[171828] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Berkman)
Thu May 15 11:43:08 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:41:07 -0400
From: Scott Berkman <scott@sberkman.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4EAA99EC-6E3C-44DC-8BD7-932E4B99A945@cable.comcast.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Unfortunately these build-outs are primarily in subscriber facing=20
bandwidth and number of headend locations (to add more customers to the=20
network). These peering point/transit connection issues have been going=20
on for a long time, evidenced by Level 3 coming out with this post. =20
Comcast is also suspiciously absent from public exchanges (TelX's TIE=20
would be one example) while many of their competitors participate for=20
the benefit of the Internet as a whole and their customers.
Measured broadband is also a game, because its very easy for large=20
providers to give priority to (or otherwise "help") known speed test and=20
similar sites, giving customers a false impression of their available=20
capacity or performance. We've all seen cases where customers have some=20
amazing result on their favorite test site, and then real world=20
performance can't even come close.
That said, if Comcast does or is making efforts to finally resolve this,=20
more power to them and congratulations to their customers. Unfortunately=20
trying to brute-force the industry and external content providers tells=20
a very different story. Where is Comcast's official blog post showing=20
evidence as to where they do ensure their peering and or transit to the=20
largest Tier 1 providers are not congested? Instead all we see are=20
policy arguments about who should pay for what, while users continue to=20
suffer.
This is really similar to when TV providers have spats with content=20
owners, and the result is the end users missing out on something they=20
are paying for. It is good for related industries and the large=20
players in each to keep working with each other in open ways to keep=20
pricing reasonable (as opposed to working together in hiding to price=20
fix), but it is not OK to do so by throwing tantrums and making everyone=20
involved suffer.
-Scott
On 05/15/2014 10:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin wrote:
> Upgrades/buildout are happening every day. They are continuous to keep=
ahead of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring broadba=
nd), Akamai, Ookla, etc
>
> What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial =
transit business for 15+ years (with over 8000 commercial fiber customers=
). Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of capacity, and =
some of the largest Internet companies as customers.
>
> - Kevin
>
> 215-313-1083
>
>> On May 15, 2014, at 10:19 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>
>> Oh, please do explicate on how this is inaccurate=85
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>> On May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin <Kevin_McElearney@cabl=
e.comcast.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate "sound bite"
>>>
>>> - Kevin
>>>
>>> 215-313-1083
>>>
>>>> On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new
>>>> ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in up=
grades
>>>> or additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Owen
>>>>
>>>> On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
>>>>>>> competition any way they can.
>>>>> No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new source=
s of
>>>>>> revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets =
and
>>>>>> aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin).
>>>>> Sure they are (seeking new sources of revenue). They're not necess=
arily
>>>>> creating new products or services, i.e. actually adding any value, =
but they
>>>>> are finding ways to extract additional revenue from the same pipes,=
e.g.
>>>>> through paid peering with content providers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not endorsing this; just pointing out that you two are actually=
in
>>>>> agreement here.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Hugo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:23 AM, <charles@thefnf.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. *=
They see
>>>>>>>> no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make=
more
>>>>>>>> profit without it.
>>>>>>> There is the issue of control over the market. But also the press=
ure
>>>>>>> from shareholders for continued growth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. That is true. Except that it's not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do service providers grow? Let's explore that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is growth for a transit provider?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More (new) access network(s) (connections).
>>>>>> More bandwidth across backbone pipes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is growth for access network?
>>>>>> More subscribers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that the incumbent carriers have shown they have no interes=
t in
>>>>>> providing decent bandwidth to anywhere but the most profitable rat=
e
>>>>>> centers. I'd say about 2/3 of the USA is served with quite terribl=
e access.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with the internet is that while it had promises of wi=
ld
>>>>>>> growth in the 90s and 00s, once penetration reaches a certain lev=
el,
>>>>>>> growth stabilizes.
>>>>>> Penetration is ABYSMAL sir. Huge swaths of underserved americans e=
xist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you combine this with threath to large incumbents's media an=
d media
>>>>>>> distribution endeavours by the likes of Netflix (and cat videos o=
n
>>>>>>> Youtube), large incumbents start thinking about how they will be =
able to
>>>>>>> continue to grow revenus/profits when customers will shift spendi=
ng to
>>>>>>> vspecialty channels/cableTV to Netflix and customer growth will n=
ot
>>>>>>> compensate.
>>>>>> Except they aren't. Even in the most profitable rate centers, they=
've
>>>>>> declined to really invest in the networks. They aren't a real busi=
ness. You
>>>>>> have to remember that. They have regulatory capture, natural/defac=
to
>>>>>> monopoly etc etc. They don't operate in the real world of
>>>>>> risk/reward/profit/loss/uncertainty like any other real business h=
as to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
>>>>>>> competition any way they can.
>>>>>> No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sourc=
es of
>>>>>> revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets =
and
>>>>>> aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin).=
They did
>>>>>> a bit of an advertising campaign of "smart home" offerings, but th=
at seems
>>>>>> to have never grown beyond a pilot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current trend is to "if you can't fight them, jon them" where
>>>>>>> cablecos start to include the Netflix app into their proprietary =
set-top
>>>>>>> boxes. The idea is that you at least make the customer continue t=
o use
>>>>>>> your box and your remote control which makes it easier for them t=
o
>>>>>>> switch between netflix and legacy TV.
>>>>>> True. I don't know why one of the cablecos hasn't licensed roku, a=
dded
>>>>>> cable card and made that available as a "hip/cool" set top box off=
ering and
>>>>>> charge another 10.00 a month on top of the standard dvr rental.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would be interesting to see if those cable companies that are agre=
eing
>>>>>>> to add the Netflix app onto their proprietary STBs also play pee=
ring
>>>>>>> capacity games to degrade the service or not.
>>>>>> So how is the content delivered? Is it over the internet? Or is it=
over
>>>>>> the cable plant, from cable headends?
