 5 hops away from my me. Presumably this was the colo from Akamai. It'll be interesting to see how this has changed.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  3. Re:I Disagree by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

    More like this (from last year):

    Customer: Hello ESPN360.com, I can't watch your sports anymore.
    ESPN360: We're sorry, but your ISP has not paid for access. Please contact Comcast to complain.
    Customer: But the rest of the internet is working fine.
    ESPN360: We're sorry, but your ISP has not paid for access. Please contact Comcast to complain.
    Customer: Are you even listening to me?
    ESPN360: We're sorry, but your ISP has not paid for access. Please contact Comcast to complain.
    Customer: (sigh) I guess I need to call Comcast. Or switch to Verizon DSL.

    Verizon gained a lot of customers because of this. And now Comcast has caved, and they started paying ESPN360.com for access. Ditto Disneyconnection.com. I suspect after complaints or losing customers, Comcast would cave on netflix.com too

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  4. Re:I Disagree by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

    This obscure reference just went over 99% of Americans' government-educated heads.

    "Danegeld" refers to the gold paid by the English monarchy to stop the Danish and Norway Vikings from raiding towns along the east coast of Britannia. I forget the exact date, but somewhere around 800-900 A.D. Many of the Vikings then set-up permanent villages in this area while collecting their tribute.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  5. Re:One from row A and one from Row B. No Row C. by speedlaw · · Score: 3, Informative

    Please note that our system totally favors a TWO party system. Requirements to get on ballots are written so that only two majors can really field a candidate. Smaller parties are usually co opted to one "line" or the "other". Even Ross Perot found this to be a huge stumbling block. At the end, the Republicrats magnanimously "agreed to waive any challenges" to the Perot candidacy. Both parties realized that this could have morphed into a "why is a third party so hard to do" (and probably figured he'd hurt the other side) conversation so they turned the discussion onto Perot and away from the system. No water for Perot, but he is a great example of a person with the ability and wealth to pose a serious effort. He was "rejected" from the body politic like a bacteria. Meanwhile, your third party candidate won't easily get on any ballot here in NY, and I'm sure that applies not only in the EasternUrbanIntellectualNorthEastVeryBlueState but also in DownHomeMiddleOfTheNationPatrioticVeryRedState too. The lack of a real choice is nationwide. The Tea Party, by nominally siding with the Repub side, missed this huge set of rocks in the river. They may come under that umbrella but if the co opt efforts from the owners of the current R Party don't work, they might be tossed out into the wilderness of election law.