Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Re: Pollyannas think carriers won't use their clout
Everything should be digitally communicated, movie and games etc, that's the aim. Netflix created a deal with Comcast and maybe in the near future Sony signs are deal as well to deliver their games, the average size of a PS4 game is 40GB. If the system is not monetized then data provides will not be able to finance hardware and labor, and consumers should not be expecting 4k video streaming anytime soon.
All this is entertainment material however, the value that consumers derives from 1MB of email data can have a lot more value at times in the eyes of the consumer, if the hypotheses is that these deals are going to create a situation where for example, 1 MB of data is becoming hard for consumers to access then the value of the internet will decrease creating a disequilibrium.
All this is entertainment material however, the value that consumers derives from 1MB of email data can have a lot more value at times in the eyes of the consumer, if the hypotheses is that these deals are going to create a situation where for example, 1 MB of data is becoming hard for consumers to access then the value of the internet will decrease creating a disequilibrium.
Re: Pollyannas think carriers won't use their clout
@LornaGarey:
"In fact, LR reported Comcast as saying, "Netflix receives no preferential network treatment under the multi-year agreement."
Come on, if that's so, what are they paying for? To NOT be slowed down? That sounds much like the baseball bat/china shop analogy.
As I have read it, Netflix previously peered with Cogent, and Cogent peered with Comcast. Since Netflix streams a huge amount of data in one direction, Comcast can reasonably argue that this is not a reasonable case for the usual peering agreements where it's assumed that data exchange is largely equal in each direction. Oddly then, what I read is that the actual problem with the "throttling" was between Cogent and Comcast, where the connection was saturated and Comcast wouldn't agree to uprate the peering connection bandwidth because they felt it was not a fair deal in both directions in terms of traffic.
What Netflix has done now - for better or worse - is to create a direct peering agreement with Comcast just like a regular customer would buy internet bandwidth, rather than through an SP-style peering agrement. And as I understand it, the definitions of net neutrality only cover what you do to traffic once it's on your network, and don't speak to the peering agreements and how you get the traffic on to it.
Now, where things would get interesting is if Comcast had agreed to let netflix locate their CDN devices within their network, which is really what Netflix wanted.
"In fact, LR reported Comcast as saying, "Netflix receives no preferential network treatment under the multi-year agreement."
Come on, if that's so, what are they paying for? To NOT be slowed down? That sounds much like the baseball bat/china shop analogy.
As I have read it, Netflix previously peered with Cogent, and Cogent peered with Comcast. Since Netflix streams a huge amount of data in one direction, Comcast can reasonably argue that this is not a reasonable case for the usual peering agreements where it's assumed that data exchange is largely equal in each direction. Oddly then, what I read is that the actual problem with the "throttling" was between Cogent and Comcast, where the connection was saturated and Comcast wouldn't agree to uprate the peering connection bandwidth because they felt it was not a fair deal in both directions in terms of traffic.
What Netflix has done now - for better or worse - is to create a direct peering agreement with Comcast just like a regular customer would buy internet bandwidth, rather than through an SP-style peering agrement. And as I understand it, the definitions of net neutrality only cover what you do to traffic once it's on your network, and don't speak to the peering agreements and how you get the traffic on to it.
Now, where things would get interesting is if Comcast had agreed to let netflix locate their CDN devices within their network, which is really what Netflix wanted.
Re: Pollyannas think carriers won't use their clout
Netflix might be playing games too but they offer their CDN devices for free to alleviate the interconnect saturation issues. Some have said that they ought to have to pay Akamai like others do. I disagree. Right now Netflix offers incredible OTT value and they seem to be looking for ways to change the status quo. They are disruptive and good for consumers tired of paying ridiculously high video bills to traditional video distributors for 200 channels of reality TV with commercials and blasted pop-ups during content! What I hear is a lot of whining and complaining along the lines of the classic Ed Whitacre quote "They are using my lines for free! Waaaaa!". That's classic Ma Bell thinking and unless we were all happy with the days of paying for touch tone dialing and a fee to keep a number unlisted, I think we shoud side with the disrupter instead of the monopoly.
Re: Pollyannas think carriers won't use their clout
RRadina, Do you hold Netflix harmless here? Agreed 100% on Comcast and competition. When FiOS came to my neighborhood, suddenly Comcast really, really liked us. All those pesky yearly rate hikes? Fuggedaboutit. Expect that when Google Fiber gets to Boston, Comcast will start sending us annual fruit baskets.
However, Netflix is playing games, too. That's what I meant by motives.
However, Netflix is playing games, too. That's what I meant by motives.
Re: Pollyannas think carriers won't use their clout
Instead of highways and roads, which is a good analogy. I would point to the Telcom Act of 1934 (amended in 1996) that subsidies the telcos (primarily the Bell Companies) to lay the original last miles (copper wire) and also gave them right of way on roads and train tracks. Many of which are still part of our infurstrucure today. The Cable companies have been able to play by a different set of rules due to their timing (Reagan administration). My hope is that better wireless technology will make this conversation obsolete, but we are not there yet.
Re: Pollyannas think carriers won't use their clout
The idea that 'the last mile' is serviced by charitble contributions from publically held companies with charitable shareholders is incoherent. ISP's sell two classes of product, consumer grade 'best effort' bandwidth and enterprise grade bandwidth guarenteed by service level agreements (SLAs). Try to find the place on your cable bill where TW or Comcast commit to a course of action if you don't get the bandwidth you pay for. They don't and that is exactly why consumer grade internet is consumer grade internet -- you have no recourse if you don't get 10Mbps other than switching the an alternative ISP. Enterprise grade internet is enterprise grade because of the SLA -- I can measure the speed over time and I can derate my payment acording to a derating clause in the contract I signed. By the way, enterprise grade costs 3-5 times more than consumer grade.
About switching ISPs... There are only 3 ISPs (first order) 1. at&t, 2. verizon 3. Comcast+TW. That's it. All the other pipes are leased from these three (first order). Oh, by the way, all three have exactly the same SLA terms. The reason you cannot force Jiffy Lube to service your car in 30 minutes (or what ever they promise) is that you don't sign a contract when you drive into Jiffy Lube that has a price derating curve. That is like the ISP SLA. Domino's Pizza has what sounds like an SLA but try to take Domino's to court if they take 40 minutes to deliver your pizza and still charge you for it. Children. Don't listen to politicians and interests groups -- there is not now and has never been an animal called net neutrality. This is a gift from Santa that we have been fooled into believing.
About switching ISPs... There are only 3 ISPs (first order) 1. at&t, 2. verizon 3. Comcast+TW. That's it. All the other pipes are leased from these three (first order). Oh, by the way, all three have exactly the same SLA terms. The reason you cannot force Jiffy Lube to service your car in 30 minutes (or what ever they promise) is that you don't sign a contract when you drive into Jiffy Lube that has a price derating curve. That is like the ISP SLA. Domino's Pizza has what sounds like an SLA but try to take Domino's to court if they take 40 minutes to deliver your pizza and still charge you for it. Children. Don't listen to politicians and interests groups -- there is not now and has never been an animal called net neutrality. This is a gift from Santa that we have been fooled into believing.
Re: Pollyannas think carriers won't use their clout
So has the time come to treat cabling infrastructure, wired or wireless, the same way we do highways and roads? Make that part of what we pay taxes for. Then let the Comcast's of the world use that to provide actual service. Then we might have some actual feasible competition for that last mile.
That's by no means a perfect solution, I'm well aware we have hundreds of bridges in country we can't maintain with government in control. But there is no solution to the last mile issue, what technology is going to be invented to introduce true competition providing that access to each home? Cellular type wireless is only hope and right now I'm paying $30 a month for 3GB. That's certainly not feasible to take over my TV service, with myself, my wife and my daughter all watching HD on separate TVs.
That's by no means a perfect solution, I'm well aware we have hundreds of bridges in country we can't maintain with government in control. But there is no solution to the last mile issue, what technology is going to be invented to introduce true competition providing that access to each home? Cellular type wireless is only hope and right now I'm paying $30 a month for 3GB. That's certainly not feasible to take over my TV service, with myself, my wife and my daughter all watching HD on separate TVs.
Re: Pollyannas think carriers won't use their clout
Ideally you are correct. Unfortuntely from a practicle stand point it is not really the FCC that is or can solve the problem. It is called the "last mile" and that is and always has been the problem. It cost too much for seven or ten companies to all have "pipes" into your neighborhood. So the one that does is King Kong. Just the way it is.
Re: Pollyannas think carriers won't use their clout
I don't think the motives are fuzzy. Comcast provides a service to its customers. The customers pay for that service. If the service suddenly changes and customers complain because it no longer meets their needs, it's up to Comcast to make sure their service provides what their customers want. If resolving the issue requires additional funds, they seek funds from their customers.
Suppose you need your car's oil changed and you visit a quick change store. They fail to staff sufficiently and stock enough product. What should take 20 minutes, takes three hours. Do you visit this store again or take your business elsewhere? What if it's the only oil change store within 50 miles? What if customers complain but the store's hands are tied because their prices don't allow hiring additional staff or adequately stocking product? Rather than raise customer prices, the store manipulates the employees to work for less (cutting benefits, eliminating overtime, hiring less skilled replacements etc.). On top of that, they extorts local suppliers, whose survival is dependant on the store's wholesale business, for cheaper product.
Competition solves the issues outlined in both paragraphs. We don't have that and the result is distorted market forces.
If Comcast was losing money and desperately needed more funds to expand it's network and add capacity, perhaps my feelings would be different. However, it's nothing of the sort. A few talks, a little money exchanged and suddenly instant improvement. While every business has the privilege to leverage their assets to the fullest extent for their shareholders/owners, they aren't generally allowed to do so in a competitive and regulatory vacuum.
Suppose you need your car's oil changed and you visit a quick change store. They fail to staff sufficiently and stock enough product. What should take 20 minutes, takes three hours. Do you visit this store again or take your business elsewhere? What if it's the only oil change store within 50 miles? What if customers complain but the store's hands are tied because their prices don't allow hiring additional staff or adequately stocking product? Rather than raise customer prices, the store manipulates the employees to work for less (cutting benefits, eliminating overtime, hiring less skilled replacements etc.). On top of that, they extorts local suppliers, whose survival is dependant on the store's wholesale business, for cheaper product.
Competition solves the issues outlined in both paragraphs. We don't have that and the result is distorted market forces.
If Comcast was losing money and desperately needed more funds to expand it's network and add capacity, perhaps my feelings would be different. However, it's nothing of the sort. A few talks, a little money exchanged and suddenly instant improvement. While every business has the privilege to leverage their assets to the fullest extent for their shareholders/owners, they aren't generally allowed to do so in a competitive and regulatory vacuum.
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest, Dec. 9, 2014Apps will make or break the tablet as a work device, but don't shortchange critical factors related to hardware, security, peripherals, and integration.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Archived InformationWeek Radio
InformationWeek Live for the Week of February 22, 2015
UPCOMING!
Wednesday, March 11, 12pm EDT
Upgrading from Windows Server 2003: Why Now is the Time to Make Your Move
Wednesday, March 11, 12pm EDT
Upgrading from Windows Server 2003: Why Now is the Time to Make Your Move
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong 
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.
- Featured UBM Tech Sites
- InformationWeek |
- Network Computing |
- Dr. Dobbs |
- Dark Reading
- Our Markets:
- Business Technology |
- Electronics |
- Game & App Development
- Working With Us:
- Advertising Contacts |
- Event Calendar |
- Tech Marketing Solutions |
- Corporate Site |
- Contact Us / Feedback
Tweet This
User Rank: Ninja
3/2/2014 | 7:21:19 PM
If these folks cannot make ends meet without extorting NetFlix, Sony, Google and the rest, why do they keep increasing the speeds which only allows us to create the bandwidth Armageddon they've been preaching for the past decade? It just isn't rational to double speeds every few years and then whine about caps, overages and the need to monetize the plant or lest someday soon, even e-mail won't get through.
It's almost like the looming nationwide cannabis legalization providing everyone ever-cheaper product and then complaining about how our consumption isn't sustainable unless the midnight fast food restaurants share some of their bounty.