PCA Forums

It's just the first 20 minutes. This guy actually understands peering arrangements between ISPs and CDNs (Content Delivery Networks) which is VERY complicated.

According to him the bad guy was one of Netflix's CDNs (Cogent) which many ISPs have trouble dealing with because they don't want to pay when they exceed the terms of their peering arrangements.

This was actually a GOOD DEAL for Netflix since they basically are now their own CDN (bypassing Cogent) and getting a more favorable deal.

Netflix was ALREADY paying Cogent for data delivery, it's just that Cogent could not meet the demand with the existing deal they had with Comcast, and they refused to re-negotiate. Netflix is likely paying less now, cutting out the middleman.

Basically what this guy is saying is that this really isn't a net neutrality issue at all. ALL the big data producers (Google, Facebook Yahoo, Microsoft, etc) all have contracts with CDNs. This stuff goes on all the time behind the scenes.

http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-google/238

Interesting. I hadn't considered that.

I dunno, just find it kind of ridiculous to need to pay another company to accept traffic being requested by an ISP's customers who pay to be able to receive said traffic. Almost seems like double dipping. I mean the customers pay for a certain amount of bandwidth, but ISPs are wanting to be paid to deliver traffic to the customers. Why does it matter where the traffic comes from when they are supposed to deliver the bandwidth that they advertise to the customer.

So now, if you were to use the full bandwidth as you are allowed to based upon what you pay for and it comes from many others sources at smaller amounts, then it is the same amount of bandwidth used but they aren't getting paid as much. Sure many companies take advantage of what Netflix is doing now, but if you were getting it from many different ones outside it that it doesn't exceed a certain amount as per the agreement there is suddenly no problem. It to me seems like just a good excuse to bring in more profits. Sure I recognize the mass load coming from one portion and hardware needs to be upgraded to handle it. But, it is their responsibility to upgrade their networks to support the demands of the consumers, that is what profits should be used for.

The issue I have with this Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger is their overbearing ability to crush competition. I have Brighthouse in this area, which used to be TWC. But if the merger goes through, Comcast could stifle Brighthouse's programming so badly because of their ability to negotiate more favorable contracts. To the extent they can push some to not allow some programming on Brighthouse to push subscribers to competition like Directv or Verizon. Then after Brighthouse collapses, they can either buy them up or take the area over. Eventually bringing back some of the subscribers and being able to dominate the market even more. That is what is at risk. Comcast is too large and needs to be split.