Stop Comcast from blocking Netflix!

Well, if Level 3 doesn't pay, then Comcast is just going to pass on the costs of web traffic delivery to us customers. As someone who doesn't have Netflix, I'd rather have the Netflix customers pay Netflix, who pays Level 3, who pays Comcast, than have ME subsidize the Netflix users by paying a higher Comcast bill.

It's a little more complicated than that. L3 is pushing more traffic onto Comcast than Comcast is sending back to L3, therefore Comcast wants cash to make up the difference. This is how most interenet providers operate. If traffic is equal, everything is ok, but if one provider is sending the majority of the traffic money needs to be exchanged.

I've got no love for Comcast (go Fios), but not every business decision is evil.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/29/comcast-level-3...

WASHINGTON – Level 3 Communications Inc., an Internet backbone company that supports Netflix Inc.'s increasingly popular movie streaming service, complained Monday that cable giant Comcast Corp. is charging it an unfair fee for the right to send data to its subscribers.

Comcast replied it is being swamped by a flood of data and needs to be paid.

Level 3 said it agreed to pay under protest, but that the fee violates the principles of an "open Internet." It also goes against the Federal Communications Commission's proposed rules preventing broadband Internet providers from favoring certain types of traffic, it said.

read more

Read http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/peering...

That is how ISPs work, this whole "Netflix is using too much bandwidth" is an excuse for Comcast to debate their contract with Level 3. This isn't a net neutrality issue, it's just two giant fighting over who gets our money.

I used to be a Comcast customer, but stopped due to their very devious bill behaviors and sudden changes that are only informed in fine print. Then there's their absolutely horrid customer service. The sales people are wonderful; the service centers are a living nightmare to deal with. Comcast doesn't really care much about their current customers, because they've pretty much already got you: hook, line, and sinker.

They only offer a few tiered levels of service (mainly crappy and damn fast), which effectively forces customers to subscribe to a level of access that is no where near what they really need or will use. 15mbps is way more than most users will ever need, unless it's a household with multiple nodes downloading / uploading simultaneously (and yes, 15 mbps is WAY more than you think you need). I have an Xbox 360 (using Xbox Live), a laptop (used for simple Internet searching), and a beast of a tower (used for gaming, downloading, uploading, streaming), which all use a single 11 mbps connection (single router) with little to no interruptions. Those who fit into the market of using more data transfers than Comcast hoped for are minute compared to the rest of the customers that don't use anywhere near the traffic they pay for, thus making Comcast more money than they should if everyone used the full potential. But Comcast is only going to use those small number of big fishers to support their claim, as any good debater will do.

This is nothing more than them smartly anticipating that this could be an issue in the future and trying to nail it down into law now. However, it is unjust; god forbid we actually use what we pay for. I akin this to charging people more for someone who uses a season pass on a mountain more than others. A season pass is a flat rate for an entire length of a contract (contract being the season), just like what you pay now for a Comcast plan. If you use a chair lift 10 times or 100 times, you only paid the initial cost of the plan. The company issuing the season pass has to soak up the cost of operating the lift because it's in the contract. Now they make a lot of money off the people who barely use their season pass. They will technically lose money from those who use it very frequently, but again, those are minute compared to the rest of the crowd.

The less the frequent users, the more the money, and Comcast doesn't want to deal with those people who use the service they are paying for to their full potential, because they wouldn't make insane amounts of money... now it's kind of like an all-you-can-eat buffet. What? Are we going to kick out the fat kid who eats everything for hours because he's paid for all-you-can-eat and now we're saying no more? The kid paid $14.99 to get the all-you-can-eat chinese buffet and suddenly you're going to say he has to go, despite that he has done nothing wrong? I say "Hey, fatcats! Let us fat kids eat what we paid for! We pay, you provide... now let us eat."

Point is that there is a contract that has been made, and Comcast is trying to weasle out of their end of the bargin.

It's easy to paint Comcast at the bad guy in this, but if you read a few articles then you can see that these type of contracts are quite common and the Level 3 is actually violating the one it has with Comcast. Then they turn around and wave the Net Neutrality flag. Not cool.

http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/11/level-3-outb...

So let's take a look at the battle between Comcast and Level 3 to show them what net neutrality is about.

Level 3 -- which helps deliver Netflix's streaming content - recently claimed that Comcast is charging an unfair fee for the right to send data to its subscribers and which puts Internet video companies at a competitive disadvantage. Thomas Stortz, Level 3's chief legal adviser, said that "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" and that the move "demonstrates the risk of a 'closed' Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content."

In response, as the AP reported, "Comcast called Level 3's position 'duplicitous' and said a previous deal for the companies to handle traffic for each other had become unbalanced in Level 3's favor."

The dispute has put the debate over net neutrality back in the spotlight. As The New York Times noted: "The dispute highlighted the growing importance of Internet video delivery -- an area that some people say needs to be monitored more closely by regulators. Net neutrality, which posits that Internet traffic should be free of any interference from network operators like Comcast, is thought to be on the December agenda of the Federal Communications Commission."

Net neutrality proponents criticized Comcast's actions. The Media Access Project said in a statement: "Comcast's request of payment in exchange for content transmission is yet another example of why citizens need strong, effective network neutrality rules that include a ban on such 'paid prioritization' practices."

And as Fortune magazine blogger Seth Weintraub noted, Comcast's decision "sets a scary precedent" that could eventually hit consumers' wallets. He also argued that net neutrality "would prevent this type of corporate abuse":

This sets a scary precedent. If Comcast can charge an extra fee to Level 3 for hosting Netflix (NFLX) content, it could (and probably will at some point) charge Google (GOOG) to stream YouTube movies or Apple (AAPL) to broadcast iTunes content. Because Comcast owns the last mile, they hold the keys.

What does this mean for consumers?

This particular action by Comcast will probably reach customers in the form of increased rates for Netflix customers. Netflix has to pay more for Level 3's services so the gouging is passed to consumers.

Ironically, this move comes on the very week that President Obama's FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will announce whether he'll fulfill Obama's promise to protect the open Internet and Net Neutrality -- which would prevent this type of corporate abuse.

The dispute between Comcast and Level 3 helps serve as reminder about what net neutrality is -- and what it isn't. Net neutrality is intended to prohibit Internet service providers from controlling access to Internet content. As the Congressional Research Service has stated, net neutrality is the principle that "owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network; and should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network."

Net neutrality -- despite the hyperbolic fearmongering spewed by Beck and Limbaugh -- simply is not a government plot to "control what you see on the Internet" or "limit the amount of conservatism" on the Internet. link

... The part that I find most interesting about this current debacle is how Comcast has managed to convince people that this is a peering dispute, when in reality Comcast and Level3 have never been peers of any kind. Comcast is a FULL TRANSIT CUSTOMER of Level3, not even a paid peer. This is no different than a Comcast customer refusing to pay their cable modem bill because Comcast "sent them too much traffic" (i.e. the traffic that they requested), and then demanding that Comcast pay them instead. Comcast is essentially abusing it's (in many cases captive) customers to extort other networks into paying them if they want uncongested access. This is the kind of action that virtually BEGS for government involvement, which will probably end badly for all networks. ...

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg15068....

It's somewhat more muddled than that. L3 is pushing more activity onto Comcast than Comcast is sending back to L3, in this way Comcast needs money to compensate for any shortfall. This is the means by which most interenet suppliers work. In the event that activity is equivalent, all is well, however in the event that one supplier is sending most of the movement cash should be traded.

I have no adoration for Comcast (go Fios), however few out of every odd business choice is underhanded.
http://www.gurgaoncompanion.com/