Observations of an Internet Middleman

Post by jessaustin » Mon, May 05, 2014, 7:55 PM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #16

preinheimer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the issue is the monopoly most broadband providers have in the US and Canada. If you had two truly distinct cable options, say Comcast and TascCom. Your friends with Comcast say Netflix sux, low quality, lots of problems. Your friends with TascCom say netflix is awesome, great HD content, too bad there's only like 8 3D movies! You'll sign up for TascCom. Comcast's board will get angry they're losing customers…

Yeah, this does seem to be a core issue. How can we make it easier for people to start last-mile ISPs? It seems like a pretty capital intensive business to get involved in :)

Post by masklinn » Mon, May 05, 2014, 8:01 PM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #34

notdonspaulding wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It seems like it would be great if they could figure out a mutually beneficial situation, but I guess I fail to see the moral hazard." This article in particular is making the argument that at the level that L3, Comcast, AT&T, Netflix and others are operating, it's almost always mutually beneficial to peer. The article also makes the point that the capital expenditure is negligible compared to the benefit to both…

> it's almost always mutually beneficial to peer. But Netflix might be the exception here right? > You can't just ignore the monopoly argument. You're right, I'm just trying to disambiguate it from the net neutrality argument, which doesn't seem to actually be relevant here (as Comcast is treating all traffic through those links poorly, not just Netflix traffic). If it is truly about the monopoly, regulators have dif…

Post by jessaustin » Mon, May 05, 2014, 8:06 PM UTC

cschroed wrote: post #6

wdewind wrote: post #2

Here's the part that doesn't make sense to me, and hopefully someone can explain it: Netflix pays Level 3 and Cogent to connect them to Comcast's network. Comcast claims that only the Level 3 connection is saturated, and that Netflix is sending all their bandwidth over Level 3 because it's cheaper for them. Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or…

Comcast promises a certain amount of download capability. When customer requests for content that originate from Comcast's network (that would not normally exceed that download capability) end up saturating a link to which Comcast is party to, then it is Comcast's obligation to attempt to upgrade that link. Comcast cannot control the routes via which the content is returned, they must react to their customers usage p…

Post by bryanlarsen » Mon, May 05, 2014, 8:09 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #28

jeffasinger wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core issue isn't at the last mile, but in connecting a last mile network to the internet? Maybe we make Cable companies share their last mile networks like we did with DSL?

> Maybe we make Cable companies share their last mile networks like we did with DSL? Which killed investment in DSL. Who wants to spend billions on infrastructure they are forced to lease out at wholesale rates to competitors?

Post by exelius » Mon, May 05, 2014, 8:11 PM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #20

exelius wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the cost of a packet is borne by the receiver while the sender is the one monetizing it. The assumption is that if you're sending traffic to a customer, you are being paid for that activity through subscription fees, ads, donations, etc. That packet costs the receiver some minuscule amount to process. Even though it was requested by the ultimate receiver, the ultimate sender is only sending the packet because…

As others have said, Comcast is also being monetarily rewarded here. I think the best argument lies along "the sender is in the best position to take measures to reduce traffic (traded off against their goals)."