ie8 fix
madison

Networking

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Comcast, Level 3, Network Neutrality, and your Internet

By | November 30, 2010, 7:54pm PST

Summary: It’s finally happened. A major ISP, Comcast, is “taxing” Level 3 Communications for streaming Netflix movies to your door. Welcome to the end of network neutrality.

Network neutrality is a simple concept: ISPs shouldn’t play favorites with the content that goes over their parts of the Internet. It’s a concept that harks back to the Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX) in 1991 when the first Internet carries agreed to share connections equally with each other. Although CIX is now largely forgotten, it’s what started the Internet on its way from a backwater for researchers and schools to the omnipresent network in which we live, work, and play today.

Now, Comcast, appears to be the first major ISP to break that old CIX rule of network neutrality. Level 3 Communications, one of Netflix’s content delivery network (CDN) partners has accused Comcast of charging Level 3 extra fees for carrying Netflix’s movies.

Thomas Stortz, Chief Legal Officer of Level 3, wrote that out of the blue “On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content. By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity-delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation’s largest cable provider.”

Stortz added: “On November 22, after being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment was ‘take it or leave it,’ Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions.”

Comcast claims otherwise. To hear its side of the story, this is just an old-fashioned business disagreement over peering. Peering, which was also an issue hashed out by CIX back in the early 90s, concerns how much traffic one ISP can carry of another ISP’s traffic before charging additional fees. Comcast claims that Level 3 wanted Comcast to carry five times the traffic it was sending to Level 3.

That, if true, sounds fair. But think about it for a moment. Who is asking for all that Level 3/Netflix traffic? Comcast’s own customers, of course. The last thing Comcast wants is to charge its customers more. But, if the company can force the expense on Level 3, and from them to Netflix, then Netflix will be the one in trouble with customers, not Comcast.

I call a foul on Comcast. This strikes me not only as a violation of network neutrality, but as remarkably short-sighted.

Comcast, you may remember, is buying NBC Universal. NBC, in turn, is one of the companies behind Hulu. Guess who just opened its own subscription-based Internet TV service, Hulu Plus? Why, yes, if you follow the dots, this means that Comcast is on the ground-floor of what should eventually be Netflix’s main competitor.

Let me add that Netflix’s new online video-only monthly fee is $7.99 and that Hulu Plus is also –what a surprise!– also $7.99 per month. From Comcast’s viewpoint, wouldn’t it be great if Netflix had to raise its rates?

If you also think that Comcast is playing fast and loose with network neutrality for its own gain, Consumer Union, best known as Consumer Reports’ parent company, has started a petition to block the Comcast/NBC merger. In addition, Progressive Change, a liberal political group, has initiated a petition demanding that the FCC make sure that Internet traffic be “free of any interference from network operators like Comcast.” I recommend signing both.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system

Disclosure

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is a freelance writer. He does not own stocks or other investments in any technology company.

Biography

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system; 300bps was a fast Internet connection; WordStar was the state of the art word processor; and we liked it.

His work has been published in everything from highly technical publications (IEEE Computer, ACM NetWorker, Byte) to business publications (eWEEK, InformationWeek, ZDNet) to popular technology (Computer Shopper, PC Magazine, PC World) to the mainstream press (Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, BusinessWeek).

75
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Comcast, Level 3, Network Neutrality, and your Internet
JACOBSONR 14th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.
Comcast: Come back, Mr. Piracy, we really, really missed you!!!
@frankz00
Mr. Piracy is alive and well I'm afraid.
Comcrap did such a fine job ! of mismanagement as it ruined television, so please feel free to jump on a new dog.'sarcasm'
for the internet. The arguments back then were the same, too. Evil business should not be able to unfairly determine what content viewers heard over the airwaves. The actual intent is also the same: To shut up dissent.
@frgough
Hmm, not quite. This is an antitrust issue, not a 1st Amendment one. The Internet provides a unique platform for large media conglomerates (like Comcast) to squash competition. Comcast and the cable operators want to become portals like the old Prodigy service. The real rub is the federally-mandated monopoly over local cable services. If there was true competition at the local level, Comcast would not DARE to pull a stunt like this. We have to start treating the Internet like the infrastructure piece it is, like roadways, telephone, and electric. If you absolutely must compare this to something, it's like your local electric company charging Trane when you turn on your A/C on a hot summer day.
@smbulkley
Excellent analogy!
@smbulkley Amen and then some! I have to use Charter in order to (sometimes) get enough bandwidth to view Netflix, Hulu+ or even Charter's TV "service". I have had their repair people out at least 8 times in two months. I am on my fourth tv box. Since there is no competition, they charge up the wazoo for very little, indeed.
0 Votes
+ -
@smbulkley

There is competition. ATT got the Tennessee legislature, and several others I'm sure, to put it in direct competition with Comcast cable and phone services. Frankly, Comcast may be going at it the wrong way, but why should they (and their customers not using Netflix, like me) have to suffer slower speeds as high resolution movies eat up bandwidth?

Seems to me that if a company like Netflix plans to make a substantial change in its business model affecting bandwidth issues, they should have initiated the conversation -- njot just wait until Comcast began to feel the problems.
0 Votes
+ -
hiding a real issue though
dgurney 1st Dec 2010
People are finally going to have to come to grips with something that's been clear for a decade to people in computing: The Internet is a not a suitable transport for EVERY movie, TV broadcast, radio station, and every other human medium. That's just abuse at some point, and it will choke traffic. In this case it's the jerks at Comcast persecuting a competitor, but let's face it: Netflix and its ilk are profiting by slowing down the Internet for everyone.
@smbulkley except the difference is that, the roads are government owned (unless they are toll roads like FL's Turnpike, which is private). When you ride on the turnpike, you pay the toll. The internet is nothing more than a huge set of networks which are all privately owned. Peering holds the internet together. If Level 3 wants to abuse this, then they will be charged. Its that simple.
@frgough : Who is your Master? Who pays you to defend the privileged against the public? Or are you an independent stooge?

People like you want the Grand Canyon walled up so that you can charge people to peer at through your privately-owned peepholes. Double the price if you want to use BOTH eyes.
0 Votes
+ -
Aside from Comcast's predatory billing practices with its own customers, it has also been guilty of disrupting torrent traffic and switching XXX programming into children's cable channels. This is a company which is hated by its customers, and it consistently has relatively poor customer service ratings in an industry that ranks as one of the most poorly-regarded in America.
@Cresence It leads you to question how a company with such poor customer service has so many customers. It's because they're no longer obligated to lease their lines to competitors at fair rates and have been given monopolies in many locales based on deals they cut with municipal governments to own all of the cables. We need both net neutrality and a law forcing them to lease their lines in order for the market to straighten this out, as it stands right now the market can't do anything because Comcast is the defacto monopoly in many municipalities. Afterall, phone companies are forced to lease lines, why should cable be different? Remember how land-line rates plumeted and service improved in the 80s and 90s when the government forced AT&T to share?
I am all in favor of network neutrality, and this article is a clear sign that some sort of regulation is needed.

But let us also be careful not to go too far. ISPs still need to be able to traffic-shape by service. E.g. if I'm an ISP, I should still be able to "slow" traffic on port 25 (email) and give priority to (say) port 80 (web). Discrimination by service, not by source, should still be allowed.
0 Votes
+ -
@wcroth45

Uh, no. For one thing, not everyone uses the default ports. In fact, it's often not a great idea to use the default ports. If you do have a service using default ports, secure the hell out of it.

ISPs can't possibly keep track of all the ports their users are using, because 1. They can't keep up with the sheer number of applications, and 2. Many applications choose ports at random for sundry reasons ranging from basic security practice to getting around grossly inadequate firewalls.

ISPs MAY be able to get away with offering CUSTOMERS the option to fine tune their bandwidth, but the whole point is that the want their customers less empowered, not more.
Oh crap, when i get back to the usa i know which ISP not to get...

xD

Good day people
@ozl@... That's great in theory but the problem is that in some areas you pretty much have no choice. It's either Comcast, dial-up, or satellite. There are obvious speed issues with dial-up and the same can be said for satellite, not to mention the cost of the service.
0 Votes
+ -
more charges warrented
gdstark13 1st Dec 2010
I have no problem with Comcast charging as a function of bandwidth used, but they shouldn't be able to charge based on what's in the packets.

gary
@gdstark13

Then we should get to choose to do business with someone who has a better capital investment strategy, i.e. someone whose prices are either falling in correlation to the falling prices of "fast ethernet" or someone whose data rates are increasing with the pace of technology. You know 100,000Mbit per second is out, right? What is Comcast serving you? 20Mbps?
@gdstark13 I think that charge should go to Comcast's customers because they're the ones choosing to use that bandwidth... Plus the customers are already the ones who are paying for a certain bandwidth quota, we're not paying for 50GB from Cogent, 20GB from Above, 10GB from internap and 100GB from L3.
0 Votes
+ -
They as an ISP in a Capatalist Economy have the right to enforce any taxation or fees they wish. We as consumers in a Capatalist Economy, have the right not to use them as an ISP, until they realize by numbers the folly of their decsion. I have already excercised my rights as a consumer and switched as of September 2010 and am extremely happy with my new provider.
0 Votes
+ -
Any color you like as long as it's black
johndoe445566 1st Dec 2010
@rvrichardson: "They have the right to enforce any taxation or fees they wish. Consumers have the right not to use them as an ISP."

The problem with that argument is that the vast majority of people have at most two choices for broadband Internet access. They can get it from the phone company or the cable company -- neither of which are known for good service or low prices.
@johndoe445566

Actually, in much of the country, it's Comcast for broadband. There is no "or". This is the antithesis of capitalism. Often the provider monopoly is enforced by a leasing scheme from a public utility. That is to say, if you're a government enforced monopoly, you don't get to cry free market.
0 Votes
+ -
@johndoe445566

There are also non terrestrial operators.

Hughsnet, Wildblue, Skyway, Dish Network, Starband -
"Satellite Internet service provides you with a broadband connection that is much faster than dialup. Currently, most satelite ISPs offer their customers download speeds ranging anywhere from 768 Kbps up to 5.0 Mbps, which is very comparable to a standard DSL connection for the home or small office."

And wireless internet providers

"With recent advances in wireless Internet technology, high speed wireless connections are now readily available on laptops, cell phones, and other mobile computing devices. Some emerging forms of wireless technology, such as EV-DO and WiMax, are starting to turn wireless connectivity into the dominant form of broadband Internet access."

Yes there are options happy
@rvrichardson

Satellite Internet service tends to have very high latency regardless of bandwidth. Also, upload speed is much lower than regular broadband connections, which can be a pain. They are not true competition for cable or DSL broadband. All other factors being equal, nobody in their right mind would choose satellite Internet.

High speed wireless has spotty coverage at best. Most high speed wireless services with any kind of decent coverage are not very "high speed." Also, high speed wireless is significantly more costly than wired alternatives where they exist.

Where I live the only reasonable choices for high speed Internet are Time Warner Cable and DSL from the local phone company. Within fifty miles of my house there are places where (disregarding satellite and dial-up as not competitive) you can only get DSL, where you can only get cable, where you can get neither DSL nor cable, and where there is no cell phone coverage at all (although that is a lot better than it was a few years ago). There are not options for everyone.
@rvrichardson@...

You could consider the ISP as a utility, which is treated differently in our system.

gary
@rvrichardson@... That argument is preposterous! We are not in a Capitalist economy! The moment the government CAN get involved in business actions through regulations, the Capitalism moniker is null. Our government can regulate; therefore, we do not have a Capitalist economy.

That is why we have government regulated/promoted monopolies. Much like Comcast was in the '80's with regard to its cable TV provisions in many regions due to the government prohibiting other providers in said regions.

I said, "Good day!"
@rvrichardson@... Unfortunately there is one cable provider in my area, that one being Comcast. And as far as ISPs are concerned we have either Comcast or Verizon. Verizon and Comcast are on the same side in this debate, so what we have is an oligopoly, which has a worse market outcome as a consumer.
@rvrichardson@...

I love it when people assume that the same choices available to them are available to everyone else. The problem is, they aren't. My area got broadband in May of this year, from one provider; the phone company outright refused to bring DSL to us, even though the people across the street have it.

So yes, free-market and choice are nice theories, and even better practices. Where they fail, though, the law needs to step in. And I don't really care if that's socialist or whatever "ist" you want to call it.
I am a current Netflix customer with a two BR/mo plan (plus unlimited streaming, of course). I was just recently informed that they were raising the cost of my plan. I can't help but think these two things are somehow linked.
@Steve Goldman Got the same email last week informining me that the service was going up $1/mo.
The money comes from customers that are satisfied with their service. All customers expect in a ever changing environment and the mass of tech being thrown at those environments. It is in the best interest of the isp's to get this worked out quietly because anything out in public is going to just make them all look bad. Consumers want phone/internet/TV services that come with a flat rate or they will leave. And since all ISP's offer all in one packages thy won't be just losing a phone line or cable box people will shift everything. My house of 4 spends almost $4000 a year. Hopefully the stupid fall quick and those on the line to decide yet join and work with those favorable customers. Then I can pick my pile of services up and replace them accordingly if needed.

PS: I never liked Comcast to begin with always overpriced and service always lagged behind Time warner.
Comcast is the worst of the bunch. We should be allowed to select which "carrier" we want to go with based on our specific geography and not locked into a "carrier" the way it works now. This would seriously bring down the rates and force competition among these thieves!
All I know is that I like my Netflix streaming (Roku) and also many of the "Channels" they offer. I was jazzed about Hulu until I found out that I was going to have to subscribe to Hulu "PLUS". I trialed Hulu Plus, but based upon that subscription price and content, I dropped it the same night. I don't totally agree with rvrichardson on the Capatalist Economy logic. I'm not subscribing to Hulu Plus so I shouldn't have end up paying more because I subscribe to Netflix.
It is fine if Comcast wants to chare L3 for this BUT give us (the consumer) a choice of providers. If I don't like comcast practice then I should be able to pick who I want.... This is the root of the problem.
Open up the cable/fiber to all providers
0 Votes
+ -
Change the terms of the debate
epitax 1st Dec 2010
instead of using the term "net neutrality", a term which assumes rights that common carriers never had, let's eliminate that term altogether and call a spade a spade. Comcast is a common carrier, pure and simple.

A common carrier cannot discriminate against traffic. A common carrier by definition provides services to everyone and has very limited power to refuse service because it's a utility upon which the public interest depends. When Comcast started to carry data from public networks to it's private network customers, Comcast became a common carrier.

Not that I want to give them any ideas, but the converse is true, too. When Comcast provides their own content to their own private network customers and provides *only* their own content, then they are not a common carrier. Comcast would have to go completely private in order to escape the rules of common carriage.

While some might fear that this could actually happen, lets not forget the burden Comcast places on the public interest for they have received millions of easements from millions of people whether they be customers or not. If they want to become a private network, they're going to have to buy those easements, one at a time, from a lot of really unhappy customers. I'm starting to wonder if maybe I could revoke their easement over my property...Hmmm.

In any case, the term "net neutrality" is really just a ruse to fool the rest of us into believing that ISPs have rights that they don't really have. They're not a private network so they must be a common carrier.
This isn't an anti-trust issue. Comcast is not the only ISP on the internet. Far from it.

This is simply a dispute between Level 3, who has massively increased their business and thus data traffic, and Comcast who has to carry that traffic the last mile to Comcast subscribers, over who gets how much of the money.

Level 3 has done everything they can to politically spin this in order to put pressure on Comcast but its nonsense. If Level 3 doesn't like Comcast's terms, Level 3 can stop connecting to Comcast. If enough Comcast subscribers have enough bad experiences with their Netflix, then they will drop Comcast.

Thats how the market works.
@jeffpk Yes that's how the market works. However you're overlooking a couple of facts. In some cases, their options are Comcast, dialup, or satellite (in which they will be paying more for lower speeds).

It's similar to where I live. I have four options here. Dialup, DSL (Qwest Only), Satellite, or MP&W (Cable provider). One of my former coworkers is in a tighter spot. They have dialup or Satellite (because they live in the country). Ironically enough, the DSL connections stop 500 feet from their house. Their phone company refuses to extend it the 500 feet. So, they're paying the same amount as I am (with my DSL) for a lower speed.

So, that being how the market works doesn't jive when the market is allowing monopolies and oligopolies to exist.
0 Votes
+ -
ZDNet itself disagrees
jeffpk 1st Dec 2010
Here's an article on the Comcast/Level 3 spat by someone who actually did their homework...

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/comcast-level-3-fight-goes-public-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/42233?tag=nl.e539
The argument in the link is more like the arguments which I've been making when it comes to the ISPs vs Net Neutrality vs traffic.

The "type of content" is what "net neutrality" should be about. The amount of traffic is not about net neutrality. As long as the delivery by the ISPs doesn't discriminate based on the type of traffic. then spirit of net neutrality lives on. If the ISPs is only discriminating based on the amount of traffic, say 1/2 hour show versus a 3 hour movie, then, that couldn't be called a violation of net neutrality.

If Comcast was actually showing preference to one side of a political argument, or to one business versus another, then, that would violate the spirit of having a neutral internet.

Net neutrality is always bandied about when the discussion should be about the amount of traffic used. The term "net neutrality" is mostly being used here to vilify Comcast as the enemy, but the argument holds no water. And believe me, I'm no friend of the ISPs because I firmly believe that we need a lot more competition in every market.
0 Votes
+ -
And believe me, I'm no friend of the ISPs because I firmly believe that we need a lot more competition in every market.

Yeah, you just don't want to do anything about it. Just let the heavens and the earth pass by and maybe we'll see a change a thousand years from now.

Typical teabag philosophy. Advocate something but do nothing about it.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh boy, more teabagger ideology again

What is it with you? Is anything that opposes your worldview related to "teabaggers". What was it called a couple of years ago, before the "tea bag" movement got underway?

Can't you be a bit more original and less stupid?

And believe me, I'm no friend of the ISPs because I firmly believe that we need a lot more competition in every market.

Yeah, you just don't want to do anything about it.

And, what the heck is "it"? As of today, the issue being discussed is not a real problem, but as usual, the progressives would like to describe and define a crisis where there is none just so they could create more government regulations. That's sheer stupidity.

Just let the heavens and the earth pass by and maybe we'll see a change a thousand years from now.

Guess what?

Before humans even existed on the planet, the heavens and the earth didn't need any regulations, and changes did happen. Guess what else? Even with humans on it, the planet will continue to undergo changes which humans won't be able to do anything about.

Typical teabag philosophy.

Typical idiocy from unthinking progressives. If they can't win the argument, attack by labeling and name-calling.

Advocate something but do nothing about it.

Advocating for change when there is a problem is one thing, creating a problem and then advocating for unneeded change is quite stupid.

You might want to get off that fantasy planet you reside in and get into the real world. Things imagined are not the same as reality.
  • Flagged
comcast customers have paid for 2 things. A connection speed and a monthly throughput. Even if this monthly throughput is "unlimited" with a FUP, this is comcasts business model and it is what enticed the customer to create a contract with comcast. If Level 3 doesn't pay comcast and comcast blocks certain traffic to comcasts end user, then comcast is in breach of contract with their end user. Simples
Oh, like no one saw this coming. After all, the litany of businesses in the USA has been "Profit over rights & equality." for at least the past 50 years.
"Network Neutrality" is no more than an excuse for more government meddling. The idea that FCC intervention is going to make the Internet more "fair" or more efficient is laughable. This article is so one-sided it may as well have been written by a L3 PR person. Balanced reporting apparently consists of "Comcast claims otherwise." How about the fact that Comcast isn't proposing to charge L3 any more than it charges its other customers for the same service? If you want to read fair ("neutral") reporting on this issue, I suggest you pop over to cnet: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20024197-266.html
0 Votes
+ -
Sigh.
Azathoth 1st Dec 2010
What happened to free enterprise? Capitalism? How dare you socialistic elites dare to challenge the practices of an American company that is simply trying to turn a fair profit. For shame. Shame I say. (Note: this is sarcasm and troll bait. Don't take it seriously.)
n/t
0 Votes
+ -
Just like yours
ahh so 1st Dec 2010
n/t
to say, then all walls everywhere would be worthy listeners for you.

Whoever came up with the gem below, obviously had people like you in mind:

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt?"
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
this opens a whole new can of problems
Been_Done_Before 1st Dec 2010
I would like to see level 3 cut them off. Just pull the plug on their customers, make them reroute through another backbone and try that blackmail on their backup.. see how well that works.

Its happened before, why not pull the plug on them.

Not to get off topic, its time for google to light up its fiber and become a new backbone provider.
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix