Comcast blocks Netflix; Wants fee to stream content
He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole
The New York Times just reported that Comcast is blocking Netflix
unless a new fee is paid to Comcast. Will the FCC step in to stop
this abuse of power and protect the open Internet?
Level 3 Communications, a central partner in the Netflix online movie
service, accused Comcast on Monday of charging a new fee that puts
Internet video companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Level 3, which helps to deliver Netflix’s streaming movies, said
Comcast had effectively erected a tollbooth that “threatens the open
Internet,” and indicated that it would seek government intervention.
Comcast quickly denied that the clash had anything to do with network
neutrality, instead calling it “a simple commercial dispute.”
The dispute highlighted the growing importance of Internet video
delivery — an area that some people say needs to be monitored more
closely by regulators. Net neutrality, which posits that Internet
traffic should be free of any interference from network operators like
Comcast, is thought to be on the December agenda of the Federal
Communications Commission.
“With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’
Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides
whether and how their subscribers interact with content,” Thomas C.
Stortz, the chief legal officer for Level 3, said in a statement
Monday.
Those issues cut to the heart of Comcast’s imminent acquisition of NBC
Universal, which is in the final stages of review by the F.C.C. and
the Justice Department. The F.C.C. is considering attaching a
condition to the merger that would aim to keep Comcast’s Internet
network open to competitors, according to public filings this month.
In theory, without government action, Comcast could speed up streams
of NBC programs and slow down streams of its rivals’ programs. “This
may be one of those teaching moments for consumers to understand
what’s at stake,” said Michael McGuire, a media analyst for Gartner.
There is no known case of Comcast ever slowing the traffic to one of
its direct competitors, but it did delay some peer-to-peer file
traffic in a much-litigated case several years ago. Comcast says it
supports an open Internet — but also says that it needs to be able to
manage its expensive and still-evolving networks, which are
essentially on- and off-ramps to the Internet.
Level 3 in essence operates a highway that connects to those ramps and
handles traffic to and from individual Web sites. Comcast customers
rely on the company’s on- and off-ramps from that highway. With nearly
17 million broadband Internet customers, Comcast is the nation’s
largest such service provider.
The scuffle between the two started on Nov. 19, when Level 3 says
Comcast demanded a recurring fee to “transmit Internet online movies
and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content.”
Three days later, under pressure from Comcast, “Level 3 agreed to the
terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience
any disruptions,” Mr. Stortz said.
Mr. Stortz did not cite Netflix in his statement. But just a week
before Comcast’s demand, Level 3 announced a multiyear deal to support
Netflix’s rapidly growing streaming service.
A recent study found that at peak times, Netflix represented 20
percent of Internet download traffic in the United States. That makes
it a de facto competitor for incumbent distributors like Comcast and
Time Warner Cable, which are eager to protect both the subscription
television business and the emerging video-on-demand business.
Mr. Stortz implied that Comcast was taking the action to impair
companies that compete with its own cable and Internet services.
A spokesman for Netflix declined to comment Monday. Netflix, which
announced a new pricing structure last week, is gradually weaning its
customers from DVDs by mail in favor of online streaming, making any
new costs a serious concern.
Comcast on Monday rebuffed the notion that the new fees were related
to Netflix by saying that the type of traffic distributed by Level 3
was irrelevant. Joe Waz, a senior vice president at Comcast, says it
has had a peering agreement with Level 3 to swap traffic fairly
evenly. Now Level 3 is sharply increasing its traffic, he said, while
resisting a commercial agreement to pay for that.
Comcast is “already carrying huge amounts of video to our high-speed
Internet customers every day through commercial arrangements, and it
seems to be working for everybody else,” Mr. Waz said. “Level 3 is
trying to change the rules of the game.”
If nothing else, the dispute demonstrates that consumers have little,
if any, idea how convoluted it can be to transmit video to a computer
or mobile phone.
Nonetheless, on Monday night, public interest groups that have
steadfastly opposed the combination of Comcast and NBC Universal
argued that the Level 3 case proved that Comcast would discriminate
against competitors if it could.
“On its face, this is the sort of toll booth between residential
subscribers and the content of their choice that a net neutrality rule
is supposed to prohibit,” said Harold Feld, legal director of one such
group, Public Knowledge, in a statement.
Mr. Stortz said Level 3 would be approaching government regulators
this week and “asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair,
open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network
controlled by a few institutions with dominant market power that have
the means, motive and opportunity to economically discriminate between
favored and disfavored content.”
Mr. McGuire, of Gartner, said, “There is no law here. There are only
guiding principles. F.C.C. clarity on this kind of thing is going to
be required.”
Sol L. Siegel
<classic...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3ab7d60b-541e-43e0...@q12g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> By BRIAN STELTER
>
> The New York Times just reported that Comcast is blocking Netflix
> unless a new fee is paid to Comcast. Will the FCC step in to stop
> this abuse of power and protect the open Internet?
>
[...]
>
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/netflix-partner-says-
comcast-toll-threatens-online-video-delivery/
Hmmm... this could impact my future decision whether or not to go for a
Comcast bundle if I move next year.
Perhaps I should let Comcast (or, as I like to call it, The Evil Empire)
know this.
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA (Home of Comcast's HQ)
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
> "He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole"
>
> > By BRIAN STELTER
>
> > The New York Times just reported that Comcast is blocking Netflix
> > unless a new fee is paid to Comcast. Will the FCC step in to stop
> > this abuse of power and protect the open Internet?
>
> [...]
>
> >http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/netflix-partner-says-
>
> comcast-toll-threatens-online-video-delivery/
>
> Hmmm... this could impact my future decision whether or not to go for a
> Comcast bundle if I move next year.
>
> Perhaps I should let Comcast (or, as I like to call it, The Evil Empire)
> know this.
>
> - Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA (Home of Comcast's HQ)
Its a pretty building at least, though it could have used a spiral on
top.
Obveeus
"He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole"
news:3ab7d60b-541e-43e0...@q12g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
By BRIAN STELTER
The New York Times just reported that Comcast is blocking Netflix
unless a new fee is paid to Comcast. Will the FCC step in to stop
this abuse of power and protect the open Internet?
This is an issue where the FCC probably should step in. Comcast doesn't
have a right to decide which streaming content they will allow users to see
(I have no doubt, for example, bu tthat they will let Hulu through unabated
given the soon to be ownership). If Comcast wants to charge for bandwidth,
they need to charge the user, not the provider.
ravenlynne
Glad I'm not with comcast.
--
Currently reading: The Chalice by Phil Rickman and The Walking Dead vol 3
moviePig
> On 11/30/2010 6:42 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>
>
>
> > "He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole"
> >news:3ab7d60b-541e-43e0...@q12g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> > By BRIAN STELTER
>
> > The New York Times just reported that Comcast is blocking Netflix
> > unless a new fee is paid to Comcast. Will the FCC step in to stop
> > this abuse of power and protect the open Internet?
>
> > This is an issue where the FCC probably should step in. Comcast doesn't
> > have a right to decide which streaming content they will allow users to see
> > (I have no doubt, for example, bu tthat they will let Hulu through unabated
> > given the soon to be ownership). If Comcast wants to charge for bandwidth,
> > they need to charge the user, not the provider.
>
> Glad I'm not with comcast.
Don't imagine your provider's not watching with interest...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
ravenlynne
> On Nov 30, 8:28 am, ravenlynne<ravenly...@somecraphere.com> wrote:
>> On 11/30/2010 6:42 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole"
>>> <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> By BRIAN STELTER
>>
>>> The New York Times just reported that Comcast is blocking Netflix
>>> unless a new fee is paid to Comcast. Will the FCC step in to stop
>>> this abuse of power and protect the open Internet?
>>
>>> This is an issue where the FCC probably should step in. Comcast doesn't
>>> have a right to decide which streaming content they will allow users to see
>>> (I have no doubt, for example, bu tthat they will let Hulu through unabated
>>> given the soon to be ownership). If Comcast wants to charge for bandwidth,
>>> they need to charge the user, not the provider.
>>
>> Glad I'm not with comcast.
>
> Don't imagine your provider's not watching with interest...
I have no doubts they are..I'm with at&t.
Adam H. Kerman
>By BRIAN STELTER
>The New York Times just reported that Comcast is blocking Netflix
>unless a new fee is paid to Comcast. Will the FCC step in to stop
>this abuse of power and protect the open Internet?
>This is an issue where the FCC probably should step in. Comcast doesn't
>have a right to decide which streaming content they will allow users to see
>(I have no doubt, for example, bu tthat they will let Hulu through unabated
>given the soon to be ownership). If Comcast wants to charge for bandwidth,
>they need to charge the user, not the provider.
The FCC should absolutely not step in. It's not a technical issue but a
potential breach of contract issue that will undoubtably get resolved with a
class action lawsuit.
Anyway, you're wrong. I'll just refer you to the economics of binary
Usenet for a similar example, in which massive uploaders weren't charged
for internetwork bandwidth, regardless of whether content was desired.
A broadcaster pays to transmit the signal. A satellite channel pays to
uplink to the satellite. Why shouldn't mass streaming sites pay something
for other networks to receive their massive traffic?
I do not watch television or movies regularly on my computer. You want to
receive Netflix? Pay a higher fee to Netflix to account for the massive
internetwork bandwidth they consume as there is very likely cross subsidy
taking place.
Thumper
Wait until their merger with NBC goes through.
Thumper
Anim8rFSK
ravenlynne <raven...@somecraphere.com> wrote:
Oh, God, you poor poor thing. Hopefully they'll shut AT&T down and put
everyone that works for it in prison, sooner rather than later.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Anim8rFSK
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> The FCC should absolutely not step in. It's not a technical issue but a
> potential breach of contract issue that will undoubtably get resolved with a
> class action lawsuit.
The FCC's proper place is to swing into action when a FCC Commissioner's
mentally retarded daughter is afraid her baby will be corrupted by
Victoria's Secret models, and can't work the remote to save her.
ravenlynne
>> I have no doubts they are..I'm with at&t.
>
> Oh, God, you poor poor thing. Hopefully they'll shut AT&T down and put
> everyone that works for it in prison, sooner rather than later.
>
What are the problems that people have? The prices are competitive here
and I never have service interruptions.
Obveeus
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> The FCC's proper place is to swing into action when a FCC Commissioner's
> mentally retarded daughter is afraid her baby will be corrupted by
> Victoria's Secret models, and can't work the remote to save her.
That crap airs tonight, but all the quality people will be watching Detroit
1-8-7 instead.
Meanwhile, the point remains that Comcast has no right to decide which
streaming signals a person can or cannot receive over the internet. If they
want to try and control/curtail bandwidth use, they can charge their end
user per gig (or whatever) of downloading, but they don't get to decide
which downloads are ok and which are not...especially when they are going to
own one source (Hulu) and not another (Netflix)...and their users
frequently/mostly have no choice as to which high speed internet access
provider they use (monopoly issues).
Flasherly
> On 11/30/2010 1:22 PM, Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> >> I have no doubts they are..I'm with at&t.
>
> > Oh, God, you poor poor thing. Hopefully they'll shut AT&T down and put
> > everyone that works for it in prison, sooner rather than later.
>
> What are the problems that people have? The prices are competitive here
> and I never have service interruptions.
Some do OK. Maybe. Outside or over basic landline services, which
under state regulatory commissions (near a necessity to such as
electricity, for some, especially the elderly and handicapped), it's
business as usual, so anything goes. Almost, or whatever the equates
to the US being ranked globally at 20 in terms of internet services.
Here, AT&T's de-monopilized counterpart screws with billing their
upper-tier customer base and sends them to circular-services in
Pakistan for questions. It's nasty. I was going to put in a "dry-
line" -- law states they can't control my service provider or impose a
fee for a line in -- but, when I said that, they quickly dropped their
basic rates to a third what they'd been charging me for years.
It's already happened with the telcos. They're bullshit marketing on
added packages are priced at a fifth the country with money -- halfway
mark is the reality of half the people occur to have nothing to show
beyond living on paychecks to cover their bills. The other half,
below, have already moved to cell plans and dropped landline
providers. At first they, telco marketing, denied it when it was
happening to them. Same thing is happening now with television cable
providers -- trend is going down and people are leaving the $50-100
monthly bullshit "packaged" plans. And, like the telcos, they're
denying its happening to them (because of shareholders).
That's why my telco did a fast backtrack, dropping my rates to a third
when I told them -- I've had it with your bullshit billing practices,
all these nickel-dime charges;--and, screw your base rates, too, I'm
going cell. I couldn't believe the counter-offer price they came back
with. . .when I asked why, I was told, "we're trying to keep you."
Sad part is the length of time they've been screwing me before I spoke
up.
Anim8rFSK
ravenlynne <raven...@somecraphere.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 1:22 PM, Anim8rFSK wrote:
> >> I have no doubts they are..I'm with at&t.
> >
> > Oh, God, you poor poor thing. Hopefully they'll shut AT&T down and put
> > everyone that works for it in prison, sooner rather than later.
> >
>
> What are the problems that people have? The prices are competitive here
> and I never have service interruptions.
Well, their cell phone service doesn't work here *at all* which is why I
don't have an iPhone, and have never seen a working one. A friend of
mine moved here from Utah a couple weeks ago saying she was keepign AT&T
and talking about it the way you are, and is already having total
outages with them telling her a tower blew up or some nonsense. But
mostly it's the long distance scams they run; they'll slam you (change
you to their service without your permission) and try to hit you for all
sorts of outrageous fees when they do. They've hit me or mine with
phony charges on 4 separate occassions now, and in every case they
finally had to back down because the charges were totally fradulent. A
friend of mine in Texas changed his house phone away from them yesterday
and is saving $50/month - I was horrified that he was PAYING $50 a month
to begin with!
Eric Ramon
it's pretty gangsterish, muscling in on the territory, demanding a cut
and claiming it's "insurance".
ravenlynne
We have local phone internet and cell service. We don't have their long
distance. All of our family members in atlanta and tulsa all have at&t
also so it's free to call one another on the cell.
Goro
Yup. it's the first salvo in the Net Neutrality War
-goro-
moviePig
...fired, I fear, only because victory is believed already certain.
Thanatos
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <id38n2$cp6$3...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > The FCC should absolutely not step in. It's not a technical issue but a
> > potential breach of contract issue that will undoubtably get resolved with a
> > class action lawsuit.
>
> The FCC's proper place is to swing into action when a FCC Commissioner's
> mentally retarded daughter is afraid her baby will be corrupted by
> Victoria's Secret models, and can't work the remote to save her.
Finally someone who gets it!
nick
the envelopes were jamming up the automatic mail sorters.
Goro
After a bit more reading, it appears not so clear cut. It may not be
as simple a Net Neutrality issue as it is a PEERING issue.
Apparently, Comcast isn't asking to charge for NETFLIX traffic, but
rather for the DIRECT PEERING TRAFFIC from Level 3, much of which is,
in fact, Netflix traffic; in fact, the increase in netflix traffic
volume is likely what is problematic in the previous peering
agreement.
Still, it doesn't veer into Net Neutrality until Comcast willfully
blocks Netflix traffic that is NOT direct peering traffic.
It is getting dangerously close, though, and it wouldn't be surprising
if Comcast were using this as a veil to attempt some minor NN forays.
Non-peered traffic would certainly be much slower, although in this
case, Level3 did pony up the money.
-goro-
moviePig
But I bet a lot of checks to FedEx and UPS get lost in the mail.
James McMurdoch
> I'm with at&t.
May God have mercy on your soul.
--
******* This was posted without the permission of *******
**********************************************************
** HIS ASSNESS ADAM H KERMAN LORD AND MASTER OF NOTHING **
**********************************************************
*********** We are simple defiers of his will ************
Sol L. Siegel
news:id38n2$cp6$3...@news.albasani.net:
> You want to receive Netflix? Pay a higher fee to Netflix to account for
> the massive internetwork bandwidth they consume as there is very likely
> cross subsidy taking place.
FWIW, Netflix has already upped its monthly for Blu-ray disc rentals,
starting in January.
moviePig
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote innews:id38n2$cp6$3...@news.albasani.net:
>
> > You want to receive Netflix? Pay a higher fee to Netflix to account for
> > the massive internetwork bandwidth they consume as there is very likely
> > cross subsidy taking place.
>
> FWIW, Netflix has already upped its monthly for Blu-ray disc rentals,
> starting in January.
For SD, too, afaik.