Former NSA Lawyer Thinks American Bar Association Should Be Equally Outraged By Chinese Hacking Of Attorney-Client Communications
RESPECT Act Should Be HYPOCRISY Act After How Often Labels Screwed Over Artists
NY Times And Washington Post Describe Yesterday's Net Neutrality Vote In Diametrically Opposite Ways
John Oliver: Stop Calling It Net Neutrality; It's 'Preventing Cable Company F**kery'

If Comcast CEO Brian Roberts Really Believes Netflix Gets Bandwidth For Free, Will He Pay Netflix's Bandwidth Bill?

Broadband

from the just-saying... dept

Fri, May 30th 2014 9:48am — Mike Masnick
So there was some buzz earlier this week when Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, speaking at the Code Conference, more or less admitted that he was seeking to shake down the entire internet:
In a series of analogies, Roberts likened his company’s role to that of a postmaster, pointing out that Netflix pays hundreds of millions of dollars to mail DVDs to its customers but now expects to be able to deliver the same content over the internet for free.

“They would like it all to be free. I would like to not have to pay for cable boxes,” he said.
Except, of course, Netflix already pays for its bandwidth. And Comcast's customers already pay for their bandwidth. What Roberts really wants to do is to get Netflix to pay a second time for Comcast's customers' bandwidth, even though they're already paying for it.

As for this argument that Netflix is trying to get anything "for free," we went through this ridiculous argument nearly a decade ago, when the lobbyists for the telcos made the same claim (though, at that time it was about Google instead of Netflix). Mike McCurry, working as an AT&T lobbyist at the time, argued that Google "will never have to pay a dime no matter how much bandwidth they use." Basically the same argument that Roberts is making about Netflix wanting "it all to be free."

So as we did with McCurry, we'd like to make a small request of Roberts: if he's so sure that Netflix pays nothing for these things, why not agree to pay Netflix's bandwidth bill? After all, he's arguing that it's free, so he shouldn't have to pay anything. Of course he knows that Netflix pays a ton for bandwidth. And he knows that his customers pay a ton for bandwidth. He's just hoping to get them both to pay more.
Hide this

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: brian roberts, double paying, fud, mike mccurry, net neutrality, open internet
Companies: comcast, netflix

78 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

Paying for mail

I don't actually pay anything to receive mail in my mailbox, and I don't know anyone who has been told that they receive too much mail and they're being cut off or charged extra.
—W Klink
 ”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 9:47am

    That would be very interesting considering the sheer amount of traffic Netflix uses (and would have been interesting years ago with Google as well even though today it would be even funnier to think about it). Netflix should negotiate like this indeed. We pay for the bandwidth we use in your network and you pay the bandwidth your users use outside your network and with fines if the promised speed can't be delivered (for added lulz since Comcast is known for not delivering their services properly). The tune Comcast is singing will change fairly quickly.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    kenichi tanaka (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 10:03am

    Hate to say it but he's right. When you're using a lot of bandwidth on an ISP's service, then you have the responsibility to pay for that traffic.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Michael, 30 May 2014 @ 10:06am

      Re:

      What bandwidth is not being paid for?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Chris Brand, 30 May 2014 @ 10:08am

      Re:

      That might be reasonable if Netflix was just pushing video content out to random people over Comcast's network. They don't do that, though. What they do is *respond* to the requests made by Comcast's customers - the ones who paid to use that bandwidth. Just because Netflix is sending the data, doesn't really mean that it's them that's "using a lot of bandwidth". It's all driven by Comcast's customers.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Jason Tylor, 1 Jun 2014 @ 6:30pm

        Re: Re:

        If Netflix is that innocent, then why is it paying Comcast, huh? By the way, they are not just Comcast's customers, but they are Netflix's customers also. In essence, to give best experience to its customers and thereby to get more customers and earn more money, Netflix is paying Comcast a small piece of its cake.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 1 Jun 2014 @ 7:08pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If Netflix is that innocent, then why is it paying Comcast, huh?

          What is it you think they're guilty of?

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Jason Tylor, 1 Jun 2014 @ 9:13pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "What is it you think they're guilty of?"

            Neither they are guilty of anything, nor they are that innocent just to serve Comcast customers. It is a matter of two giant business tycoons doing business together, and some innocent intellectuals passing judgements.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 1 Jun 2014 @ 9:44pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              They're neither guilty nor innocent? Strange.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 4:53am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Yeah - nuttin personal, juz business

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  John Fenderson (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 8:35am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  That's the whole problem. Comcast putting the screws to Netflix is "just business", but it's doing business in a way that is bad for everyone.

                  It's "just business" in a way that's similar to how dumping toxic waste in a landfilll is "just business".

                  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Jason Tylor, 2 Jun 2014 @ 6:40am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "They're neither guilty nor innocent? Strange."

                Mr. nasch, what is it you are not understanding? I said Netflix is not "that" innocent as projected by Mr. Chris Brand where one would get a feeling that Netflix is just responding to Comcast customers as a voluntary service. I said Netflix is not "that" innocent, as they are Netflix customers also. You went into court's legal language of 'guilty' and 'innocence'.

                Even now if you don't understand, then there is no point in discussing it further.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  nasch (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 10:04am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You went into court's legal language of 'guilty' and 'innocence'.


                  That's not legal language, it's English. "Guilty" is the opposite of "innocent". "Not that innocent" implies "somewhat guilty", but you then said they're not guilty of anything. So if they're "not guilty at all" how can they be, at the same time, "not that innocent"? But if you don't feel like responding that's fine, I don't really care.

                  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 8:32am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "If Netflix is that innocent, then why is it paying Comcast, huh?"

          Because Comcast extorted them into it. They deliberately allowed service to Netflix to degrade and would only fix it if Netflix paid up.

          "That's a nice business you have there, Netflix, it'd be a shame if something happened to it."

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 10:08am

      Response to: kenichi tanaka on May 30th, 2014 @ 10:03am

      Netflix is already paying for their end of the connection, netflix customers are paying both comcast and netflix.

      Why the fuck should isps get to double and even triple dip?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Michael, 30 May 2014 @ 10:11am

        Re: Response to: kenichi tanaka on May 30th, 2014 @ 10:03am

        for the children?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Joseph Q. Public, 13 Jun 2014 @ 12:09pm

        Re: Response to: kenichi tanaka on May 30th, 2014 @ 10:03am

        because they're monopolies that's why. we're supposed to just bend over, take it and smile

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 30 May 2014 @ 10:17am

      Re:

      You keep saying it but you never explain what it is that's not already paid for.

      Netflix pays their ISP.
      Customer of Netflix pays Netflix and their ISP.

      Who's not getting paid?!

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 10:17am

      Re:

      "When you're using a lot of bandwidth on an ISP's service, then you have the responsibility to pay for that traffic."

      Nobody's saying otherwise. What people are (correctly) saying is that Netflix and the viewers already pay for that bandwidth.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      kP (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 10:21am

      Last I recall, *I* pay my ISP every month to deliver..

      ... whatever I choose to receive, subject to their existing bandwidth speed and volume limits.

      If my ISP has a beef with how much I am pulling, they need to take it up with me.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      RD, 30 May 2014 @ 10:22am

      Re:

      "Hate to say it but he's right. When you're using a lot of bandwidth on an ISP's service, then you have the responsibility to pay for that traffic."

      Reported for sheer STUPIDITY.

      The USER ALREADY PAYS THE ISP FOR THE BANDWIDTH. Get this through your thick, entitled skull.

      I pay $50 a month for a connection to the internet. I get X-bandwidth for that price. *I* am the one "responsible" for using "all that bandwidth" on my ISP's service. Not netflix. Not google. Not Techdirt. Not anyone. ME. And I ALREADY PAY FOR IT.

      Read that paragraph over and over until it sinks into your thick skull.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 10:22am

      Re:

      Netflix doesn't use that bandwidth, Comcast's customers (who also happen to be netflix customers) are using that bandwidth.

      If Comcast dislikes how their customers use their bandwidth, maybe they need need to change their pricing accordingly (which they won't, because then nobody would pay for it).

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      AngusMightHaveABeef, 30 May 2014 @ 10:42am

      Re:

      They do pay for their bandwidth. Why would you think they get free internet access?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 11:34am

      Re:

      I already pay Comcast for 50mbps. It shouldn't matter where it comes from or what I use it for. I paid for it.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Colin, 30 May 2014 @ 12:15pm

      Re:

      Do you hate to say it because you know it's bullshit?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Greevar (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 1:30pm

      Re:

      You pay Netflix and they pay Cogent to deliver your stream to Comcast. You also pay Comcast to deliver it the rest of the way to your PC. So, you're paying Netflix, Cogent, and Comcast for that video stream. Comcast wants Netflix to pay for what you've already paid Comcast to do!

      What Comcast is trying to do is like Fed Ex charging you and Amazon to deliver your purchase. That's double dipping. In the end, the customers end up paying twice.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        John Thacker, 30 May 2014 @ 2:08pm

        Re: Re:

        Of course, if you have a smaller ISP, not AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast, then your ISP probably pays Cogent or Level 3 for Internet transit. Double dipping by Cogent and Level 3. I haven't heard any announcement from Cogent and Level 3 that they're going to be offering free peering with smaller ISPs.

        Cox Communications, a cable ISP, pays Cogent for transit for things you request from Cox. That's the same kind of double-dipping.

        Cogent and Level 3 want to charge smaller networks for transit, but then get annoyed when the bigger networks try to turn it around on them.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        John Thacker, 30 May 2014 @ 2:14pm

        Re: Re:

        What Comcast is trying to do is like Fed Ex charging you and Amazon to deliver your purchase. That's double dipping.


        It's pretty common to have payments on both sides in two-sided markets. American Express and other fancy credit cards have annual fees-- but also charge merchants on purchases. Newspapers have subscription fees-- but also charge advertisers. Cable TV has subscription fees-- but also charges advertisers. Sony and Microsoft take cuts from both developers and end users to sell games on their services.

        At the same time, considerations can also mean that it makes sense to charge one side zero, or not.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Greevar (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 7:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          No, that entire argument is an equivocation. Comcast is charging two parties (subscribers and Netflix) for the exact same service. Comcast customers are already paying Comcast for the bandwidth for the purpose of accessing sites like Netflix. What's more, Comcast is degrading service purposely to make Netflix lose business and make the customers' experience poorer. That's flat-out extortion.

          The Fed Ex analogy applies. Would you want Fed Ex to delay the delivery you paid for because Amazon didn't give them a kickback to not delay it? What if Fed Ex was making it look like the delay was Amazon's fault rather than Fed Ex purposely delaying it?

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 2:17pm

      Re:

      So this guy implies Netflix are getting bandwidth for free and you just believe him?! It's a ridiculous assertion that anyone with half a brain would laugh at. Your critical thinking skills seem to be lacking...

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 2:52pm

      Re:

      "When you're using a lot of fuel on a car, then you have the responsibility to pay for that fuel" said kenichi tanaka, while complaining why there isn't an extra charge each time a car drives in or out of a parking spot, on top of what they already paid at the gas station.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael, 30 May 2014 @ 10:09am

    �They would like it all to be free. I would like to not have to pay for cable boxes.�

    First, you don't. Your customers pay for those stupid things.

    Second, I'd like to not have to pay for a Roku, or the "smart" part of my smart TV, or a computer. THAT is the equivalent to the cable box - not the internet connection being used.

    We need smarter people running these companies...

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      pixelpusher220 (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 10:30am

      Re:

      "I would like to not have to pay for cable boxes". Great! neither do we. Since you're the one who added them to the system, you can take them out...

      What this moronic CEO just asked for was a GOVERNMENT internet equivalent of the USPS so that Netflix will pay for delivery and users only pay for data they send out, not for data they receive.

      I'm good with that, though I'm not sure he is...

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 11:14am

        Re: Re:

        Perhaps a broadband offering from the USPS isn't such a bad idea.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Greevar (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 7:38pm

        Re: Re:

        I wouldn't want that. It puts the server as the mercy of clients. It would make bit-torrent completely infeasible because you could be serving 1000 leechers, but only connection to 10 seeders. It would encourage everyone to leech and discourage them from seeding.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 10:16am

    Comcast wants to have someone pay for their slice of the cake, you to pay for your slice of the cake, and to eat both pieces.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rich Kulawiec, 30 May 2014 @ 10:22am

    Let's use that analogy

    "In a series of analogies, Roberts likened his company�s role to that of a postmaster, pointing out that Netflix pays hundreds of millions of dollars to mail DVDs to its customers but now expects to be able to deliver the same content over the internet for free."

    And who really pays those hundreds of millions of dollars in postal fees?

    Netflix customers. (Surely Roberts isn't dumb enough to think that Netflix, a for-profit corporation, is simply going to absorb those costs.) Netflix customers pay those fees to the postal service, who is of course then responsible for delivering the goods.

    Just like Comcast customers pay Comcast (1), who is of course then responsible for delivering the goods.

    (1) FAR too much, by the way, given Comcast's insanely high prices, ridiculously low bandwidth, worst-available customer service, surly technicians, lying lobbyists, invasive practices (like forging DNS responses) and incompetent network staff ("we're taking the spam problem seriously" -- Comcast, 2004. Yeah. Right. Sure you are. That's why it's still a problem a decade later).

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael, 30 May 2014 @ 10:24am

    In a series of analogies, Roberts likened his company�s role to that of a postmaster, pointing out that Netflix pays hundreds of millions of dollars to mail DVDs to its customers

    So what he is really saying is that Comcast is totally screwing their customers. Netflix sends DVD's in the mail using pre-paid postage and their customers don't pay a dime. When Netflix streams a movie, Netflix pays for the bandwidth to send the movie to the customer and the customer still has to pay for it when they receive it.

    Isn't he saying we should all get to stream Netflix without paying for the bandwidth it uses?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    kitsune361, 30 May 2014 @ 10:25am

    A better analogy...

    ... would be that both Comcast and Netflix have to pay the US Postal Service to deliver the mail, but Comcast wants Netflix to also pay for all the overtime their mail room guy is having to put in because the quantity of letters they're getting from Netflix.

    Note, they aren't HIRING a new mail room guy (adding more bandwidth) to offset their current mail room guy's work, just asking for more money so he can work harder on Netflix's mail instead of everyone else's.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    kP (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 10:25am

    Comcast CEO Brian Roberts: please keep talking

    Sometimes the best case against bullshit is made by those arguing for the bullshit.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 10:25am

    So, in Roberts' magical fantasy world, how did Netflix acquire this 'free' bandwidth? Are Netflix master thieves? Is there an army of technicians inside Comcast loyal to Netflix manipulating traffic and logs?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 10:42am

    Netflix apparently said to the Comcast at one point that since they're 30% of Comcast's network traffic and Comcast wants them to pay for upgrading Comcast's networks to handle Netflix that Netflix will glad pay the costs, if they can take 30% of Comcast's revenue.

    Comcast of course greedily refused.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 10:49am

      Re:

      Netflix also offers to put caching servers into data centers of ISPs in order to get the content closer to the end customer and lower the bandwidth between systems.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 11:08am

        Re: Re:

        The content is in direct competition with Comcast's other product, cable service. Broadband providers and cable providers need to be forcibly split apart by the FTC as local and long distance phone service were. There is a conflict of interest today that is driving prices up for all consumers.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Shel10 (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 11:07am

    Everyone pays for internet access. Yes... you can use a computer at a Public Library, or connect via wi-fi at a coffee shop without paying. However, the Library and the coffee shop are paying for the internet access.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 11:52am

    He can pay for my bandwidth while he's at it. And the rent on my MODEM.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nick (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 12:54pm

    Their own analogy actually disproves their argument they are trying to make.

    In their analogy, Comcast isn't the Postmaster. They are more like a owner/organizer of a mailsystem for an apartment complex. Mail comes in and goes out through their office, but they are not at all responsible for making sure the mail from another apartment complex down the street is delivered to the other side of the country.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Shel10 (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 12:58pm

    We don't pay for bandwidth, we pay for access (connectivity). Brian - the robber baron - is claiming that we should pay extra for faster access. Theoretically, we are paying extra money to be able to download at 50mbps, however, most of us rarely get better than 30mbps. So much for net neutrality!

    Brian - the robber baron - wants Netflix to pay for actual bandwidth used. Most enterprise (Netflix, GM, Walmart, Maryland Department of Transportation, etc.) users pay for access, and bandwidth usage.

    Brian - the robber baron - is actually not delivering on promises to the home user. He's stealing from us!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      John Thacker, 30 May 2014 @ 2:04pm

      Re:

      Theoretically, we are paying extra money to be able to download at 50mbps, however, most of us rarely get better than 30mbps. So much for net neutrality!


      Theoretically, as you point out, we're paying for access, not guaranteed bandwidth. The only way to pay for actual or guaranteed bandwidth is to be metered, like businesses (and networks paying each other for Internet transit). But no one likes metering (I don't either), so we'll be stuck with paying for access and theoretical maximums we don't get.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Digger, 30 May 2014 @ 1:45pm

    Better idea...

    Tell Roberts that if he doesn't back off and remove the fees and return any and all payments to Netflix that we'll match the cost of Netflix's ISP fees for 1 month, and then publicly put that amount up as a Reward for his dead body.

    If it's nothing, no one will go for it, if it isn't - he'd better put up or run for the hills.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    W Klink (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 1:50pm

    Paying for mail

    I don't actually pay anything to receive mail in my mailbox, and I don't know anyone who has been told that they receive too much mail and they're being cut off or charged extra.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Shel10 (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 2:52pm

      Re: Paying for mail

      If you pay taxes, you are paying for most of the mail delivered. The postage you apply to letters doesn't cover the cost of mail delivery.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 9:00pm

        Re: Re: Paying for mail

        If you pay taxes, you are paying for most of the mail delivered. The postage you apply to letters doesn't cover the cost of mail delivery.

        No, all that junk mail does. "The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters."

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 4:58am

        Re: Re: Paying for mail

        The USPS does not rely upon taxes for their funding, and they would be running a surplus if not for the retarded meddling of dumb asses in Congress.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2014 @ 9:06am

      Re: Paying for mail

      I have worked for a business that was charged a surcharge for their mail deliver.y

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 2:00pm

    >Of course he knows
    No he doesnt. He is a fuck'n greedy idiot who wants more money and will never bother to understand why he is wrong.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Daniel, 30 May 2014 @ 3:12pm

    So...

    Why doesn't Netflix stop providing their service with Comcast customers? Or refuse to pay and let Comcast block Netflix?

    Regardless, Comcast's phones will be blown up.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 5:34pm

    Apparently, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts does not understand how peering works. Perhaps he should consult one of the more technically knowledgeable employees before opening his mouth.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Whatever, 30 May 2014 @ 6:47pm

    Issue

    The issue at hand is that while Netflix pays at their end, they do no pay at the receiving end. The middlemen transit providers charge at both ends, not just one. It's not like Netflix pays and everyone gets the content for free. Both ends pay.

    So the problem of heavy bandwidth use companies like Netflix is that they are also driving ISPs to have to increase the amount of bandwidth they pay for, without actually being able to pass that cost on to the end users. This is where all of your complaining about capping users adds to the squeeze that ISPs feel.

    Unless you understand that the internet is both "sender pays" and "receiver pays", then none of this makes sense.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      fairuse (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 7:44pm

      Re: Issue

      That is best answer to all the hand wringing and argument seeking emotional response out of the group users (ISP customers). I would put a link here to a resource but it will fall on minds assured the knowledge, in the form of opinion, is righteous.

      Ref: Comcast Launches Commercial CDN Service

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 10:51pm

      Re: Issue

      It's already been passed on to the end consumers in form of the flat fee they pay for their internet access. If that calculation is off, the ISP needs to rethink it.

      And it's not like the customer's to blame either. The ISP initiated the move from volume based billing to flat rates and apparently they had no problems with the majority of users not using their contracts full capacity.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2014 @ 6:32am

      Re: Issue

      Perhaps you need to learn a bit more about how peering works and what the Sherman Antitrust Act was all about. Use of the word "was" is intentional for obvious reasons.

      Or perhaps you should just come out and admit your bias toward allowing unfettered monopoly.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    alan turing, 30 May 2014 @ 11:34pm

    They've been putzing around for the last couple a decades misusing the funds big brother provided to better the load bearing capabilities of their networks and now that it would be keen to have that beefed up shit working for them they want more money for nothing because, bandwidth.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2014 @ 6:47am

    It seems that Comcast/TimeWarner is attempting to become the new AOL. I wonder if they will have an "Access the WWW" button in their Walled Garden. It is quite amusing they fail to see the inevitable train wreck to which they are speeding.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    robert, 31 May 2014 @ 11:24am

    con-cast

    A lot of the people running companies have absolutely no idea what the companies do. They just ant a bigger pay package. Does anyone really think that the guys running major movie studios know the intricacies of copyright law or have the vaguest idea about what could constitute piracy?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 4:55pm

    Netflix vs. Comcrap

    Instead of folding into Comcast's extortionate demands, Netflix should have told their Comcast customers that they could no longer get Netflix until Comcast restored a level playing field. Guess how long Comcast would have kept throttling Netflix content under a deluge of millions of customers threatening to drop their service?

    Unfortunately, most of those customers have few (if any) options other than Comcrap for internet access in their area... :-(

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

The Last Word

“

Re: Issue

That is best answer to all the hand wringing and argument seeking emotional response out of the group users (ISP customers). I would put a link here to a resource but it will fall on minds assured the knowledge, in the form of opinion, is righteous.

Ref: Comcast Launches Commercial CDN Service
—fairuse
 ”

Former NSA Lawyer Thinks American Bar Association Should Be Equally Outraged By Chinese Hacking Of Attorney-Client Communications
RESPECT Act Should Be HYPOCRISY Act After How Often Labels Screwed Over Artists
NY Times And Washington Post Describe Yesterday's Net Neutrality Vote In Diametrically Opposite Ways
John Oliver: Stop Calling It Net Neutrality; It's 'Preventing Cable Company F**kery'
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.