Comcast vs. Level 3, or: how I learned to stop worrying and just watch my Netflix
I don’t want to pretend to know that much about the internets (series
of tubes full of fun stuff like youtubes, tweeters, etc), especially
when it comes down to the innards, backbones, trunks, etc., and the
politics around it. But I did take lots of human anatomy courses.
Unfortunately, that didn’t cover this. But I do have a gut feeling
about what’s going on with Comcast and Level 3 (and my gut is full of
quiche right now). Now I’m not one to come to the defense of giant companies with money
in their pockets and a never ending hunger to squeeze us of our hard
earned bacon. And I’m definitely not one to blog about it (I’ll blog
about my breakfast before net neutrality). But I feel like I need to
say what I think about this. Recently, Level 3 accused Comcast of threatening to charge for
delivery of content, violating net neutrality (conveniently a hot
button topic). As I understand it, Comcast and Level 3 are peers where
it concerns internet backbones and such. They swap data back and forth
over their networks, with roughly the same back and forth. This is
known as internet peering and it’s been working pretty well for the
last couple decades. Level 3, in addition to owning tons of tubes around the world also has
a CDN offering where they deliver content, like movies, images, etc.
from servers distributed around the world. This makes access to the
things in those tubes much quicker and takes less of a toll on the
world’s interwebs. It also saves everyone money. Many other CDN
companies will often pay infrastructure providers so that their CDN
can live on and provide people with hours of entertainment. Having the backbone infrastructure and the CDN, then, seems like it
create an unfair advantage since you can now run your CDN, and
undercut competitors because you also own the tubes that this content
will fly through (think people tubes in Futurama). So when Level 3 won
a contract to host Netflix content with their CDN, Comcast was looking
at a potential doubling of peer traffic from Level 3 to its customers. Therefore it seems to me that Level 3 is bullying Comcast into
unfairly “peering” its brand spanking new Netflix contract with no
increase in compensation, under the guise of Net Neutrality. On the
surface, it seems fair that Level 3 should pay to serve its CDN
content. On the flipside, I’m sure Comcast is trying to figure out how
it’s xfinity offering will play into this game. So before you cry “COMCAST ATE MY NET NEUTRALITY” it’s probably worth
looking at what Level 3 looks to gain from this recent play… and
then go back to complaining about Comcast’s customer service. Useful article on the topic: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20024197-266.html
of tubes full of fun stuff like youtubes, tweeters, etc), especially
when it comes down to the innards, backbones, trunks, etc., and the
politics around it. But I did take lots of human anatomy courses.
Unfortunately, that didn’t cover this. But I do have a gut feeling
about what’s going on with Comcast and Level 3 (and my gut is full of
quiche right now). Now I’m not one to come to the defense of giant companies with money
in their pockets and a never ending hunger to squeeze us of our hard
earned bacon. And I’m definitely not one to blog about it (I’ll blog
about my breakfast before net neutrality). But I feel like I need to
say what I think about this. Recently, Level 3 accused Comcast of threatening to charge for
delivery of content, violating net neutrality (conveniently a hot
button topic). As I understand it, Comcast and Level 3 are peers where
it concerns internet backbones and such. They swap data back and forth
over their networks, with roughly the same back and forth. This is
known as internet peering and it’s been working pretty well for the
last couple decades. Level 3, in addition to owning tons of tubes around the world also has
a CDN offering where they deliver content, like movies, images, etc.
from servers distributed around the world. This makes access to the
things in those tubes much quicker and takes less of a toll on the
world’s interwebs. It also saves everyone money. Many other CDN
companies will often pay infrastructure providers so that their CDN
can live on and provide people with hours of entertainment. Having the backbone infrastructure and the CDN, then, seems like it
create an unfair advantage since you can now run your CDN, and
undercut competitors because you also own the tubes that this content
will fly through (think people tubes in Futurama). So when Level 3 won
a contract to host Netflix content with their CDN, Comcast was looking
at a potential doubling of peer traffic from Level 3 to its customers. Therefore it seems to me that Level 3 is bullying Comcast into
unfairly “peering” its brand spanking new Netflix contract with no
increase in compensation, under the guise of Net Neutrality. On the
surface, it seems fair that Level 3 should pay to serve its CDN
content. On the flipside, I’m sure Comcast is trying to figure out how
it’s xfinity offering will play into this game. So before you cry “COMCAST ATE MY NET NEUTRALITY” it’s probably worth
looking at what Level 3 looks to gain from this recent play… and
then go back to complaining about Comcast’s customer service. Useful article on the topic: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20024197-266.html
Posted from smooshy.com | Comment »
