[171829] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (McElearney, Kevin)
Thu May 15 11:52:00 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "McElearney, Kevin" <Kevin_McElearney@cable.comcast.com>
To: Scott Berkman <scott@sberkman.net>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:50:56 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5374E013.1050708@sberkman.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
There is no gaming on measurements and disputes are isolated and temporary =
with issues not unique over the history of the internet. I think all the s=
ame rhetorical quotes continue to be reused
- Kevin
> On May 15, 2014, at 11:43 AM, "Scott Berkman" <scott@sberkman.net> wrote:
>=20
> Unfortunately these build-outs are primarily in subscriber facing bandwid=
th and number of headend locations (to add more customers to the network). =
These peering point/transit connection issues have been going on for a lon=
g time, evidenced by Level 3 coming out with this post. Comcast is also su=
spiciously absent from public exchanges (TelX's TIE would be one example) w=
hile many of their competitors participate for the benefit of the Internet =
as a whole and their customers.
>=20
> Measured broadband is also a game, because its very easy for large provid=
ers to give priority to (or otherwise "help") known speed test and similar =
sites, giving customers a false impression of their available capacity or p=
erformance. We've all seen cases where customers have some amazing result =
on their favorite test site, and then real world performance can't even com=
e close.
>=20
> That said, if Comcast does or is making efforts to finally resolve this, =
more power to them and congratulations to their customers. Unfortunately tr=
ying to brute-force the industry and external content providers tells a ver=
y different story. Where is Comcast's official blog post showing evidence =
as to where they do ensure their peering and or transit to the largest Tier=
1 providers are not congested? Instead all we see are policy arguments ab=
out who should pay for what, while users continue to suffer.
>=20
> This is really similar to when TV providers have spats with content owner=
s, and the result is the end users missing out on something they are paying=
for. It is good for related industries and the large players in each to =
keep working with each other in open ways to keep pricing reasonable (as op=
posed to working together in hiding to price fix), but it is not OK to do s=
o by throwing tantrums and making everyone involved suffer.
>=20
> -Scott
>=20
>=20
>> 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 broadband)=
, Akamai, Ookla, etc
>>=20
>> What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial t=
ransit 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.
>>=20
>> - Kevin
>>=20
>> 215-313-1083
>>=20
>>> On May 15, 2014, at 10:19 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Oh, please do explicate on how this is inaccurate=85
>>>=20
>>> Owen
>>>=20
>>>> On May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin <Kevin_McElearney@cable=
.comcast.com> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate "sound bite"
>>>>=20
>>>> - Kevin
>>>>=20
>>>> 215-313-1083
>>>>=20
>>>>> On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new
>>>>> ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in upg=
rades
>>>>> or additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Owen
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> 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 sources=
of
>>>>>>> revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets a=
nd
>>>>>>> aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin).
>>>>>> Sure they are (seeking new sources of revenue). They're not necessa=
rily
>>>>>> creating new products or services, i.e. actually adding any value, b=
ut they
>>>>>> are finding ways to extract additional revenue from the same pipes, =
e.g.
>>>>>> through paid peering with content providers.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> I'm not endorsing this; just pointing out that you two are actually =
in
>>>>>> agreement here.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Hugo
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:23 AM, <charles@thefnf.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote:
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. *T=
hey 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 pressu=
re
>>>>>>>> from shareholders for continued growth.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Yes. That is true. Except that it's not.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> How do service providers grow? Let's explore that:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> What is growth for a transit provider?
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> More (new) access network(s) (connections).
>>>>>>> More bandwidth across backbone pipes.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> What is growth for access network?
>>>>>>> More subscribers.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Except that the incumbent carriers have shown they have no interest=
in
>>>>>>> providing decent bandwidth to anywhere but the most profitable rate
>>>>>>> centers. I'd say about 2/3 of the USA is served with quite terrible=
access.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> The problem with the internet is that while it had promises of wil=
d
>>>>>>>> growth in the 90s and 00s, once penetration reaches a certain leve=
l,
>>>>>>>> growth stabilizes.
>>>>>>> Penetration is ABYSMAL sir. Huge swaths of underserved americans ex=
ist.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> When you combine this with threath to large incumbents's media and=
media
>>>>>>>> distribution endeavours by the likes of Netflix (and cat videos on
>>>>>>>> Youtube), large incumbents start thinking about how they will be a=
ble to
>>>>>>>> continue to grow revenus/profits when customers will shift spendin=
g to
>>>>>>>> vspecialty channels/cableTV to Netflix and customer growth will no=
t
>>>>>>>> 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 busin=
ess. You
>>>>>>> have to remember that. They have regulatory capture, natural/defact=
o
>>>>>>> monopoly etc etc. They don't operate in the real world of
>>>>>>> risk/reward/profit/loss/uncertainty like any other real business ha=
s to.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 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 a=
nd
>>>>>>> aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin). =
They did
>>>>>>> a bit of an advertising campaign of "smart home" offerings, but tha=
t seems
>>>>>>> to have never grown beyond a pilot.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> The current trend is to "if you can't fight them, jon them" where
>>>>>>>> cablecos start to include the Netflix app into their proprietary s=
et-top
>>>>>>>> boxes. The idea is that you at least make the customer continue to=
use
>>>>>>>> your box and your remote control which makes it easier for them to
>>>>>>>> switch between netflix and legacy TV.
>>>>>>> True. I don't know why one of the cablecos hasn't licensed roku, ad=
ded
>>>>>>> cable card and made that available as a "hip/cool" set top box offe=
ring and
>>>>>>> charge another 10.00 a month on top of the standard dvr rental.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Would be interesting to see if those cable companies that are agree=
ing
>>>>>>>> to add the Netflix app onto their proprietary STBs also play peer=
ing
>>>>>>>> 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?
>=20
