Slashdot Mirror
Time Warner Defends Comcast In Level 3 Dispute
MojoKid writes "On December 21, the FCC will finally vote on adopting net neutrality rules. This may (or may not) have been caused by Comcast's spat with Level 3 after Level 3 won a big contract to handle Netflix's video streaming. Grind it all together, output it to Facebook and you get this campaign: 'Save the Internet: Stop Comcast from Blocking Netflix. Without strong net neutrality rules, companies like Comcast can demand fees from innovative companies like Netflix in an attempt to choke consumer freedom and coerce users to adopt its own video services instead.' Comcast insists that this has nothing to do with blocking the upstart Netflix's business but about how much of Level 3's traffic it must carry before they get to send Level 3 a bill. Level 3's traffic has greatly increased thanks to Netflix. On Thursday, Comcast's frienemy, Time Warner, issued a statement of support for Comcast that explained the pro-cable provider side of the fight."
Doesn't Netflix pay Comcast for bandwidth already? Why do I need to pay beyond my subscription when Netflix is already paying for the bandwidth?
Don't they have some sort of peering agreement that covers this? Aren't they supposed to charge their peers, and their customers, more when their bandwidth usage goes up? Or am I missing something here? Obviously telcoms are greedy and will try to take whatever they can, but isn't there already a channel established for that?
Qxe4
Why do we need cable providers for the internet? Why not -- at least in areas where government laid down the cable, or paid to have it laid -- have the government manage the cable as a utility?
How much Intarweb must cary befoer send Intarweb teh bill?
corporate censorship or government censorship. either way, the best years of the network are gone.. say good bye to peer freedom.
In the end, I think the campaign's name is going to work against them. I'm a Comcast customer, I'm a Netflix customer, and I've had no trouble watching Netflix' streaming video.
Thing is, I understand what the underlying issue is (wrt net neutrality) - but the average person certainly won't in any detail. All they're going to say is "What do you mean, stop them from blocking Netflix? I'm having no trouble streaming Netflix over my Comcast cable, so it must not be a problem!"
#DeleteChrome
... the one saying that Level 3's claims are complete bullshit and they have nothing to do with net neutrality
Here it is
right...
There is already geotargeted of videos online done on commercial grounds. If different types of traffic get "throttled" it'll only make it harder on the users of any high-bandwidth activity whether video, gaming or anything else where the ISPs are likely to be costed more than these consumers are paying. For example I used to be able to watch The Daily Show on the Comedy Channel's website from the UK. Since they sold the rights to E4, that isn't possible without going through a proxy.
Video Game cheats, hints a
Can't this kind of thing be gotten around by using an encrypted proxy? Then Comcast can't tell which packets are from netflix as opposed to anything else.
In fact, why aren't we doing that in general, for everything? Many more such services would pop up, it would solve the "AT&T snooping on your packets" problem, the "This video not available in your geographic area" problem, the "throttling P2P" problem, and presumably a bunch of future problems as well.
The internet should just deliver your packets. There is no legislative solution to that. The only solution is to enforce it at a technical level.
Level 3 should absolutely pay for all this traffic they are forcing on poor Comcast. You would think that it's Comcast's own users who are requesting this traffic, and which they pay a monthly fee for, but no Level 3 is rudely raping Comcast and forcing it to take all this traffic without consent.
So long as the majority of broadband is offered by corporations that have 'content generation' as a part of their business model, there will never be a real chance for net neutrality. The conflict of interest there is just too strong a force.
Back in the '90s, electricity deregulation was a big topic; I recall that the state of Maine ended up differentiating between the electricity providers and the electricity carriers--while before, there had been two monopolies (a biopoly?) serving different areas of the state, there was, afterwards, a number of smaller generating companies (content generation) and a couple of larger companies that provided and maintained the transmission and delivery equipment (broadband providers).
As my parenthetical notes indicate, I think that the same model could be effectively used--or, rather, ought to be enforced--for the current debate. Differentiate the providers of the connection from the providers of the content, and much of the impetus for the anti-neutrality standpoint will go away.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
The L3/Comcast issue became public after the December 21 net neutrality vote was announced, so no it didn't cause it. Secondly, from everything we've heard the net neutrality rules to be proposed will not effect on the L3/Comcast dispute as it is between network operators, and does not discriminate based on content type or source.
"Grind it all together, output it to Facebook and you get this campaign: 'Save the Internet: Stop Comcast from Blocking Netflix" /.??
Hannah montana references on
This has been stated before, but is this really a peering issue? If Comcast's customers are requesting the data, and its customers are paying for connections, why should Comcast be able to charge someone for providing the data to Comcast?
If L3 was using Comcast's network to send data to another, non-Comcast network, I could see this being a peering issue dispute, but it sounds like the latter is the case.
Cable companies like to bill everyone twice. Example
Subscriber and advertiser both have to pay for service.
Subscriber and Hosting company/networks have to peer/carry traffic
The bottom line is get out of the internet / network operator business if you don't want to deliver on your promise of 12mb for $50 a month. If you can't offer that DON'T. Don't blame everyone else
for BUYING a service and using it.
The only thing worse is banks, who get paid 5 five ways and still can't keep their heads above water.
the big cable co's all help each other also I think they try to use stuff like cable labs and indemand to make it look like a 3rd party is doing the stuff they do.
...I am paying Comcast for already?
Loading...
RTFA, moron. This is about the FTC making sure businesses don't fuck over consumers.
And when they DO try, you go all "FCC takeover!!!".
Time Warner != Time Warner Cable != Time Warner Telecom
This is about Time Warner Cable, whereas the vague term Time Warner is often used to refer to Time Warner Cable and/or Time Warner Telecom which are separate companies. (granted, the does the same thing)
That said, having another company say that what Comcast is doing is unfortunate. Comcast is trying to bully L3 into settlement-based peering, but it is Comcast's end traffic (as an eyeball network, not a transit provider) that is causing this imbalance. If you ask me, Comcast should be the one paying L3 as a customer (like they probably were at some point).
Based on my admittedly limited understanding:
Backbone providers work on the assumption that data goes both ways: I don't charge you for shoving ten lumps of data down my tubes because you don't charge me for shoving what might be nine, might be eleven lumps of data down yours. We're all doing roughly the same thing so it all comes out in the wash.
When someone turns around and says, "Don't worry, I'll keep taking your ten lumps of data for free. Now here are the five hundred I'd like you to keep carrying for free, too. Oh, and by the way, yes I do charge the generator of all those lumps a hell of a lot for my transporting them to and dumping them on your tubes." then it's somewhat understandable to think the relationship's gone a bit one sided.
When Netflix is using fully 20% of prime time US bandwidth (source) and Level 3 are happily billing Netflix for the right to put that on the net, it's pretty understandable the other companies who have to shoulder what's become a very one sided relationship for free are a little touchy.
In this case, I'm tempted to agree it's not about stomping competition, not about charging one source more or less for a better or worse service, it's about whether the fundamental model for the backbone is being abused.
I'm for network neutrality. But isn't there also a degree to which neutral also means the neutral flow back and forth, not all of the data going one way with one company charging for it and expecting the others to just suck it up?
I usually back up my friends in a bar fight too, even if we've had minor disagreements in the past. The difference is, of course, that me and my friends don't walk around punching people in the face for shits and giggles...or for cash.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Comcast sends way more traffic to my home network than my home network sends to Comcast. Clearly they should start paying me for using up my network bandwidth.
And those customers are paying Comcast to transit whatever data they want, not because it's today Netflix and tomorrow YouTube.
So I would see it as a breach of contract between Comcast and their customers when they try to levy toll on individual suppliers to their customers.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
As consumers of information we can not have a system in which certain players can create choke points on the internet to deny access and distort democracy. At the same time it is obvious that nothing in life is free and that one must accept that some kind of payment is required to build and maintain the physical infrastructure that makes such connectivity possible.
The government needs to establish simple rules regarding the exact nature of what these fees can be based on a universal formula for all in terms of proportion of available bandwidth consumed/provided. These rules can not be based on the nature of the content or all hope for democracy and a rational market is lost as each player conjures up new ways to game the system. As long as corporations and individuals understand the fee structure and that they are not allowed to unilaterally change it, the market can get about the business of letting different players work within the fee structure to most efficiently and competitively provide services/bandwidth. This would bring a level of stability to the market, essential to developing systems architectures and services. Otherwise, other countries with far more progressive governmental policies concerning the internet like Korea, Japan and increasingly Europe and China are going to move so quickly ahead of us in terms of dominating the internet that petty conflicts like that between Comcast and Level 3 will be largely irrelevant.
While we dither over who is going to pay what to whom for Netflix services, Korea for example is moving to systems that will provide its end users the ability to download the entire Netflix movie library in minutes for about $20/month for end users, making anything these two companies are doing essentially irrelevant to the forefront of technological change, competivness, or benefit and therefore meaningless.
If America wants to be competitive in internet mediated business, then it needs policies that increase the number of software and hardware engineers and developers and decreases the number of lawyers, greedy corporate executives and their lobbyists, and paid-for politicians. Otherwise, we are lost.
There seems to be something terribly wrong with the US ISP market (I am not American), such that consumers can't/won't leave Comcast for another ISP, because they want Netflix.
If the market was free, wouldn't this problem fix itself?
(OTOH, I do think regulation mandating net neutrality would be a good thing, for other issues)
Seriously? Who?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
All these ISPs are out there to make money. We get it. But they are also in the business of providing internet access to their customers. If they block or limit access to certain points on the internet, they are failing in their business agreement and their mission. They are an ISP, not a OCPISP (Only Certain Parts of the Internet Service Provider).
The way I see it, if you can't do something right, you shouldn't do it. AT&T apparently got in over their heads with iPhone and the problem is only getting worse with the various UMPCs with phone service capability. They want to sell a lot! They just don't want to deliver on their promises. The FTC and the FCC need to come down on these companies hard. If I offered to perform a service and ended up making excuses about why I can't do it, I couldn't stay in business for long. But as these companies often have regional monopolies and large contracts, it's not so easy to simply not do business with them. (I have a friend who is sick to death of his iPhone and AT&T's decreasing quality of service and wants to get off AT&T, but literally everyone else in his family uses AT&T... to leave AT&T would be to disconnect from his family and/or offend many people close to him.)
It's past time for the government to represent the people.
Please stop posting this! The same basic thing has been posted 3 days in a row, and every time all the +5 comments are the ones correcting it. Just stop. I'm tired of having friends say "We gotta cancel our Comcast, they are blocking NetFlix" and having to explain that the FCC is not voting to stop Comcast, and Comcast is not violating Network Neutrality. This was a simple peering dispute between two companies.
Who will win. Hmm...
Obviously it will be decided like any other case. Who has more money, Comcast, or Netflix?
Well crap, sucks to be society.
If you imagine there is a great big interstate highway designed by the government that's called the Internet, and people like to drive on it, and order packages to be delivered to their homes by trucks using it we have a place to start.
This Internet didn't go everywhere, and to get on it, people needed a driveway from their garage to the onramps, so ISPs sprung up that provide those for people, for a price. Now some of the ISPs wanted to get the access fees from a lot more people, but the Internet was too far away, so they agreed to extend the Internet buy building a new portion from pre-existing part to where they needed it. Of course it had to be just as accessible to other traffic on the Internet as all the pre-existing stuff, because they have pretty good traffic control that automatically attempts to route traffic around congestion and damage. And for a while, things continued on.
Then some of the ISPs decided to get more money from their customers and said "Hey, give us more money per month, and we'll enlarge your driveway, maybe even make it two lanes and smooth enough to drag race on.". A while after that they decided for some reason (congestion, insufficient driveways, pure greed, whatever) that the existing traffic was too much for their resources to handle so they started making new rules. You can't drive anything larger than a subcompact, and No more trips than 2 per day, and if more than 6 delivery trucks come up your driveway per month, we're going to yank your driveway...
Move a bit further in time, and now the the ISP is getting pissed that some other ISP or delivery company is sending lots of big trucks over the portion of the Internet they built. Is it going to their customers, or someplace else on the Internet? My point is this, I don't F-N care! You joined the game of share the internet and get paid by your subscribers, you can't just decide to charge the traffic that goes over the backbone, and if it goes to your subscribers, they are responsible for it. So get your hypocritical greedy mitts off the traffic, and try to actually make your customers happy with your 'service'.
Comcast insists that this has nothing to do with blocking the upstart Netflix's business but about how much of Level 3's traffic it must carry before they get to send Level 3 a bill
OK Comcast, as one of your customers you send me a hell of a lot more traffic than I send you. When do I get to send you a bill?
mod up!, thats exactly what I think. Since when is L3 sending traffic to Comcast?, unless it's a DDoS attack or something (sending large amounts of unrequested trafic). They way I see it, Comcast (it's users) is requesting this huge amount of traffic to be sent to them, so they should pay for the bandwidth.
We the comcast clients are Pulling/Requesting the data to be downloaded.
Once this is understood is very clear that Level 3 is (or any other) should pay any fee for data Comcast customers are requesting.
It be a an other story if Level 3/Netflix was sending unrequested data on their own.
One could argue that if some were to pay a fee for using bandwidth it should be Comcast as you can say Comcast network is requesting very large amounts of bandwidth from Level3.
BSD licensed software can't be stolen....
Level3 should just put through Netflix data, and NOTHING ELSE. I wouldn't want to work in Comcast support offices when they start doing that. I guarantee that it will cut down on the peer traffic, and drive Comcast customers to other providers.
Netflix feeds data to level 3 which distributes it out to its servers spread across the land. The stream then is handed off to Comcast for delivery to consumers. Comcast would have a valid point if the network looked like this:
Netflix -> L3 Los Gatos ->Comcast ->L3 Server ->Comcast ->user
In which case L3 would be using Comcast's network to keep its distributed servers current and Comcast's complaint would be justified.
The alternative picture, and what most of us presume is correct is looks like this:
Netflix-> L3 Los Gatos -> L3 fiber network -> L3 Server ->Comast ->user
In which case Comcast is on the receiving end and according to Comcast, they should be paid by L3 since more data flows their way than vice-versa. However, if that's true, then Comcast should pay me since more data flows to my PC from Comcast than vice versa.
So Comcast, do you owe me money?
If L3 pays Comcast, then Comcast pays me to watch Netflix movies.
It's not like Level 3 is holding Comcast down and forcing data into them. Although that's an interesting mental picture.
Level 3/Netflix is providing a service that Comcast customers are buying. The traffic wouldn't exist if Comcast customers weren't using it. One of the reasons for choosing Comcast is that they advertise big tubes and fast throughput. In marketing terms, Netflix is an enabler for Comcast.
I've never really understood why the various broadband ISPs advertise huge download speeds and then .... they don't want you to make use of it. I mean, WTF? So my pr0n website updates in 1/125 of a second instead of 1/8 of a second. This is not a reason to pay for big tubes. Big downloads are a reason to pay for big tubes. And besides a few geeks torrenting Nervous Nematode, (or whatever the next Ubuntu will be called) just about the only LEGAL use by non-geeks for all that bandwidth is Video on Demand. Why block the very reason for your existence? It doesn't make any damn sense.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The question is whether the movie is on a server outside Comcast's network or on a server Inside Comcast's network. Why can't they act like grown-ups and decide on a division of costs for "co-locating" a movie server inside the comcast network? Netflix does not even offer "Live" content. How much would the hardware and electricity for a file-server cost? The entire library does not have to be on the server either; just the titles in the instant queue for people who subscribe to comcast. The netflix website could start copying it to the cache machine as soon as you put in into your instant queue.
You're the ones who are so staunchly anti-net neutrality because you think it's about a government takeover of the 'net or some such paranoid nuttery.
This is just the beginning. I guarantee it.
please seed more.
Your torrent ratio must suck.
Note: I host a collection of open source torrents including the last 4 versions of ubuntu, my ratio for some of them is in the hundreds.
...there is nothing left to save.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I've been following this topic over on Ars for a bit, and it's one of the few cases where I actually bother to read the comments. I have no background in network stuff, so please correct me where I'm wrong:
Comcast and L3 have a peering agreement, which applies to traffic that is coming from one network and moving through the other network. That is, if Comcast wants to send something to a third party and the easiest route is through L3's network, the peering agreement applies. Per the agreement, no money exchanges hands as long as the traffic sent through each network remains about equal. For data intended for a network, there is no charge.
Netflix previously was hosted through Akamai, who paid Comcast a fee to gain special access to Comcast's network. As Akamai is a straight-up CDN, they had no real network of their own -- or at least no back-bone -- so Comcast was essentially their ISP. Netflix is now contracted with L3, so traffic enters the Internet on L3's network and goes where ever it needs to go.
Now, L3 is acting as a CDN in some capacity because they are hosting Netflix's data, and they are also acting as a service provider because they are providing the connection to this hosting service. Comcast sees that L3 is now sending a lot more traffic its way and wants L3 to pay extra due to the increased bandwidth usage. Further, L3 has requested some number of extra ports so that they can send this data to Comcast further, and Comcast has given them a small number of the requested ports but is balking on the rest due to costs. They are asking L3 to pay for the additional ports, and to pay an additional monthly fee for each port.
I can see this a couple of ways. Say Netflix hosted with AT&T now, and they sent their traffic through L3 on its way to Comcast. In that situation, why would L3 be liable for extra fees to Comcast? On the other hand, if L3 is asking for additional equipment so that they and/or Comcast are more easily able to handle the load, then yes it may make some sense for L3 to foot some or all of the cost of the hardware upgrades they want Comcast to put in place. I guess my real question is whether Comcast is asking for money simply for profit's sake, or are they asking L3 to pay for the improvements to their network that they are making for L3's (and tbh, theirs as well) benefit?
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
But I'm not downloading torrents. When I am, which is generally just WoW patches, I do seed for awhile after I am done downloading.
Most of my inbound in Netflix.
...but will it blend?
I get the impression that Comcast does not want to saturate their bandwidth at the border routers. If the caching servers are -inside- their border routers then all the data flows on their internal (and hopefully much faster) network. Are you thinking that Comcast is is concerned about intranet traffic levels too?
Comcast, (along with other final mile ISP's) typically limit upload bandwidth. These artificial caps are just that.. artificial. By corollary, Comcast is deliberately setting themselves up to receive paychecks by limiting the reciprocation on their pipe by it's customers. If you must limit yourself for financial reasons over what bandwidth you could utilize I understand, however for the sake of peering that amount should still be symmetric.
If asymetric pipes are allowed to continue, then as long as it is monetarily beneficial to maintain a high receive to send ratio, that ratio should grow until it becomes unrealistic to maintain useful bandwidth. The download portion then becomes a marketing gimmick only as the limit will be the TCP ACK packets being sent back to the publishing application.
Feel free to correct where/if I am wrong
- Sig
The purpose of a CDN is to host the content as close to the consumer as possible. It is not only fastest, but cheapest that way. Now, why would Netflix not choose to host it at Comcast? It looks like Comcast is having to learn the hard way about the value of hosting a CDN, and why extorting them is a bad idea.
L3 and Comcast can host the content for roughly the same cost, but it is worth far more to Comcast, as hosting it locally reduce their own offsite traffic substantially. Why couldn't Comcast offer an attractive price? The funny thing is that they have to handle the traffic anyway, now they just have to pay more for their greed.
As I understand it, CDNs used to get a free ride, as they served to cut costs for the ISP. At some point, that policy changed, and now it looks like it should be reconsidered again.
I hate Comcast but they are technically correct. Level 3 is wrong. Network neutrality is discrimination based on traffic type or protocol. Comcast is saying that Level 3 must pay for all traffic in excess of the ratio regardless of type or protocol. Level 3 is merely trying to leverage the momentum behind network neutrality in order to get the government to make-up for their poor ability to calculate margins. And given that Comcast has a monopoly on a huge chunk of eyeballs it puts a lot of pressure on Level 3 to capitulate in order to make Netflix happy. It's really Level 3 that's screwed here, not Netflix (assuming the additional router hops do not degrade quality too much). Of course, Comcast also runs some risk of losing customers/increased support calls if the quality of Netflix degrades but it is largely insulated by its monopoly in most markets. If there is anything offensive about this whole scenario, it's Comcast using its monopoly to abuse Level 3, not a net neutrality violation against Netflix.
Of course the fishy bit is that most of this traffic just happens to be Netflix content and Comcast is a provider of similar content. Comcast claims this is merely co-incidental. That's kind of hard to believe but guessing about motives is murky business.
Both of them are being stupid though. Level 3 looks incompetent by claiming this is a net neutrality issue and appears to be rent seeking by seeking regulation. Comcast looks like a big bully while they are trying to acquire NBC. I wouldn't be surprised to see some regulation around acceptable peering ratios between monopoly last-mile networks and other networks come out of all of this. And given the assumptions built into the download/upload ratios of most consumer broadband connections 5:1 seems reasonable.
Your car analogy is flawed, let me restructure it to illustrate the situation:
Lets say I own a road and lease out access to that road to a video game store, and you own a road and run a video game store.
Your 'road' customers pay a toll to use your road.
Our roads are not currently connected. If people want to get from your road to my road, they have to get on interstate. Which takes them out of their way, makes for a slower trip, and increase the cost for everyone as we have to maintain the interstate.
To reduce the costs and improve the drive, I build a new road that connects directly to your road.
Your 'road' customers can now use your road to get to both your store and to my road and the video game store leased there. It's faster and cheaper than before and everyone is happy.
It has no effect over your road's congestion. All of the people that had been taking your road to the interstate to get to my store are now just going to take your road to my road. The same people are still doing the same thing.
Everyone is happy, except for your video game store. Your video game store is now losing sales because the customers who used to go there can now go to my video game store.
So you use your power over the road to charge me a fee for allowing your customers to get to my road with out using the interstate. You do this not because I am increasing the traffic on your network, but because I am taking sales from your video game store.
And there in lies the rub. An ISP that charges/alters traffic based on competition in other markets has an unfair business advantage and is exploiting their government mandated monopoly.
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
how much of their users' traffic must they carry before it's not their problem.
They are different companies now. One makes movies...the other distributes stuff over coax cable.....but they are very different groups, and depending on who said it, could change the impact of the statement.
content users pay for their bandwidth (isp) and content providers pay for their bandwidth (hosting). a little oversimplified, sure, but what is the problem?
...
I get the impression that Comcast does not want to saturate their bandwidth at the border routers. If the caching servers are -inside- their border routers then all the data flows on their internal (and hopefully much faster) network. Are you thinking that Comcast is is concerned about intranet traffic levels too?
Why would Comcast's border routers be abnormally underpowered compared to its internal routers? Comcast is not generating much traffic, so Comcast-To-Comcast traffic is currently a very minor part of the data its handling for its customers.
"His name was James Damore."
Comcast (trying to buy NBC Universal) and Time-Warner use cable as a low-cost way to distribute content. This is a battle over content, disguised as a dispute over bandwidth. ISPs (network operators) that own content attempt to guide subscribers to a "walled garden" of content that they provide, which is easy to do on the cable television side. The question is whether a Cable Modem (or DSL or WiMax) subscriber's agreement with their cable (network) operator permits that subscriber to use the bandwidth any way the subscriber desires, which would essentially turn cable companies (and other network operators) into "common carriers" that have no control over traffic (no ability to give preference to one type or source of traffic over another). Your wireline telephone is regulated by your state and is a "common carrier" service. Network operators do not want to be common carriers because their service levels, profitability, and services are controlled by Public Service Commission (or whatever your state calls them). As network operators (cable, telco, satellite, wireless) attempt to win you over with bundled services [video, voice, data (bandwidth), and even wireless], the line really blurs between whether subscribers are paying for bandwidth or content and whether operators are subsidizing the ISP portion of their business to attract you to their content. Network owners claim that they make capital investments that pay off for some other firm, like NetFlix. Non-network-owning, third-party content providers (owners), including online gaming, IPTV, Google TV, NetFlix, and many more have a vested interest in seeing an Open Web with features like Network Neutrality. Here is where I plug Open Web initiatives, such as Open ID (http://openid.net), Data Portability (http://www.dataportability.org), etc.