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

Comcast response to Netflix

corporate.comcast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 111 posts

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#71

Post by zxexz »

hanley wrote: post #51
clavalle wrote: post #34

I am surprised AT&T left the comment section open in their Public Policy Blog that this Comcast response links to: http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/consumers-2/who-should-pay-fo... They get raked over the coals (and rightly so, IMHO), by people pointing out that they already pay for their bandwidth, so why should they pay twice (once through AT&T and once through the costs Netflix would have to pass through to them). I…

Looks like Comcast left their comment section open too, although you have to scroll past the 2 large paragraphs of legal matters to get to the comments. I thought it was interesting that they have more legal content than actual content on the post.

Funny - it now appears that there are 0 comments on the Comcast page.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#72

Post by Touche »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #64
Touche wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're paying for sending traffic one-way. Peering agreements are free when both sides are sending an equal amount of traffic to the other.

Peering agreements are free when no money changes hands. Your argument simplifies to "because Comcast said so."

And free peering agreements (called settlement-free agreements) only happen when the transit is more or less balanced.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#73

Post by pedrocr »

bmadden wrote: post #63
pedrocr wrote: post #58

Here's a suggestion on how to implement a fair interconnect market. The world's regulators designate a few physical locations as public interchange points governed by the following rules: 1) If you are an ISP you need to be present in all the interchange points of the geographical areas where you are licensed to operate in. 2) Any ISP can connect to any other ISP at those points with no charge. 3) Whenever an ISPs li…

This is a terrible solution. If you think the situation right now is bad, your solution will only exacerbate the problem. Right now, these exchange points you discuss already exist in the form of IXPs (Internet eXchange Points), which are privately owned and operated. Anyone that wants to peer at an IXP can do so (usually, and assuming you lay your own cable to get there), and whether or not a peering is made is deci…

>Anyone that wants to peer at an IXP can do so (usually, and assuming you lay your own cable to get there), and whether or not a peering is made is decided by the would be peers.

Right, and the three rules are about regulating how those decisions get made.

>In the world you illustrate, these peering decisions are made by government regulators.

No, they're still made by the ISPs, it's just that as long as one of them wants it the other can't say no.

>In your world, there is literally zero money to be made as a transit provider.

Not really. Unless you're willing to connect to all the interchange points in the world you will be paying a transit provider to access all the interchange points you don't peer at directly, just like it happens today.

>Your solution asks companies, which have expended enormous amounts of capital on infrastructure, to share their capital expenditure with anyone and everyone. That's entirely unfair to those companies, and it renders their investment useless.

Which companies are your referring to? The end-user ISPs will continue to charge their clients. The transit providers will continue to charge ISPs to connect to other interchange points. The CDNs will continue to provide the same service. No one is getting to use infrastructure for free. In fact the exchange points are just physical points, the fibers going into them are paid by each of the ISPs peering. Everyone pays their own way.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#74

Post by betterunix »

zobzu wrote: post #47
dangrossman wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what's expected. What's expected is that you get what you pay for, whether you're a customer on the hosting end or the residential end. If you're paying your data center for 1Gbps, then they ought to have at least 1Gbps capacity to the major residential ISPs. If you're paying your residential ISP for 15Mbps, then they ought to have at least 15Mbps capacity to their peers. If there are 100 people trying to…

tldr: peering issue, right? google has similar issues with some EU providers in particular in france, for youtube. traditionally the ISP pays to upgrade the pipes for the content that is provided by a third party (ie ISP pays for youtube, netflix traffic). ie the one whos downloading pays for upgrading pipes. thats where some ISPs (comcast too then i guess?) generally cringe: this way of dividing costs was ok 10 year…

I think Comcast, owner of NBC Universal, has little ground to stand on here. Streaming is an inefficient use of the Internet that is popular only because people are too terrified of lawsuits to use better technologies like BitTorrent. Comcast has worked hard to set up the legal environment that created this situation; they will see no sympathy from me.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#75

Post by jwatte »

zobzu wrote: post #47
dangrossman wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what's expected. What's expected is that you get what you pay for, whether you're a customer on the hosting end or the residential end. If you're paying your data center for 1Gbps, then they ought to have at least 1Gbps capacity to the major residential ISPs. If you're paying your residential ISP for 15Mbps, then they ought to have at least 15Mbps capacity to their peers. If there are 100 people trying to…

tldr: peering issue, right? google has similar issues with some EU providers in particular in france, for youtube. traditionally the ISP pays to upgrade the pipes for the content that is provided by a third party (ie ISP pays for youtube, netflix traffic). ie the one whos downloading pays for upgrading pipes. thats where some ISPs (comcast too then i guess?) generally cringe: this way of dividing costs was ok 10 year…

That's not true. Backbone pays for long haul to meet me room. ISP pays for last mile from meet me to consumer. Comcast decided to not only not pay for interchange equipment, but also to charge twice for traffic. Classic monopolist move.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#76

Post by el_benhameen »

click170 wrote: post #4

You lost me at "No ISP in the country has been a stronger supporter of the Open Internet than Comcast" I'm sorry Comcast but if you can't fullfil our agreement (Internet access) then you aren't an ISP in my mind. I pay you for an Internet connection, not for the ability to send packets at someone else -- they get to respond to me as well, that's part of our deal.

That's what's really bothered me about this whole thing--Comcast and the likes have already mastered their phrasing, and that bodes poorly for public perception of the issue. I've heard the term Open Internet used in that context several times in the last few days, and I think it's a part of a concerted effort to paint preferential traffic treatment as making the internet more "open for business". The hope is that rosy phrasing will "help" Joe Shmoe decide that the FCC's proposal is pro-consumer and pro-openness. They're not using the term in some cynical attempt to say that it ain't so, they're trying to actively re-define and capture it to form a cohesive narrative.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#77

Post by mavrc »

With Stephen Colbert changing shows next year, Comedy Central should consider hiring the writer of this to run a new show. Though something leads me to believe the writer doesn't know it's satire.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#78

Post by dylan604 »

sytelus wrote: post #17

What angers me most is FCC and Comcast both are spinning this whole thing as "improving" net-neutrality while in reality is is plain, simple and naked "net anti-neutrality". They are obviously behind this push as lobbyist. Do they think people are complete idiot to buy off statements like charging content providers actually reduces their cost?

Yes, I believe that this is exactly what these corporations believe. They assume that the general public is too unaware of "how the sausage is made" to even know they are being duped. The average American, HN readers are not average, just want to come home from work to relax by not thinking. It's the same thing that happens when a network goes nuclear by pulling their content off of Comcast/DirecTV/etc. They count on the fact that average Americans just want the issue to go away so they can get back to watching Kardashians do what ever it is they do that make people want to watch.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#80

Post by pdonis »

hanley wrote: post #51
clavalle wrote: post #34

I am surprised AT&T left the comment section open in their Public Policy Blog that this Comcast response links to: http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/consumers-2/who-should-pay-fo... They get raked over the coals (and rightly so, IMHO), by people pointing out that they already pay for their bandwidth, so why should they pay twice (once through AT&T and once through the costs Netflix would have to pass through to them). I…

Looks like Comcast left their comment section open too, although you have to scroll past the 2 large paragraphs of legal matters to get to the comments. I thought it was interesting that they have more legal content than actual content on the post.

> you have to scroll past the 2 large paragraphs of legal matters

Yeah, I love the fact that the boilerplate disclaimers are well over twice the length of the actual post.

Post reply on HN