Level 3 Communications, an Internet networking company that recently signed a deal to deliver movies to Netflix customers, said Monday that Comcast has effectively set up a tollbooth around its broadband Internet network.
Comcast demanded a “recurring fee” from Level 3 “to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content,” Thomas Stortz, the chief legal officer for Level 3, said in a statement Monday afternoon, seemingly alluding to the Netflix service. The action “threatens the open Internet,” Mr. Stortz added.
Comcast did not immediately respond to the company’s claims. A spokesman for Netflix declined to comment.
Worst case scenario, expect basically every other ISP to follow suit here pretty quickly as internet providers, net backbone companies, and content providers start charging each other fees for everything...and guess who these fees will be passed along to?
Unless we regulate and enforce an open internet, it will be taken from us. The war has been on, but now the WMDs are loose. This has the potential to get ugly, fast.
Posts
16 comments:
Unless we regulate and enforce an open internet, it will be taken from us.
Who said it wasn't open, even with Comcast charging Level 3? Do you define an open internet as being one you don't have to pay a penny to use? Then who pays to maintain the backbone and all of the infrastructure behind it, the federal government?
Do you know what the free market is? It doesn't mean that things are free, but they are free from government interference. Like free speech.
There is an update to that piece you linked to. Comcast has replied:
Joe Waz, a senior vice president at Comcast, says it has had a peering agreement with Level 3 to swap traffic fairly evenly. Now Level 3 is sharply increasing its traffic, he said, while resisting a commercial agreement to pay for that.
Comcast is “already carrying huge amounts of video to our high-speed Internet customers every day through commercial arrangements, and it seems to be working for everybody else,” Mr. Waz said. “Level 3 is trying to change the rules of the game.”
Sounds like Level 3 is trying to steal bandwidth and get the government to allow it, regardless of how it effects everyone else. That's not the free market.
No, it sounds like Level 3 is objecting to Comcast's extortion.
Neither one of these companies is the good guy here, let's get that out of the way first. But you should be very concerned about Comcast arbitrarily deciding it can charge fees on internet content its customers are already paying for with no oversight.
Oversight, by the government? What kind of oversight do you think the government should provide? Comcast isn't a public utility. They can charge whatever they want. If customers don't like it, they can switch to satellite for TV and DSL for internet. That is the point of the free market: choice.
Besides, it isn't as if what Comcast is doing is really threatening an open internet. An open internet does not mean everything is free; it means it isn't over-regulated by the government, which is what Level 3 wants to have happen. That Level 3 "legal adviser" is nothing more than a snake-oil salesman, a BS artist.
Which would make sense if broadband was far more readily available in the United States, which it is not. There's very little competition for broadband users in the country. The US is 30th on the list of cost per megabit of bandwidth at $1.32, and that's far more than I pay personally for my broadband but DSL's not an option where I live. My only broadband provider is the cable company. There is no competition. That's a monopoly, not a free market.
Which would make sense if broadband was far more readily available in the United States, which it is not.
Broadband is far more readily available and it's not a monopoly. There's broadband internet access via satellite, just like TV. I had a choice of either DSL or satellite for my internet and I opted for DSL for internet and satellite for TV (I live in an extremely rural part of NW Arkansas, and there is no cable here; too many mountains made up of very old rock). You also might want to check your phone company to see if they do actually offer DSL, and I'm thinking they might.
By the way, do you know why broadband is cheapest in Hong Kong? 16,500 people/sq mile in an area that is 426 square miles. So you can shove very little wire and provide a great number of people with access. My whole county has about 2/3 the population as Hong Kong has in one square mile, and is about 50% bigger in area than Hong Kong (that works out to about 14 people/sq mile). Putting cable where I live wouldn't make sound financial sense, and I do have alternatives for broadband. So, no, it's not a monopoly.
I live in an apartment building. Satellite is not an option, and the phone company doesn't offer DSL because the building is older.
I'm currently in a monopoly situation for broadband, and I need it for work.
It's annoying as hell.
That is not the definition of a monopoly. There are technical issues about why you can only get cable in your building, along with the fact that you pay rent to live in a place someone else owns. Again, that doesn't make Comcast a monopoly.
No, what makes Comcast a monopoly is that a single cable provider is selected by a municipality to be the sole source of cable TV in their jurisdiction.
Which means internet providers should be regulated as utility providers, frankly.
The discussion is about internet access. Just because Comcast is the single cable provider in a particular area doesn't mean it's the only ISP available. Therefore, Comcast doesn't have a monopoly on internet access. If there is a problem at all, it's your building's owner, not Comcast. And because of that, it isn't the responsibility of everyone else to pay for you to download movies at speeds you wouldn't even notice anyway.
But by all means, have politicians make Comcast and other cable ISPs public utilities. You'll see them go out of business very, very quickly.
It's the only broadband internet service provider available where I live.
I understand the basic concept of people paying for what bandwidth they use. But when you have no choice in the matter but to pay whatever the internet service provider charges you or go without, that's just as much a failure of the market for no competition.
I bet you blame Comcast for you not having a pony either.
That one guy was right. Arguing with liberals is like arguing with spoiled 4-year olds.
No, that's arguing with you, Comic Relief Self-Parody Glibertarian Steve.
I'm saying these fees will be passed to the consumer, even if the consumer doesn't watch any streaming video.
And for the record, Comcast is not my ISP.
I bet you blame Comcast for you not having a pony either.
That one guy was right. Arguing with liberals is like arguing with spoiled 4-year olds.
That may be one of the most spectacular juxtaposition of three sentences I've ever read. Kudos, SteveAR! You truly are Dean of the Klown Kollidge.
one of the hallmarks of insanity is having absolutely no clue as to how crazy one looks and sounds to normal people.
SteveAR: The voice of the corporation whining that you're not sucking its' dick enough.
Post a Comment