Is Comcast A Threat To The Internet?
from the competition-is-the-thing dept
Tim Lee has written a long, detailed and really thought-provoking article for National Affairs Magazine, all about what it takes to keep the internet competitive. Lee, who has a reputation for being generally skeptical of regulation without real evidence that it's needed, actually comes down on the side of suggesting that certain key regulations probably make sense to keep the internet competitive, with a specific focus on limiting Comcast's power to directly impact the market, and to effectively disrupt the internet's decentralized nature. It's a persuasive piece that doesn't shy away from the fact that telecom regulations are incredibly complex, and anyone who argues that any change to the existing market is putting regulations where none existed before is delusional, since the whole space is already highly regulated -- it's just a question of how that regulation might shift around.The key point in all of this is that the guiding star of anyone trying to keep the internet vibrant should be making the market truly competitive with no dominant power able to make significant shifts in the core underpinnings of what makes the internet work. Lee uses the Comcast/Level3 dispute from a few years ago to suggest that Comcast is potentially shifting the traditional contours of the internet's competitive market:
Comcast's large share of the broadband market, along with the fact that most of its customers have few if any comparable alternatives, gives Comcast significant leverage in negotiating with backbone ISPs. Comcast has traditionally been a customer of Level 3, one of the largest internet backbone providers. When a Comcast user exchanged data with a network that was not directly connected to Comcast's own network, Comcast paid Level 3 to carry that traffic.There's a lot more to this -- and Lee highlights some of the more detailed nuances as well, so don't just go on this brief summary -- but he argues it's a sign of the power that Comcast has been building up. I highly recommend reading the full thing if you're thinking at all about the issue of regulations on broadband service providers, and the future of the internet.
But in November 2010, the two firms became locked in a bitter dispute. Level 3 had just won a contract to deliver content for Netflix, one of the internet's largest video services. Anticipating that Netflix would generate more traffic than the existing links between the Comcast and Level 3 networks could accommodate, Level 3 proposed installing additional links between the networks. Ordinarily, Comcast, as a Level 3 customer, would gladly accept what was essentially a free upgrade. Instead, Comcast refused to accept the new connections unless Level 3 agreed to pay Comcast for the additional traffic. And Level 3, after voicing strong objections, paid up.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, internet, monopolies, reguations, rights of way
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If you pour more traffic into the top of the Comcast funnel, hopefully it is big enough to handle it. If it is not, then Comcast is forced to upgrade their internet network to carry all the new traffic. Bringing more connectivity in the door has repercussions all the way from the gateways to the end user hubs.
"free" isn't always free, isn't that what you say Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
Comcast wants to milk every dollar it can out of its over-priced under-performing network for as long as possible before selling it to some poor schmuck who'll have to shell out a ton of cash in upgrades after paying a premium for this "valuable" company just to get the company anywhere near modern and competitive.
/rant-prediction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
Further, let's be clear here: Netflix streaming is a direct competitor for Comcast's PPV offerings. I can't see them wanting to improve the competition at their own expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
And this is what happens when you allow these types of companies to play in too many fields through acquisition w/little competition. You now have two aspects of Comcast's business in direct competition w/one another.
Bandwidth customers would obviously be better serviced for emerging/current offerings like Netflix by an increase in service levels and partnerships with Level3. However, the VOD part of Comcast doesn't want this.
Who is the utlimate loser in this scenario? The customer, which is exactly what regulation is supposed to prevent....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
HUGE difference that people need to stop being morons about and actually understand (from both sides)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
1) Being that in MANY areas, Comcast is a monopoly, the only pressure to drive prices down is if people were to get so fed up that they'd give up on broadband and go to dial-up.
(In many areas, no, there is not an option for FIOS, DSL, or any other competitive service. I'm apartment-hunting right now, and many places have told me that literally my only option for internet is Comcast)
2) Do you know how something becomes obsolete? A better product is introduced into the market. In areas where they have a monopoly, what incentive does Comcast have to introduce new products? Absolutely none. They may upgrade where there are competitors, but only at the rate they're forced to do so.
3) If people pour more traffic into Comcast's funnel, they are in no way forced to upgrade their network. Do you know what they are forced to do? Put stricter caps on data to make sure no one is using "too much" so their current network can continue to handle it. Using the iPhone as an example, it's not like there's a Sprint out there saying, "Hey, other people want to cap you? We'll offer unlimited data!" Once again, in many cases, there's Comcast and only Comcast.
So, all that said, no, improving a network given no real competition is not in a company's best interests. It's in the consumer's best interests. And given that our idiotic government has handed the consumer-level broadband access for the vast majority of the country to a controlled monopoly, it's then the government's job to treat it as such and either force them to provide an adequate product or force them to not use their size to prevent competition, and let a free market decide what happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
The most satellite does is DirectTV will say, "hey, you can use Verizon.....if it's available in your area."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
http://www.satellitestarinternet.com/hughesnet_plans_pricing.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
Even after dealing with Comcast.
In my opinion, Hughesnet is not a viable option unless your grandmother likes to check her email with it. No way she can use it to watch a video of her grand kids playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
That's different than having no alternative whatsoever,which will be the justification for throttling under six strikes, deep packet inspection and any regulatory measures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
Both ends in the same outcome, less bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Your Pipes are too small."
Really, based on what? The fact that rates for Comcast service have never gone down? I have been paying the exact same amount since my first Comcast HSI account back in 2000. The only change has been in the speed of the connection.
Don't try and argue that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Try following Mike's advice from the last paragraph, and maybe next time, you won't embarrass yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah.... perhaps you might want to take your own advice and think before you post!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's been online for at least 6 days, donut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Level3 isn't dumping unsolicited data down Comcast's throat, Comcast's users are requesting it. That means Comcast's users are already paying for it.
Comcast is also receiving a service from Level3 (access to their backbone and the rest of the Internet). Why should Comcast get payed for receiving a service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By adding new connectivity, they increase the amount of data on their internal network, which in turn can lead to overloads within the parts of the network that they would have to address.
"Comcast is also receiving a service from Level3 (access to their backbone and the rest of the Internet). Why should Comcast get payed for receiving a service?"
Well, look at it this way: Without the Comcast customers, netflix might not buy so much connectivity from Level3. Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand that - but I think that Comcast is trying to turn that model on it's ear. Basically, "we have the customers, pay us for them".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention a HUGE portion of Comcast's network was paid for by tax money during the late 90s free money hand-out to ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes but its the customers who are using this traffic. They are also the one who are paying for the bandwidth. Comcast wants the customer to pay, netflix to pay and Level 3 to pay for the same fucking bandwidth use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Connection from user to comcast is one connection. Connection from comcast to level3 is another connection, and the connection from level3 to comcast is another.
By your logic, level3 expects comcast to pay for the same bandwidth that netflix paid for. That seems silly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The fact that deals are negotiated between different layers of the nationwide network architecture does not change the fact that i am paying for end to end service.
Comcast, and other providers, are getting greedier in their logic-defying attempts to get everyone to pay over and over again for the same byte.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Comcast pays level three to connect it to other networks. Comcast would be pretty worthless if I could only reach other Comcast users with it.
Netflix pays Level 3 to connect its data center to all the other networks in the world. One of which is Comcast.
But now Comcast also wants to get paid for allowing Netflix traffic on their network even though that traffic only enters their network when their PAYING CUSTOMERS request it.
Comcast is the only company trying to double dip here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funnel????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also a bit stupid to say it in terms of "If you pour more traffic into the top of the Comcast funnel," anyways. You do realize the internet works by people requesting things right? Unless Comcast customers REQUEST the extra traffic then there is no extra traffic. No one is dumping anything anywhere. Comcast customers are requesting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like that company out in Cali that is rolling out gig fiber for $70/month. They claim that there are some users who make full use of their 1gb line, but there is no point in throttling them because they don't skew the average enough to care.
If a small start-up can roll out 1gb fiber for $70/month and not have any choke points during average peak usage, then I don't see why Comcast/etc can't do the same.. oh wait, the purposefully degrade the quality of their network while reserving 100s of gigabits of bandwidth for TV channels that rarely get used.
Instead of 4 DOCSIS3 channels, they should just put out 64 channels and use IPTV+multicast. Get rid of reserved bandwidth, do everything packet switched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes. I understand fully how the internet works, please try to pay attention.
My assumption is that right now, comcast customers who are using Netflix may be "maxing out" the current peer connection (say 20 gigs), so Comcast only has to really allow for that much network activity. But if you double the amount of connectivity allowed, perhaps the existing customers will ask for more movies via streaming, which would mean more incoming data. If they go from 20 gigs (example) to 40 gigs, there will be some increase as the "maxed out" requests actually get processed. With more speed, perhaps even more customers start to use Netflix, which drives more consumer demand, which drives more network traffic.
The issue? This will mean that Comcast will almost certainly have to improve their existing infrastructure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also anyone who administered even a home network knows you can control the amount of traffic on the pipe.
http://www.edseek.com/~jasonb/articles/traffic_shaping/
http://wiki.linuxwall.info/doku.ph p/en:ressources:dossiers:networking:traffic_control
Are you saying the IT staff on Comcast are dumber than the other guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You really don't understand how the internet works, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point is if you have a bigger pipe, your customers can request MORE data, which has to move through the comcast network (which is effectively a funnel, becauee it has a limit to how much can get past it's gateways). If their gateways and trunk network can only handle 20 gigs of data, then opening up 40gigs of pipe above them isn't going to change anything inside the Comcast network.
In order to truly accommodate 40gigs of pipe, Comcast would have to upgrade their main trunks or backbones to support more traffic. That would cost them. So the "free" extra bandwidth from Level3 really wouldn't be free, because it would pretty much force Comcast to spend money on their network.
I can draw it out on napkins for you if you can't understand the very basics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And my point is, if this is the case then you charge your *CUSTOMERS* more money. Don't want to do that? Then that's on you. I don't want my electric utility company charging Samsung more money because I chose to purchase a bigger TV. They need to charge ME more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 29th, 2012 @ 11:38am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 29th, 2012 @ 11:38am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 29th, 2012 @ 11:38am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 29th, 2012 @ 11:38am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 29th, 2012 @ 11:38am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 29th, 2012 @ 11:38am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's a shame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remove the Comcast Monopoly
Too bad no one is talking about Competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tax payer built
I would like to see how much was really spent (you can't prove trillions, per your argument) and how much the infrastructure builders were reimbursed, subsidized or granted (through monopoly) via local municipalities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel I need to repeat myself.
Just like investment and commercial banks were once separate, so should ISPs and content distributors. Combining conflicting interests is the problem here. It's the only effective way to establish a neutral internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh? Growing? ISPs have always charged CDNs on their networks for using their bandwidth.
At least he understands that in the Comcast/Level3 dispute, it was Level3 that was the big monopoly using their size to undercut the CDNs. However, since that monopoly saves consumers money, I don't complain much.
Consumers think that Comcast is the bad boy with market power, because ordinary people sign up with them. But Comcast isn't a Tier 1 network; they have to pay for transit to send users' data to some locations on the Internet. By contrast, Level3 is a Tier1 network, able to send data anywhere on the Internet without paying transit.
Level3 is one of the few Tier1 networks with which the Tier 2 Comcast has a peering relationship. That relationship is worth more to Comcast, which is why they backed down to Level3's "bullying."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comcast - Level 3
(Note: I'm not suggesting extortion in the strict criminal sense.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: comcast - Level 3
CDNs have traditionally paid ISPs. Backbones have traditionally been Tier 1 networks that ISPs have often paid for transit. Level 3 decided to use its market power in the backbone market to expand and offer cut rate CDN services, cutting away at Comcast's revenues and causing Comcast to reconsider if the peering agreement was still a good idea.
Peering agreements have always been voluntary, and disputes are nothing new.
I like this Ars article from a year ago: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/comcastlevel3.ars/1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Comcast A Threat To The Internet?
But that's what happens in an Imperial world. Money rules it. Take a snapshot of the USA. It's a sad thing to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Comcast A Threat To The Internet?
Excellent idea, Comrade. Perhaps you should suggest the same for Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I truly hope the FCC will get authority to regulate the infrastructure of the Internet. I will be referring to this article repeatedly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree it's informative and well reasoned, but just want to point out that the author of it, Tim B. Lee, is NOT the same person as Tim Berners-Lee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Level 3 proposed installing additional links between the networks. Ordinarily, Comcast, as a Level 3 customer, would gladly accept what was essentially a free upgrade. Instead, Comcast refused to accept the new connections unless Level 3 agreed to pay Comcast for the additional traffic. And Level 3, after voicing strong objections, paid up."
There's definitely something wrong there, I feel bad for L3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What to expect from our staff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]