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

Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

cringely.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 392 posts

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#131

Post by diminoten »

CocaKoala wrote: post #111
diminoten wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got to ask yourself why Level3 is writing blog posts about this in the first place. It'd be like a bread making company calling out the sandwich shop it sells bread to for not having enough stores. BUT WE'VE MADE ALL THIS BREAD WHY WON'T YOU BUY MORE?! JUST OPEN UP 100 NEW STORES I KNOW YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT! Level3 invested money in their infrastructure, but Comcast, et. al. have not (yet). Level3 is lo…

>It'd be like a bread making company calling out the sandwich shop it sells bread to for not having enough stores. No. It isn't. It's like a bread making company calling out the grocery stores for not having enough shelf space to stock all the bread that customers of the grocery store are asking to buy, saying "People keep on asking us for bread and you can't stock enough of it". edit to add: You keep on not understa…

The demand is not for L3, the demand is for Netflix. Level3 is pushing itself on "Comcast" (which is really a stand-in for the 5 ISPs who aren't playing ball with L3, and may not actually be Comcast at all).

Why must these ISPs play ball with L3, and not try to find competitors to do what L3 does? Isn't competition good?

Edit: People aren't going hungry (I know it's an analogy, but come on), people are watching Netflix at 480p instead of 720p/1080p. Let's try to keep things in perspective here.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#132

Post by danielweber »

jbooth wrote: post #41
kasey_junk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making a claim about the veracity of the counter argument to this, but it is easy to state. If network providers had to sell traffic wholesale to other companies, they would have less incentive to upgrade them as those networks then become pure commodities. Right now the local monopolies can use their networks to sell high margin services (cable) bundled with low margin services (internet traffic). If they ha…

The article said that their cable business is way less profitable than their internet business. I haven't done any research on the topic, but given that they have to pay content providers for cable, and don't for internet, I'm inclined to believe Cringely -- even though in a normal market it should be a low-margin business, selling undifferentiated bits for $.

If it was "selling bits for $" we would already be done.

But today's ISP capacity is unsuitable for tomorrow's ISP demands. One might hand-wave the network as "sunk costs" but the ISP has to keep on sinking those costs.

In fact, that's what Crinkley is complaining about: the ISP isn't sinking costs into its peer with L3.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#133

Post by yuliyp »

CalRobert wrote: post #15
bsimpson wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's ability to print money in conjunction with its generally high PR ratings give it the cache to take on a project like fiber. I can't imagine it's cheap or easy to lay fiber if you don't have substantial financial backing as well as a political goal you're trying to achieve. That said, I've used both Sonic.net and MonkeyBrains here in San Francisco. Never had to rely on a major ISP in this town, and I like it…

I was unaware these problems were addressed with a large cache. It's a good thing Google has sufficient cachet to persuade public officials to work with them, though!

Heh, here I was thinking he was making a pun between cash and cachet :-)

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#134

Post by CocaKoala »

diminoten wrote: post #122
CocaKoala wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense? Are you referring to the "well actually the contract just says you pay for UP TO certain speeds" bullshit?

I'm referring more to the fact that ISPs probably reserve the right to negotiate with peers on their terms in their contracts, not on your terms. You having a month of 720p instead of 1080p Netflix is worth it to the ISPs instead of raising your service prices by $5 bucks every single month.

Oh; instead of referring to some bullshit clause in my contract, you're referring to something that's actually irrelevant. That's weird, but okay. I can roll with it.

ISPs probably do reserve the right to negotiate with peers on their terms, but I don't care about that because I'm not paying them to have a certain agreement with peers, I'm paying them for a certain quality of service. If they are not providing that service (an example being giving me 720p Netflix instead of 1080p like I have paid for) then that seems like a pretty straightforward contractual violation. I'm paying for service and not receiving it. Netflix is providing the service to the ISP. I am providing my money to the ISP. Why is the ISP excused from holding up their end of the bargain?

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#135

Post by neil_s »

Since everyone is pitching their own solutions, how about I post mine. Let's take the example of Netflix and Comcast. Instead of no deal with Comcast, and thus giving Comcast Netflix users really slow or no service, Netflix should make the deal for now, and tell subscribers that if you use Comcast the Netflix rental is higher. By passing off the higher costs to the users, Comcast customers are given the incentive to switch ISPs.

Everyone shows loss aversion, and so will be determined to find out why being on Comcast gets them penalised. They will learn about its dick moves, and complain to Comcast to make them remove these fees so they can access Netflix, which they have already paid for access to.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#136

Post by hga »

fredophile wrote: post #110
spindritf wrote: post #17

Except it’s actually right (not wrong) because those bits are only coming because customers of the ISPs — you and me, the folks who have already paid for every one of those bits — are the ones who want them. What is the source of the notion that, because you paid for your consumer broadband, all bits are paid for and the charge for carrying them cannot be split with the other side of the connection? Why is it so biza…

What if we look at it from the other side? Here's an argument that's very similar to yours: What is the source of the notion that, because Netflix paid for bandwidth, all bits are paid for and the charge for carrying them cannot be split with the other side of the connection? Why is it so bizarre that both sides of the connection have to pay for it? Because you're used to your phone working differently? As an analogy…

But it is split, or let me assure you, my AT&T ADSL connection is very much not free. TV is not apropos because in the US subscribers don't pay for it (compare to the U.K. "television license" and advertisement free BBC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un... ); cable is paid for, and there are or at least have been commercial free channels on cable. That plus a lack of censoring was part of HBO's unique selling proposition after all.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#137

Post by danielweber »

ry0ohki wrote: post #103

"and make their profit on the Internet because it costs so little to provide once the basic cable plant is built." That's some big hand waving, because laying the cable costs a fortune, and takes many years to recoup the cost which is why there is so few are competing for this "super profitable" business.

It's not even a one-time cost.

Without knowing the specific numbers, I'm pretty comfortable saying that the costs to an ISP to get the bits all the way until they reach the peering point is much less than the costs to an ISP to continually upgrade their network.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#138

Post by CocaKoala »

diminoten wrote: post #131
CocaKoala wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It'd be like a bread making company calling out the sandwich shop it sells bread to for not having enough stores. No. It isn't. It's like a bread making company calling out the grocery stores for not having enough shelf space to stock all the bread that customers of the grocery store are asking to buy, saying "People keep on asking us for bread and you can't stock enough of it". edit to add: You keep on not understa…

The demand is not for L3, the demand is for Netflix. Level3 is pushing itself on "Comcast" (which is really a stand-in for the 5 ISPs who aren't playing ball with L3, and may not actually be Comcast at all). Why must these ISPs play ball with L3, and not try to find competitors to do what L3 does? Isn't competition good? Edit: People aren't going hungry (I know it's an analogy, but come on), people are watching Netfl…

L3 is not pushing. I cannot stress that enough. L3 is not pushing. L3 does not push. Pushing is not something L3 does. In the Game of Pushing, L3 is not a player. If you navigate to wikipedia.org/things_which_push, L3 is not on that list. If all the entities of the universe were put into two groups, one labeled "pushers" and one labeled "not pushers", L3 would be in the second group.

The ISPs must play ball with L3 because their customers are asking for content that L3 is trying to provide. If the customers ask for different content from somebody else, then somebody else would be providing the data.

And excuse me? Don't blame me for the crappy analogy; you're the one who brought it up. I thought it was a stupid analogy too, but I thought that speaking in your own terms might help you understand the situation.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#139

Post by larrys »

mhandley wrote: post #39

Would be very interesting to see what happened if the big CDN providers just depeered Comcast for 24 hours. Would certainly cost Comcast a fair amount in customer support calls, bad publicity, and properly bring the debate to the general public.

Can't do that. These are corporations with vast paper trails.

The concept of "Tortious interference" [1] comes to mind but I'm certain there are other legal theories that could be employed by Comcast.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#140

Post by tjgq »

spindritf wrote: post #100
talmand wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, your comparison doesn't work for me. I don't see how those even remotely compare. What I was actually sold from my ISP and I'm currently paying for was indeed unlimited access to everything on the Internet. It's called an Internet connection and that's how I interpret what I'm paying for. If the bill can be split between me, my ISP, and Netflix then I want my bill lowered if my ISP is going to charge Netfl…

What I was actually sold from my ISP and I'm currently paying for was indeed unlimited access to everything on the Internet. There is no such service. Not only does it not exist, it cannot exist. No ISP can provide that. Any independent network on the Internet can start dropping your packets tomorrow for any reason. Including a lazy admin filtering out your entire country. Or due to a copyright agreement. Happens all…

> There is no such service. Not only does it not exist, it cannot exist. No ISP can provide that. Any independent network on the Internet can start dropping your packets tomorrow for any reason. Including a lazy admin filtering out your entire country. Or due to a copyright agreement. Happens all the time.

The point of net neutrality is that, while ISPs should not be held liable for what other entities in the network do, they shouldn't engage in those practices themselves. In logical terms, that's a perfectly reasonable goal.

Post reply on HN