Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by Russ

I agree this is not a net neutrality issue. Some folks have brought up telco termination fees where orignating networks pay terminating nwtroks. That's based primarily on calling party pays. Well, the calling party here is the subscriber. I'm calling Netflix, and I'm paying my ISP for the privledge. And I'm pay a subscription fee to Netflix, so they're happy to terminate my "call." CDN biz is to get content across the internet - to bypass internet bottlenecks. Netflix is happy to pay for that too... The reason Comcast is going after L3 is the concentration of traffic; they have requested so many ports, it's practical to charge them -- and L3 CAN pay because they are being paid by Netflix. If Netflix didn't use a CDN their traffic would still go thru Comcast...it would just come thru more entry points, which would make it harder for Comcast to charge any particular entity....Other than Netflix, and then we'd have a net neutralty issue?? I know many folks hate Comcast, but I think Comcast's biz arguements hold some water...

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by Russ

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/forget-net-neutrality-comcast-might-break-the-web/#comment-529783

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by GD Boy

This is about more than a battle between Content Distribution Networks (CDN's) and Internet Service Providers (ISP's). The day is coming when video customers will abandon old-fashioned video services like cable companies. Comcast is preparing for this day by trying to change the precedent from what was once unlimited internet service to tiered, usage-based service. Comcast also wants to triple-dip and charge end-users, content providers AND CDN's for the extra bandwidth required to deliver video, to makeup for lost business when video services are delivered via other providers — partially using Comcast's bandwidth. I don't begrudge Comcast receiving a fair fee. But Comcast has overcharged video and Internet customers for years while delivering poor service and cheating customers on bandwidth. The company is fundamentally dishonest and cannot be trusted to manage our digital infrastructure. Congress simply MUST step in and separate the information highways from the content providers.

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by GD Boy

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/forget-net-neutrality-comcast-might-break-the-web/#comment-528910

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by Memri

Yes, anymore it seems the maxim 'work smart, not hard' is being unfortunately and intentionally misread as 'screw people over, don't innovate'. This is always a bad thing, and when it happens on a massive corporate level, we end up in situations like these.

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by Memri

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/forget-net-neutrality-comcast-might-break-the-web/#comment-528779

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by KW ENGLAND

You say "Comcast wouldn’t deliver Level 3′s content" if fees aren't paid and that isn't quite true. Level3 (and Comcast) are looking for mutually advantageous interconnections that improve transport speeds. If Level3 refused to pay the fees for the special peering arrangement, Comcast would still accept their traffic, just not at the more-desirable interconnection points. If Level3 and Comcast had the same kind of traffic, their advantage in the proposed interconnection would be the same. The fact that Level3 carries Netflix traffic means that the interconnection is more important to Level3 than Comcast, which does not have a Netflix-like customer. Since it is more important for Level3's business than Comcast's, Level3 pays. You had better believe if Comcast had the Netflix contract, Level3 would be asking Comcast for money. But the fact that the traffic will, in fact, be exchanged between Level3 and Comcast, either according to current backbone interconnects or according to the new peering interconnects, this IS NOT a net neutrality issue. This isn't really even news. Backbones tussle over settlement-free peering all the time, since the beginning of the commercial Internet. The fact that Level3 brings the argument out of the smoke-filled backroom doesn't make it newsworthy, extraordinary or suspicious.

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by KW ENGLAND

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/forget-net-neutrality-comcast-might-break-the-web/#comment-528740

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality, Comcast Might Break the Web by Mark Renouf

Wait, what's wrong with charging for more traffic? If there is a balance of traffic in a peering agreement, then all are happy. But if there is a 5:1 ratio I agree that the ISP has a right to charge to deliver that extra traffic. The point of net neutrality is that all *types* of traffic be treated equally. There's nothing wrong with charging for added traffic volume by source... unless of course those prices are not controlled by any real competition. (The real issue!)

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality, Comcast Might Break the Web by Mark Renouf

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/forget-net-neutrality-comcast-might-break-the-web/#comment-526915

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality, Comcast Might Break the Web by Brett Glass

Again, Stacey Higginbotham continues to spout the usual BS, denying the existence of competitive ISPs and promoting stifling, onerous regulation that would kill them. (This, of course, is all consistent with Google's corporate party line.) Stacey likewise denies the market power of content providers such as Google - perhaps because Google is a sponsor of this site and pays a goodly portion of her salary. Given this financial motivation, we probably can't ever expect unbiased or truthful reporting from Stacey or from this site.

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality, Comcast Might Break the Web by Brett Glass

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/forget-net-neutrality-comcast-might-break-the-web/#comment-526893