Slashdot Mirror
First Detailed Data Analysis Shows Exactly How Comcast Jammed Netflix
An anonymous reader writes John Oliver calls it "cable company f*ckery" and we've all suspected it happens. Now on Steven Levy's new Backchannel publication on Medium, Susan Crawford delivers decisive proof, expertly dissecting the Comcast-Netflix network congestion controversy. Her source material is a detailed traffic measurement report (.pdf) released this week by Google-backed M-Lab — the first of its kind — showing severe degradation of service at interconnection points between Comcast, Verizon and other monopoly "eyeball networks" and "transit networks" such as Cogent, which was contracted by Netflix to deliver its bits. The report shows that interconnection points give monopoly ISPs all the leverage they need to discriminate against companies like Netflix, which compete with them in video services, simply by refusing to relieve network congestion caused by external traffic requested by their very own ISP customers. And the effects victimize not only companies targeted but ALL incoming traffic from the affected transit network. The report proves the problem is not technical, but rather a result of business decisions. This is not technically a Net neutrality problem, but it creates the very same headaches for consumers, and unfair business advantages for ISPs. In an accompanying article, Crawford makes a compelling case for FCC intervention.
So the fix sounds easy, but gets complicated quickly. :|
Break them up. Don't think about it, threaten or consider it. To borrow a phrase from Nike: JUST DO IT
Force the companies who provide the bandwidth to split from the part of the company who sells content so there isn't any grey area issues. In order for the bandwidth side of the house to remain competitive, they'll need to upgrade their network to ensure they're delivering what their customers want. This also prevents the content folks from tweaking the network to ensure their own services get priority over competing ones. Taken to an extreme, and without some sort of oversight, the big players can absolutely destroy the competition in this manner.
They've already proven they can't be trusted to do the right thing themselves. Time to step in with a big stick and start swinging.
Of course, true competition needs to be in place to help fuel that fire otherwise we'll still end up with crappy throughput with no realistic choices of switching to another provider. We really need to end this whole regional mono / duopoly thing.
On top of this, we'll need to purge the Congressional votes-for-contributions types to make sure the legislation has a fair chance of happening.
"First of all, ISPs advertise "up to" a specific speed, which means that's the maximum bandwidth you're allowed.
It doesn't state or imply that you'll receive that speed consistently."
Well, how about I pay "up to" the amount they want, then? I can throw that (in small print) on the back of a check I send them, to make it all legal and such.
This is complete nonsense. Google and Akamai both place hardware just inside ISP borders at no cost. They don't pay the ISPs to do this, the ISPs are saving a shit-ton on transit and are happy to set aside a little space and electricity for the hardware. This includes Comcast. Try doing a traceroute to 23.79.61.240 for example, this is one of at least a dozen Akamai servers sitting in a Comcast cage in Atlanta. Akamai is paying zero dollars for that.
Netflix offered the same arrangement and Comcast said no, the only reason being that Netflix sells a competing product to Comcast's own video on demand. It's anticompetitive behavior, period, plain and simple.
from wikipedia
Franchise fees are fixed at a maximum of 5% of gross revenues. So how do municipalities maximize revenues from franchise fees? By maximizing cable company gross revenues. And how do municipalities maximize cable company gross revenues? By creating monopolies! By awarding exclusive license to one provider to extract monopolist profits from the public.
Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with permitting local governments to charge cable companies fees. That is justifiable to the extent that local governments incur costs of infrastructure repair with damage from cable installation. All that is needed is a single addendum to the law, one prohibiting local governments from creating monopolies. The law could simply mandate that municipalities must offer franchise licenses to all ISPs if they offer licenses to one and that all licencees must be be charged at the same rate.
The only reason we have cable monopolies in the U.S. is because the Cable Communications Act of 1984 created that perverse incentive. Other countries without such laws have much faster service at much lower prices.
If federal law permitted local governments to do this sort of thing with groceries, computers and cars we would have regional monopolies for those products as well. Be grateful that your town council is not permitted to sell grocery, computer and car franchises.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Except you are confusing a transit and a consumer endpoint. Transit providers normally peer, but an endpoint is going to have more traffic coming in then going out because their consumers are requesting it, ALWAYS, but this is the first time they have been able to pressure people into these types of agreements.
Peering agreements between transit providers is fine, but not when an endpoint bullies a service providor.
When you cant win, ad hominem.