Slashdot Mirror
Comcast: Destroying What Makes a Competitive Internet Possible
An anonymous reader writes "Vox has another in-depth report on the perilous state of net neutrality regulation, and how Comcast is attempting to undermine it. Quoting: 'In the bill-and-keep internet, companies at each "end" of a connection bill their own customers — whether that customer is a big web company like Google, or a an average household. Neither end pays the other for interconnection. ... ISP's typically do this by hiring a third party to provide "transit," the service of carrying data from one network to another. Transit providers often swap traffic with one another without money changing hands. ... The terminating monopoly problem occurs when a company at the end of a network not only charges its own customers for their connection, but charges companies in the middle of the network an extra premium to be able to reach its customers. In a bill-and-keep regime, the money always flows in the other direction — from customers to ISPs to transit companies. ... But when an ISP's market share gets large enough, the calculus changes. Comcast has 80 times as many subscribers as Vermont has households. So when Comcast demands payment to deliver content to its own customers, Netflix and its transit suppliers can't afford to laugh it off. The potential costs to Netflix's bottom line are too large.'"
First they came for Netflix, and I did not speak up because I did not use Netflix.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
... need google fibre. Its the opposite extreme when it comes to performance and openness...
Peter.
I live in a rural Virginia area. Comcast is my only choice. They don't care.
These concepts were part of the commercial Internet circa the early 1990s
and were part of the reason CIX was so successful. Then PAIX then others.
In time, Internet exchanges were themselves bogged down and companies
did private peering. Those who connected to like-quantity produders of
content did so for free (settlement-free peering). Those who were unequal
paid for transiting the network (paid transit).
That hasn't changed in 32 years. All that's changed is the up and down of
who provides more traffic where. The dominant player in each interconnection
point ALWAYS demanded transit, and often did so with the "wherever our
two networks meet" even if elsewhere it was not the dominant player.
Comcast could be made to behave, but Netflix blinked and paid them money.
Now others will as well.
This CAN BE FIXED BY REGULATION but not the kind people are thinking
of. No, not net neutrality. Rather the elimination of the cable-company
monopolies on entire swaths of subscribers. Eliminate the government-granted
access to rights-of-way, towers, utility poles, and infrastructure. Let them not
have a "sole franchise" but rather be one of many competing in the market.
Remove Comcast and their ilk from their high post as the monopolistic "owner"
of all these households by fiat, and having to compete to keep them, and instead
of throttling their peerings to make Netflix users (THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS)
suffer... they'll get peering with netflix.
More government regulation doesn't solve a market-driven problem. Removing the
government regulation harming free competition is the key.
E
We simply need to forget the FCC and make this an antitrust issue. If an ISP is so big that they charge companies for the privilege of reaching their customers, then it is anticompetitive. If they start charging backbone providers, well... then the backbone providers will go out of business since their revenue stream will become an expense. I'm not sure how that would ever work.
Netflix even said Comcast is charging them very little for the connections and its not material to earnings.
i've seen estimates of $.30 to $.50 per megabit per second which is A LOT less than standard transit prices and an estimate that the netflix will pay $18 million per year for this. out of almost $5 billion in revenues this year and a current tech budget which includes transit of over $100 million
this is another blogger crisis. they scream for better internet speeds and when a deal to enable this finally happens they scream fraud and extortion
You can still change this!
Start with filing your comment NOW at the FCC:
https://www.fcc.gov/comments
Click on 14-28 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet
Here is a sample to give you some inspiration:
"It has become time to classify Internet Service Providers as Title II Common Carriers. The possibilities for abuse are just too great otherwise. Failure to do so will cripple the future economic well being of the United States, stifle innovation, and limit the freedom of consumers to choose the content they desire."
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Comcast must be thrilled Netflix has emerged as the proxy case for Net Neutrality. Netflix, a company that commands a large double-digit percentage of all US traffic, with plans to aggressively push 4K streaming later this year. It's so easy to paint such a Goliath as needing accommodations, as a company singly adding bandwidth stress on its own.
Lets say you did use Netflix.
Why would you speak up? Netflix just arranged a deal with Comcast and from the user perspective, it got faster. So from external observation most Netflix users would think the situation had improved.
There's simply no way to explain to non-technical people why what is happening is bad.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Removing regulation, rather than writing proper regulation, would do nothing more than set all of us in the claws of Comcast-Warner
Totally wrong, the fastest internet I had was a decade ago when a small company called Wide Open West was allowed to run fiber to the curb.
Comcast put a stop to that soon enough, they are gone as is that faster access.
I've already seen a looser regulation having a positive effect, and yearn to return to that state where someone COULD offer service to me besides Comcast.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
having lobbyists in government regulatory bodies HAS to stop
sign this and share it: http://wh.gov/lwhr8
Tom Wheeler and his ilk have empowered too much Telco/Cableco monopoly control and done nothing to help regular people
My recollection is that NetFlix has such caching equipment, and that they have offered it to Comcast and Verizon.
CC and VZ did not take them up on that offer.
emt 377 emt 4
Can someone explain something to me, because I don't get it. If I want content, and netflix has the content, and I have a subscription to Netflix and an ISP, assuming neither has a monopoly, why does it matter if netflix or the ISP pays for the transmission of data? One of the two of them has to pay for it for my consumption. I understand this all changes if there's a monopoly by either netflix or the ISP, but without the monopoly, why does capitalism not drive this to cost+ a reasonable cost of doing buisness/profit margin? And if it does, why do I really care if I pay this money to either the ISP or netflix, I have to pay it to someone. Now obviously, this goes out the window if one or both has a monopoly. Also, please, I'm looking for a real answer as to why I should care, not "zomg, ISP greeeeed"
Basically, Netflix pays their ISP for bandwidth. You pay your Comcast for bandwidth. The traffic goes through Netflix's ISP, through the Internet backbone, to the Comcast network. Netflix's ISP is supposed to have a peering arrangement with Comcast where they agree to carry traffic to and from each other, usually for free. Normally both ISPs are close to being equal in the amount of data they exchange so this is fair.
Comcast has two arguments that they are using to charge Netflix extra to deliver their data to you:
1. Netflix data takes up a lot of bandwidth on the Comcast network and someone has to pay for that bandwidth. This is a total lie as you have already paid for this bandwidth through Comcast service fees, Netflix has already paid their ISP for this bandwidth, and tax payers have paid ISPs for time immemorial to upgrade their infrastructure, much of which has been just pocketed.
2. Netflix is using a small ISP to get a really good deal on their ISP rates and because their ISP is tiny, in comparison to Comcast, the peering agreement is unfair. Comcast does have a valid point here, but are going after the wrong party. Comcast should be charging Netflix's ISP additional fees as part of the peering agreement, which they would then have to pass on to their customers. Wait, you say, doesn't Netflix end up being charged more anyway? Yes, but this way the existing internet model is maintained and there is no prioritization of data based on who paid a toll or not. However, Netflix paying Comcast is a gateway to Comcast charging other companies for bandwidth even though their ISPs have fair peering agreements. Once this happens, any new internet business will have to have enough funding to pay Comcast for premium access or they would be at a severe disadvantage against the established companies.