Comcast and Level 3: Internet Experts Bring Perspective
There's been a torrent of words between Comcast and Level 3 Communications over the past several days. For our part, we've worked hard to do two things: (1) help people understand that this is a simple commercial dispute between Comcast and Level 3, not an issue about "net neutrality" (which is something we support -- see David Cohen's post, and (2) make it crystal clear that this dispute has nothing to do with Netflix -- if you're a Comcast high-speed Internet customer who uses our service to watch Netflix (or any other online video service), you'll keep on enjoying it tomorrow and the next day and as long as you want.
We've kept an eye out for the people who are writing the simplest, clearest, factual articles about the Comcast/Level 3 dispute. Over at GigaOm, Daniel Gooding wrote a piece that reinforces this bottom line: in the Comcast/Level 3 business dispute, "No one is 'breaking the Internet.'" Martin Peers at the Wall Street Journal sums it up thus: "Comcast's Deal Is on the Level." And Joe Mullin at Paid Content adds that Comcast's peering policy is right on our website for all to see, and it's consistent with well-established industry standards.
We can't stress enough that this commercial dispute will not impact how our customers can use their Comcast high-speed Internet service. You can access any content you want anywhere on the Internet, just as you always have. You can watch video online from any provider, including Netflix and dozens of others, just as you always have. We've made it clear that we are committed to work out a business arrangement with Level 3 that ends this dispute as soon as possible. We hope they'll make the same commitment -- but if they don't, we won't let it impact you.
Enter Comments
Please note that all comments on the Comcast Voices blog must follow the guidelines outlined in the blog policy. All comments will be moderated prior to appearing on the blog. This is important to prevent spam and personal attacks. If posting a comment about a specific customer service problem or personal account issue, please contact us here, or post your question to the Comcast Help & Support forums.
Comments (3)
Comcast, you - on behalf of your customers are requesting data from Level 3. Comcast is, in essence the consumer of the data. When a customer requests a netflix movie, Level 3 sees "Comcast is asking for X amount of data".
The data isn't passing through your pipes, its data YOU ask for. Consumers are already giving you money for a service that should allow them to receive that data. You're paid to deliver that data, regardless of whom it comes from or what the data is.
But you want money because you're requesting more data from level 3 than before? I honestly wish netflix + level 3 could just turn around and say 'we'll give you the data you request for free, but you we won't pay you to deliver what your customers are paying you to provide'.
If this was a traffic imbalance in regards to stuff going THROUGH Comcast's network, and not consumed by their subscribers, then it would be entirely reasonable. Data transfer is not free, I understand that completely.
Craig, your lapse in logic is here: Its not level 3 and netflix making level 3 an internet hog. It is COMCAST making level 3 an internet hog. COMCAST is saying "give me the data level 3". So your freeloader analogy is actually quite reversed. I'm sorry but the local delivery infrastructure costs cannot be taken into account here - all the big telecoms (including Comcast) got billions in taxpayer - read: MY money - to build out the infrastructure, and we're still in an industry where there's not really any competition across many locations.
How on earth companies like Comcast think its fair to be paid to consume something is beyond me. By Comcast logic they should be charging the building owner rent since they're occupying the building, they should charge the water and electricity companies money for using power and water.
It would be like coke telling the local water authority that Coke should be paid because there was an increase in demand for bottled water.
-Also a high speed internet / netflix subscriber
I like to think I'm an expert, and I wrote a blog post on this dispute that seeks to be factual but surfaces some confusion about the facts. Would you like to clarify?
http://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/sjs/trying-make-sense-comcast-level-3-dispute
FWIW, what it all boils down to is "who should pay the most for the costs of delivering content?"
As a general principal, end-users can't afford to have their cable company raise prices significantly to cover those costs. It's only businesses who receive revenues to deliver a specific service who can afford to cover the costs. Specifically, Netflix gets paid by its subscribers to deliver video content to those subscribers, and Netflix pays Level 3 to deliver those megabytes of traffic.
I was an expert in Internet peering policy for several years (Comcast is welcome to contact me about that), and I can tell you that even "paid peering" (as opposed to bartering equal-sharing of highway connections) is no gravy train. The terms are often so favorable that there's no profit after the cost of building up the downstream local infrastructure to deliver that extra traffic; it just makes it less unfair.
Keep in mind that local delivery infrastructure is many times more expensive than anything Level 3 builds for itself, so they probably underestimated the costs (again). If Level 3's Netflix contact is making Level 3 an Internet hog, it's only fair to expect them to use those revenues to cover the full added costs of delivery rather than expect a free ride on someone else's network. If you don't agree, please let me know when you'd like me to start being a freeloader guest at your home so I can eliminate my costs of housing at your expense. ;-)
Craig
- a cable Internet service subscriber and a Netflix subscriber