Stop Comcast from blocking Netflix!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Netflix Partner Says Comcast 'Toll' Threatens Online Video Delivery

Level 3 Communications, a central partner in the Netflix online movie service, accused Comcast on Monday of charging a new fee that puts Internet video companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Level 3, which helps to deliver Netflix's streaming movies, said Comcast had effectively erected a tollbooth that "threatens the open Internet," and indicated that it would seek government intervention. Comcast quickly denied that the clash had anything to do with network neutrality, instead calling it "a simple commercial dispute."

The dispute highlighted the growing importance of Internet video delivery — an area that some people say needs to be monitored more closely by regulators. Net neutrality, which posits that Internet traffic should be free of any interference from network operators like Comcast, is thought to be on the December agenda of the Federal Communications Commission.

"With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a 'closed' Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content," Thomas C. Stortz, the chief legal officer for Level 3, said in a statement Monday.

Those issues cut to the heart of Comcast's imminent acquisition of NBC Universal, which is in the final stages of review by the F.C.C. and the Justice Department. The F.C.C. is considering attaching a condition to the merger that would aim to keep Comcast's Internet network open to competitors, according to public filings this month.

In theory, without government action, Comcast could speed up streams of NBC programs and slow down streams of its rivals' programs. "This may be one of those teaching moments for consumers to understand what's at stake," said Michael McGuire, a media analyst for Gartner.

There is no known case of Comcast ever slowing the traffic to one of its direct competitors, but it did delay some peer-to-peer file traffic in a much-litigated case several years ago. Comcast says it supports an open Internet — but also says that it needs to be able to manage its expensive and still-evolving networks, which are essentially on- and off-ramps to the Internet.

Level 3 in essence operates a highway that connects to those ramps and handles traffic to and from individual Web sites. Comcast customers rely on the company's on- and off-ramps from that highway. With nearly 17 million broadband Internet customers, Comcast is the nation's largest such service provider.

The scuffle between the two started on Nov. 19, when Level 3 says Comcast demanded a recurring fee to "transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast's customers who request such content."

Three days later, under pressure from Comcast, "Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions," Mr. Stortz said.

Mr. Stortz did not cite Netflix in his statement. But just a week before Comcast's demand, Level 3 announced a multiyear deal to support Netflix's rapidly growing streaming service.

A recent study found that at peak times, Netflix represented 20 percent of Internet download traffic in the United States. That makes it a de facto competitor for incumbent distributors like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, which are eager to protect both the subscription television business and the emerging video-on-demand business.

Mr. Stortz implied that Comcast was taking the action to impair companies that compete with its own cable and Internet services.

A spokesman for Netflix declined to comment Monday. Netflix, which announced a new pricing structure last week, is gradually weaning its customers from DVDs by mail in favor of online streaming, making any new costs a serious concern.

Comcast on Monday rebuffed the notion that the new fees were related to Netflix by saying that the type of traffic distributed by Level 3 was irrelevant. Joe Waz, a senior vice president at Comcast, says it has had a peering agreement with Level 3 to swap traffic fairly evenly. Now Level 3 is sharply increasing its traffic, he said, while resisting a commercial agreement to pay for that.

Comcast is "already carrying huge amounts of video to our high-speed Internet customers every day through commercial arrangements, and it seems to be working for everybody else," Mr. Waz said. "Level 3 is trying to change the rules of the game."

If nothing else, the dispute demonstrates that consumers have little, if any, idea how convoluted it can be to transmit video to a computer or mobile phone.

Nonetheless, on Monday night, public interest groups that have steadfastly opposed the combination of Comcast and NBC Universal argued that the Level 3 case proved that Comcast would discriminate against competitors if it could.

"On its face, this is the sort of toll booth between residential subscribers and the content of their choice that a net neutrality rule is supposed to prohibit," said Harold Feld, legal director of one such group, Public Knowledge, in a statement.

Mr. Stortz said Level 3 would be approaching government regulators this week and "asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by a few institutions with dominant market power that have the means, motive and opportunity to economically discriminate between favored and disfavored content."

Mr. McGuire, of Gartner, said, "There is no law here. There are only guiding principles. F.C.C. clarity on this kind of thing is going to be required."

http://mediadecoder....video-delivery/

[^_^ 5,021]

The FCC should make L3 and Comcast go to binding arbitration over this. If L3 needs to put some money in to pay for the bandwidth their new business model needs, so be it. But the FCC's focus needs to be on maintaining service availability and quality for all consumers.

Edited November 30, 2010 by \

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well, it's a nasty fight at the end of the day.

Video streaming/rental places like Netflix and Blockbuster are fighting over the rights of 'who gets what first' and then the cable providers have to fight with their 'on-demand' legacy.

Hell, Netflix already has a deal with STARZ to show all Starz Play movies on Netflix, it wouldn't surprise me to see them make a deal with the devil like HBO or Showtime either. That would really put a damper in Comcast and other provider's on-demand service...

These are interesting times in the digital world.

[^_^ 5,021]

Basically, the process to 'build out' our network capacity to the point where we can accommodate a lot more streaming content will have to be financed by somebody. If it isn't paid for by streaming content providers, it will be financed by companies that own the networks. No matter who finances it, the cost will trickle down to the end consumer. After all, it is the end consumer who will be using it all so it is only fair.

This is perhaps the only case where trickle down actually works.

[luckytxn 2,264]

If Comcast wants to stifle their customers streams they can. Those same customers can also find another way to get the content and leave Comcast.

[^_^ 5,021]

If Comcast wants to stifle their customers streams they can. Those same customers can also find another way to get the content and leave Comcast.

Then that streaming content will end clogging the pipes on a different network and they will have to address the issue. This issue will be addressed and it will cost the end consumer some serious coin.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Basically, the process to 'build out' our network capacity to the point where we can accommodate a lot more streaming content will have to be financed by somebody. If it isn't paid for by streaming content providers, it will be financed by companies that own the networks. No matter who finances it, the cost will trickle down to the end consumer. After all, it is the end consumer who will be using it all so it is only fair.

This is perhaps the only case where trickle down actually works.

The conflict of interest is that Comcast offers pay-per-view programming and Netflix is a direct competitor. The issue is whether ISP's can limit content or selectively charge for access. If Comcast wants to charge for higher bandwidth, then they need to do that across the board instead of targeting just Netflix.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Then that streaming content will end clogging the pipes on a different network and they will have to address the issue. This issue will be addressed and it will cost the end consumer some serious coin.

Or Comcast will see their customer base dwindle and make a more open system to ensure their customers are happier and not leave. I live in a truck and use an aircard and stream Netflix often with no probs.

[^_^ 5,021]

The conflict of interest is that Comcast offers pay-per-view programming and Netflix is a direct competitor.

I suspect where we will end up (eventually) is a system where companies that run networks aren't allowed to provide content and vice versa.

[SuperDuper! 230]

The conflict of interest is that Comcast offers pay-per-view programming and Netflix is a direct competitor. The issue is whether ISP's can limit content or selectively charge for access. If Comcast wants to charge for higher bandwidth, then they need to do that across the board instead of targeting just Netflix.

I do agree with this. And Comcast is running scared, and now using bully, gatekeeper tactics. Instead, ComBlast should offer ala carte channel options for less, and embrace that they no longer hold the keys to content distribution.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I suspect where we will end up (eventually) is a system where companies that run networks aren't allowed to provide content and vice versa.

Yep. That's really the only way to maintain net neutrality.

[^_^ 5,021]

I do agree with this. And Comcast is running scared, and now using bully, gatekeeper tactics. Instead, ComBlast should offer ala carte channel options for less, and embrace that they no longer hold the keys to content distribution.

A la carte cable tv would be freakin' awesome.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A la carte cable tv would be freakin' awesome.

It's already happening with many online sites. The newer TV's offer internet access. Cable TV, or more specifically packaged content is quickly becoming a dinosaur.

[SuperDuper! 230]

A la carte cable tv would be freakin' awesome.

Yea, I don't need 350 channels (and to pay for it). Just let me pick my top 50 channels, and pay for those!

Cable better embrace the changes, or they will price themselves out of the market.

I love my Apple TV!

[drakkon84 1]

This si something comcast has been doing and fighting in court forever. They are trying to make it legal for them to charge or or even limit teh speeds at which competing companies can get to the subscriber. They have been in trouble for this in the past. I used comcast for about amonth then realized for 26megs my skype and hulu ran very slow i switched to att dsl at 3megs and now my skype runs awesome as does hulu. Now tell me they don't do it and sorry i won't beleive you. That is why they are in supreme court right now. Patiently waiting for uverse to come into my apartment complex cause comcast is forcing non-compete contracts on places like that. Even teh apartment managers are done with comcast just waiting for the contract to expire. They have been doing people dirty for a while now.