Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

digitalsociety.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

#31

Post by akamaka »

In case you're wondering who wrote this, they are closely connected to Comcast.

From digitalsociety.org: "Digital Society is an independent 501(c)3 non-profit organization, funded by donations from Jon Henke and from Arts+Labs."

From artsandlabs.com: "Arts+Labs partners include entertainment companies, software providers, telecommunications providers, artists and creators committed to delivering innovative and creative digital products to consumers." (including NBC Universal)

From Wikipedia: "As of August 2010, Comcast's proposed acquisition of a majority stake in NBC Universal is pending government approval."

Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

#32

Post by boredguy8 »

jordan0day wrote: post #19
pilom wrote: post #10

Lots of people seem to be forgetting that content providers want to connect to customers just as much as the customers want the content. Comcast:"L3 you want to connect to all my cable customers fast and you don't want to pay even more to get to me through AT&T so lets make a deal." It makes perfect sense that Comcast should be paid for access to their customers.

"It makes perfect sense that Comcast should be paid for access to their customers." I disagree, heartily. Comcast's customers are paying Comcast for access to the entire internet, not just to the little segment of the network that Comcast owns.

Exactly this, especially in markets where there isn't consumer choice (which is something I don't see anyone talking about on HN).

Conceivably an ISP could charge customers for a connection AND charge providers for access to that base. For instance, magazines charge for both the subscription and the advertisements.

However, I can decide if I want Harper's or US Weekly. If one provides value and the other doesn't, I get to pick. With ISPs, the same feature isn't at play: I either use Road Runner or I don't get high-speed bandwidth. At that point, ISPs have a larger obligation to protect the customers by not doing things like what Comcast is doing.

Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

#33

Post by ashbrahma »

Level 3 found itself in Comcast's shoes back in 2005. They felt that Cogent Communications unfairly taxed its network and made the exact same argument that Comcast is making today, and even temporarily pulled the plug on its connection to Cogent, cutting off some parts of the Internet for millions of Cogent customers.

Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

#34

Post by extension »

andrewvc wrote: post #7

The article does a decent job of introducing the concepts of peering and transit. However, it's pretty long winded and goes through a number of tortured justifications. Here's a much simpler explanation: Comcast is charging Level 3 because they can .

Sure, but what I am trying to figure out, as a relative layperson on this topic, is this: Is either party making some outrageous and unprecedented demand that will bring about the end of the internet as we know it? Or is this just business as usual?

Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

#35

Post by RockyMcNuts »

brown9-2 wrote: post #26

The discussion of this article over on reddit has uncovered some interesting past articles by the same author, and it seems he has a strong bias on this topic http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/edxjp/level_3_ou...

true! every one of those 'Digital Society' paid promo links on memeorandum has the strong whiff of incumbent telecom corporate shilling. I have never seen one get popular there, and am quite surprised to see it #1 here.

The key to this argument is whether Level 3 will have the same the same terms that Akamai and other CDNs do for non-Netflix content. Comcast claims that is the case, but I am not particularly inclined to believe them.

Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

#36

Post by RockyMcNuts »

akamaka wrote: post #31

In case you're wondering who wrote this, they are closely connected to Comcast. From digitalsociety.org: "Digital Society is an independent 501(c)3 non-profit organization, funded by donations from Jon Henke and from Arts+Labs." From artsandlabs.com: "Arts+Labs partners include entertainment companies, software providers, telecommunications providers, artists and creators committed to delivering innovative and creati…

Comcast statement - http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3....

(also crap IMHO - I am not particularly inclined to believe their claim that Level 3 got same terms as Akamai and other CDNs for non-Netflix content)

Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

#37

Post by ynniv »

lawfulfalafel wrote: post #25
jws wrote: post #3

I still fail to see why a leaf node internet provider thinks they should be paid for receiving the data their customers have requested. Paying for transits is easy to understand, and in a complicated topology paying for bytes-in as a peer makes sense because they may be transits. For a leaf node network like Comcast, whose customers pay to receive bytes and pay to have their connections installed to then demand payme…

I still find the fact that level 3 decided to pay comcast the most disturbing. I do not understand the long-term financial benefit of that decision in any way.

They can still send packets to Comcast through a transit provider without paying Comcast. What they can't do is start sending 5 times as much data through their free peering agreement, and the renegotiation involves Level(3) paying Comcast. Obviously they will be paying Comcast less money than they would pay a 3rd party transit provider.

Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

#38

Post by akamaka »

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #36
akamaka wrote: post #31

In case you're wondering who wrote this, they are closely connected to Comcast. From digitalsociety.org: "Digital Society is an independent 501(c)3 non-profit organization, funded by donations from Jon Henke and from Arts+Labs." From artsandlabs.com: "Arts+Labs partners include entertainment companies, software providers, telecommunications providers, artists and creators committed to delivering innovative and creati…

Comcast statement - http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.... (also crap IMHO - I am not particularly inclined to believe their claim that Level 3 got same terms as Akamai and other CDNs for non-Netflix content)

Thanks for the link. I see that the official statement is using much more measured language.

I'm pretty amused by this quote: "what Level 3 wants is to pressure Comcast into accepting more than a twofold increase in the amount of traffic Level 3 delivers onto Comcast's network -- for free."

Isn't Comcast paying Level 3 to deliver traffic to them? If Comcast is not happy with the price Level 3 charges them, can't they switch to a different tier 1 network?

Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

#39

Post by nikcub »

"Now it makes perfect sense how Level 3 managed to outbid Akamai since no CDN provider operating legally could outbid hot goods."

I think he means contractually rather than legally, very big difference and suggests that this story is a beat-up. There is no way in the world that Comcast (a dedicated end user provider) was almost equal with L3 (almost dedicated to providing first-tier backbone to private networks and colo)

Peering is interesting in that you can get a lot of free hosting if you find a company that does a lot of inbound but no outbound. We hosted all of the OpenBSD, FreeBSD and 100+ other projects au mirrors for 10+ years for free hitting peaks of gbits+ because of the provider having to make up peering arrangements. I imagine Comcast would be the same (we did it with a similar company - home broadband provider)

This is definitely a case of Comcast attempting to double-dip and feeding a story to a journalist to get their side of the argument out (the journalist even put a hit on one of his competing publications for 'getting it wrong')

Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

#40

Post by inafewwords »

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #36
akamaka wrote: post #31

In case you're wondering who wrote this, they are closely connected to Comcast. From digitalsociety.org: "Digital Society is an independent 501(c)3 non-profit organization, funded by donations from Jon Henke and from Arts+Labs." From artsandlabs.com: "Arts+Labs partners include entertainment companies, software providers, telecommunications providers, artists and creators committed to delivering innovative and creati…

Comcast statement - http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.... (also crap IMHO - I am not particularly inclined to believe their claim that Level 3 got same terms as Akamai and other CDNs for non-Netflix content)

I'm waiting on Level 3 to call out Comcast on that specifically. That would make the argument of Level 3's accusation against Comcast.
Post reply on HN