Comcast Kisses-Up To Obama, Publicly Agrees On Net Neutrality 258
MojoKid writes Comcast is one of two companies to have earned Consumerist's "Worst Company in America" title on more than one occasion and it looks like they're lobbying for a third title. That is, unless there's another explanation as to how the cable giant can claim (with straight face) that it's in agreement with President Barack Obama for a free and open Internet. Comcast issued a statement of its own saying they back the exact same things, it just doesn't want to go the utility route. Comcast went on to list specific bullet points that they're supposedly in wholehearted agreement with, such as: Free and open Internet. We agree — and that is our practice. No blocking. We agree — and that is our practice. No throttling. We agree — and that is our practice. Increased transparency. We agree — and that is our practice. No paid prioritization. We agree — and that is our practice. Really? Comcast conveniently fails to address the giant elephant in the room whose name is Netflix. Earlier this year, Netflix begrudgingly inked a multi-year deal with Comcast in which the streaming service agreed to pay a toll to ensure faster delivery into the homes of Comcast subscribers, who prior to the deal had been complaining of frequent buffering and video degradation when watching content on Netflix. Comcast would undoubtedly argue that it's not a paid fast lane, but it's hard to see the deal as anything other than that.
Executive Orders (Score:2)
Re:Executive Orders (Score:5, Funny)
Executive Orders will now come from Comcast.
We agree — and that is our practice.
Re: (Score:2)
This should be the next Dr Who villain's catchphrase
Doctor Who has had several "corporate villain" stories over the years - and they're some of my favorites. In one you meet a worker who's struggling to pay the burial tax on his father, is behind on his tax payments, is forced to work double shifts, but the extra taxes on the stimulants make that a losing proposition, and is about to jump to his death but is worried about who will pay the suicide tax.
Of course, all these "taxes" go straight to the company running the place. It's a good object lesson to any
Window Dressing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Every. Single. Time.
Remember how he said he was going to stand up to insurance companies, and offer a single-payer option for health care? Remember how that was going to be his crowning achievement as president? Did we get any of that? No.
Remember how he said he was going to help the middle class instead of helping wall street fat cats? Remember how that worked out?
Comcast is just waiting for the attention to blow over. Eventually public attention will wane and then Comcast will kill off the net neutrality proposals and get their way.
Re:Window Dressing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course they will, because corporations have infinite memory and infinite patience.
However, corporations just have a winning strategy for the present game. But this game can never be completely won until humanity extinguishes. Nobody wins forever.
It's time for a messiah of the fight of the productive force against the non-human corporations.
Not one who explains why it is a problem and how much worse it will get. We've had several of those in the last century. We now need one who actually finds a solution and has the charisma to put it in practice.
And I say charisma because, fortunately, power is still based on human beings. Thus, change will only come from someone who finds the solution and manages to convince enough people to apply it.
I wonder how much money do corporations spend in finding those guides to the next system and silencing them.
I suspect they spend nothing, because such person does not exist. Because enough people is too much people, and "too much people" is a very stupid beast.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, they have good reason to be scared of being declared the utility thing, and this goes well beyond forced net neutrality.
I recall way back when the Clintons tried Government Health Care 1.0. Eventually, at one point, the insurance companies threw up their hands as a last defense and said, "Fuck it. We'll just cover everybody at our own cost." This wasn't good enough, of course, because the goal wasn't universal coverage, but universal government coverage.
But that's an aside. Here, being a utility m
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness to the president, there was no way single payer could have made it through the Senate.
Re: (Score:3)
He shoul;d have pushed it anyway. Then keep a running kill count attributed to every senator that voted it down. Ask the people to vote out the biggest serial killers of the 21st century at the midterms.
Let us know how your brilliant political strategy (Score:2)
works out.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to work for the GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness to the president, there was no way single payer could have made it through the Senate.
More's the pity.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like you, and everyone else, to remember something about the office of the president. This is very important:
The president does not write laws.
So when someone running for the office of president says, "I will do X," you need to ask yourself if the president is really capable of doing that.
Yes; the president can have some influence on how laws are written and which ones to write, but laws must be passed by congress first, and then approved by the president. That's how it is supposed to work. So next
Re: (Score:2)
This is just Comcast trying to get some good PR before they force their agenda through. There is no purpose in companies kissing up to President Barack "Lawnchair" Obama, as he has consistently caved to the demands of conservatives and big businesses every time it was important to do otherwise during his administration. Every. Single. Time. Remember how he said he was going to stand up to insurance companies, and offer a single-payer option for health care? Remember how that was going to be his crowning achievement as president? Did we get any of that? No.
Ah yes, Obamacare. How many Republican votes did it get? How many chances did Republicans get to put in their $0.02 in conference? How is this a cave to the Republicans when they were locked out of the entire process and the entire thing passed with zero Republican support?
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't blame us for not bothering to vote for a corrupt bunch of shitbad capitalist assholes, who are for most intents and purposes just the same as the assholes who get elected. Mabey you should have ran some real canidates.
Speak of "Net Neutrality", at any time Obama can fire Tom Wheeler, who's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How many Republican votes did that awful piece of garbage pick up in the senate? Zero! How can you reason that the ACA was caving in to republicans when none of them voted for it? The reason why we got the crap that we did was to get the moderates of his own party on board, which they almost failed to do anyway (see Nebraska). They never would have agreed to a single-payer system, and this was the best they could do to try to get coverage for everybody.
Re:Window Dressing. (Score:5, Informative)
Where were you when they were drafting the act? The reason we got what we got was the Republicans were given an equal footing at the drafting table. There were 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans drafting it in the false belief that if they had a hand in making it they would support it. The reason it almost failed the Senate was totally Harry Reid's failure to take Mitch McConnell at his word to "make sure that President Obama was a one term president" and use the "nuclear option" to fix the filibuster rule at the start of that session. Even to this day it still hasn't been fixed.
The only reason the Republicans are fighting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the FULL title of the act) is their fear it will be as popular as Social Security and the fact that President Obama was backing it (at that stage I argue he would have backed anything that had a positive effect on the broken healthcare system we still have).
The insurance companies are against it because it requires 80% of the premiums be spent on healthcare while trying to eliminate the arbitrary denials. The doctors don't like it because it requires them to be more transparent and stop unnecessary tests that only line their pockets. It also cracks down on the waste, fraud and abuse by hospitals. So that is why they are against it.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans now have some form of healthcare that they could never get before.
Re: (Score:3)
I should note, 80% spent on premiums would start a RIOT in other countries. They get pissed when the insurance companies are keeping 5% for "overhead". Our 20% is a joke.
It should be obvious to everyone that the only reason Republicans are opposed to the ACA is "Because Governement is bad!" and that they've gerrymandered their own districts so much that Ronald Reagan couldn't win a Republican primary any more... He's too far left!
Re: (Score:3)
And it is not healthcare th
Re: (Score:2)
"The Republicans had NO input in drafting PPACA. "
Is your claim that Chuck Grassley was expelled form the Republican party prior to PPACA or that an impostor was used for the televised roundtables and hearings held by the Senate Finance Committee?
"They actually supported its passage and still support the law because it forces everyone to buy health insurance"
They supported the PPACA after the individual mandated was introduced that was originally part of Chaffee's HEART act from 1993 to counter the employer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Frothing at the mouth aside, I will call you out on this one. Just how is healthcare in this country destroyed by the act? Please be specific.
Re: (Score:3)
When Clinton was proposing to his health care fix back in the 90s... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org], the Republicans came up with this brilliant plan of using mandates to buy private insurance. Sound familiar?
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org] ... "An individual mandate to purchase healthcare was initially proposed by the politically conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 as an alternative to single-payer health care. From its inception, the idea of an individual mandate was championed
Re: (Score:2)
Then you are out of touch with reality, since trying to get single-payer through would have provoked a the same sort of overwhelming ad campaign from the insurance companies that it did in the 90s. And the american public is so easily manuplated by this sort of thing that nothing would have happened.
Re: (Score:2)
When Clinton was proposing to his health care fix back in the 90s... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C [wikipedia.org]... [wikipedia.org], the Republicans came up with this brilliant plan of using mandates to buy private insurance. Sound familiar?
What fucked up that approach was qualifying it with "government approved", and then adding every kind of coverage plus the kitchen sink into the requirements. Remember "catastrophic coverage" plans? Yea, that's all that most young healthy people need, but they are illegal now. Because old, fat, and self-destructive people need more coverage than that, so healthy, young, and hard-working people need to pay for that too. Because we can't going around asking people to be taking some responsibility for thei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I would agree with you if and only if the hospital could refuse to treat you when you show up at the emergency room until you pay up front. Because, you see, when you show up and they have to treat you regardless of your ability to pay it raises the cost for all the rest of us who do have insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
When President Lawnchair ...
You do know that President Deer in the Headlights [wikipedia.org] wasn't any better. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Umm...How about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Thee Voting Rights Act of 1965? The "Great Society" (that's our modern welfare state as well as Medicare and Medicaid, BTW) programs, The Clean Air Act? Medicare Part B coverage? All progressive legislation, all much more significant in terms of impact on the US than the ACA. There's more, but I'm not your history teacher.
Learn a little history, friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's morons like you that are going to lead to another Bush as President with a GOP House & Senate.
No, its morons like you that will. You try pushing us around, and we stick up to you. We tell you what we feel, and what we want, and you ridicule us, and sell us out to corporate intrests.
When it comes time to vote, you tell us, who we should vote for, and make all kinds fo threats, and we simply fold our arms, and then you blame us for not voting for canidates that ignore us, call us names, and otherw
Re: (Score:2)
Many of these things are, in fact, progressive policies - but we must ensure that we're talking about the same progressivism. In American politics, a progressive is someone who believes in a large, power government that has a strong control over the economy and societal norms under the guise of "reform" and "progress."
An example of historical progressive policy would be Prohibition. But don't take my word for it; Last Call [amazon.com] is a fantastic book that covers some of this material. If you're the anti-book type,
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Comcast throttled me. Fuck them.
What is it? (Score:2, Insightful)
The term "net neutrality" is bounced around over and over and now even our technically challenged president is for it. But what exactly is "net neutrality?" What does it prevent from happening. What is required to happen?
I'll bet that three different people will have five different definitions.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple. A packet is a packet is a packet. It matters not where it came from or where it's going, just forward it on and be happy.
If you support QOS bits, honor them without regard to source and destination and without regard to the application you think generated it.
Finally, keep your capacity adequate.
Re: (Score:2)
The term "net neutrality" is bounced around over and over and now even our technically challenged president is for it. But what exactly is "net neutrality?" What does it prevent from happening. What is required to happen?
I'll bet that three different people will have five different definitions.
perhaps you're right about the opinions. My unsolicited one boils down to "dumb pipes providing unrestricted IP (v4 and v6) connectivity. Full stop."
What if it isn't a really a fast lane (Score:2)
But rather the packets aren't getting bogged down by people using Tor or Bittorrent or Silk Road or some other network service known for trafficking in illicit content? For those of you who have had the experience of driving on an L.A. freeway during rush hour (which means pretty much any time of the day), you have no doubt seen the effects of a motorcycle squeezing between the lanes. People driving in cars end up slowing down out of fear of hitting one of those. Technically, the motorcycles' activity is
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I follow.
could you restate, maybe in the form of a car analogy?
What they're not mentioning.... (Score:2)
We agree — and that is our practice. No blocking. We agree — and that is our practice. No throttling. We agree — and that is our practice. Increased transparency. We agree — and that is our practice. No paid prioritization. We agree — and that is our practice. Really? Comcast conveniently fails to address the giant elephant in the room whose name is Netflix.
Comcast PR = Comcast Support? (Score:2)
Trojan Horse. Obama + Comcast = free and open? (Score:2)
A president who leans socialist and Comcast are trying to sell the American public on something, telling us that it will result in "a free and open internet". We better take a real close look at this, because it reminds me of a certain group who presented another with a large wooden horse.
Re: (Score:2)
Very funny. Or did you not mean it as a joke? Then perhaps you need to look up the word socialist.
Obama doesn't "lean socialist", he just doesn't lean quite so far to the right as many US politicians.
single payer (Score:2)
Perhaps we both should look up the word. While we're at it, let's look up Obama's preferred policy, "single payer". Wouldn't it be interesting if the two terms were synonymous.
When we look up socialism, I suspect we'll find it has something to do with the government's role in the economy. Let's look up the change in the extent of the government's role in the economy over the last six years.
Socialist (Score:2)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Obama is a center-right politician as are most Democrats serving in national office in the US. Dennis Kucinich was about as far left (well, since Bella Abzug left Congress) as it got in recent times. There are a few still in congress who are center-left, but most Democrats in office today would have been considered moderate Republicans even twenty-five years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Koch brothers and others have been successful in moving the center of US politics way to the right. The Tea Party is one of the strategies that they have used to achieve this.
Re: (Score:2)
single payer (Score:2)
When we look up socialism, I suspect we'll find it has something to do with the government's role in the economy. Let's look up the change in the extent of the government's role in the economy over the last six years.
Perhaps we both should look up the word. While we're at it, let's look up Obama's preferred policy, "single payer". Wouldn't it be interesting if the two terms were synonymous.
Comcast May Be Lying Scum ... (Score:2)
but that doesn't mean they have it wrong. I don't agree with this whole "Open Internet" concept. It's like everyone (and every business) paying a flat rate for highway access. It becomes simple to understand: you and I will be paying for maintaining roads that we hardly use (compared to truckers, taxis, commuters and the like).
Or water: flat rate for every city or town water user? I don't think so: the jerk next door with the sprinklers running 24 hours a day, the car wash up the street, paying the sa
Re: (Score:2)
You, apparently don't understand the concept of marginal cost [wikipedia.org] and how it applies to network bandwidth.. I suggest you educate yourself or you just make yourself appear to be uninformed and uneducated.
I'm not trying to insult you here. If I was trying to insult you, I would succeed and there would be no ambiguity. This is constructive criticism.
Re: (Score:3)
It becomes simple to understand: you and I will be paying for maintaining roads that we hardly use (compared to truckers, taxis, commuters and the like).
It becomes simple to understand: by paying for the roads to be available for everyone, we derive benefit even when we're not using them, for example when we purchase goods brought to the store by truck. And even if we used trains, we'd still need to do that, because the trains won't go everywhere.
If everyone pays according to their usage, it makes a LOT more sense, is a lot fairer, etc.
Well no, not really. Everyone has to pay for their bandwidth, because just providing the peak bandwidth costs money even though it's often unused. And in fact, actually sending data down the pipe (once it's establi
User fees model (Score:2)
by paying for the roads to be available for everyone, we derive benefit even when we're not using them, for example when we purchase goods brought to the store by truck.
A user fee libertarian might argue that if trucks wear the road more, the road's owner (state DOT or a private toll road) should charge higher road use fees (plates, tolls, etc.) for such vehicles. (The rule of thumb is the fourth power of axle weight.) This would be passed on to trucking companies, to retailers who receive goods by truck, and ultimately to shoppers who benefit from the goods' having been brought by truck.
If Comcast gets their way it won't matter (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast's main problem is that they can't find trustworthy installers, who intentionally cause reasons to be called back. That doubles their truck rolls, and therefore doubles their pay. They really should move to a circuit/appeals model where somebody else gets to fix their mistakes.
I suspect a deal. (Score:2)
What would Obama have to offer? Antitrust maybe?
Knowledge is the key..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Know what to kiss and when.
Consider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three do.
Wherever possible, put people on hold.
Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment,
and despite the changing fortunes of time,
There is always a big future in computer maintenance.
Re:Private Links != Paid Priority (Score:5, Informative)
...Netflix traffic gets no special priority once it's on the internal network....
The problem with Netflix was not whether or not Netflix gets special priority once on Comcast's network.
.
The problem with Netflix was Comcast allowing its edge router to saturate, thus effectively throttling Netflix traffic until Netflix started paying Comcast for a private link.
Re: (Score:2)
If that was the case, why did Comcast and Verizon fight putting the OpenConnect Netflix system directly on their network avoiding the peering entirely?
It would of gotten rid of any of the peering issues and allowed faster service for everyone. Netflix offered to pay for the entire install and support as well so it would of cost Comcast and Verizon nothing, other than the right to shake down Netflix and the other peering services.
Also L3 offered to pay [theverge.com] for the peering upgrades as needed, but both of them w
Colo real estate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Comcast not being a tier 1 is free to drop peering and then pay for the transit. They failed to upgrade the peering and failed to pick the traffic up via paid transit. So yes they are at fault they stopped delivering the traffic to the people that pay them to do so. And yes I am a network engineer in the public internet space. Hell they could have split the difference and threw some netflix vod servers into there network, this was a pure play to reach our customers eyeballs we do not care that they want
Re: (Score:2)
They're also free to throttle traffic that causes the peering connection to become imbalanced and/or just watch as their peer irresponsibly saturates the link.
Re:Private Links != Paid Priority (Score:5, Interesting)
In the case of Comcast, Netflix traffic gets no special priority once it's on the internal network. The direct links simply lets them bypass the naturally occurring bottlenecks that occur at internet peering points.
In case you are truly sincere and just not intelligent enough to find the flaw in that reasoning, let me help you.
It's at "Naturally occurring". Analyse that part of the equation.
Re: (Score:3)
...It's at "Naturally occurring". ...
Correct, "naturally occurring" because of Comcast's passive-aggressive neglect of the peering points.
Re: (Score:2)
It's at "Naturally occurring". Analyse that part of the equation.
You seem to think that you understand the politics of Internet peering, but I don't think you actually do. Not trying to be a jerk, but if you haven't worked on this stuff at a large ISP this whole question seems far more black and white than it actually is.
The question of settlement-free peering vs. transit is almost as old as the Internet. Network A is bigger, and Network B is smaller (or Network A has significant in/out flows of traffic while Network B has largely unidirectional traffic). There are not m
Re: (Score:2)
with anyone using Netflix's traditional cheap-ass bandwidth provider, Cogent. You can make a reasonable argument that Netflix is unique and should be given a pass on paying for transit because of customers of the ISP wanting that data But from the ISP's perspective ...
So, apparently, your complaint is that because NetFlix doesn't pay enough initially, by using Cogent, they should have to pay more to someone else? How much should NetFlix pay to Cogent to avoid having to pay a toll to Comcast/Verizon/etc... for fair access to those networks over and above the peering agreement and fees Cogent has with those other networks? How much money / profit *should* the last-mile ISPs be guaranteed, over and above the fees it collects from those last-mile users?
Re: (Score:2)
If Network A and B were of the same tier you have a point. Comcast thus be definition needs to increase the capacity of there peering or move the traffic to paid transit. They took option 3 use monopoly status to force netflix to pay, this is the broken part that needs to be stopped.
Thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for having the guts to come here and say that. On behalf of the Slashdot community, I apologize for the rude tone of some of the replies.
Having said that, the replies above are essentially correct: It is part of Comcast's job to make sure its peering points don't get saturated under routine use. They owe that much to their customers (and of course they can pass that cost on to their customers).
Now, if the problem is at an upstream peering point that Comcast does not participate in, then I can understand that Comcast is not to blame. However, a company as big as Comcast should participate in peering points around the country, Comcast owes its customers that much. Every major network provider - including Netflix's provider - should be peering directly with Comcast* in the regions in which they and Comcast have a significant amount of traffic to exchange and in which both companies have a significant physical presence.
The same goes for ATT, Time-Warner, and the other major ISPs and network providers.
*If the peering at the peering point isn't, technically-speaking, direct, it should have the characteristics of a direct link from a customer-satisfaction point of view. That is, the connection is good enough that if you turned it into a direct-peering connection there wouldn't be much improvement.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone who believes that buying private links into a providers network is the same as your traffic getting paid priority knows jack shit about network ops.
ever hear of TE (traffic engineering)? I call bullshit on your statement. even inside large isp networks they will give qos to some data more than others. it can be by traffic type or endpoint identity or a combination of many things. my day job is at a major router company and I can (or can't, uhm, ...) tell you many things about how you can prioriti
Re:Private Links != Paid Priority (Score:4, Interesting)
There's more than one way to prioritize traffic and I suspect you know it.
For example, you can consistently ignore an overloaded peering point that just happens to carry the traffic of a 3rd party you want to pressure into buying a private connection. Then you can refuse every reasonable offer of a cache server that would eliminate that overload even though it would result in a cost savings and greatly improve service to your own customers.
It amounts to the same as applying a policer to the port.
Re: (Score:3)
In network operations, priority is a very specific concept.
So you admit that you are arguing over semantics.
Most of us don't care which concept or method is used. We only care what the end result is. And the end result is they paid, and now their traffic gets there faster than the people who didn't pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Netflix introducing their own link into Comcast's network helps the others get better speeds too. Let's say the peering link sans netflix is @ 80% load. With netflix added, it pushes the load to over 100%, which for a bandwidth-intensive operation like netflix causes buffering (buffer drops at the peering routers). With netflix paying to have a dedicated link, that peering link is now back to 80%. Win - win - except for netflix, who is paying for it.
Bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)
The Fallacy of Equivocation.
You've substituted the more specific network-jargon "priority" for the usage of "priority".
Once Netflix PAID Comcast then Comcast gave Netflix PRIORITY access to the Comcast network. The PRIORITY access means bypassing the choke point that Netflix was previously restricted to.
No one is saying that Comcast changed the QoS or priority of individual Netflix packets. But that is what you are denying.
Again, you are substituting a more specific network-jargon usage of "priority" that no one other than you is using.
And you are denying something that no one else is claiming.
That is the Fallacy of Equivocation.
Which is what everyone, except you, is saying.
Once Netflix paid Comcast, Comcast users could suddenly get better access to Netflix.
But Comcast refused to do anything to address that congestion UNTIL NETFLIX PAID THEM.
you keep using that word (Score:2)
I've noticed over time that you like using the word equivocation. Let me suggest that since you like word, you might be interested in looking it up to see EXACTLY what it means, then maybe using Google to see how other people use it.
I believe the derivation is equi (equal) and voca (as in vocal), meaning to say two things equally, to avoid taking either side.
When asked who was most qualified to be chief, the president said that Ms. Smith had 15 years of related experience, and Mr. Jones had 10 years work
Re: (Score:2)
You forget Comcast is not a tier one they have paid transit. Cogent a teir one was nice enough to give comcast free peering, comcast failed to increase the capacity of that peering or get the traffic from paid transit. Thus they failed to acquire the bits there customers wanted.
The long and short comcast leveraged it's monopoly status to make netflix pay them.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than buy bandwidth from Cogent, Netflix is now buying it directly from Comcast. It's cheaper for Netflix, it makes Comcast more money, and it gives better service to Netflix's customers. Everybody wins, except Cogent.
People forget that when all of the Netflix congestion was happening, customers watching via Apple TV didn't experience any of the drop outs or pauses. That's because for some reason, Netflix streams to Apple TV via Level 3, not Cogent. Other companies that bought transit from Cogent had
Re: (Score:2)
They do for sure. My point though, was that Comcast wasn't throttling Netflix traffic, they were throttling Cogent traffic because Cogent was operating well outside of the peering agreement. If they had been throttling Netflix, then Apple TV (via Level 3) users would have also had problems.
Re:Private Links != Paid Priority (Score:5, Interesting)
Full Disclosure: I am a network ops engineer for Comcast.
Anyone who believes that buying private links into a providers network is the same as your traffic getting paid priority knows jack shit about network ops. In the case of Comcast, Netflix traffic gets no special priority once it's on the internal network. The direct links simply lets them bypass the naturally occurring bottlenecks that occur at internet peering points.
Now I'm sure a bunch of people (who are not network engineers) are going to argue over the wording and philosophy as to whether or not buying paid links into a providers network constitutes priority or not. It's not. In network operations, priority is a very specific concept. It means that you treat one class of traffic better than others, usually to the detriment of other classes of traffic. As an example, e911 voice traffic has the *highest* priority on the Comcast network.
Comcast does not treat Netflix traffic any better than anyone else's traffic. Nor is it treated any worse. It is forwarded as Best Effort within the Comcast network.
The only difference that buying direct links in meant was that they got to skip the congestion in the peering points. Comcast has alot more bandwidth internally and once traffic makes it into the network, congestion is not usually a problem (things do break, redundant links become saturated, etc. It's a big network, but in normal operation mode, congestion doesn't exist). What little prioritization we do has alot more to do with latency than with congestion (ie, your phone call is more important than your massive porn transfer, since voice is alot more sensitive to delay than bulk data transfer).
All of what you say is normal and reasonable, although I assume you don't honor QoS tags from VOIP traffic that originates outside your network. Which isn't a criticism, no one does. As for the paid links, that's not an issue, IMHO. I would point out that Comcast did refuse to install netflix CDN/caching servers, which would likely have resolved the issue much more cleanly for everyone. But the cable TV and content divisions must be "protected."
What's an issue for me (NB, I'm *not* a Comcast customer, you guys aren't even near me) is the surreptitious throttling of P2P and VPN traffic (and then lying about it), blocking port 25 and abusive (no servers, outrageous prices for static IPs if you guys even give those out at all on consumer links, I'm sure I could come up with a few more if I was a customer.) terms of service, not to mention the "retention" and upselling tortures your customer service reps put consumer-grade customers through.
At my previous employer we had a (not by choice -- we needed a redundant provider and you were it) Comcast Business link and, while the link was fairly stable and we got the speeds we paid for, anytime there was a problem (which wasn't often, in your defense) the tech support guys were worthless.
With the scripts and no (at least not exposed to me) ticketing reference numbers, no status updates and no follow up, it was awful.
Compared with the nine or ten other ISPs I dealt with globally, you guys were marginally better than Deutsche Telekom and that ain't saying much.
Sorry to dump all that on you, but if you want to talk about your organization, we should get it all out into the open. I didn't touch on the lobbying, the partnering with ALEC [alec.org] to block municipal broadband and the lawyers and the FUD from the front office and lobbyists. And don't even get me started on the huge subsidies provided to upgrade/build infrastructure that somehow never made it to very many truck rolls. So let's just let all that lie.
The truth is that, yes your networks are big and complex. Yes, there are areas where I can understand why you guys see some of the TOS as necessary to stop abuse, and yes I know that most folks (even here) are completely clueless about what it takes to run a large, heterogeneous, mu
Re: (Score:2)
That's just it. Comcast didn't need to buy a direct link. Netflix offers a CDN and caching hardware for free [netflix.com] to ISPs to help alleviat
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, I think Comcast's interpretation of that offer was "please give us free rack space, free electricity, and free connection to your internal network."
The question then becomes, is there any validity to that interpretation? That is, is it cheaper for Comcast to peer adequately, or to host Netflix's CDN? I'm guessing it's the second one, since it would require online equipment to do either, but the CDN server will reduce traffic while the other option increases it. They get the option of placing the CDN box wherever they want it, so they can put it very "close" to the subscribers.
Whether it's Comcast paying to upgrade their link to Cogent, or Comcast providing free room and board to Netflix CDN, in either case Comcast sees this as "Comcast pays" and the only people who benefit are Comcast subscribers.
Yeah, I keep hearing from capitalists about how this is supposed to encourage
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me why (a few years ago), Comcast decided to block my VPN ESP packets. Yes, the VPN established a connection, but the payload was never delivered.
What network reason was there for this? Other people noticed it at the time and I can still see reports of this going on.
Clearly, your claim to transport all packets equally has not always been true and may not be true now.
Re: (Score:2)
A VPN that had been working, suddenly quit "due to NAT"? No, there was no NAT involved at either end.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Because your post is reasonable and informative, it will be seen by the hive-mind as corporate shilling bullshit and down-modded into oblivion. That's a shame. I'm no fan of Comcast - they could have just let Netflix install caching servers in their data centers like Netflix has done at other ISPs, but you've pointed out one of the issues with the push for government-regulated "network neutrality", and that there are issues that the end-point consumers just don't understand and won't even listen to
Free colo (Score:2)
they could have just let Netflix install caching servers in their data centers like Netflix has done at other ISPs
If Comcast gives out free colo to Netflix, won't its paying colo customers grow envious?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Comcast is deliberately refusing to upgrade its links to big backbone providers like Level 3 in order to force providers like Netflix and others to pay Comcast for private links.
If Comcast would invest some of the money they get from subscribers on actually upgrading the links at their peering points, there wouldn't be an issue and those peering points wouldn't be so congested.
Re: (Score:2)
Full Disclosure: I am a network ops engineer for Comcast.
so you obviously missed that little graphic detailing netflix's speed fall off until netflix agreed to pay money. It looks more like a "protection plan" than anything else.
Server ban (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem comes in when they deliberately neglect specific peering points to make them act as throttles for extortion purposes.
Let's see here, I peer with A,B,C,D. C carries funkyflix traffic which is very popular with my customers. I sure wish Funkyflix would give me a big ol' pile of cash.
So, I peer using a 10Gbps port with A,B, and D. C gets a 10Mbps port.
Re: (Score:3)
And if that works, we just permanently stop upgrading all links that don't have someone handing us piles of cash from the other end.
We get to claim that we don't throttle any connections, and at the same time, we get to extort money from anyone trying to send our customers more than a ping reply.
Comcast is claiming that not upgrading does not equal throttling, but that's exactly what it is. Their customers are paying for access to the internet, if they don't provide adequate bandwidth on their peering point
Re: (Score:2)
Right - and to the bigger point here; for most people who only have one "high speed" access for internet, there's no capitalism going on since the customer CAN'T switch.... rock and a hard place. This is why people are seeing internet as a utility to be a good thing; they're hoping that it will iron out any business selfishness that currently is in place.
There's always two sides to every coin though.
Vote with your feet (and moving van) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Comcast / AT&T / etc absolutely do not want this. Being classified as common carriers is about the worst business move they could forced into. Why? Because Title II equates to a lot of regulations - that's what Title II is. Title II is why phones are heavily regulated by taxes, where they must be laid, and other regulations that have been in place since 1934 (and updated in 1993). If Comcast / AT&T / Verizon / etc get lumped into Title II, then it'll cost them millions of dollars in employee costs, plus any additional costs from possible additional regulations that may be imposed now or down the road.
Bzzt! wrong. I don't believe you are who you say you are. If you were, you'd know that up until 2002, cable internet services were classified as "common carriers" under Title II. The same was true for DSL providers until 2005.
As I recall those guys did just fine. the regulations aren't as onerous as you're making them out to be and the FCC has wide latitude (which it has used repeatedly) to waive portions of Title II for specific reasons.
Also, the update that you mention was the "Telecommunications Act
Re: (Score:2)
"There IS still the debate on whether Comcast is genuine on wanting net neutrality."
Uh.. no there isn't. They don't want net neutrality. They are NOT genuine on wanting it. There is no debate.
I also think you're a shill.... The internet WAS title II regulated, and started going downhill when we removed that regulation. Title II is simple, and not onerous, and we had a boom time in network upgrades and rollouts under it, because it forced the big guys to lease lines to the little guys at a fair price.
Y
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, any monopoly that has the balls to pull this type of disingenuous bullshit with the POTUS has demonstrated itself to have gone completely rogue. It's time for the Department of Justice to reign them in. It's up to the big ISPs paid lackeys who wants credit for splitting up the nation's most hated company during a lame duck session. Hating the fuck out of Comcast should be something that can bring this country together for Christmas. Remember, as long as they're fighting for their right to have unnatural market power(blackmailing Netflix), they aren't trying to corrupt our government with Regulatory Capture. Also: kudos to the FCC for trying to spin being a bunch of bought and paid for crooks as being pragmatism. I wonder if it's the same PR firm responsible for this press release who managed that psyops campaign?
There. FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Possible (Score:2)
I am not an Obama apologist; however, politics is not a simple game. A great many deals are made behind the scenes. His about face appointment of FCC wasn't unusual. The horrible and obviously corrupt looking choice of somebody who publicly appears to contradict him looks to experienced eye looks like a DEAL. He made a deal with somebody or some group to appoint their man to the position despite the political costs to himself... which means they had something quite valuable to trade. but what? Could be a
Re: (Score:2)
He could be an authoritarian thug with a nice image who actually wants to kill the internet. In which case, saying 1 thing while doing another will fool simpletons and the more sophisticated people who are biased by his message and history will think he was forced to compromise.
Also he might not care at all, which is often the case for politicians. They must appear to have a position on everything because the public expects leaders to fit silly ideals. Polls say he should sound 1 way and political conditio