
Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth - chaostheory
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/11/level-3-outbid-akamai-on-netflix-by-reselling-stolen-bandwidth/
======
jws
I still fail to see why a leaf node internet provider thinks they should be
paid for receiving the data their customers have requested.

Paying for transits is easy to understand, and in a complicated topology
paying for bytes-in as a peer makes sense because they may be transits.

For a leaf node network like Comcast, whose customers pay to receive bytes and
pay to have their connections installed to then demand payment from producers
for supplying those bytes seems unjustified.

The author tries to hang this on the relatively higher build out cost per
customer Mbps of residential nodes compared large commercial drops, but that
is just different businesses. The residential providers already charge many
multiples higher for bandwidth, this is just haggling about the multiplier.

~~~
lawfulfalafel
I still find the fact that level 3 decided to pay comcast the most disturbing.
I do not understand the long-term financial benefit of that decision in any
way.

~~~
ynniv
They can still send packets to Comcast through a transit provider without
paying Comcast. What they can't do is start sending 5 times as much data
through their free peering agreement, and the renegotiation involves Level(3)
paying Comcast. Obviously they will be paying Comcast less money than they
would pay a 3rd party transit provider.

~~~
blueben
A third party who Comcast would charge to accept their traffic. Let's be honst
here; wherever Netflix goes, Comcast is going to chase after them demanding
money to handle their traffic.

------
andrewvc
The article does a decent job of introducing the concepts of peering and
transit. However, it's pretty long winded and goes through a number of
tortured justifications. Here's a much simpler explanation:

Comcast is charging Level 3 _because they can_.

~~~
extension
Sure, but what I am trying to figure out, as a relative layperson on this
topic, is this: Is either party making some outrageous and unprecedented
demand that will bring about the end of the internet as we know it? Or is this
just business as usual?

~~~
blueben
It's not business as usual, which is why it's a big deal. Comcast is trying to
do something new. They used to get a cut of revenue from Netflix traffic
because it was on Akamai, who pay to sit in Comcast's datacenters. Now that
traffic is going to come from a peer. It's the same traffic, but Comcast isn't
getting the revenue, and they're pissed.

~~~
grav1tas
That may be the case, but if the peer made a contractual agreement that
limited the peering to symmetrical traffic, then Comcast should be free to
renegotiate or straight up sever the peering under the terms of any
contractual agreements....if this is what is allowed by what's on the
contract. While people can hem and haw about the moral and ethical
implications, it seems like this is something that is likely spelled out on
paper somewhere. It seems like one or both organizations is fanning the flames
in the media to rile up end users.

~~~
gergles
There's no technical evidence (you can check, quite easily, who's peering with
who and if there's a cost associated) that L3 and Comcast are using a purely-
symmetric SFP agreement. It's quite likely they aren't (consumer ISPs would
never upload enough to large providers to get a symmetric agreement worth
their while.)

~~~
grav1tas
Care to link me?

------
akamaka
In case you're wondering who wrote this, they are closely connected to
Comcast.

From digitalsociety.org: _"Digital Society is an independent 501(c)3 non-
profit organization, funded by donations from Jon Henke and from Arts+Labs."_

From artsandlabs.com: _"Arts+Labs partners include entertainment companies,
software providers, telecommunications providers, artists and creators
committed to delivering innovative and creative digital products to
consumers."_ (including NBC Universal)

From Wikipedia: _"As of August 2010, Comcast's proposed acquisition of a
majority stake in NBC Universal is pending government approval."_

~~~
RockyMcNuts
Comcast statement - [http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-
level-3....](http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html)

(also crap IMHO - I am not particularly inclined to believe their claim that
Level 3 got same terms as Akamai and other CDNs for non-Netflix content)

~~~
akamaka
Thanks for the link. I see that the official statement is using much more
measured language.

I'm pretty amused by this quote: "what Level 3 wants is to pressure Comcast
into accepting more than a twofold increase in the amount of traffic Level 3
delivers onto Comcast's network -- for free."

Isn't Comcast _paying_ Level 3 to deliver traffic to them? If Comcast is not
happy with the price Level 3 charges them, can't they switch to a different
tier 1 network?

------
brown9-2
The discussion of this article over on reddit has uncovered some interesting
past articles by the same author, and it seems he has a strong bias on this
topic

[http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/edxjp/level_3_ou...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/edxjp/level_3_outbid_akamai_on_netflix_by_reselling/c17dvwd)

~~~
RockyMcNuts
true! every one of those 'Digital Society' paid promo links on memeorandum has
the strong whiff of incumbent telecom corporate shilling. I have never seen
one get popular there, and am quite surprised to see it #1 here.

The key to this argument is whether Level 3 will have the same the same terms
that Akamai and other CDNs do for non-Netflix content. Comcast claims that is
the case, but I am not particularly inclined to believe them.

~~~
wmf
My understanding is that Level 3 (and Akamai and Limelight and soon everyone)
has to pay Comcast for _all_ traffic.

------
rburhum
Personally, I would take three extra network hops and a slower internet if it
meant Comcast got screwed. Having been practically forced numerous times to
use Comcast as a home internet provider because there were no other options,
spent days (when you add it all up) on their stupid support line and having
been bit by not calling after 3 or 6 months "trial" (or actually them putting
you on hold enough - like 1+ hour), I dont care. This article is asking me to
be worried/sorry about the equivalent of a child molester of ISPs. Sorry. NO

------
nikcub
_"Now it makes perfect sense how Level 3 managed to outbid Akamai since no CDN
provider operating legally could outbid hot goods."_

I think he means _contractually_ rather than _legally_ , very big difference
and suggests that this story is a beat-up. There is no way in the world that
Comcast (a dedicated end user provider) was almost equal with L3 (almost
dedicated to providing first-tier backbone to private networks and colo)

Peering is interesting in that you can get a lot of free hosting if you find a
company that does a lot of inbound but no outbound. We hosted all of the
OpenBSD, FreeBSD and 100+ other projects au mirrors for 10+ years for free
hitting peaks of gbits+ because of the provider having to make up peering
arrangements. I imagine Comcast would be the same (we did it with a similar
company - home broadband provider)

This is definitely a case of Comcast attempting to double-dip and feeding a
story to a journalist to get their side of the argument out (the journalist
even put a hit on one of his competing publications for 'getting it wrong')

------
ashbrahma
Level 3 found itself in Comcast's shoes back in 2005. They felt that Cogent
Communications unfairly taxed its network and made the exact same argument
that Comcast is making today, and even temporarily pulled the plug on its
connection to Cogent, cutting off some parts of the Internet for millions of
Cogent customers.

------
ck2
How exactly could an ISP ever match the upload volume of a downstream
contract?

It's technically impossible.

Even without netflix, the download to upload ratio is huge.

~~~
EdwardMSmith
Many (most?) large cable providers, such as Comcast, have co-location and
hosting businesses. After all, they have significant server facilities and a
serious traffic deficit to make up.

------
oogali
utterly stupid.

comcast is a customer of level3, not a peer. even though marketing has blurred
the lines (i blame overly ambitious hosting companies), there is a very large
difference between peering and being a transit customer.

what applies here is a transit agreement, even though george ou completely
skips over that in his analysis by assuming comcast is not a customer.

to be redundant: this is not a peering spat, because comcast and level3 DO NOT
PEER, comcast is a level3 customer.

customer.

customer.

~~~
pilom
Right, where comcast pays L3 to deliver what comcast has to send. L3 still
needs to pay someone (either comcast or someone else) to take the what they
have to offer. No one wants traffic, thats why L3 has to pay to send Netflix
to customers.

~~~
wmf
Usually in a transit relationship the customer pays for the whole pipe; there
isn't accounting of incoming vs. outgoing.

------
pilom
Lots of people seem to be forgetting that content providers want to connect to
customers just as much as the customers want the content.

Comcast:"L3 you want to connect to all my cable customers fast and you don't
want to pay even more to get to me through AT&T so lets make a deal."

It makes perfect sense that Comcast should be paid for access to their
customers.

~~~
jordan0day
"It makes perfect sense that Comcast should be paid for access to their
customers." I disagree, heartily. Comcast's customers are paying Comcast for
access to the entire internet, not just to the little segment of the network
that Comcast owns.

~~~
boredguy8
Exactly this, especially in markets where there isn't consumer choice (which
is something I don't see anyone talking about on HN).

Conceivably an ISP could charge customers for a connection AND charge
providers for access to that base. For instance, magazines charge for both the
subscription and the advertisements.

However, I can decide if I want Harper's or US Weekly. If one provides value
and the other doesn't, I get to pick. With ISPs, the same feature isn't at
play: I either use Road Runner or I don't get high-speed bandwidth. At that
point, ISPs have a larger obligation to protect the customers by not doing
things like what Comcast is doing.

------
netc
The article talks about 5 times increase in volume of the traffic. Wouldn't it
mean Comcast gets to make extra bucks even though number of Comcast customers
who access Netflix will not increase that much? Right or wrong, Comcast wants
a cut every time Netflix (or any one else) changes CDN provider.

