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

41–50 of 62 posts

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

#41

Post by wmf »

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #35
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…

My understanding is that Level 3 (and Akamai and Limelight and soon everyone) has to pay Comcast for all traffic.

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

#42

Post by amalcon »

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…

Nothing about internet routing, including the cost structure, has anything to do with any sort of practicality. It's all politics and bureaucracy. Comcast and Level 3 are basically in the middle of a bureaucratic skirmish; there's nothing more sinister or unusual going on here.

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

#43

Post by seabee »

jordan0day wrote: post #24
tbrownaw wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an internet connection from Comcast. If I only ever connect to other Comcast customers, I should get my connection for free?

I'm not sure that's at all the argument jws was making. From the customer's point of view, why should they be able to download 100 gigabytes (through Comcast's infrastructure) from an endpoint also within Comcast's network with no problem, but now they can't get any data at all from a level3 endpoint? They're taking up 100 gigs of bandwidth on Comcast's network regardless. Why does level3 have to pay extra to send th…

Why? Because Comcast can make them. Comcast invested in infrastructure which brought subscribers to Netflix. When these subscribers have no alternative (which is apparently the case in many parts of the US) Comcast gets to do all the usual monopoly tricks. "How much is this subscriber worth to you?" Enough to pay, clearly.

For comparison, there was a little discussion recently in the UK re: net neutrality. It is unlikely to go anywhere because of the ease of switching ISPs, and the fact that the BBC - probably the biggest bandwidth sucker nationwide - is 'highly unlikely' to pay ISPs for access. If the biggest player won't pay, who will?

Business is about extracting value, not recouping costs. Amoral, not benevolent.

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

#44

Post by netc »

The article talks about 5 times increase in volume of the traffic. Wouldn't it mean Comcast gets to make extra bucks even though number of Comcast customers who access Netflix will not increase that much? Right or wrong, Comcast wants a cut every time Netflix (or any one else) changes CDN provider.

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

#45

Post by brown9-2 »

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.

And the bullshit part about this is that most of Comcast's customers have little choice in being a customer. They're trapped and have no ability to choose.

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

#46

Post by blueben »

ynniv wrote: post #37
lawfulfalafel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A third party who Comcast would charge to accept their traffic. Let's be honst here; wherever Netflix goes, Comcast is going to chase after them demanding money to handle their traffic.

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

#47

Post by blueben »

extension wrote: post #34
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?

It's not business as usual, which is why it's a big deal. Comcast is trying to do something new. They used to get a cut of revenue from Netflix traffic because it was on Akamai, who pay to sit in Comcast's datacenters. Now that traffic is going to come from a peer. It's the same traffic, but Comcast isn't getting the revenue, and they're pissed.

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

#48

Post by EdwardMSmith »

oogali wrote: post #6
jerf wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The stolen bandwidth in question is between L3 and Comcast, not between you and Comcast. It's "stolen" because they had a contractual agreement which L3 is breaking, which is perhaps stretching the meaning of "stolen" but is defensible, I think. (Or at least so the story goes, I can't vouch for any element of it.) This is all sausage making details that go on all the time and shouldn't and probably still won't ac…

stolen is not a stretch, it's absolutely invalid. in peering agreements, if your ratios are out of whack and you're pushing an uneven traffic distribution, you get a warning, and if it keeps up, you get depeered. in a transit agreement, like what comcast and level3 have. there's nothing to steal, you (comcast) pay for the bandwidth that comes across the pipe your get from your provider (level3).

Except, both L3 and Comcast have said that they had a settlement-free peering agreement, in addition to the transit agreement. And that peering agreement is the one that they're having the spat about.

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

#49

Post by EdwardMSmith »

ck2 wrote: post #15

How exactly could an ISP ever match the upload volume of a downstream contract? It's technically impossible. Even without netflix, the download to upload ratio is huge.

Many (most?) large cable providers, such as Comcast, have co-location and hosting businesses. After all, they have significant server facilities and a serious traffic deficit to make up.

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

#50

Post by extension »

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…

Rarely is there a clear rationale for who a middleman should extract their fee from. In practice, it comes down to who is willing to pay to be part of the transaction.

Comcast customers pay for internet access, but I doubt that agreement specifies anything about network topology. If L3 wants a special connection, and it's worth more to them than it is to Comcast, then I don't see what's wrong, in principle, with charging for it.

Regardless, the net neutrality thing certainly seems bogus. On the other hand, if L3 didn't go on the offensive with PR, they probably would have taken a larger share of the blame from users than they deserve.

Post reply on HN