Will the FCC take over the net?

[jyl]

Not because online movie and TV streaming services like Netflix and Hulu are leading some people to cancel or downgrade their Comcast cable subscriptions . . . ? Or because Comcast's own streaming video service has not been successful compared to that of its' competitors like Netflix . . . ? Or because Comcast sees Netflix streaming becoming adopted by set-top box companies like TiVO to Apple, and realizes that it threatens Comcast's own DVR rental business . . . ?

Note that Comcast is already paid, via its subscribers' steep monthly fees, for providing bandwidth and infrastructure to subscriber homes. Note further than Comcast is not blocking other heavy traffic services like YouTube, so apparently they do care what the content is, not just how much bandwidth it uses.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by slakjaw

People don't understand "net neutrality" it would be a bad thing and it has nothing to do with your home Internet connection.

Explain please, what is your understanding of what net neutrality is and why do you think it's bad?

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by jyl

..... Comcast is not blocking other heavy traffic services like YouTube, so apparently they do care what the content is.....

Netflix ='s competitive content

Youtube ='s not.

So yes, I agree, it would appear it's an issue of content.

[mikester]

There just isn't enough competition in communication companies to the home and these cable companies have built their own 'conflict of interest' within the company by offering competing services.

I used to work for Time Warner Cable managing some of their cable modem networks. It was a great job by the way but I digress... Video is a natural over these high bandwidth services. They see that they are putting their own cash cows out of business by offering the services that support the video delivery systems of the internet.

The answer is a better competition model ultimately but how do we stimulate that? Tiered internet systems are coming back I suspect... Yep, I said COMING BACK! they used to be all the rage back in the dial up days - pay per minute and all that. Now it'll be 'pay per mega/giga/tera byte/bit'.

Personally, I don't like the trend and I hate the idea of these contracts determining which web pages get better treatment. I don't know that the answer is but I know the root cause is the way we monopolize local access. There just isn't enough viable competition.

At my house I have 4 options but none of them really compete well. I can get cable, the best option probably as far as speeds are concerned. I'm supposed to be able to get DSL but every time I call them to talk about it they tell me it isn't available in my area. I could do a cellular plan but even their 'unlimited' plans are capped at 5GB per month (unlimited is redefined in the fine print) and then there is satellite which is way expensive and slower.

The infrastructure model we are using today simply does not work.

There is an interesting infrastructure that I have seen for businesses in Santa Monica. They have their own city fiber infrastructure and the city sells access to it to the carriers. The last mile is owned by the carrier. I don't know how well it works but it sounds better to me. It allows any carrier to provide service to any customer.

Sounds interesting to me.

[cashflyer]

I hate the idea of these contracts determining which web pages get better treatment

I thought fighting that was the basis of the Net Neutrality push.
Now I see some articles saying that Net Neutrality is the devil, or isn't what we were led to believe it was. :?:

[mikester]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

I thought fighting that was the basis of the Net Neutrality push.
Now I see some articles saying that Net Neutrality is the devil, or isn't what we were led to believe it was. :?:

A real 'net neutrality' bill in my book would be very simple.

Quality of Service, prioritization or marking of any kind to determine preference for traffic is not permitted for anything but VOICE traffic. Voice traffic must be prioritized if it is providing e-911 service but NOT if it isn't. In otherwords - if it isn't primarly line - screw it. It's just like everything else.

nobody is preferred over anyone else. It's FAIR and based on the bandwidth available to the customer.

[jyl]

I'm okay with paying Comcast a significant monthly fee for high-speed internet access (and I do pay).

Having paid that fee, I'm not okay with Comcast then trying to control what I can use that internet access for, including their attempt to economically hobble the $10/mo Netflix on-demand service and steer me toward Comcast's own on-demand service which is clunky and costs a lot more.

Considering Comcast made $36BN of revenue and $3.6BN of net income in 2009, I think they are making enough money off me, without getting me to pay more for their lousy on-demand service.

[audiman08]

If the federal government can't do anything about Wikileaks...I doubt it can deny other offensive sites...

[slakjaw]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Explain please, what is your understanding of what net neutrality is and why do you think it's bad?

It's about those that have infrastructure like comcast and those that don't like level 3 and cogent. These guys sell bandwidth to companies like Netflix for dirt cheap then just handoff the traffic to other carriers that have the infrastructure to deliver the content to your devices. It costs a lot of money to have a decent network and it's hurting the companies that are forced to carry the extra traffic more or less for free.

[mikester]

Originally Posted by slakjaw

It's about those that have infrastructure like comcast and those that don't like level 3 and cogent. These guys sell bandwidth to companies like Netflix for dirt cheap then just handoff the traffic to other carriers that have the infrastructure to deliver the content to your devices. It costs a lot of money to have a decent network and it's hurting the companies that are forced to carry the extra traffic more or less for free.

They aren't doing it for free - they charge their customers an access fee to get to that and other content providers. Comcast and the other home internet providers are upset because there are competing services to their video and phone services out there on the internet.

Competition is GOOD right? We just don't have it in the penultimate and last mile of residential Internet services. They have a conflict of competitive interest in that they both provide internet access to users who want to get to content on the internet and they also have a great deal of their company wrapped up in a product that competes with those content providers.

[slakjaw]

No, level 3 hands off ip traffic to the other carriers for free. It's supposed to be a near 50/50 handoff but it's not.

[jyl]

Comcast isn't carrying Netflix streams to me "for free". My $100/mo and the other subscriber fees that add up to $36 billion/yr in revenue proves it. Their $12 billion in operating cash flow and $5 billion in free cash flow (from memory) prove it. They are being paid very well for carrying that content. I want that content, and I'm paying Comcast to carry it to me. What Comcast is doing is trying to get me to switch my choice of content - they charge L3, L3 charges Netflix, Netflix charges me, I switch to Comcast's on-demand video, Netflix goes under, then lo and behold Comcast charges me more for on-demand video. It is quite transparent.

[slakjaw]

Good god. no, they do not charge L3. They cant. Telecom act of 95. oh yea great 12 whole billion? wow man. that is nothing. its not going to cover the upgrades they have to make to keep up with what L3 and Cogent dump on them.

L3 and Cogent go under. Neflix is forced to buy from one of the real players. Every one watches their netflix like nothing ever happened. Everyone is happy. It is quite transparent.

[mikester]

Comcast is likely BUYING bandwidth from L3, just like they have to do with every other major telecoms to connect to what is commonly referred to as 'The Internet'. L3 and cogent aren't dumping on them, Comcast's customers are requesting access to services on the Internet. If comcast's network can't handle it then that is their problem and they need to remedy it. IF they need to raise prices to do it - then that again is the way it is.

The Internet is just a conglomeration of Telco/Carrier networks. Netflix buys bandwidth from L3 as their Internet Carrier. If Comcast has bandwidth from L3 - then they are likely paying for that. If they don't like it they can disconnect it, the traffic will still get to Netflix via L3 - it'll just go through another carrier to get to L3. These Internet 'backbone' companies like L3, AT&T, Verizon, and others sell their peering arrangements and those peering arrangements are what make the Internet so.

Comcast likely has set themselves up to have a backbone provider-like network. In the ISP's I have worked at - that is what our goal was most of the time. We would partner with someone like L3 to get us 'backbone' connectivity between our different properties across the country and then have major points of presence where our customer's traffic would exit our network to get to the rest of the Internet. In these major points of presence we would usually peer with more than one carrier to diversify our routes and optimize our customer's experience. My ISP experiences however did not hold any content so the traffic was always exiting our network - never staying local unless it was P2P traffic or some service we were providing like mail, voice, etc.

Google's arrangement with Verizon is a little unique in that they are actually putting content inside Verizon's network to get it closer to those customers. That is a little different - at that point Verizon doesn't really have to prioritize it in anyway as it won't be competing to get out of the Verizon network. It might be competing locally with other user traffic but not to get out of Verizon's network.

Those two scenarios make up the battle. The first bit is competing to get through and out of the local network - say the neighborhood, to the regional aggregation point and then to the point of presence. The next step is getting out to the Internet from the POP. In either of those scenarios you can treat traffic to different content or of different purpose differently. Most of the time that only is the case when you have congestion but it can be 'shaped' so that it is treated some way specially all the time.

It's called Quality of Service.

If the Internet were neutral - QOS would be minimal and all traffic would be treated the same regardless of source, destination or purpose. There should be few exceptions to that in my opinion.

[slakjaw]

I hope Comcast charges L3. There is no room left for pissant networks to operate in the US. Several times in the last 5+ years, att vizon sprint whoever have pulled the peering plug on level 3 and cogent. Net Neutrality folks like to make a big deal out of it but if the government didn’t force it, no one would peer with them.

[mikester]

Also, my opinion of this whole Comcast/L3/Netflix deal is that it isn't about the content it's about the peering agreement between Comcast and L3. This isn't about net neutrality - it's a peering dispute. If Comcast doesn't want to be transit for L3 then they should just tag their BGP neighbor relationships with 'no-advertise'.

[slakjaw]

I agree with you there.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

The ISP's are feeling cheated by VoIP services, (and I can see their point). With respect to the major's they also provide TV. Why would anyone pay $2-3 for an on demand movie when they can sign up for Netflix and get unlimited streaming movies for $8 a month which is carried to the consumer over the ISP's pipe.

The ISP's want a piece of that content pie. Tiering the net is their way to get it.

So instead of competing for business by offering better prices or better service, they want to put restrictions on the other guy so they can offer their same old service at higher prices. That's free market capitalism at work. That's always best for the consumer.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

Well said...competition creating choice is always best for the consumer.

But competition is not good for business. Monopolies are the best way to make money. Capitalism discovered that in the late 19th century. That's why we have anti-trust laws, (which are apparently bad because it's the darn government meddling again). "Competition creating choice" without control (ie government) will result in one or two providers owning the whole system and completely controlling prices and content. Someone is going to be in control. I'd rather it be someone I can vote for or against.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by mikester

Also, my opinion of this whole Comcast/L3/Netflix deal is that it isn't about the content it's about the peering agreement between Comcast and L3. This isn't about net neutrality - it's a peering dispute. If Comcast doesn't want to be transit for L3 then they should just tag their BGP neighbor relationships with 'no-advertise'.

Yup. Netflix's CDN was Akemei who did pay Transit to to Comcast. Level 3 did not want to pay Transit and thought they could force it under their existing Peering agreement.

The Net Neutrality claim in this case is simply the playing the race card.

Level 3 thought Comcast would fold as they don't want the negative press while they try to purchase NBC.