Comcast Starts Web ‘Toll Booth,’ Netflix Supplier Says

[Joanne98]

Source: Bloomberg

Nov. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Comcast Corp. has begun imposing a fee on Internet middleman Level 3 Communications Inc., one of the companies that Netflix Inc. has hired to deliver movies and TV shows to Web customers.

Comcast, the largest U.S. cable TV company, has set up an Internet “toll booth,” charging Level 3 whenever customers request content, the Broomfield, Colorado-based company said in a statement yesterday.

Level 3 plans to complain to U.S. regulators who may enact so-called net-neutrality rules next month. The Federal Communications Commission is seeking to bar phone and cable providers from interfering with legal traffic on their networks. The rules are backed by President Barack Obama and companies led by Google Inc., EBay Inc. and IAC/InterActiveCorp. Phone and cable companies say rules aren’t needed and may hurt investment.

“This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access,” Thomas Stortz, Level 3’s chief legal officer, said in the statement. “With this action, Comcast is preventing competing content from ever being delivered to Comcast’s subscribers at all, unless Comcast’s unilaterally determined toll is paid.”



Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-30/comcast-starts-web-toll-booth-netflix-supplier-says.html

---

Consumers Union Asks You To Say No To Comcast/NBC Deal

With the clock still ticking on the proposed purchase of NBC Universal by Comcast, our benevolent benefactors at Consumers Union has launched a new website and advertising campaign to step up its efforts to alert the public to the perils of the deal.

Starting this morning, consumers can go to SayNoToComcastNBC.com for more information about how the sale of NBC to Comcast will likely mean less choice and higher cable bills. Additionally, you'll be able to write directly to the FCC to voice your opinion on the sale.

http://consumerist.com/2010/11/consumers-union-asks-you-to-say-no-to-comcastnbc-deal.html

SIGN THE PETITION PLEEZE!

[myrna minx]

1. K&R n/t

[intheflow]

2. Comcast can - but is unwilling to - provide the same content as Netflix

for a similar price. I can get streaming movies and tv shows commercial free on Netflix for $8/mo. Comcast wants to extort me to the tune of $50/mo for basic cable that doesn't even give MSNBC and everything has commercials. Because they refuse to be competitive in online content delivery market, they instead choose to be punitive. I'm moving in a month and will be changing my ISP. Fuck you, Comcast!

[sarcasmo]

3. We are going to dump Comcast cable too but are forced to use Comcast for the Internet.

The shame is they could let you choose what channels you wanted and pay much less but because of their Greed they force you to take the whole bundle. I am not a fan of ATT but if we had them in this area I would switch so fast. The ugly part of this is it will force Netflix to up the monthly cost. It would be nice if the Government blocked this merger but they are all about Corporations so I don't see this being blocked.

[shanti]

14. i am forced to use comcast for internet too

:( did i mention how much i HATE comcast?!!!

[RufusTFirefly]

50. Forced? Gotta love that "free market." What a fraud it is. n/t

[demigoddess]

65. so often, as in our county, comcast has a monopoly and they

refuse to speak to our city council. They have done all kinds of delaying tactics over the years. I think the city finally gave up fighting them.

[shanti]

75. yes forced

they have sacramento county in their back pocket.

[Maine-ah]

58. Time Warner is the same...

and up here it's our only choice, other than satellite.

[totodeinhere]

66. You cannot get either DSL or fixed wireless at your location? n/t

[Romulox]

4. Comcast gets its money from me, a subscriber. Just why should *I* subsidize Netflix?

Net neutrality makes no sense when you consider that Neflix is a for-profit entity.

[bl968]

7. It is no longer Comcast's bandwidth to sell

But Comcast's customers have paid for their bandwidth and if they want to download legal movies from netflix then that is their right. It is not the acceptable for Comcast to charge Netflix for bandwidth that their customers have ALREADY PAID FOR, and have full rights to use. Bandwidth is not a one way street.

[JDPriestly]

8. You "subsidize" Fox News, why not subsidize Netflix.

Fox News sells ads and makes its money that way. Netflix sells subscriptions and makes its money that way. Comcast sells access to you to all of your cable or internet transmissions. Comcast should not be able to discriminate regarding the internet providers that it carries. That is especially true if Comcast is seeking to compete with some of its carriers, like Netflix.

Comcast is trying to dominate too large a share of the market and thwart competition. That should be illegal. We need more competition, not less, in our markets.

[Romulox]

10. Cable is able to "discriminate" against television channels...

"Comcast should not be able to discriminate regarding the internet providers that it carries. "

It's able to "discriminate" against Showtime or HBO, using the *exact* same infrastructure--you don't pay, no Skinamax. :hi:

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. You're not paying for Netfix

What gave you the false impression that you're paying for Netflix?

[Romulox]

11. 1) I'm a Netflix subscriber; 2) Yes, I do pay for finite Comcast bandwidth

If that bandwidth is being dominated by Netflix streaming movies, then I have access to less bandwidth overall. That's how it works.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

12. I'm a network engineer by trade

And you're being taken for a ride by one of the worst ISP's out there. Enjoy.

[Romulox]

dupe. nt

[Romulox]

13. LOL. So Bandwidth is unlimited+free on the networks you work on?

"And you're being taken for a ride by one of the worst ISP's out there. Enjoy"

What nonsense. I pay for bandwidth. If someone can provide more for less, I will purchase it. <crickets>

[boppers]

31. You aren't paying for squat.

That's what cable subscribers don't seem to understand, they aren't paying for their usage.

If you want to buy a DS-3 to your house, fine, you can do that.

Heck, if you want a meager full T-1 to your house, that's possible too.

What's not possible, or reasonable, is expecting a DS-3 link at fractional T-1 costs.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

47. yes and no

A DS3 is provisioned at a higher bandwidth than most peoples' stated home download speeds. But 10-20Mbps is not uncommon in a lot of homes. That's an entirely different thing than getting dedicated, channelized service. Yes, you get dedicated bandwidth from your home until you hit a switched port in your ISP's network. Then you're on shared bandwidth. So if you're pulling down 8Mpbs, for example, and the ISP's network is saturated somewhere or another, sure, you'll drop down to something less. But this is pretty uncommon anymore. The Comcasts of the world peer with lots of upstream providers with really, really big pipes. Bandwidth is cheaper than it's ever been, and as a general rule, most Tier 1 ISP's aren't going to have bottlenecks on their backbone networks. And for the most part, they won't have bottlenecks closer at the leaf/node/CPE level. If there are bottlenecks, those need to be addressed, but that's already been done in most places. The 1-1.5Mbps that Netflix would typically use for streaming shouldn't be a strain on modern ISP networks. While it's true that Netflix consumes 20% of Internet b/w during peak hours, and therefore the networks over which it rides need to be up to snuff to handle that traffic, most of that effort has already been expended. Comcast has already written the checks required to improve their network such that it can participate in the modern incarnation of the Internet. It's disingenous and typical of Comcast to basically come up with a retroactive upcharge for what their customers have already paid for--namely, bandwidth.

So I disagree that cable customers aren't paying for bandwidth. They are. They're just not paying for dedicated, channelized bandwidth and they get best-effort service. But best-effort should be enough to run Netflix 24x7 while doing other network-related things. This doesn't pose a problem in modern networks. This reply, by the way, is also to the poster above, who thinks it's just peachy that his ISP is making shit up in order to charge more money. Comcast is making money hand-over-fist, and providing bandwidth is what they're supposed to do in the first place.

Thanks.

[boppers]

57. Yay, somebody who knows a bit about networking!

The Comcast problem, as I see it, is really one of last-mile over-subscription. It's not that they can't write checks for upstream, it's that they're having problems scaling on the other end... buying more bandwidth is cheap, but setting up lots more of physical points (real estate, hardware) to jump from coax to fiber (or whatever) is not.

[Occulus]

16. Romulox, you've made this argument before.

You never manage to sell it (perhaps because we all know better), but you've made it before. Let me ask you- for what purposes exactly do you use your bandwidth?

[Romulox]

19. I'm not selling anything. Just pointing out this is about Neflix $$$ vs. Comcast $$$

"Let me ask you- for what purposes exactly do you use your bandwidth?"

Um, what difference does that make? I pay for what I use. If I need more, the federal government can't force Comcast to give me more, can it? I have to get out my checkbook.

[ejpoeta]

22. no it's about comcast trying to force THEIR service on their customers instead of being able to

choose netflix. this is the crux of net neutrality. not allowing comcast to prevent you from accessing their competitor. you use cable tv as your basis. but they are not the same because the internet has been open so that we could access anything on there. so we could go on youtube or netflix. if we have to use a company like comcast to access the internet, then as a conduit they should not be determining who we access on the internet. it's not about bandwith.... it's about trying to force customers of their internet service to use THEIR video streaming instead of netflix.

[Ginto]

26. So like Apple forcing me to use iTunes, AT&T, or HTML5?

Don't see why Netflix is so special. Guess because it is another opiate that the masses "need."

[PeaceNikki]

30. No, it'd be like Apple limiting which artists you could listen to on your iPod

or who you could call on your iPhone.

Charging extra if you want Lady Gaga, a surcharge for a call to mom.

[Ginto]

32. That's called the app approval process.

Apple limits the content of apps all the time.

[jennied]

34. Netflix is special because it's cheaper. At least for me.

I actually cancelled most of my cable television, I only have the very basic channels. And I just stream Netflix Instantly to my living room for 8.99 a month.

As opposed to the 60 bucks a month for cable.

[Ginto]

37. If it wasn't for sports, I would do the same. nt

[ejpoeta]

45. we are considering doing that. we have netflix. also, you can go to the website

of many stations and watch the shows right there. less commercials. maybe that is part of why they are pulling this bs.

[jennied]

59. Yep.

Hulu, too. Although Hulu is now charging for some programs.

[jennied]

36. oops, double post n/t

[intheflow]

43. You don't need Apple or iTunes to download music from the net.

There are other companies that offer the same or similar content for a comparable price. Comcast's is often the only ISP in an area so it's really more like a RICO violation if it limits what content is available from where and at what price to subscribers. It's nothing like Apple/iTunes.

[Ginto]

44. I am also limited in choice on all of my utilities.

Do you have choices on all your other utilities. I would love to have another natural gas provider. Especially now that it is getting cold.

[onehandle]

15. I pay Comcast for access to the Internet.

They should have no say over what data I choose to use that access for.

Period.

It's a utility. Should my electric company have say over what I use my electricity for?

[Romulox]

20. I think metered usage is the big difference between electricity and broadband, at the moment

Honestly, metered usage of the internet would solve a great deal of this problem, imo.

[onehandle]

27. Comcast has a 250GB a month 'limit.' If you exceed that limit twice in a six month limit...

...they terminate your account and will not let you back as a customer for 12 months.

That sounds like a meter to me. And Comcast even admits that less than one tenth of one percent of their customers exceed this limit.

Meanwhile, I stream multiple terabytes of audio and video on my iPhone. As much as people bitch about AT&T, they have very generous data limits and even let you rollover your unused minutes.

Comcast treats its customers like enemies.

[Ginto]

29. Sounds like you need a business account if your uploading that much data. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

48. There is no problem. But they were successful in getting you to believe there was one. n/t

.

[Edweird]

61. What 'problem'? There is no 'problem' other than comcast extorting money.

[Ginto]

28. You pay your electric/gas/water company for you electricity/gas/water

Do you pay a flat rate every month?

[onehandle]

39. See response #27. nt

[Ginto]

40. So upgrade to a business account if you need to upload that much data.

That is an insane amount.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

51. I pay a flat rate for my Internet

Let me get this straight. Are you a proponent of per-minute or per-byte bandwidth usage? GTFO. Seriously, inbreeder GOP business school types will be the death of us all. Other developed nations are just smoking us on bandwidth. Wait until the cool new app/game/web3.0 thing comes out, and we can't participate because it's either too expensive or we're throttled from consuming too much bandwidth. You're advocating putting an unnecessary yoke on each packet that traverses the Internet, not because it needs to be there for technical reasons, but strictly for the profit motive. I don't think you have a real grasp of what the Internet is, what it was designed to be. I don't believe you have a real firm grasp on this. As such, your comments are baseless.

thanks.

[Ginto]

52. So bandwith is unlimited?

Why not start your own internet provider? Sounds like you've got it all figured out.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

54. reply 47, Lil Einstein

why don't you start your own useless noise-making service? I think you've got it all figured out.

[Ginto]

56. Not much of an answer.

Get some investors and put your plan into action.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

63. I have no desire to start an ISP

What are you prattling on about? Why would I want to start an ISP? Should I run for President if I want to criticize GW Bush or Barack Obama? Should I run for Congress and then become Speaker of the House if I want to criticize Boehner? Should I become a physician if I'm worried about medical malpractice?

You're displaying a fundamental lack of adult reasoning here. Just because I know the technology and I'm very familiar with the industry, it doesn't follow that I should start my own business if there's something afoot that is clearly rotten. You'll need to take your simpering boot-licking elsewhere. You're of no real consequence, and life is too short to converse with the willfully ignorant.

thanks

[Ginto]

64. You just make it sound so easy.

Too bad you won't use your powers for good.

[boppers]

72. I've debated doing it.

It's a hassle, and it's hard to compete with people who are already in the game, because they already have a huge amount of build out.

[Trajan]

74. Many have had it 'figured out' for the last two decades ...

Edited to remove angry response ....

The Conservative FUCKS on DU are pissing me off today .... Haven't we had enough conservative nonsense yet ?

Bottom line:

Wages are down or gone

Expenses are skyrocketing

Families are struggling to keep their homes

They already dont give one holy FUCK about either Netflix or Comcast - They are worried about finding the next bowl of cereal for junior ...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. Other countries have COMPETITION among ISPs

and their rates are better for more bandwidth.

[boppers]

73. So does the US.

I bet that no matter where you are in the US, I can find at least 3 different ISP's.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. Three? That's not enough

:shrug:

Minnesota has three health insurance companies issuing individual policies, and they all charge the same exorbitant prices for the same lousy benefits.

[boppers]

35. No, it's not a utility.

It's a private company, offering a private service.

Big difference.

[onehandle]

38. I pay for access, not to be told what I can do with that access. nt

[boppers]

42. You pay for access to a private network.

They get to charge you what they want, for how you access the network, and who you talk to.

Welcome to the internet.

[RufusTFirefly]

55. The Internet is a public network

Companies like Comcast have invaded a public space and privatized it.

[boppers]

71. It hasn't been entirely public since the ARPA switch over.

So, a bit about the word: "Internet".

Lo, back in the day, there were many networks, which used many protocols, and did not speak to each other. The faithful paid for access to one or more of these private networks. The IETF (or rather, it's predecessors) looked upon this, and said it was not good.

They thought to themselves, "perhaps we can connect these networks and make something interesting". By creating standards, they could connect private bulletin boards, business mainframes, university computers, and pay-for-play computer systems (like Compuserve and BBN), and all the machines could all communicate between each other. This was the idea behind inter-networking (aka Internet), that all these different networks, public, private, whatever, could connect to each other.

They first created a bunch of connections on military systems, learned from that, and then (during the great switch over), connected a bunch more public, and private, networks. Since then, the biggest growth has been in private networks.

If, for example, you are using a private network in your house, to connect to a private network provider (such as Comcast), to send an email to a school (a publicly owned network), your email is likely to travel over both publicly owned, and privately owned, networks, sometimes as many as 10-50 different networks. Most of those are private.

[RufusTFirefly]

53. Furthermore, should your phone company determine which people you can talk to?

This is why Net Neutrality is so important. Letting an infrastructure company control content is like letting banks speculate with your savings. And we know where that got us.

[PeaceNikki]

17. Like I explained in the other thread

Your argument would make sense IF Comcast gave a shit about my neighbor

and were trying to offer more package offerings based on usage. But that's not what's happening.

This sets a scary precedent. If Comcast can charge an extra fee to Level 3 for hosting Netflix content, it could (and probably will at some point try to) charge Google to stream YouTube movies or Apple to broadcast iTunes content. Because Comcast owns the last mile, they hold the keys.

A bit is a bit is a bit, and eight of them is a byte. They sell you 50 mbps service but say you can only use it so much. It is like giving a fire hose to a fireman but telling him you can only use 5000 gallons a month with it. Providers keep advertising faster and faster speeds and promoting how we can use it to download movies and music so much faster. Yup, and hit our quota that much faster too. I completely support Net Neutrality, if you don't want a large company's business then don't sell it to them.

In addition, Comcast is Breaking Anti-Trust Laws. The idea behind anti-trust laws is to prevent monopolies from becoming fascist dictators. In this case, Comcast is both the owner of distribution (cable lines) and content. If Comcast is allowed to stiff arm Level 3, they will be using their distribution business to cripple competitors in the content arena.

I pay $X per month for Ymbps of bandwidth, I should be able to run my connection at Ymbps 24/7 - without any regard to WHAT that traffic is. Likewise with content providers and every stop in the middle.

So it's not fair that one company has thousands of users necessitating the very bandwidth you're trying to sell, thus giving you a reason to fucking exist?

I fail to see how that maintains any semblance of logical cohesion in this universe.

Fuck off, Comcast.

[boppers]

41. "I pay $X per month for Ymbps of bandwidth".... No, you don't.

You pay $X per month for Ymbps of *peak* bandwidth.

Peak rates are not sustained rates.

If you are paying for CDR/CIR (Committed data/information rates), than I am wrong, and you are paying thousands of dollars a month for your internet link, in which case, you have a point.

However, since this thread is about Comcast, and your post is about Comcast, I very much doubt you are spending those thousands.

[liberalmike27]

21. Comcast has a Huge Download Limit

Seriously, it's hard to hit it. But instead of charging Netflix, why not just up the subscriber rate for those who use too much?

I was downloading chess tablebases (endgame databases that play the game perfect to the end used with chess programs) for months, and never got a complaint from them.

They provide a line, and Netflix provides movies. It should be separate. I signed the petition. I'm getting pretty fed up with Comcast, but like the others I have no alternative. Monopoly much?

This is a great example of why monopolies are bad.

[katty]

25. agree, just up subscriber rate-we have that horrid TimeWarner

and they just give you picks of what you want, like apps, plus we have the dsl hooked up for content on the net, via our blu-ray.

[Po_d Mainiac]

24. yup

No different than truckers paying a toll to travel faster on a turnpike.

[JDPriestly]

5. Could this be a violation of antitrust laws?

Is this simply Comcast's way to thwart competition?

[PeaceNikki]

18. Yes. And it sets a scary precedent.

If Comcast can charge an extra fee to Level 3 for hosting Netflix content, it could (and probably will at some point) charge Google to stream YouTube movies or Apple to broadcast iTunes content. Because Comcast owns the last mile, they hold the keys.

[Po_d Mainiac]

33. Do you think that your 1800lb auto

should pay the same turnpike toll as a 100,000lb truck?

It's basically the same situation.

If NFLX wants to run their heavies they should pony up and help fix the highway. The capacity to carry the extra load comes with a price.

[Snellius]

6. Not surprised after what they pulled before the 2008 election

Where I am in MA Comcast pulled MSNBC from their basic service, relegated to their premium digital service that no one but Republicans can afford. Not FOX nor CNN just anyone who might stand in their way. Now they want to buy it and the whole corporate propaganda machine.

[raystorm7]

60. Comcast is Evil. Everything they do reeks of Evil and Greed >:[

[greiner3]

23. How else can Comcast pay for a TV network?

[fatbuckel]

46. When you decide to send a message to Washington and not elect Dems...

You can`t cry when bad things happen. Next time, vote. (If you voted for Dems, hold your venom. I just mean the ones that didn`t)

[Plucketeer]

49. Hah! Unlike TV broadcasts

which still allow some circumventing of cable and satellite service, we're hostages to ass holes like Comcast. This is MONOPOLY in it's purest sense. We MUST demand that the internet be treated like any other piece of public infrastructure - period. Sadly, come January, we're gonna be at the mercy of the privatization troops. And since even the (supposed) voices of reason haven't done much for Net Neutrality when they had a chance, we're screwed. :grr:




GOP JOBS PLAN DEPICTED BELOW

[rug]

62. Capitalists would charge by the electron if it was techically feasible.

[AC_Mem]

67. Dump Comcast!

I dumped them in August and went with at&t U-Verse and haven't looked back. I pay less and have twice as many channels and now have MSNBC, which Comcast does not provide with its basic cable.

All you get is conservative news with Comcast basic - interesting isn't it.

[totodeinhere]

68. In the interest of full disclosure, here is Comcast's side of the story.

Level 3 has inaccurately portrayed the commercial negotiations between it and Comcast. These discussions have nothing to do with Level 3's desire to distribute different types of network traffic.

Comcast has long established and mutually acceptable commercial arrangements with Level 3's Content Delivery Network (CDN) competitors in delivering the same types of traffic to our customers. Comcast offered Level 3 the same terms it offers to Level 3's CDN competitors for the same traffic. But Level 3 is trying to gain an unfair business advantage over its CDN competitors by claiming it's entitled to be treated differently and trying to force Comcast to give Level 3 unlimited and highly imbalanced traffic and shift all the cost onto Comcast and its customers.

To quantify this, 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. In other words, Level 3 wants to compete with other CDNs, but pass all the costs of that business onto Comcast and Comcast's customers, instead of Level 3 and its customers.

Level 3's position is simply duplicitous. When another network provider tried to pass traffic onto Level 3 this way, Level 3 said this is not the way settlement-free peering works in the Internet world. When traffic is way out of balance, Level 3 said, it will insist on a commercially negotiated solution.

Now, Level 3 proposes to send traffic to Comcast at a 5:1 ratio over what Comcast sends to Level 3, so Comcast is proposing the same type of commercial solution endorsed by Level 3. Comcast is meeting with Level 3 later this week for that purpose. We are happy to maintain a balanced, no-cost traffic exchange with Level 3. However, when one provider exploits this type of relationship by pushing the burden of massive traffic growth onto the other provider and its customers, we believe this is not fair.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Level3-Accuses-Comcast-Of-Net-Neutrality-Violation-111586

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the technical details of this subject to be able to take sides. But I do suspect that when all is said and done as usual the consumer will be the one who is screwed.

[progrocktv]

69. This is just the beginning.....

Comcast is a cable TV company and believe me they're going to protect their business model by any means necessary. Sure 250GB is a very generous cap and very few hit it, however give it time we're going to see that cap lowered and eventually switched to complete metered billing. Now all of those great movies and TV shows we can get off the internet are suddenly costing us $3 a film and Comcast hopes everyone flocks back to gool 'ol cable.