Ars Technica with Comcast is the one who should pay for network connections, Cogent claims Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer made a different argument, saying that Comcast is the one who should be paying for connectivity. He did so while testifying in front of a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Comcast's planned acquisition of Time Warner Cable.
Schaeffer pointed to the fact that Comcast is not considered to be a so-called "Tier 1" network. There are a dozen or so Tier 1 networks that make up the closest thing the Internet has to a backbone. Tier 1 networks can reach every part of the Internet simply by peering with one another. Other networks buy "transit" in order to access the rest of the Internet. Peering is a point-to-point connection only, which doesn't necessarily guarantee passage of traffic to any networks beyond the two involved in the connection.
and
Tom's guide with The Case Against Time Warner-Comcast Just Got Stronger
The broadband ISPs "are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers. They are not allowing us to fulfil [sic] the requests their customers make for content," wrote Mark Taylor, vice president of content and media at Level 3 Communications, in a blog post yesterday (May 5) entitled "Observations of an Internet Middleman."
eldritch Level 3 is perhaps the most important Internet company you've never heard of. It is a top "backbone" provider, ensuring fast, fat connections among the local networks of dozens of other Internet-related companies across the world. Level 3 carries tremendous authority on Internet traffic matters, and for it to accuse consumer-level ISPs of throttling traffic is a bit like God, or at least the federal government, speaking.
I think we know this Frankenstien's monster will be allowed to proceed. Do you have any rage left that I can borrow?
(Score: 5, Informative) by NCommander on Friday May 09 2014, @07:52PM
In general, mergers are *never* a win for the customer, but there are odd exceptions. For instance, Delta/Northwest merger managed to bring the worst of both airlines together. On the other hand, Continential, and United actually seemed to bring the best of both together (having been a 1k on United, and down a lot of flying on pre-merger CO/UA, I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about). The thing is though, these markets do have a lot of competition already; airlines are at cutthroat between the LCCs, and the legacy (or mainline) carriers, which helps keeps prices reasonable)
The problem here is you're taking an already uncompetitive market, and making it worse. I cut the cord years ago, and living in a house which were religious TV watches convinced it I made the right call then, and the right call now; the few shows I do want to watch I can get per-episode from Amazon Prime for less that what a cable bill would be. There's a decent chance though the DOJ may block this like they blocked the T-Mobile/AT&T merger, as this would really bring competition down to zero. If memory serves, they need to have a public comments section when it goes to consideration at the DOJ (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and that's when I hope there's enough folks to comment on it to kill this merger.
Or at least I can dream, no?
Still always moving
(Score: 3, Insightful) by etherscythe on Friday May 09 2014, @08:03PM
Yeah... With so few players already in this market, I fail to see how this is not a straight-up antitrust/monopoly violation. I suppose you can use things like this as a litmus test for abject failure of free market/democratic principles in a practical sense.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09 2014, @09:28PM
It was explained that since Comcast and TW are both de facto cable monopolies in their respective territories at any given time they are not in competition per se, therefore a merger can't be a monopoly since it doesn't reduce competition. IOW, it won't be a monopoly since they are already monopolies. Or something.
Not even making this up.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Angry Jesus on Friday May 09 2014, @09:47PM
> With so few players already in this market, I fail to see how this is not a straight-up antitrust/monopoly violation.
The spin, that so many naive politicians seem to be buying into, is that since their customer base has little over-lap (being geographically disparate) they weren't competing in the first place so this can't be anti-competitive.
If what Level3 is reporting - that some of the 5 largest ISPs all stopped maintaining their peering infrastructure to keep up with demand at about the same time - it seems that we've already got some serious collusion going on.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JeanCroix on Friday May 09 2014, @07:59PM
(Score: 2) by iwoloschin on Friday May 09 2014, @08:04PM
Nah.
It'd be worse.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday May 09 2014, @08:08PM
*twenty-first
(Score: 1) by compro01 on Friday May 09 2014, @08:35PM
If the T-1000ing among the baby Bells keeps going, the Ma Bell of the 21st century will be the Ma Bell from the 20th.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by evilviper on Friday May 09 2014, @09:23PM
Not even close. Technology has marched on. The Bell system was the ONLY way to get voice service at the time. Today, you can get phone service from your local telco, OR from your local cable company, OR from one of the 4 cellular carriers.
Same goes for internet. Most areas have both a telco that provides at least multi-gigabit DSL, and a cable co that provides high-speed internet access. However, in many areas where FIOS has been deployed, cheap DSL is no longer available, so you might be stuck with $65/mo for the same speeds as that $20/month DSL. Also, 3G/4G cellular is an option for data, as is satellite, just not for large downloads, or streaming video, as it gets too expensive, but they're an option for all other usage.
So cable companies are the gateways to video service, and they don't mind screwing you over... Not a big change, there. But telcos at least provide you with a second source for reasonably high-speed internet.
I'd say put up a TV antenna, get discs from Netflix in the mail, and get the cheapest, slowest internet service package you can find. To hell with them.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NaN on Friday May 09 2014, @10:17PM
Multi-gigabit DSL??
Maybe for commercial, but here in NYC, where the density should support competition and make building the last mile worthwhile, my residential options are TWC (plans range from 2Mbps down for $20/mo to 30Mbps down for $70/mo after intro offer) or Verizon DSL (0.5Mbps for $20/mo or 3Mbps for $35/mo -- only options). FIOS isn't available in my neighborhood and currently looks like it never will be.
The cable is overpriced for what you get (thanks, local monopolies!), but the DSL isn't even worth laughing at. And the cost for cellular data is prohibitive for anything but emergency usage.
TWC is the *only* way to get internet service that makes any sense for typical modern usage that includes any video; let alone for a web developer who works from home twice a week. I used to live at a different location in the same neighborhood, and our TWC node was so consistently overloaded that of the half-dozen people I knew in the area, none could get Netflix to stream after 6pm without constant pauses for buffering -- it had been that way for years, they told me, but TWC refused to upgrade anything: what was the incentive?
And based on what I hear from friends in DC, Comcast's customer support somehow manages to outdo TWC's for suckage. Gee, I'm really looking forward to this acquisition...
BTW, my previous neighborhood actually had competition between TWC and RCN -- internet-only prices and advertised speeds from the two were identical, but RCN had 1000x better reliability and customer service. The smaller, scrappier provider in a location with something resembling real competition did something to stand out in the market -- who'da thunk?
(Score: 1) by NaN on Friday May 09 2014, @10:20PM
Oh, oops, those DSL prices are for the bundle with phone service. I can't even find the un-bundled prices, which are presumably even less competitive.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by evilviper on Saturday May 10 2014, @02:14AM
DSL isn't as fast as cable, but it's certainly not laughable. It's an issue if you want to stream highdef Netflix, and absolutely nowhere else that I can think of. I don't know where this attitude comes from, that people have gotten so spoiled by more expensive higher-speed options, that they suddenly don't know how to function with a mere 5Mbps connection.
AT&T's U-Verse is pushing ever-higher speeds through DSL as well, and occasionally just quietly converting it to FTTH in some cities.
Cellular can work fine for everything but video. T-Mobile offers 5gbytes for $30/mo. It's an improvement over satellite if you can get it, but obviously not as good as a landline.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Angry Jesus on Saturday May 10 2014, @05:22AM
> I don't know where this attitude comes from, that people have gotten so spoiled by more expensive
> higher-speed options, that they suddenly don't know how to function with a mere 5Mbps connection.
You are in the company of great men.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
--Thomas Watson, CEO of IBM, 1943
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
--Ken Olsen, CEO of DEC 1977
"640K out to be enough for anybody."
--Bill Gates, CEO of Microsoft, 1981
"It's an issue if you want to stream highdef Netflix, and absolutely nowhere else that I can think of."
--Evilviper, CEO in waiting, 2014
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday May 12 2014, @06:08PM
By all means, prove me wrong and explain what need (other than HD video streaming) a home user has for a 5Mbps+ connection.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday May 12 2014, @06:19PM
Wooooosh!
Do you honestly believe that HD video streaming is the only high-bandwidth application that will ever exist?
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Tuesday May 13 2014, @12:29AM
The word "ever" didn't appear in any of my comments. Nor did "future" or anything similar. It seems painfully clear that my comment, and all other replies than yours, were set in the present day, discussing current technology and applications. Where did you get the idea the distant future entered into it at all?
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 13 2014, @12:37AM
> Where did you get the idea the distant future entered into it at all?
Because the logical conclusion of your whining is stagnation. Successful high bandwidth apps can not happen unless there is a ton of high bandwidth connections first.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Tuesday May 13 2014, @12:52AM
No, in fact I was criticizing people like yourself, who whine about DSL's just slightly lower speeds, which very few people are even utilizing. Clearly, you can't even come up with an excuse for it.
You're completely wrong. Streaming video has been around since long before any home users had the bandwidth for it. When the apps develop, then people will look into faster internet connections. Before then, it's just conspicuous consumption and idiotic bragging rights.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 13 2014, @01:49AM
> No, in fact I was criticizing people like yourself, who whine about DSL's
Hey, I have gigabit to my house so not really a problem for me. Complaining that people are spoiled ain't whining at all, it is criticism.
> Streaming video has been around since long before any home users had the bandwidth for it.
You are conflating proof of concept with an actual application. There was no business case for streaming video until multi-megabit internet access was widespread, that's why netflix had to use the mail for the first 10 years of its existence.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Angry Jesus on Friday May 09 2014, @10:05PM
> Would it be oversimplifying to conclude that a theoretical Time-Warner-Comcast
> would essentially be the Ma Bell of the 2st century?
That's their goal. Competition for high-speed internet is rare. Very few people have a choice beyond the cable-tv ISP. Modern DSL which is lucky to see 10Mbps in the real world (typically close to 3Mbps) isn't even in the same league as a standard DOCSIS cable modem which can easily handle 30Mbps (and up to 10Gbps with the latest spec).
And then there are the ridiculous data-caps on the order of 250GB/month which a typical family of 4 can easily hit with HD netflix alone.
So yeah, Timecast will bring us ma bell technological stagnation and pricing without the government mandated reliability.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday May 10 2014, @05:24AM
Well... I'm not sure Marcus Aurelius would put it that way.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Saturday May 10 2014, @01:30PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by samwichse on Friday May 09 2014, @08:08PM
The real question with this merger: Is there a soul in this country that thinks this will be in any way good for the public?
My guess: Nope, but there are plenty that think this will be good for their own pocketbook at the expense of the public.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10 2014, @01:32AM
I've never dealt with Comcast, but I've had Time-Warner for internet service before. I have to say they were probably one of the best ISP I've dealt with. Granted I was paying almost $140/mo for business class service to my apartment, but I am willing to pay a little more for reliable service. Hopefully, Comcast doesn't ruin them.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 10 2014, @10:47AM
Guess Asia an Europe will use their competitive advantage on this. Guess, how long before this mess affect GDP?