[133725] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Thu Dec 16 12:12:20 2010
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:12:11 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <34671.1292507235@localhost>
Cc: Adam Rothschild <asr+nanog@latency.net>, Kevin Neal <kevin@safelink.net>,
nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 12/16/2010 7:47 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:05:26 CST, Jack Bates said:
>
>> request financing? ie, Comcast could run lower rates and offer better
>> service by charging the content provider, while competitive eyeball
>> networks won't get the option to receive compensation from content
>> providers and have to charge appropriate rates to their customers.
>
> Yes, Comcast *could* do that. But let's stick to plausible scenarios, OK?
How is it not plausible for Comcast to undercut competition to take an
even larger market share (and in doing so, extract more money from
content providers)? If the competition isn't large enough to force
subsidization from content providers in the same manner, they will
slowly lose to the unfair competition.
Add to this, that if every large provider charges content providers, the
rates will be pushed higher to access that content, yet the benefits
will not be felt by smaller providers who can't extort the extra income
and will be forced to run higher rates to their customers. Smaller ISPs
will be more expensive, even without competition, and if they are in a
competing market with a larger ISP, they will be that much harder
pressed to justify their higher costs (you can only push better service
so far)
Jack
