[133963] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Dec 20 16:12:39 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <96CA80CDCD822B4F9B41FB3A109C9359A3E683357E@E2K7MAILBOX1.corp.cableone.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:07:53 -0800
To: "Rettke, Brian" <Brian.Rettke@cableone.biz>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 20, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Rettke, Brian wrote:
> So, we seem to circle the same points:
>=20
> 1. Who pays for the infrastructure to support the increased bandwidth =
requirements?
>=20
> Comcast and most ISPs want the content provider to do so, since =
they are collecting fees for the service and they are not, but still =
have to pay for the bandwidth (maintenance and upgrades).
>=20
What do you mean they are not? I'm paying Comcast =
$100/month to deliver the internet content I want to my home. They damn =
well are getting paid to do so.
> The customer is being billed twice: First to get access to the =
Internet to reach services, and then for the service offered by the =
content provider. The concern is that all customers, regardless of the =
services they select, will end up paying for the upgrades if the ISP has =
to/does raise rates. This makes the customer using the =
bandwidth-intensive application happy, and the other customers not using =
it unhappy.
>=20
I don't use particularly bandwidth-intensive =
applications. However, I do think that access networks should cover the =
costs of delivering the content I request from the fees I pay.
All that happens if you let them bill the content provider and =
double-dip is that the content provider has to pass those fees on to the =
service I'm using (at a markup, of course) who then
passes the cost on to me (again at a markup). I'd much rather pay the =
cost directly to my access provider without the double (or more) =
markups, thank you.
> The content provider pays for Internet access, and in some =
cases puts in proxies to cache closer to the source. They do not pay the =
end customer ISP for service (assuming different providers in play). The =
content provider receives revenue for its services.
>=20
IMHO, this is as it should be.
> The problem is still that someone has to support and build =
infrastructure. Some believe that Internet streaming video is the =
direction we are headed in, and that does appear to be true. But there =
are still a lot of customers that are not using this service, =
effectively subsidizing the customers using this service. This can be =
irksome, because most customers are unwilling to go back to a "pay for =
what you use plan" after having unlimited access. I think that would =
really put the pressure on both customers and content providers alike to =
be more efficient.
>=20
If you don't need broadband, subscribe to narrow-band =
services. They are still available in most areas for less than =
broadband.
> I understand that the goal is for the customer to get what they want =
on demand, but that will never be a reality, for anyone, anywhere. I'd =
love to see content providers continue the push towards more efficient =
technologies and architecture, but there is no impetus for them to do so =
unless they have a financial reason. The same is true for the ISP and =
the customer.
>=20
There are already good incentives for the content =
provider. It's called "user experience". If the content is close, i get =
a good user experience. If it is far away, I get a poor
user experience and I move on to a different content provider. If there =
were meaningful competition in the access market, I could do the same =
thing. Unfortunately, there is not
where I live and not in most locations.
> Bottom line:
>=20
> Customers need to think about the purchase of content (considering =
each one as a transaction that has value) more. Not as a worrisome, =
"bill will be enormous" way, but assigning value to it nonetheless.
>=20
I think I do this already.
> Content Providers need to continue upgrading methodologies, =
compression, and technologies in order to make their service a smooth, =
efficient "essential object." This will help keep any one service from =
overwhelming the rest, which is the bane of every service =
provider/transit provider.
>=20
I think that is already happening and will continue to happen.
> Service/Transit Providers need to re-evaluate their bandwidth =
offerings to customers, their relationships with content providers, and =
with each other. The model is very inefficient and political. The only =
way to be competitive seems to be, as someone said, to provide a solid =
Layer 1-3 platform that will drive innovation at layers 4-7.
>=20
I think you need to separate Transit Providers from Access Providers =
here. The reality is that there are four classes of players present =
without clear delineation:
Content Providers (including Content Provider Hosting Networks)
Content Delivery Networks
Transit Networks
Access Networks
If there are any pure players in any one space above left, I would be =
surprised, but, each of these four
spaces comes with a different set of tradeoffs and desires. =
Traditionally, Level3 has been a Transit
Network with some Access and some Content Provider aspects. Now they are =
adding Content
Delivery.
Traditionally, Comcast has been a pure Access Network with some Transit. =
Now they are
adding more Transit and also doing Content Provider things.
As the lines blur, it's going to become increasingly more difficult to =
define non-peers among these
networks. Frankly, IMHO, the right answer is to stop doing so. Recoup =
your costs from your customers
and recognize that whatever packets {enter/exit} your network {to/from} =
a customer, most likely the
other {entry/exit} is NOT a customer, but, a peer.
I know that perspective is probably very unpopular, especially among =
Access Networks, but,
I think it is the right approach overall. I also think that it is where =
the market would drive things
if we had actual competition for access services.
Owen
