Newsbot
11-30-2010, 05:00 PM
Prefatory Clarification: The title says that Level 3 is a competing ISP. This is not entirely accurate as it has been explained to me in the comments. They are an ISP at a different level than Comcast and rarely if ever direct competitors. However, the substance of my post stands. They certainly have conflicting objectives and interests on the point in question and are rightly understood to be in conflict and competition for attaining opposing goals. I will leave all references to "the competitor" unchanged, but understand it in the sense of competing for political good will and for mutually exclusive goals in their dealings with each other.
Thanks to the several people who pointed this out as I don't want the crux of what's happening here to be overshadowed by an incidental mistake on my end.
I'm no fan of Comcast, but I want to make sure that we are nailing them for the stuff they actually do wrong rather than buying into some crafty PR from their competition.
Bullshit Headline at the Top of Reddit
This is the headline for the Reddit post:
"BREAKING: The New York Times just reported that Comcast will block Netflix unless a new fee is paid to Comcast -- so Netflix's price goes up and people use Comcast's video service instead."
But here's the actual NY Times headline:
Netflix Partner Says Comcast ‘Toll’ Threatens Online Video Delivery
So the problems with the Reddit headline:
Says the NY Times reported this. No. They reported that the competitor said this.
"New fee" sounds like it's unprecedented, but this happens all the time and probably and has nothing to do with discriminating against traffic or net neutrality.
The bit about "so Netflix's price goes up and people use Comcast's video service instead" is a complete invention on the part of the reddit submitter. Total fiction.
The Original Post on Reddit is Also a BS Headline and Points to Level 3's PR Release
This is like getting fired up because Burger King says something bad about McDonald's.
Here's the also-misleading headline pointing to Level 3's press release:
Comcast demands toll be paid for traffic delivered to its customers. It begins..
Again, repeating as fact the words of a direct competitor with no corroboration. This is either intrigue on behalf of Level 3 or gullibility on behalf of the reddit submitter.
What's the More Likely Story? Level 3 is trying to co-opt net neutrality for their own interests.
First of all, understand that Level 3 is an ISP just like Comcast. This isn't the Pirate Bay getting throttled down. This is a competitor who plays the exact same game as Comcast and has the same savvy and the same ultimate incentives.
Secondly, understand that ISPs craft agreements for using each other's pipes. Both companies own a ton of internet cable, and it helps both to share in order to reach customers most efficiently.
This sharing is known as peering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering) and it's common that companies have agreements about what is mutually agreeable.
Level 3 just signed an agreement with Netflix like two weeks ago to become a primary provider for their streaming service. This changes the balance of their peering agreement with Comcast substantially in terms of how much bandwidth is going to be passing through Comast's pipes on Level 3's behalf.
Comcast is allegedly seeking a "new fee," but this is equivocation from Level 3. They are seeking a new agreement that is the same kind of agreement they had before but with new terms to balance things back out. So there is a "new fee" but it's not shocking or innovative or abusive at all.
Basically, it used to be, "It helps us both equally to share these things under these terms," but the terms just changed big time.
Now Comcast says, "Hey, this isn't fair anymore. We need you to pay us a fee." It has nothing to do with the content of the packets or the source of the packets. It has to do with the volume of the traffic.
The amount of bandwidth they will be delivering over Comcast's pipes will be disproportionate to the bandwidth Comcast delivers through Level 3's pipes.
So that would mean... (the payoff)
If that interpretation is correct, then Level 3 is playing the internet like a violin. They are also disingenuously co-opting the net-neutrality movement and weakening the value of our anger by stoking it when Comcast isn't actually in the wrong for once.
Disclaimer and Conclusion
At this point, I'm not entirely sure what's up, and while I'd like to see net-neutrality get cemented as much as anyone, I don't like the idea that that movement is being co-opted by a PR team for another big company for self-serving and disingenuous purposes.
It might be good to calm down a moment to make sure that we're choosing our battles wisely and not going to war over what will prove to be a pretty weak instance at best.
If I'm wrong about this stuff, then let's light torches and grab pitchforks, but it seems rash and credulous to go based on what we have right now alone.
Further Reading
For some comments from people in the industry, see these comments from a Y Combinator thread:
* http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1952225 * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1952251 * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1952874 * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1952587 TL;DR
The reddit posts about this are egregiously misleading
The only source for this stuff is a Comcast competitor
This probably has nothing to do with net-neutrality, the fees described are pretty typical
submitted by eavc (http://www.reddit.com/user/eavc) to politics (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/)
[link] (http://www.reddit.com/comments/edxu4/the_breaking_news_about_comcast_is_just_a_pr/) [115 comments] (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/edxu4/the_breaking_news_about_comcast_is_just_a_pr/)
More... (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/edxu4/the_breaking_news_about_comcast_is_just_a_pr/)
Thanks to the several people who pointed this out as I don't want the crux of what's happening here to be overshadowed by an incidental mistake on my end.
I'm no fan of Comcast, but I want to make sure that we are nailing them for the stuff they actually do wrong rather than buying into some crafty PR from their competition.
Bullshit Headline at the Top of Reddit
This is the headline for the Reddit post:
"BREAKING: The New York Times just reported that Comcast will block Netflix unless a new fee is paid to Comcast -- so Netflix's price goes up and people use Comcast's video service instead."
But here's the actual NY Times headline:
Netflix Partner Says Comcast ‘Toll’ Threatens Online Video Delivery
So the problems with the Reddit headline:
Says the NY Times reported this. No. They reported that the competitor said this.
"New fee" sounds like it's unprecedented, but this happens all the time and probably and has nothing to do with discriminating against traffic or net neutrality.
The bit about "so Netflix's price goes up and people use Comcast's video service instead" is a complete invention on the part of the reddit submitter. Total fiction.
The Original Post on Reddit is Also a BS Headline and Points to Level 3's PR Release
This is like getting fired up because Burger King says something bad about McDonald's.
Here's the also-misleading headline pointing to Level 3's press release:
Comcast demands toll be paid for traffic delivered to its customers. It begins..
Again, repeating as fact the words of a direct competitor with no corroboration. This is either intrigue on behalf of Level 3 or gullibility on behalf of the reddit submitter.
What's the More Likely Story? Level 3 is trying to co-opt net neutrality for their own interests.
First of all, understand that Level 3 is an ISP just like Comcast. This isn't the Pirate Bay getting throttled down. This is a competitor who plays the exact same game as Comcast and has the same savvy and the same ultimate incentives.
Secondly, understand that ISPs craft agreements for using each other's pipes. Both companies own a ton of internet cable, and it helps both to share in order to reach customers most efficiently.
This sharing is known as peering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering) and it's common that companies have agreements about what is mutually agreeable.
Level 3 just signed an agreement with Netflix like two weeks ago to become a primary provider for their streaming service. This changes the balance of their peering agreement with Comcast substantially in terms of how much bandwidth is going to be passing through Comast's pipes on Level 3's behalf.
Comcast is allegedly seeking a "new fee," but this is equivocation from Level 3. They are seeking a new agreement that is the same kind of agreement they had before but with new terms to balance things back out. So there is a "new fee" but it's not shocking or innovative or abusive at all.
Basically, it used to be, "It helps us both equally to share these things under these terms," but the terms just changed big time.
Now Comcast says, "Hey, this isn't fair anymore. We need you to pay us a fee." It has nothing to do with the content of the packets or the source of the packets. It has to do with the volume of the traffic.
The amount of bandwidth they will be delivering over Comcast's pipes will be disproportionate to the bandwidth Comcast delivers through Level 3's pipes.
So that would mean... (the payoff)
If that interpretation is correct, then Level 3 is playing the internet like a violin. They are also disingenuously co-opting the net-neutrality movement and weakening the value of our anger by stoking it when Comcast isn't actually in the wrong for once.
Disclaimer and Conclusion
At this point, I'm not entirely sure what's up, and while I'd like to see net-neutrality get cemented as much as anyone, I don't like the idea that that movement is being co-opted by a PR team for another big company for self-serving and disingenuous purposes.
It might be good to calm down a moment to make sure that we're choosing our battles wisely and not going to war over what will prove to be a pretty weak instance at best.
If I'm wrong about this stuff, then let's light torches and grab pitchforks, but it seems rash and credulous to go based on what we have right now alone.
Further Reading
For some comments from people in the industry, see these comments from a Y Combinator thread:
* http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1952225 * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1952251 * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1952874 * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1952587 TL;DR
The reddit posts about this are egregiously misleading
The only source for this stuff is a Comcast competitor
This probably has nothing to do with net-neutrality, the fees described are pretty typical
submitted by eavc (http://www.reddit.com/user/eavc) to politics (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/)
[link] (http://www.reddit.com/comments/edxu4/the_breaking_news_about_comcast_is_just_a_pr/) [115 comments] (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/edxu4/the_breaking_news_about_comcast_is_just_a_pr/)
More... (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/edxu4/the_breaking_news_about_comcast_is_just_a_pr/)