psydude posted:

None of those companies are in direct competition with Comcast. Most YouTube traffic on the East Coast is delivered from addresses owned by Level 3, and even then I wouldn't really call YouTube a competitor to Comcast.

AlternateAccount posted:

So should we have a law saying that the same company can't run both content creation and content delivery systems?

SamDabbers posted:

It's great from a technical perspective, and will definitely improve the experience of Netflix customers on Comcast's network. I don't think anyone disputes that. What people are upset about is the power differential between the two companies. Comcast basically forced Netflix's hand at the expense of their common customers.

Install Windows posted:

That would basically make television networks illegal, so no.

AlternateAccount posted:

How so, excepting digital OTA signal? And fine, you can't generate content and then serve generalized delivery service. The networks only really broadcast their own stuff.

Install Windows posted:

It just doesn't make sense at any level. It is a knee jerk response to top all kneejerk responses.

SamDabbers posted:

Comcast basically forced Netflix's hand at the expense of their common customers.

quote:

But McAdam suggested that broadband power users should pay extra. "It's only natural that the heavy users help contribute to the investment to keep the Web healthy," he said. "That is the most important concept of net neutrality."

The FCC needs to look at the broad Internet industry, not just broadband providers, when it considers new net neutrality rules, McAdam said. Companies like Netflix, Apple, Microsoft and Google have a role, and "any rules will have to include all of these players," he said.

McAdam called for the FCC to create "light touch" rules on net neutrality. The FCC needs to consider growing uses of broadband in medicine and other fields, he said. "Everything from health care to telematics to the energy grid need to be balanced with someone who's trying to watch last year's episode of [TV show] NCIS," he said.

Install Windows posted:

They have their distribution systems from the network to their affiliates, their owned and operated stations of course, their distribution networks to cable and satellite providers, etc. Furthermore all of them have some manner of web presence. And many cable channels have been owned by single cable carriers for decades, even though they get shown on other cable carriers, without any ill effect.

It just doesn't make sense at any level. It is a knee jerk response to top all kneejerk responses.

HUGE SPACEKABLOOIE posted:

You seriously can't see the fundamental difference between Netflix and Youtube? One being a place you upload dumb videos of your dog, the other being a fledgling TV and Movie content provider, which you're so fond of pointing out takes up 30% of American traffic. On top of that you really think content creators should also be allowed to own the mechanism by which that content is delivered? By that line of thinking can I assume you're ok with Comcast also refusing to provide service to anyone who doesn't use a Comcast created or sanctioned TV, rented monthly of course? I also like how you bring up that Comcast is required to abide by Net Neutrality rules when they bought NBCU but totally fail to mention that only lasts until 2018 after which they're free to go hog wild.

OTA broadcasters only rent the airwaves from the US Govt. I shudder to think what would happen if back then we'd decided to outright sell those airwaves until the end of time. Its long past time that the internet was declared a utility. Time Warner shouldn't be allowed to own Warner Brothers any more than Comcast is allowed to own NBCU.

HUGE SPACEKABLOOIE posted:

I'm not upset about the peering issue, its more the fact that content creation, content ownership, and content delivery are all falling under the same roof. When I speak about Netflix being fledgling I'm referring more to the idea of them producing in house content. They're already a pain in the rear end for Comcast/TWC in the bandwidth area but now this pain in the rear end is also producing their own content in direct competition with the carriers Netflix relies on. Should Netflix pay for the bandwidth? Yes for sure. Should Comcast/TWC be allowed to gently caress with the bandwidth? Not as long as the bill is getting paid. Are they doing so anyway? Of course they are.

They won't be satisfied until its Netflix, a Comcast Company.

Install Windows posted:

Comcast and TWC aren't loving with Netflix's bandwidth, though. Additionally creation ownership and delivery under one roof has happened many times before in the history of American media, to say nothing of other countries.

SamDabbers posted:

Just because it has happened, and will likely continue, doesn't mean that it should or that such an arrangement serves the public interest. The distribution infrastructure companies have a monopoly (oligopoly, actually, since it's multiple players operating in distinct areas) on said infrastructure. The vast majority of people have no choice among competing service providers, because there really isn't any competition. The fact that these same companies have, and are seeking to expand, ownership of the content as well is definitely cause for concern, because we, the subscribers, are at the mercy of their for-profit corporate structure. Without network neutrality enshrined in law, and possibly a requirement to separate ownership/control of infrastructure and services provided atop it (e.g. the power grid, which has competing generation companies feeding into the same set of lines), the vertically integrated media giants could exercise their control over which content we consume, from whom we get it, and how we get it delivered in ways that are blatantly against the public interest. Is it not clear that this is a situation that's ripe for abuse? The spokespeople for these companies have answered the calls for neutrality regulation with "we haven't abused our position yet, and we promise we won't," and "trust us." Why should we? This has all happened before.

Again, this isn't about the fact that Netflix has connected their routers directly to Comcast's; that's sound network engineering. The problem is the context in which this has happened. If Comcast was simply a distribution network, and not a content company as well, then there'd be far less cause for concern. If Comcast was simply a distribution network with a local monopoly in the markets it provides services, and they were required by law to abide by net neutrality regulations, there'd be far less cause for concern. If Comcast was required to allow fair access to the infrastructure to direct service competitors (e.g. CLECs providing telco services over ILEC lines) then there'd be far less cause for concern. As long as the customers don't have a choice between several competing service providers for access to content, or at the very least, a legal framework which will back them up should there be a neutrality issue, there is most definitely cause for concern.

Install Windows posted:

The context in which it happened is: Netflix's transit partners couldn't provide reliable service.

Install Windows posted:

I'll be frank here: I see absolutely no actual guarding of public interest in "we're still going to have a whole bunch of private companies taking care of all of this, but some will be slightly less integrated". That's just a cosmetic thing to make people who don't think too hard feel good - precisely like the "breakup" of AT&T was! The primary purpose of cable companies first getting into the internet game, and then into the production game, is that it allows them to survive once cable TV dies out, and also allows them to survive if cable network access itself dies out. And in the meantime, Comcast for example gets revenue if you watch a significant part of Netflix's catalog on any ISP anywhere in the world.

Install Windows posted:

The context in which it happened is: Netflix's transit partners couldn't provide reliable service. That's all it is. PS: Comcast is required to obey net neutrality regulation now where no other provider is. You can moan about how that will technically end in 2018, but it's far more than any other fixed connection ISP in the country actually has to follow. Again: there is absolutely no cause for concern when transit providers fail to provide their service and very high bandwidth web entities decide to cut the problem off by direct peering.

Install Windows posted:

PS: decoupling production of content from distribution would forbid Netflix from producing any of their own shows anymore.

cstine posted:

And I'd bet they're paying Comcast less than they were paying their prior transit providers, given the huge amount of traffic we're talking about.

SamDabbers posted:

I agree that vertical integration provides benefits to the corporation's shareholders, and that having a bunch of private for-profit companies running critical infrastructure doesn't particularly serve the public interest, but having an environment where competition is actually possible among service providers would be better than what we have now. It'd be great to have publicly run communications infrastructure (e.g. municipal fiber) become the norm, but that's just not likely to happen in this country any time soon.

The breakup of Bell did result in competition in long distance service, which actually lowered the cost to the consumer. It's what competition is supposed to do in the market.


I forgot about Comcast's required neutrality as a result of the NBC deal. Thanks for pointing that out. I can complain about how it's for a limited time and only Comcast, but that's another argument entirely. I also agree that Cogent should take some blame for failing to provide the transit that Netflix was paying them for. If there was even the possibility of competition in the "eyeball networks," it seems like they'd have more incentive to build the links to the peering points to remain competitive, just as Netflix has incentive to have a presence in as many peering points as they can, whether they pay Cogent to build it or do it themselves.


This actually wouldn't bother me. All companies, not just Comcast or Netflix, should have to play by the same rules.


Yes, but now they've set the precedent, so they're going to have to pay every single eyeball network to peer with them, which will overall increase their costs, which they'll assuredly pass on to the subscribers, who are already paying the eyeball network to deliver the content they've requested, and Netflix to send it.

Install Windows posted:

The thing is owning production companies doesn't actually prevent competition, and production companies not being owned by distributors doesn't really encourage competition either. It's a non-sequitur to the idea.

Install Windows posted:

The breakup of Bell did NOT produce competition in long distance service - it was the separate ruling that phone companies must provide access to any long distance service that did that. The baby bells did not seek to compete in each other's local markets for long distance service. Additionally, competition in local phone service remained practically non-existent, and often hampered by the Baby Bells themselves.

Install Windows posted:

It's not just Cogent, it was also at least Level 3 and another transit provider for netflix that have all been having trouble supplying Netflix's particular needs while also supplying everyone else who uses them - Netflix's sheer bulk of one-way data has also caused many of them to lose settlement-free peering privileges with many ISPs.

Install Windows posted:

Right but those Netflix original programs simply weren't going to happen without the megabucks Netflix has off its regular service. The rules proposed themselves don't really make much sense except for a feel good thing.

Install Windows posted:

But Netflix has set no precedent here. Again, many other major Internet companies already pay for direct peering so they can avoid bottlenecks and slowdowns that can result going over public transit network suppliers. The prices paid to directly peer are roughly similar to the prices paid to deliver the same amount through normal transit networks, Netflix may claim their next service price hike will be to cover increased costs but I'd bet that their financial reports show they had nothing to do with it.

SamDabbers posted:

It is not a non-sequitur. A vertically integrated company has every reason to promote their integrated service over that of a competitor's, or degrade that competitor's service over their network to make their own service look better. The idea of separation is to remove the temptation to behave uncompetitively. It would be even better if regulation prevented the production company/subsidiary from giving preferred terms to one distribution provider over another, but it'd be a big first step to prevent the integration in the first place.


The ruling mandating that phone companies must provide access to any long distance service wouldn't have come about if there weren't competing long distance services in the first place, which is part of what the breakup accomplished. It was an unfortunate side effect that the deal granted regional monopolies to the baby bells. Still, it was progress, and that's essentially the same thing that's happening right now, just with a new generation of networks. The cable companies are already in a position analogous to the baby bells before the regulation mandating access to competitors, and they're, understandably, fighting tooth and nail to maintain that position.


Ok, it wasn't just Cogent. That's not important to the point. Netflix pays for the transit provider to send the data, and subscribers pay both their ISP to deliver the data AND Netflix to send it. The idea that traffic has to be balanced when one network is consumer heavy and the other content heavy is silly; they should both be motivated to deliver what their mutual customers are paying them for. It doesn't make sense for the content networks to have to pay the consumer network to deliver the content that the end customers are also paying it to deliver in the first place. That's double-dipping. Settlement-free peering between consumer networks and content networks makes sense, if the goal is good customer service. Motivation to provide better customer service does not exist when there's no competition.


Someone will produce the content anyway, because there's a lot of money in it if you make something people want to watch. Netflix having preferred (exclusive, in this case) rights to the content is just as bad as if Comcast gave themselves preferred rights to NBC content. Neutrality regulation should prevent content producers from offering different terms to different distributors, so that the competitive market is preserved. If the distributors should have to play fair, then so should the producers. Offer the same terms to all if you're going to offer to anyone. First season does really well? Raise the prices for the second season then, but give everyone the same price.


We will have to wait and see about the price hike and the financial reports, but again, why should content networks pay a fee to directly peer with consumer networks at all, when the subscriber is basically paying for both ends of the peering? Isn't the whole point of peering to reduce transit costs for both peers?

Install Windows posted:

Non-vertically integrated companies also have every reason to promote everything they've got. Again, you're not showing where the competition will actually come from just by, effectively, rolling some things back to a few years ago where there was also minimal competition in all the same areas.

Competing long distance service started a good decade before AT&T's local operating companies were split up. Rulings very close to the one that split up the regional operating companies also decreed that the existing services would now have to get free access to local systems (previously most long distance carriers had had to build their own fiber networks across the country and into cities to provide their long distance service). There isn't any proposals on the table to mandate TCA96 type access sharing for cable networks by the way - there's nothign for the cable cos to fight against because no one's even proposed it.

Install Windows posted:

The fact that subscribers pay Netflix and their ISP has nothing to do with anything. Traffic balancing makes perfect sense - when the two partners are exchanging roughly the same loads to each other it greatly simplifies operations, and makes it a mutually beneficial connection, and as such payments between them are restricted. The more unbalanced they get the more one party starts to have to pay, because one side needs the other a lot less. There's no double dipping here! After all, someone already was accepting payment to take in the heavily asymmetric load and it's an industry wide standard that past a certain point one guy's going to have to pay to continue beign asymmetric

Install Windows posted:

If you think it's bad for someone to have exclusive rights to media, you're basically calling for the abolition of the entire current media industry. I'm not saying that I disagree with that as an ultimate goal per se, but it's incompatible with things like believing it would be ok to instead just split things up.

Install Windows posted:

"Content networks" aren't really a thing. They should have to pay, for the same reason you have to pay to have internet access. Do you not get that they have to get the data to another network somehow? You either pay a third party, who gets access to others through symmetric mutually beneficial links that "pay" for access by meeting needs in kind, or gets the access by paying the target directly; or you get the access by going and hooking up to the target network yourself. Again, the internet works because, globally, companies agree to these terms where heavy asymmetry means payment and close symmetry means essentially free transit (it's not really free of course, as the companies will share costs for maintaining their own links, as well as paying any exchange hosting sites as neccesary).

SamDabbers posted:

The core of it all is the monopoly. The company that has a monopoly on the last mile AND owns a content producing subsidiary is in a better position to throw their weight around than a company that simply has a monopoly on the last mile. If a monopoly is to be granted at all, then it should definitely come with many strings attached, such as not being allowed to vertically integrate, and to provide wholesale access to the network, even if that's not under consideration at the moment vis-à-vis cable companies. I'm willing to bet that it hasn't been proposed because of lobbyist influence, but of course I'd have a hard time proving it.


Consumer ISPs can't possibly attain anything close to an even traffic ratio, given that consumer connections are overwhelmingly asymmetric. In any case, data will be requested by one party or the other, and it behooves them all to be well interconnected. I would argue that the heavy outbound content networks and the heavy inbound consumer networks need each other equally, or would, if the consumer networks didn't have regional monopolies. That gives them extremely unbalanced leverage (you want to reach customers in our region?) in negotiations. The industry standard practice works when the participants are peers in the dictionary sense of the word, not when one has hotels on Park Place and Broadway.


Indeed, I am arguing for a reformation of the media industry. I am also arguing for the containment and heavy regulation of companies permitted to have a monopoly. Monopoly and integration are extremely problematic.


I'm using "content network" to mean a network with a heavy outbound traffic profile. They should pay for long distance transit to and/or local colo at peering points that their counterpart heavy inbound networks have a presence. Without the consumer networks there'd be no content networks, and vice versa.

SamDabbers posted:

Pay for access to a transit network that'll haul your data between regions; sure. Pay to have a presence at a datacenter; ok. Pay a network that needs you (ideally) as much as you need them for a local (same datacenter) connection; no. Both networks have already paid to build their networks out to the peering location so they can service their customers. At that point the traffic ratio is irrelevant. The only reason it doesn't work this way is that one network has a monopoly and the other doesn't. Note that I'm talking only about edge networks, not about transit networks.

Install Windows posted:

No company has a content producing monopoly now, nor will they anytime soon. The reason cable access a la the 96 decision for DSL and phone access hasn't been proposed is that it became considered that fiber network companies were "good enough" in combination with how most localities do not refuse access to build a brand new fiber optic network or replace copper POTS with fiber. It isn't really good enough of course.

Install Windows posted:

Consumer ISPs do provide even traffic ratios most of the time. For one thing, you're forgetting that every consumer ISP out there also has plenty of business customers as well, as well as many major services like Google/Facebook/etc already direct peering and this results in most ISPs being able to maintain settlement-free peering with major transit networks - well, until Netflix really took off that is. And they'll be going right back to settlement-free when Netflix follows suit and direct peers, reverting the peering to symmetric enough.

Those are networks that don't exist. But companies do already pay for access?

This is logically inconsistent. I honestly and seriously do not understand your complaint or what you're trying to address. You pay almost nothing when your load is symmetrical, you pay more and more the more asymmetrical you are - this is a core principle of the global networking business. What problem is there with it?

Like this is a rock-solid basis of the internet, you're going to have to answer why it suddenly needs to change because another big company decided to stop having their massive amount of traffic interfere with public routing?

Install Windows posted:

Well no, you're asking for pushing the media industry back about 3-4 years which isn't any kind of meaningful reform, and then simultaneously asking for completely changing it. Again, you can't have a monopoly on "media".

SamDabbers posted:

Of course nobody can have a monopoly on content production. I didn't say that. I'm talking about when a company has a monopoly in one aspect of their business (regional end-user ISP) integrates another business (content) in which there are competitors. That gives them unfair leverage, since the competing companies still need to have a relationship with the first (because of the monopoly) in order to do business. The difference is that now they need something from a competitor, and can't get it elsewhere.

Localities generally don't refuse access to new buildouts, unless the private telecoms lobbyists have their way. In fact, some cities have tried to build their own to get better service, and the incumbents do everything they can to prevent it.

SamDabbers posted:

Consumer ISPs aim for even traffic ratios because that's what every other player in the industry is using to determine who pays. However, traffic ratios are not a good indicator of the value derived from the peering connection at all, even if that's what everyone's doing. The access-heavy consumer ISP's customers are going to request the content in any case, the content provider is going to send it, and the consumer ISP is going to pick up that traffic on some interface. It benefits both companies to peer so that expensive transit links don't get overloaded, and paying customers get faster access to the content they request. This was debated at NANOG35 and the audience voted 100 to 3 that traffic ratios were not a rational metric for peering.

SamDabbers posted:

Perhaps it was more fragmented 3-4 years ago, but the entire goal is to level the playing field for the benefit of the consumers, not to move it backwards. I'm probably getting some details wrong since I am not an expert about the media and telecoms industries and the regulation thereof, but I contend that it does not serve the public interest to allow for-profit enterprises run for the benefit of their shareholders (not the public) to have monopoly rights to a subset of a market that's become increasingly critical to modern life as we know it without strong regulation to prevent abuse.

Install Windows posted:

That has already existed for decades though, due to most big cable companies owning or having a controlling interest in at least some cable channels that are also available off their network. This isn't something that happened "now".

Install Windows posted:

I don't understand why you think the only fiber alternates are municipal build though.

Install Windows posted:

So again what's the problem here? Why should people stop paying who are paying now? The idea that "well people are going to use that thing" is a rationale for not charging for it doesn't make sense.

But it doesn't level any playing fields to benefit consumers. It doesn't do anything for consumers, it only vaguely increases competition a little in a market where competition doesn't really work to begin with. You also keep trying to extend a monopoly claim into media, which just doesn't make sense.

Install Windows posted:

To be blunt here, the problem with all of this is capitalism, and vaguely increasing faux-competition to attempt to fix it with capitalism isn't going to work. And nationalization of internet access is outside the capabilities of the FCC, at least for the moment.

SamDabbers posted:

Agreed. I'm saying it shouldn't be this way.

SamDabbers posted:

I don't. It is one alternative that seems to work well where it's been implemented, and has been fought every step by entrenched players who refused to build out fiber in response to customer demand. If there's no competition to one-up, there's no incentive to upgrade anything.

SamDabbers posted:

I'm not saying that there's a monopoly on media, only on last mile connections. A last mile provider whose transit links are getting clogged by streaming video traffic actually derives significant value from directly peering with the streaming video network. The justification of maintaining balanced traffic ratios to get the video provider to pay for peering is flawed because the last mile network would carry the traffic anyway, since their paying customers are requesting it.

SamDabbers posted:

Agreed entirely. We can try to make it incrementally better though in the mean time, rather than holding out for the fall of capitalism. The "faux-competition" would at least give the appearance that consumers could vote with their dollars, and switch to a provider who will better meet their needs, instead of only having one option for Internet access. I'm actually part of the fortunate minority who lives in an area with more than one cable provider. My experience has been that the smaller competitor has provided better service for the price compared to the larger, and I think that having a choice between providers is better than not having one, even if it's not as good as having a not-for-profit public network.

Flagrama posted:

So how hosed is anyone else if Comcast decides to implement bandwidth caps in their area after the merger?



Hopefully calling them up for support won't be a dramatic show of incompetence though.

Don Lapre posted:

You can get a business account for 2x the money and a 3 year contract.

Rakthar posted:

Comcast business is roughly 20-50% more money than residential depending on package, includes a 4 hr repair SLA which applies even on weekends, and you can choose a 1, 2, or 3 year contract.

Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

Wow, that's way better than Time Warner "business-class" internet. They wanted to send someone out "maybe tomorrow" when we had a hard outage with them a while back.

Install Windows posted:

They have their distribution systems from the network to their affiliates, their owned and operated stations of course, their distribution networks to cable and satellite providers, etc. Furthermore all of them have some manner of web presence. And many cable channels have been owned by single cable carriers for decades, even though they get shown on other cable carriers, without any ill effect.

It just doesn't make sense at any level. It is a knee jerk response to top all kneejerk responses.

KillHour posted:

KillHour posted:

Are you an executive at Comcast or something? You're white-knighting a one hundred and fifty eight billion dollar company, and it's making everyone

Your assumptions on peering agreements are all kinds of hosed up. Maybe you should brush up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering

By definition, peering cannot involve one side paying the other; that would be a transit agreement. The way things have always worked is that residential ISPs (such as Comcast) charge their customers primarily based on download. Commercial ISPs, on the other hand, typically charge primarily based on upload (since the vast majority of traffic flows from servers to clients, hence the names). A peering agreement in this case makes a ton of sense - the commercial ISP is saying to their customer "Hey, I'm going to charge you for the bandwidth you need to provide content, and I'm going to charge a large amount to do so (since fewer customers generate larger amounts of traffic)." The residential ISP is going to say to their customer "Hey, I'm going to charge you for the bandwidth you need to consume content, and I'm going to charge you relatively little for it, because I can oversubscribe my network to make up the difference (but I'm going to limit your upload, because that fucks with my ability to do that)." The ISPs don't charge each other, because they're already getting paid once for that traffic (by each of their customers).

Comcast is loving with this by saying "I should get paid by my both my customers AND your customers."

If you don't see how that's double dipping, I don't know what to tell you.

KillHour posted:

Are you an executive at Comcast or something? You're white-knighting a one hundred and fifty eight billion dollar company, and it's making everyone

Install Windows posted:

The "double charging" bullshit was disproved months ago.

doomisland posted:

Don't forget about paid peering

SamDabbers posted:

^{[citation needed]}
Please explain how it is not double-dipping if your customers pay you to carry the traffic they send to, and receive from, all reachable networks in your routing table (i.e. Internet access) and then you turn around and charge the other networks to exchange traffic with your paying customers.

Install Windows posted:

The "double charging" bullshit was disproved months ago. And why are you white-knighting a 20 billion dollar company that disagrees with you?

psydude posted:

Netflix doesn't actually like it, BTW.

Also how exactly is Netflix getting free access? They already paid Congent to carry their traffic and Comcast customers paid Comcast to receive it. If you're an ISP, your customers will wind up downloading poo poo. Don't like it? Don't become a service provider.