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

51–60 of 62 posts

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

#51

Post by grav1tas »

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…

In case your wondering, a funding paper trail for a non-profit doesn't entail bias in a writer for (or employed by) said organization. Bias in a writer doesn't entail factually incorrect information or invalidate a writer's arguments.

This statement does not contradict anything explicitly stated by the OP, in case you're wondering.

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

#52

Post by grav1tas »

blueben wrote: post #47
extension wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That may be the case, but if the peer made a contractual agreement that limited the peering to symmetrical traffic, then Comcast should be free to renegotiate or straight up sever the peering under the terms of any contractual agreements....if this is what is allowed by what's on the contract. While people can hem and haw about the moral and ethical implications, it seems like this is something that is likely spelled out on paper somewhere. It seems like one or both organizations is fanning the flames in the media to rile up end users.

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

#53

Post by rbranson »

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.

They can't, which why this article is bullshit. Settlement-free peering agreements exist because they are mutually beneficial, not to directly generate revenue. Both benefit from cost savings and Level3 can deliver better service quality, which is a big competitive advantage in their business.

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

#54

Post by omegazero »

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…

Look at both ends of the transmission: If both endpoints are inside Comcast's network, Comcast receives payments from both the sender and receiver to cover the costs. If one end point is in Level3's network and Level3 refuses to pay, only one side is paying for the connection.

Or consider just the part of the transmission that occurs within Comcast's network. Case 1: data is sent from Comcast-user-A to Comcast-user-B, both pay a share of the costs. Case 2: data is sent from Comcast-user-A to Level3-Border-Router, only Comcast-user-A pays.

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

#55

Post by tzs »

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…

So by "closely connected" you mean a non-profit that received some funding from an organization that has partnered with many companies, one of which Comcast may buy some stock of?

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

#56

Post by Aron »

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…

It does sound a bit like Kroger charging Kraft to carry their cheese in the stores.. although there have been arrangements like that to improve product placement on shelves (I think).

These companies are swapping services. They both benefit from that. If one company thinks they have the power to do so, they can also extract additional payment. It's just a matter of the details on who has that power. Level3 can choose to pay transit providers (which Comcast can underbid), or they can cut off the Netflix streams (which likely pisses off Netflix quite a bit, and certainly cuts their own revenue). I suspect Comcast wins here unless the PR kerfuffle gambit works.

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

#57

Post by gergles »

grav1tas wrote: post #52
blueben wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That may be the case, but if the peer made a contractual agreement that limited the peering to symmetrical traffic, then Comcast should be free to renegotiate or straight up sever the peering under the terms of any contractual agreements....if this is what is allowed by what's on the contract. While people can hem and haw about the moral and ethical implications, it seems like this is something that is likely spelled…

There's no technical evidence (you can check, quite easily, who's peering with who and if there's a cost associated) that L3 and Comcast are using a purely-symmetric SFP agreement. It's quite likely they aren't (consumer ISPs would never upload enough to large providers to get a symmetric agreement worth their while.)

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

#58

Post by dedward »

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.

Normally, a retailer pays a wholesaler or producer money to get goods, then re-sells them to end users.

Produces set the price, and retail outlets, with a markup, come up with a business strategy ot move that inventory to their customers.

Now - look at Wal-mart. They're big enough that they can go back to the producers and say "Hey, by the way, you're going to knock 1% off the price this year or we're going to drop you - and we can say that because YOU need US."

Same deal here.

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

#59

Post by jordan0day »

seabee wrote: post #43
jordan0day wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unli…

Well yes, of course a business is going to use any tricks, dirty or otherwise, to get as much money as possible. The fact that Comcast is charging their subscribers for access to "the internet" means they ought to be obligated to take bits from anyone who will provide them. If level3 is saying "A person on your network wants these bits, here they are!", Comcast has an obligation to their customer to deliver them.

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

#60

Post by jordan0day »

omegazero wrote: post #54
jordan0day wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Look at both ends of the transmission: If both endpoints are inside Comcast's network, Comcast receives payments from both the sender and receiver to cover the costs. If one end point is in Level3's network and Level3 refuses to pay, only one side is paying for the connection. Or consider just the part of the transmission that occurs within Comcast's network. Case 1: data is sent from Comcast-user-A to Comcast-user-B…

This is a silly argument.

Comcast is charging its customers for access to a nebulous (but commonly-understood) entity called "The Internet". If their pricing model doesn't anticipate that users would want to access bits that exist outside of Comcast's own network (and therefore originate from someone who doesn't pay Comcast), well, it's a wonder they're still in business!

Post reply on HN