Level 3 Communications Blasts Comcast

[admin]

Things are heating up in the CableTV world and today Level 3 Communications, Inc. issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Thomas Stortz, Chief Legal Officer of Level 3: On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content. By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation’s largest cable provider.

Discuss "Level 3 Communications Blasts Comcast" here. Read the article.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

DCMA, ACTA, COICA, Gov grabs private domain Names without court warrant, TSA "gate rapes", Patent wars, Death of Net Neutrality

Honestly I'm terrified and scared at current and near future state of IP and Privacy Laws in the US

Democracy is slowly but surely being replaced by sort of big government/plutocracy regime

Yes, call could me paranoid, but I would be scared if I were you

 

[Marshall_Guthrie]

The real problem is that, in many areas, Comcast is the only game in town. I'm lucky to live in a Comcast-free zone. If I were the movie industry, I'd be on this in a hurry. If Comcast blocks my Netflix, http://dvice.com/archives/2010/11/comcast-sets-up.php , my solution is not going to be to subscribe to On-Demand. It's going to be to find the movies I want through other means.

In case you don't read the above line, Level 3 = Netflix.

 

[zhimbo]

Nice lesson in the necessity of net neutrality.

 

[emorphien]

The real problem is that, in many areas, Comcast is the only game in town. I'm lucky to live in a Comcast-free zone. If I were the movie industry, I'd be on this in a hurry. If Comcast blocks my Netflix, http://dvice.com/archives/2010/11/comcast-sets-up.php , my solution is not going to be to subscribe to On-Demand. It's going to be to find the movies I want through other means.

In case you don't read the above line, Level 3 = Netflix.

In most places you don't have much competition among providers. You have Comcast, we have Time Warner. It's not a good thing.

 

[Marshall_Guthrie]

In most places you don't have much competition among providers. You have Comcast, we have Time Warner. It's not a good thing.

Here we have a local fiber company, I think owned in part by the city, called Minet. They treat phone, cable, and internet like a public utility for the most part, in that they consult with the city council before making rate changes. I get 5/1.5 for $35 a month. I could go up to 50/20 if I wanted, and it's real 50/20, not this burst-speed crap all the cable companies are doing: http://www.minetfiber.com/index.php?value=d001

The competition in town is Qwest DSL, which I think is just a hold over from before Fiber came to town. I don't know anyone who uses DSL.

I agree, any monopoly is a bad one, but I'll take my cheap, fast, neutral fiber over Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, Earthlink, or anyone else any day.

 

[smurphy522]

The future is not going to be good....for this is the first big success of many such attempts. I am surprised that L3 just took it.

R.I.P Netflix

 

[Marshall_Guthrie]

The future is not going to be good....for this is the first big success of many such attempts. I am surprised that L3 just took it.

R.I.P Netflix

They're not just taking it, that's why we know about this at all. They're going to fight this battle in public, but L3/Netflix can't afford to impact their current multi-million dollar business for even a day.

I think Comcast just woke a sleeping giant. Big cable gets smaller every day where Netflix get bigger.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Netflix Partner Says Comcast ‘Toll’ Threatens Online Video Delivery

Stop Comcast from blocking Netflix! Petition

 

[emorphien]

They're not just taking it, that's why we know about this at all. They're going to fight this battle in public, but L3/Netflix can't afford to impact their current multi-million dollar business for even a day.

I think Comcast just woke a sleeping giant. Big cable gets smaller every day where Netflix get bigger.

I hope this gets ugly quick, and that this brings attention to the net neutrality powder keg for people who haven't been paying attention.

Netflix just raised prices a bit but this could only cause them to go higher.

 

[westcott]

Thanks Clint for bringing topics like this to our attention.

Monopolies are the plague of the average consumer but our hands off approach by government over the last decade has been a complete failure.

The rich get richer and the tax payer picks up the bill.

 

[sholling]

The problem with "net neutrality" efforts so far has been the temptation to roll more government control of the internet into the bills. A clean bill is what we need. One that just says "no ISP shall regulate, prioritize, or interfere with with network traffic other than unsolicited commercial messages (Spam) and virus/malware". Nothing else. Just that sentence.

Instead one faction wants to include policing piracy and content, another wants to include the ability to regulate blogs, another wants the government to have the ability to shutdown sites or the whole thing during an "emergency". Nobody on either side of the isle has any interest in passing a clean bill.

 

[smurphy522]

They're not just taking it, that's why we know about this at all. They're going to fight this battle in public, but L3/Netflix can't afford to impact their current multi-million dollar business for even a day.

I think Comcast just woke a sleeping giant. Big cable gets smaller every day where Netflix get bigger.

I don't think (unfortunately) that there will be much for L3 or Netflix to do against the Cable (or ISP) companies from charging a fee; unless the FCC (i.e. Gov't) comes to their rescue. I do agree with your comment about letting this impact daily business though. At this point they can't really ruffle their feathers too much or Comcast might pull a "At&t vs. Food Network stunt".


I just haven't read anything that L3 or Netflix was appealing it. At least not yet.

I will miss the red envelopes coming in on a steady stream.........and having unsteady jumpy crap quality VOD (whether from Netflix or my cable provider) in its place.

 

[jinjuku]

Part of the problem is that when you get to that level there are only so many big providers and only so many big pipes.

So what happens is a peering arrangement is made between backbone providers. They basically 'charge' each other the same rates for foreign traffic to pass across their router mesh on it's way to it's final destination.

It saves money on infrastructure and provides a handy write off.

Now the issue is that L3 has inked a deal with Netlix to host cache's of Netflix content that is going to flow at some points across Comcast bandwidth upsetting a peering arrangement that is most likely close to 1:1. At least that is what Comcast is maintaining. Like every good deception there is a little truth mixed in.

The problem with Comcasts position is multi-fold:

1. A good portion of people receiving streamed content are Comcast subscribers. The CUSTOMERS are footing the bill for that bandwidth. Comcast is trying to double dip.

2. Comcast has it's own pay-per-view and VAS in the form of xfinity that allows subscribers of traditional Comcast tv service to stream content on their computer.

3. By assessing access tolls on L3 or others they make the 3rd party service potentially more expensive and creating and inflationary effect of said service compared to their own in house services further driving the divide.

4. Customers of Comcast data services are now at the whim of Comcast corporate and are being robbed of contractual service since all packet information can be metered for in and out of network destination. So their argument of peering ratio doesn't hold up as well as they would like you to believe.

 

[Marshall_Guthrie]

Never thought I'd be cheering on the FCC, and yet, here I am: http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/01/fcc-to-address-net-neutrality-on-december-21st/

 

[mtrycrafts]

Here we have a local fiber company, I think owned in part by the city, called Minet. They treat phone, cable, and internet like a public utility for the most part, in that they consult with the city council before making rate changes. I get 5/1.5 for $35 a month. I could go up to 50/20 if I wanted, and it's real 50/20, not this burst-speed crap all the cable companies are doing: http://www.minetfiber.com/index.php?value=d001

....

How do I plug into your grid?
Yep, this is what we need.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Thanks Clint for bringing topics like this to our attention.

Monopolies are the plague of the average consumer but our hands off approach by government over the last decade has been a complete failure.

The rich get richer and the tax payer picks up the bill.

You mean you don't want corporations running this country?

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

Instead one faction wants to include policing piracy and content, another wants to include the ability to regulate blogs, another wants the government to have the ability to shutdown sites or the whole thing during an "emergency". Nobody on either side of the isle has any interest in passing a clean bill.

There is no $$$$ in a clean bill

 

[sholling]

There is no $$$$ in a clean bill

Exactly! The $ISPs$ will pay for the right to double dip (rip off customers), the record labels will pay congress critters to limit customer's internet access to authorized shopping destinations. Political ideologs want to block "politically incorrect" (or politically inconvenient) content. And the congressional church lady caucus will want to use net neutrality laws to ban sex, gamboling, and anything fun from the web.

 

[kaiser_soze]

Comcast subscribers should sue Comcast

This is an ideal opportunity for those attorneys who make gobs of money by seizing opportunities to file class action suits. When Comcast prices their service and markets it to the public, the pricing is based on the bandwidth that is made available. There is no suggestion of any limitation or restriction that is tied to the how the bandwidth is used. Level 3 will have to pass the cost on to Netflix, who will have to pass in on to the consumer. The consumer has to pay. This is the point that should be emphasized. It is the consumer, not Level 3 or Netflix, who is being forced to pay a surcharge for the bandwidth, that they are already paying for, because they want to use it to download movies from Netflix. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Comcast and their lawyers will try to get away with this, but they are pulling a fast one. It is wrong, and if they are allowed to get away with it, it is a terrible precedent. I do not think that the FCC or congress will allow them to get away with this, but of course it is foolish to have much confidence in what the FCC or congress will or will not do. Consumers/subscribers need to realize that they are the ones that Comcast is screwing over, never mind that the impetus is fending off competition from Netflix. I watched a couple of so-called telecommunications legal experts on MSNBC (or was it CNBC?) trying to say that this makes sense because Comcast sells bandwidth and this represents a use of bandwidth. But these bozos are as wrong as they could possibly be. Didn't they stop to think that the consumer is paying for bandwidth with no conditions on how it is used? Didn't they stop to think that the logical extension of their argument is that local Internet providers will be permitted to charge a fee to any person or company who transmits data per request to any remote user who is not using the same Internet provider? This is ludicrous. If you connect to the Internet via, say, Qwest, and someone located in a different part of the country and using Comcast requests you to send them a bunch of data, and you comply thinking that your connection and bandwidth is paid for through your provider and that it is the recipient's responsibility to pay Comcast, but then Comcast says that because you are the source of the data that you have to pay them as well, does this make sense to you? Of course it does not make sense. It does not make a whit of sense. It is preposterous. Let us hope that the FCC and/or congress has sense enough to realize the implications of what Comcast is trying to get away with here and puts an end to this nonsense before the idea gets any further than it already has.