

Reed Hastings: Comcast no longer following net neutrality principles - dwynings
https://www.facebook.com/reed1960/posts/10150706947044584

======
wmf
There is some ambiguity about where bandwidth accounting should take place: on
the last mile link between the customer and Comcast or the transit link(s)
between Comcast and the Internet. Comcast claims that anything coming from a
server inside Comcast itself (e.g. Xfinity) should not count against the cap
because it causes no congestion; this assumes that the cap exists only to
prevent congestion on the transit side. I suspect that this is all just post
facto justification, though.

~~~
gst
Does this mean that I can just limit my Bittorrent client to only connect to
peers in Comcast's network, if I don't want Bittorrent traffic to count
against my quota?

~~~
zarify
This sort of thing has certainly been the case with the quota-free peering
agreements here in Australia in the past. Do Comcast provide for unmetered
traffic in their accounting tools? If so it should be relatively easy to test.

The OP really doesn't sound that suspicious really, not really worth the
title. If a service provider serves popular content locally via their own
client to reduce the hit on their external links what's the problem? Is there
some commercial advantage they're gaining from it other than not having that
bandwidth eaten up?

~~~
wmf
A service that doesn't count towards the cap is perceived as "cheaper" and
thus more desirable.

~~~
zarify
If a latency-sensitive service decides to host closer to part of its customer
base, does that mean they're not respecting net neutrality too? At what point
does something stop becoming more convenient for customers and the company
(like locally hosted unmetered traffic) and start becoming a neutrality issue?

Maybe I look at it differently being from a country that has always had caps,
where the introduction of peering agreements and ISP hosted content meant you
got more value (all downloads being 'paid for' to some of that now being
'free'). I suppose if you look at it from the perspective of going from a
culture of unlimited data to capped downloads (all downloads being 'free' to
most being 'paid for' and some free as it was before).

It's not like they are artificially prioritizing their own content.

Edit: On reading some of the other comments it sounds like it isn't just the
same content via different clients, it's actually buying the same content off
Comcast? Is this the case? The OP wasn't exactly a wealth of detail.

------
victorbstan
It seems the entire world is facing erosion of freedom and equality when it
comes to accessing the net in an unobstructed and private manner. Great forces
are at play, from politicians to capitalists, who own the wires and the
antennae. The facts are clear: the internet is going to be controlled and
manipulated for power and profit. What do we do about it? What can we do about
it? Can we build an information network that is unbiased, universal and fair?
A network of information trasmission that can be resilient in the face of such
attacks?

~~~
SkyMarshal
<http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan/>

<http://www.reddit.com/r/darknet>

<http://www.reddit.com/r/i2p>

------
mwsherman
“Principles”. Part of the problem is that the definition of neutrality is very
ad hoc and untestable. Like pornography, we know it when we see it.

(Side note, obviously Reed is not unbiased from a financial perspective.)

I understand the instinct. But the fact that it took weeks for anyone to call
this non-neutral is evidence that after arguing this for x years, we still
don’t have a testable definition.

Yes, this move by Comcast is non-neutral. It was non-neutral when Facebook
offered something similar over mobile:
[http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/18/facebook-
launches-0-faceboo...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/18/facebook-
launches-0-facebook-com-a-mobile-site-that-incurs-zero-data-fees/)

CDNs? Not neutral.

The problem is that caps are reasonable (even if we prefer otherwise). And
offering bits for free is hard to argue against, for the consumer.

So if two reasonable acts constitute a violation of net neutrality, what does
that say about our definition?

~~~
bo1024
> “Principles”. Part of the problem is that the definition of neutrality is
> very ad hoc and untestable.

Really? I may be naive here, but I thought it was very clear and
straightforward:

1) Packets are not routed differently based on content or source.

2) Packets (or bits) cost the same amount regardless of content or source.

------
alecperkins
From what I understand, Xfinity is delivered from Comcast's own network, so
it's not exactly equal to the other sources he describes. Still, this
highlights how mixing network providers and content providers gets messy. It
opens up the door for ISPs to use their position in an effective monopoly to
favor their own content sources over others.

------
courtneypowell
We started a petition for Comcast to comply with net neutrality and apply caps
equally, or not at all. Please sign if you agree and share:
<http://pblk.dm/IVLlza>

~~~
chollida1
The actual link the above obfuscated link points to:

[http://publikdemand.com/d/comcast/stop-violating-net-
neutral...](http://publikdemand.com/d/comcast/stop-violating-net-
neutrality/6dd7e574-8755-11e1-9622-123139080280)

~~~
lawnchair_larry
It wasn't really obfuscated. pblk.dm is obviously publikdemand.com's own url
shorter.

~~~
chollida1
Would you be happy with the term minified, rather than obfuscated?

I agree there isn't one accepted definition for what obfuscated means wrt
urls. I use the term to mean any link that is changed to be less readable.

There wasn't any harm or judgement intended:)

------
gioele
Past HN discussions:

* <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3766284> (The new Comcast Xbox Xfinity app is the first nail in net neutrality’s coffin)

* <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505922> (Free Wikipedia in Africa and Middle East (first step against net neutrality?))

------
zyce
Akamai installs their blades directly inside ISPs. This covers Netflix and
Hulu. What's up now, Comcast?

~~~
justinsb
It seems that Netflix stopped using Akamai. The other discussion thread here
has some great links: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3845098>

~~~
jedberg
That's not true. Netflix uses all three major CDNs and the client picks the
best one.

------
robwgibbons
Comcast never followed net neutrality principles.

------
loverobots
I understand that there's more to the Comcast /Netflix dispute, but soon or
later the "dumb pipes" are going to want a cut, especially for heavy usage.

Until that's solved (lobbyists are rubbing their hands!) speed etc are
irrelevant. Who cares that you can download at 50mb/s when the limit is
reached after a few minutes /hours of full usage?

~~~
philwelch
It occurs to me that as we move towards "dumb pipes", they should be treated
more or less as a public utility--if even a metered one--just like actual
water and sewer pipes.

~~~
loverobots
Metered it is right now (see caps) but if you want 24/7 ESPN and HBO and I
just want to email and access CNN.com a few times a day why should I pay for
you?

The "internet" has changed, it was pages and images, now it's videos and with
Xbox, Hulu and Netflix it's also cable. The net providers have a point, it
costs a fortune to lay, expand and maintain the pipes as demand increases. Not
sure how it's solved, but Netflix and others have to shell a few bucks, the
money they are saving by not mailing DVDs might come in handy

~~~
philwelch
I would prefer meters to caps. Caps say if you use more than x gallons of
water we shut off your tap, but pay us $100/mo regardless. Meters say, hey,
use all the water you want, but you're paying for it.

------
lawnchair_larry
Comcast is currently filtering www.slutload.com [NSFW obviously] as well. I
really hate their monopoly.

~~~
wmf
"It has absolutely nothing to do with content; ... it is part of a (large) IP
range temporarily blocked to curb a DoS attack."
[http://vi.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/sackm/til_comcast_is_act...](http://vi.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/sackm/til_comcast_is_actively_censoring_the_internet/)

