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.'"

Comments

Re:Not to be a dick but nextflix

[Pinhedd]

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.

Or is it Just A Noisy Peering Dispute?

[1sockchuck]

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.

Re:Or is it Just A Noisy Peering Dispute?

[ZaMoose]

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.

Re:I Disagree

[commodore64_love]

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

Re:I Disagree

[commodore64_love]

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.