Comcast is destroying the principle that makes a competitive internet possible

[coloradoatheist]

Net Neutrality was designed to deal with that. This doesn't have to be the Wild West.

Actually it wasn't. Net Neutrality wasn't "The consumer gets as much bandwidth that they want to anywhere on the net"

Jimmy's right about Net Neutrality. It was meant to keep ISP companies from setting up toll lanes on the internet which is what Comcast is trying to do.

Nobody ever said Net Neutrality was about getting all the bandwidth you want. It's about getting the bandwidth you already pay for and being able to go anywhere on the net free from interference by your ISP.

Except the issue here is what happens when usage exceeds capacity between two providers and who needs to pay for the upgrade of that connection. Comcast points at Level 3, and Level 3 is pointing at Comcast.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I will clarify why I think Jim Cicconi is full of shit.

He says Netflix should pay for the expanded capacity for more video streaming. Netflix does that. They pay to keep in place enough infrastructure to connect their servers to the internet backbone, i.e. Level 3, etc.

But that's not enough for Cicconi. He also wants Netflix to pay AT&T to upgrade AT&T's infrastructure from the backbone to residences. Why should Netflix do that? Cicconi complains about non-Netflix subscribers subsidizing Netflix subscribers but then turns right around and calls for Netflix subscribers to subsidize non-Netflix subscribers. Wat?

All this in order to avoid doing what most other businesses just do, unless of course they find themselves in a monopolistic situation like AT&T does in their markets, pay to put in place increased capacity as customer demand for your service increases.

So I will reiterate, Jim Cicconi is full of shit.

But that gets back to the other argument. When you rely on someone else for a service, it may or may not be what you want and you may have to insource it. Rely on your competitor to do stuff, and it may not turn out the best.

Net Neutrality was designed to deal with that. This doesn't have to be the Wild West.

Actually it wasn't. Net Neutrality wasn't "The consumer gets as much bandwidth that they want to anywhere on the net"

Are you trolling? AT&T says I'm paying for a particular range of bandwidth. If they don't plan on allowing me to receive my bandwidth within this range, what am I paying for?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Congress should give the USPS the authority to provide ISP services.

Bandwidth, yes, but what would the ping time be, though?!?!

That doesn't make sense either. It would be bandwidth though and pings. USPS doesn't have the backbone network. They would have to build it like Google or level 3.

- - - Updated - - -

I will clarify why I think Jim Cicconi is full of shit.

He says Netflix should pay for the expanded capacity for more video streaming. Netflix does that. They pay to keep in place enough infrastructure to connect their servers to the internet backbone, i.e. Level 3, etc.

But that's not enough for Cicconi. He also wants Netflix to pay AT&T to upgrade AT&T's infrastructure from the backbone to residences. Why should Netflix do that? Cicconi complains about non-Netflix subscribers subsidizing Netflix subscribers but then turns right around and calls for Netflix subscribers to subsidize non-Netflix subscribers. Wat?

All this in order to avoid doing what most other businesses just do, unless of course they find themselves in a monopolistic situation like AT&T does in their markets, pay to put in place increased capacity as customer demand for your service increases.

So I will reiterate, Jim Cicconi is full of shit.

But that gets back to the other argument. When you rely on someone else for a service, it may or may not be what you want and you may have to insource it. Rely on your competitor to do stuff, and it may not turn out the best.

Net Neutrality was designed to deal with that. This doesn't have to be the Wild West.

Actually it wasn't. Net Neutrality wasn't "The consumer gets as much bandwidth that they want to anywhere on the net"

Are you trolling? AT&T says I'm paying for a particular range of bandwidth. If they don't plan on allowing me to receive my bandwidth within this range, what am I paying for?

Do you have the terms of service handy?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Net Neutrality was designed to deal with that. This doesn't have to be the Wild West.

Actually it wasn't. Net Neutrality wasn't "The consumer gets as much bandwidth that they want to anywhere on the net"

Jimmy's right about Net Neutrality. It was meant to keep ISP companies from setting up toll lanes on the internet which is what Comcast is trying to do.

Nobody ever said Net Neutrality was about getting all the bandwidth you want. It's about getting the bandwidth you already pay for and being able to go anywhere on the net free from interference by your ISP.

Except the issue here is what happens when usage exceeds capacity between two providers and who needs to pay for the upgrade of that connection. Comcast points at Level 3, and Level 3 is pointing at Comcast.

Good point. Level III should pay for it and then raise the rate Comcast has to pay them.

 

[ksen]

The issue is when it goes through a third party and Netflix isn't directly paying Comcast for it.

What third party are you talking about?

Netflix upgraded its own service to handle the traffic.

Companies like Level 3 upgraded its own service to handle the traffic.

The only hold up is Comcast not wanting to upgrade their own infrastructure to provide the services it is charging customers for.

You didn't answer about why Netflix shouldn't charge Comcast for the upgraded infrastructure Netflix had to put in place due to the increased demand driven by Comcast's customers.

So the question is who pays for it and when. Netflix could look into buying a Comcast circuit and looking at storing servers (paying Comcast) for that service. The Internet has created some strange models that are different than normal.

No, it's not a question. Comcast should be paying to upgrade its own services. They are trying to use their monopoly power to fundamentally change the way the internet works so that they can get paid on both ends. It is crooked and dishonest and certainly isn't a "free" market. It hurts consumers . . . the people the FCC are supposed to be watching out for.

It's just more rent seeking by an out of control business.

 

[KeepTalking]

And here is an AT&T blog post on this issue. His argument is that Netflix subscribers pay the cost of increased demand for Netflix

http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/consumers-2/who-should-pay-for-netflix/

You should take a look at the comments that Jim Cicconi has received from his own customers in that blog post. They tell the real story here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually it wasn't. Net Neutrality wasn't "The consumer gets as much bandwidth that they want to anywhere on the net"

Are you trolling? AT&T says I'm paying for a particular range of bandwidth. If they don't plan on allowing me to receive my bandwidth within this range, what am I paying for?[/QUOTE]

Do you have the terms of service handy?[/QUOTE]What the ToS, it is crap, and what is allowed by law are two different things. AT&T says x Mbps to y Mbps. They don't say a particular website will be throttled back. In fact, they indicate I should pay for these higher levels if I want to get streaming video.

 

[ksen]

Net Neutrality was designed to deal with that. This doesn't have to be the Wild West.

Actually it wasn't. Net Neutrality wasn't "The consumer gets as much bandwidth that they want to anywhere on the net"

Jimmy's right about Net Neutrality. It was meant to keep ISP companies from setting up toll lanes on the internet which is what Comcast is trying to do.

Nobody ever said Net Neutrality was about getting all the bandwidth you want. It's about getting the bandwidth you already pay for and being able to go anywhere on the net free from interference by your ISP.

Except the issue here is what happens when usage exceeds capacity between two providers and who needs to pay for the upgrade of that connection. Comcast points at Level 3, and Level 3 is pointing at Comcast.

Good point. Level III should pay for it and then raise the rate Comcast has to pay them.

Personally I'd like to see Level 3 just shut Comcast off and tell them to go fuck themselves and tell Comcast to build their own trunkline.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Are you trolling? AT&T says I'm paying for a particular range of bandwidth. If they don't plan on allowing me to receive my bandwidth within this range, what am I paying for?

Do you have the terms of service handy?[/QUOTE]What the ToS, it is crap, and what is allowed by law are two different things. AT&T says x Mbps to y Mbps. They don't say a particular website will be throttled back. In fact, they indicate I should pay for these higher levels if I want to get streaming video.[/QUOTE]

But the ToS are what you are paying for. So that's what you get from AT&T. Do they guarantee no congestion on their links to other providers? How much congestion does it allow?

- - - Updated - - -

Net Neutrality was designed to deal with that. This doesn't have to be the Wild West.

Actually it wasn't. Net Neutrality wasn't "The consumer gets as much bandwidth that they want to anywhere on the net"

Jimmy's right about Net Neutrality. It was meant to keep ISP companies from setting up toll lanes on the internet which is what Comcast is trying to do.

Nobody ever said Net Neutrality was about getting all the bandwidth you want. It's about getting the bandwidth you already pay for and being able to go anywhere on the net free from interference by your ISP.

Except the issue here is what happens when usage exceeds capacity between two providers and who needs to pay for the upgrade of that connection. Comcast points at Level 3, and Level 3 is pointing at Comcast.

Good point. Level III should pay for it and then raise the rate Comcast has to pay them.

Personally I'd like to see Level 3 just shut Comcast off and tell them to go fuck themselves and tell Comcast to build their own trunkline.

Level 3 could, but I'm not sure how big of a non-business customer base they have.

 

[KeepTalking]

Except the issue here is what happens when usage exceeds capacity between two providers and who needs to pay for the upgrade of that connection. Comcast points at Level 3, and Level 3 is pointing at Comcast.

Comcast, or AT$T's customers pay for it, every month they pay for it. Those companies are making record profits, Netflix's subscribers go up 5%, and in the same quarter AT$T revenues go up over 28%, they attract an additional 10 million U-verse subscribers, and they now rake in over $12 Billion annually. This is no coincidence, yet it is not enough for AT$T.

Sources: http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=24925&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=37119&mapcode=

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/21/4862966/netflix-q3-2013-earnings

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But the ToS are what you are paying for. So that's what you get from AT&T. Do they guarantee no congestion on their links to other providers? How much congestion does it allow?

The terms of service pretty much say they can not give me service and I have to suck it up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Congress should give the USPS the authority to provide ISP services.

Bandwidth, yes, but what would the ping time be, though?!?!

Why should we think the ping would be bad?

Other nations have a national ISP that is much better than what we have here. I don't see why we can't do the same outside of conservative interference and handwringing.

USPS--they deliver packages, not data. Thus a USPS internet would be shipping memory cards around!

(Yes, the TCP/IP protocol can run over such a medium assuming proper timeouts are used.)

 

[NobleSavage]

Congress should give the USPS the authority to provide ISP services.

Not the USPS but how about something like Rural Electrification Act We could set up thousands of member-owned cooperatives all around the


US. The cooperative would buy bandwidth wholesale from the up links, Level 3, etc. And let the cooperatives service the last mile. Give private industry some compettion.

 

[Underseer]

I remember when net neutrality first became an issue and most conservolibertarians back then were firmly in support of net neutrality because they understood that it would affect many of the web sites they frequented.

Then FOX News and the other right wing propaganda outlets told them what to think and most of them flipped their position 180 degrees on the matter, declaring net neutrality to be a statist plot to make us all less free. If you look, every once in a while you can find an actual conservative or libertarian who still supports net neutrality.

 

[NobleSavage]

I think a big part of this issue is that Comcast makes money selling content (the traditional cable channels, sports, movies). The problem is they also sell bandwidth which will eventually kill the traditional cable TV business model. I dropped all my premium channels and use Netflix which saved me $100 a month. I'm sure lots of people are doing this. Comcast has come up with the strategy of charging for transit to reach the last mile. I can also see them using tiered bundles to charge the end users more i.e. you can have basic internet, or you can have the Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and YouTube package, you can have the sports package, or you can heave the ever so popular porn package.

How this shakes out will also have an effect on who creates content. Netflix is making their own shows now i.e. Orange is New Black. I think Hulu and Amazon Prime are doing the same thing.

 

[Underseer]

I think a big part of this issue is that Comcast makes money selling content (the traditional cable channels, sports, movies). The problem is they also sell bandwidth which will eventually kill the traditional cable TV business model. I dropped all my premium channels and use Netflix which saved me $100 a month. I'm sure lots of people are doing this. Comcast has come up with the strategy of charging for transit to reach the last mile. I can also see them using tiered bundles to charge the end users more i.e. you can have basic internet, or you can have the Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and YouTube package, you can have the sports package, or you can heave the ever so popular porn package.

How this shakes out will also have an effect on who creates content. Netflix is making their own shows now i.e. Orange is New Black. I think Hulu and Amazon Prime are doing the same thing.

Of course that's what they're doing.

They had an effective monopoly, and did what all corporations do in that situation: milk the customer for everything they possibly can, so that when actual competition showed up, they were unfit to compete, so now they have to cheat just to stay even.

They've shot themselves in the foot by screwing over the customer, so instead of doing the obvious thing and making their product competitive, they've decided to make competition less of an issue.

Of course, everything I said is wrong. According to conservolibertarian economic theory, monopolies or near-monopolies are the ideal state of any market because once corporations don't have to deal with all that pesky competition nonsense, they get a superior economy of scale, which allows them to provide more product for less money out of the goodness of their hearts. Monopolies and near-monopolies are good for us, and if you don't believe that, you are an America-hating, freedom-hating communist!

*sigh*