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."
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
... the one saying that Level 3's claims are complete bullshit and they have nothing to do with net neutrality
Here it is
right...
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.
One concept may moving to a credit card type funding model.
If you charge the people who have less influence, or are more of a captive audience, in the deal, and then lower the prices or add perks to those who are not as much of a captive audience, then you get a lot more money through a large customer base. The people of the captive audience can't afford to buck the system, and the people who can don't know enough or care enough to.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
...I am paying Comcast for already?
Loading...
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?
It is double dipping, but not like you think.
I pay my ISP for bandwidth. ISPs want to charge Netflix for bandwidth too.
If i'm using more bandwidth now because of Netflix, that should be between me and my ISP, but ISPs don't want to mess with that relationship for fear of pissing off customers and spurring real competition in the marketplace. It's cheaper to buy legislation mandating your business model than to compete.
If we had real competition then net neutrality would be a non-issue because we could choose open networks over closed ones, but with the near-monopoly of the big operators in most markets, it's usually just a choice between their crappy service or another crappier, more expensive option.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
That's the closest someone has come so far in this discussion, but it's not quite accurate. Comcast and Level3 had an agreement where basically they just swapped traffic for free. Each side sent approximately the same amount of traffic, so an even exchange seemed fair. Now that agreement is about to expire, and at the same time the numbers have changed significantly. Now Level 3 is sending significantly more traffic to Comcast than Comcast is sending back, so the previous "even swap" agreement no longer makes sense, since it's not, you know, even. Netflix and net neutrality really have nothing to do with any of this, and as much as it pains me to say this, I agree with Comcast (though I'll continue to pray that they die a slow death and then rot in hell for all eternity).
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.
This isn't how it works.
Even if Comcast drops Level3 completely, you will still get Netflix - Level3 will just pass off the traffic to someone who does peer with Comcast. It'll be slower than if Level3 directly peered with Comcast, but it will still get there.
Netflix doesn't need to pay Comcast anything. Netflix is already paying Level3 to be their CDN. Level3 just now needs to pay for the bandwidth they're using.
Huh? Aren't Comcast's customers, the one's who are streaming Netflix, already paying for that bandwidth that they're using? This sounds like Comcast wanting to double-dip.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No, Netflix does not pay Comcast. They used to, in a sort of indirect way. Netflix used to pay Akamai, a content delivery network, to deliver streaming video to customers. Akamai does this by having data centers all over the place that can serve up content faster than anything centralized. And Akamai pays to link their data centers to Comcast so they can do this.
Well, here comes Level 3. Traditionally a backbone provider, they go to Netflix with a sweetheart deal on delivering content. Netflix dumps Akamai for them, and Level 3 realizes they lack the bandwidth to Comcast needed to deliver Netflix's streaming video. So they want additional links to Comcast, like Akamai had, only they don't want to pay for them. And why? Because they're a backbone provider, peer links should be free.
So Level 3, not wanting to pay Comcast (probably because those costs were not factored into what they charged Netflix), is playing the Network Neutrality card to provide CDN services under the guise of a backbone provider. But in reality Comcast isn't saying they are going to degrade Netflix traffic. But that they won't provide additional bandwidth for one service for free.
At the end of the day the customer is going to pay Comcast to deliver that content one way or another. Whether it is directly in the form of higher internet prices, or indirectly through Netflix in the form of higher subscription fees; I see very little difference.
Anyway, Comcast's letter to the FCC is worth reading.
Because that would result in an "OMG teh Soshulistz" response from a lot of pro-business sources. Where I live in Seattle, I've got basically 3 choices of internet provider plus dial-up. Unfortunately, they all suck. Latency is a joke and googling for it earlier this morning and I couldn't find anybody that's operating locally that's able to provide decent latency.
Service for cablemodems probably has gotten better since I ditched them quite a few years ago, but at that point they were actually going backwards in terms of actual service. Service was getting both slower and less reliable. DSL is getting faster, but at a much slower rate. And FiOS isn't available at all as far as I can tell, suspiciously enough they won't even tell you if there in a rough geographic area without asking for a specific address. Until recently they couldn't even locate my address let alone provide service.
A municipal ISP as a utility or Google coming in with their service is about the only way that any of the telecoms are going to care enough to make any effort at improving service. What's particularly embarrassing is that we've got it quite good compared with most of the country.
Mod up. The end users are already paying Comcast for the bandwidth. Why should anyone else do it again?
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
Yeah, Level3 should already be paying for the traffic they send to Comcast's network. That's usually how peering agreements work: you pay for traffic that you send to another network, but not traffic that you are receiving. Uploading costs money, downloading doesn't. It's why most broadband service is structured with low upstream bandwidth.
If Comcast doesn't like what Level3 is paying them to accept L3's traffic, they should renegotiate. It shouldn't matter if the upsurge in traffic is due to Netflix or streaming porn.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Or, you could just explain how bad Comcast sucks in general and they will still cancel it.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Because that's how peering works. If you buy a connection from an ISP, or a socket in a datacenter, then you pay the upstream provider for bandwidth. They typically pay a big upstream provider for their connection. Sometimes, however, two networks will agree that it is mutually beneficial for them to be connected and so will agree to peer - i.e. neither pays the other for transit. The definition of a Tier 1 network is one that only has peering agreements, or agreements where others pay for transit (i.e. pays nothing for off-network traffic, and may be paid for it). A Tier 3 network is one that only has transit agreements (i.e. pays for all off-network traffic). A Tier 2 network is one somewhere in the middle, with a mixture of peering and transit agreements.
Typically, a peering agreement has an agreement that says that the amount of traffic flowing in one direction must be within some percentage of the amount flowing in the other direction. A lot of big ISPs have agreements like this, which are somewhere between a peering and a transit agreement - if the balance of traffic remains approximately equal, neither side pays, but if one side is sending more traffic to the other, then one side pays. Whether this counts as a peering or a transit agreement is largely based on which case is expected to be the most common.
In this case, L3 and Comcast have an agreement which regulates the amount of traffic that L3 can send to Comcast without paying. Recently, however, Netflix has moved from their previous network provider to L3. This has dramatically increased the amount of data that is flowing from L3 to Comcast, so L3 is liable to pay.
Normally, this would result in a fairly simple renegotiation of the peering or transit agreement, but because network neutrality is such a buzzwordy topic now, it's being spun as a network neutrality complaint, because Comcast operates a service that is vaguely similar to Netflix. All of the big networks and ISPs benefit from this, because it serves to muddy the waters surrounding network neutrality just as the FCC is about to rule on the issue, and detracts from the real issues at stake.
Presumably the aim is for L3 and Comcast to convince the FCC that this is what network neutrality means, and get them to impose network neutrality rules that require them to come to the same sort of transit agreement that they would normally have reached anyway. Then the FCC and the politicians can claim 'we did our part for network neutrality', ignorant voters are happy because their politician stood up for something that the media told them vaguely was important and in their interests, the ISPs are happy because there is no real regulation on network neutrality. The average customers and small businesses are fucked, but no one cares about them.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You need to ask your government why there is a lack of competition in the ISP market in your country.
Network Neutrality is a non-issue used to cover up the real problem. It is only an issue at all in the USA.
Web Design
Level 3 isn't using any of Comcast's bandwidth. Comcast's paying customers are requesting the videos from Netflix. Netflix pays for the bandwidth they are using from Level 3. Comcast's customers are paying for the bandwidth they are using from Comcast when the streaming video crosses their network.
What Comcast would like to do is get paid from their customers and from Level 3 for the same data. That, my friend, is called double dipping.
The bottom line is that if Comcast's customers found that Netflix was unacceptably slow, they would have to sign up with some other video-on-demand provider, and Comcast would like it to be them.
My blog
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.
If Level3 isn't using any of Comcast's bandwidth, I guess they won't mind then if Comcast shuts down all interconnections to Level3's network. Level3 can connect to Comcast's network through a third party.
Comcast does not want to get paid twice for the same data. They want all people who connect to their network, regardless of who they are (cable customer or ISP customer), to compensate them in some way. That, my friend, is how the internet works. That is how every network provider in the world operates.
No, that's not quite how the Internet works. You're describing the legacy telecom interconnect that masquerades as the theory behind the Internet. In the old days, SS7 was used as the message to charge/clear/balance long distance calls and 'wire time'.
Comcast wants to make it tougher for Netflix to succeed over Xfinity offerings, because Xfinity competes directly at all levels with Netflix via Neflix's content delivery network/CDN, who is Level 3. Because the traffic is lopsided, e.g. downloads from L3 are huge, and the traffic from Comcast is small, Comcast feels they must charge for this imbalance.
In reality, the Internet was conceived with one of it's principals as equal access- meaning that if you stick a leg on to the network, your run whatever traffic in an unimpeded fashion, no matter what direction, what time of day, what protocols, etc. To help QoS, you might be nice and respect various QoS protocols so as to not screw up isochronous media types, like audio and video. But Comcast doesn't believe in that. They believe their cable system is unique and God-given, and therefore, the rules do not apply to them. Netflix/L3 caved, because if they didn't, your next flick w ou ld l ook li ke th is.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Peering:
(emphasis mine)
That, my friend, is how the Internet works and that is how it worked from the beginning.
My blog
Your ISP doesn't come after you for more money because they have already sold you that 5 mbps connection. You are not using more than your alloted 5 mbps so they really have nothing to come after you for. The problem is that they have oversold their bandwidth. They sold that same 5 mbps connection to you, and to your neighbors hoping that you all would not use enough of that bandwidth at the same time to notice. So when something like Netflix comes along and everyone decides to use it at the same time things get shaky. They are afraid people will start to realize they are not getting the 5 mbps they were sold. The solution? Hold that popular service ransom at the other end, hoping they can get a payday they can then use to either upgrade their infrastructure or line their pockets with before the customers start asking questions. Incidentally I think this is the same reason (at least here in Canada) we are suddenly seeing ISP starting to enforce download caps. They claim it is because of the dirty, dirty pirates but I believe it is because they are afraid of Netflix and similar services increasing peoples use of the services they have paid for and they realize they can do a little double dipping. Pay for the connection and pay for the data.
What you're missing from this equation is that this traffic used to be handled inside Comcast's network, likely at a lot of different locations, because Akamai used to be Netflix's CDN and Akamai colocates servers with ISPs for quicker response times.
In other words, this is new external traffic to the network, and I have a feeling no matter where it passes into Comcast's network, they're going to want an increase in money from whomever is passing it in.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
I don't know what reality that is, but it's not ours. If you want to connect to someone else's network, you either pay or agree to a ratio of traffic. Once that deal is made, THEN, yes, you can send any kind of content you want.
If Comcast doesn't like what Level3 is paying them to accept L3's traffic, they should renegotiate.
That is what this is about, Comcast is telling Level3 that they need to renegotiate their peering agreement because Level3 is about to significantly increase the amount of traffic they send over Comcast's network. Netflix used to use Akamai as one of their primary ISPs. Akamai paid Comcast for the traffic they sent to Comcast's network. Level3 had a peering agreement with Comcast whereby they didn't pay to send traffic to Comcast because Comcast sent as much traffic to Level3's network as Level3 sent to Comcast's. That is about to change with Netflix switching from Akamai to Level3. Level3 is screaming because they undercut Akamai's price to provide service to Netflix on the basis of not paying Comcast to send data to Comcast's customers.
This has nothing to do with Netflix competing with Comcast (at leat not that anyone has so far offered any evidence for), this is about Level3 increasing the amount of traffic they send over Comcast's network without a similar increase in the amount of traffic that Comcast sends over Level3's network.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Yes you have it exactly right. In our reality companies like Comcast are supposed to PAY to connect to the internet (ie Level3) or agree to a ratio of traffic. They agreed to send Level3 as much data as they received. Now they can no longer meet that agreement and should be paying Level3 some money.
You don't seem to have noticed the "exchanged" part of that definition. This implies that there is an equitable exchange going on here, which is what Comcast wants. An equitable exchange. Level3 doesn't want such an exchange.
And I think you missed this part:
The pure definition of peering is settlement-free or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic; instead, each derives revenue from its own customers.
Sorry, but this is bullshit. If Comcast is allowed to get away with this, then Time Warner can charge Level 3. Then AT&T can charge Level 3. Then Verizon and Sprint will charge Level 3. Then these companies will charge each and every web page and web service to be allowed access so their customers can access web content.
Eventually, you're going to end up with different ISP's having access to different web pages/services. For example, you might be allowed to only use Google, Netflix, and Slashdot on Time Warner. Comcast will grant you access to Yahoo, Redbox and Engadget. On your Microsoft phone, you will have access to Bing, MSN, and MSN (through payoffs to each carrier). Carriers/ISPs will advertise that they allow for more web pages than their competition and charge their customers (You and me) for the privilege to access the only the content served from the highest bidder. Meaning if you are content provider, you better have a big bank roll as the amount you are willing to pay will have a direct effect on the amount of customers that want to access your service.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Oh I think it *is* a network neutrality issue.
Then you have no idea what network neutrality means, no idea what the issue at question is, or both.
From the Comcast customers point of view, traffic originating on L3's network is being discriminated against if Comcast stops accepting that traffic even though its destination is Comcast.
L3 is going from a 1:1 peering agreement to a 5:1 traffic ratio. Do you think that Comcast should just keep letting them pay nothing? If so, great for every other ISP - they can now get a cheaper deal from L3 than from Comcast to carry traffic to Comcast's customers and there's nothing that Comcast can do about it.
Allowing this sort of thing sets up an easy way for all consumer ISP's to discriminate, making its own services far more competitive than they would be had there been a level playing field.
Allowing what sort of thing? Depeering is something that has happened loads of times before in the history of the Internet, and quite a few times in the last few years. It happens whenever the traffic ratio between two peers suddenly shifts, as happened when L3 gained Netflix as a customer.
This has absolutely nothing to do with network neutrality. Comcast is not rejecting traffic because it comes from Netflix. Comcast is not rejecting traffic because it is streaming video. Comcast is threatening to reject traffic because it is not covered under their existing peering agreement and they want a new transit agreement. Any other company would have to get a similar agreement. Without the ability to form these agreements, the Internet would not function at all.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
then Time Warner can charge Level 3
They already do. Level3 pays either in money or bandwidth.
Then AT&T can charge Level 3.
They already do. Level3 pays either in money or bandwidth.
Then Verizon and Sprint will charge Level 3.
They already do. Level3 pays either in money or bandwidth.
Then these companies will charge each and every web page and web service to be allowed access so their customers can access web content.
They already do. Those web hosts pay for their connectivity, and each network along the way gets compensated.
You see where I'm going here?
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
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.
According to Comcast's letter, what Level 3 was offering Comcast was free connections from their network enable data to flow faster for Comcast users; and all comcast had to do was make the physical connection available. If Level 3 did not do this then Comcast would have had to bear the brunt of the traffic its self. That is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Otherwise Comcast would have purchase additional bandwidth connections to provide their customers with access to the data they are requesting. What Level 3 offered was equatable and on the whole very inexpensive for Comcast and would have provided better service to their customers.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
I'm sorry, but you've been consistently wrong the entire time in this thread. Level 3 is a Tier 1, they do not pay other ISP's for the connections. This is part of the conditions of being a Tier 1. Level 3 in fact sells connections to Verizon (who happens to pay them a monthly fee for their customers to access the internet) as does Time warner, AT&T, Sprint and nearly every single other US ISP except other Tier 1's (Comcast is NOT a tier 1 nor have they ever been)
The fact is Comcast pays Level 3 a monthly fee for their interconnects, and rents over 70% of their fiber from Level 3 (who owns the majority of the fiber in the US, thanks to the DOD)
Now Comcast is trying to cut their bill, by pulling a media circus on the netflix deal, when it's traffic that is destined to end on Comcast's network. Traffic that's being sent to the last mile ISP is never to be considered as a "peer" agreement, as it's purchased bandwith. This is where Comcast is in the wrong, and has been the entire time. People defending Comcast in this case proves how little they know about how the internet truly works, and it's my hope that Level 3 tells Comcast to fuck off and depeers them as Comcast is in violation of the peering agreement by trying to shift last ISP traffic to it and then collect for traffic they have already charged their customers for. This is known as double dipping, and Comcast is guilty of trying to do it in this case, just as they have been in the past.
Thought experiment: I want to transfer data with you. I have Cable, you have fios and they have a peering agreement. We transfer roughly same amount and things work great. Then one day our business relationship changes and we both want me to transfer 10x as much data. My cable plan allows it and has enough bandwidth to handle it. Your fios plan also allows it and has enough bandwidth. However the interlink between cable and fios networks can't handle the new surge of traffic.
Who should pay for the new interlinks?
That's what this issue is about. This isn't about net neutrality because comcast isn't targeting netflix. It's a problem of raw amount of traffic and who pays for it. Traditionally it's been the sender (not the requester, these are big backbone networks and don't have the capability to track state of billions of connections). This is because it's cheaper to add bandwidth to servers then clients. A server can be colocated, clients can't.
Net neutrality definition is heavily debated but I define it as discriminating how you handle traffic based on:
1. Source and/or destination
2. Protocol or Type of service
3. Content
Which Comcast is not doing in this case. Comcast is an evil evil company, but I'm afraid they're right in this case.
Stop parroting the same old argument that Comcast is making. Comcast isn't a peer, it's a large endpoint. One could claim that Comcast isn't carrying *any* traffic for Level3 - it's all to the benefit of Comcast (and their customers). One conclusion is that Comcast should pay Level 3 for the privilege of connecting to Level 3.
(I'm aware there is danger in oversimplification, but come on)
A.
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998