Reed Hastings: Comcast no longer following net neutrality principles

https://www.facebook.com/reed1960/posts/10150706947044584

by dwynings • 14 years ago

160 59 14 years ago

Comcast is currently filtering www.slutload.com [NSFW obviously] as well. I really hate their monopoly.

wmf8• 14 years ago

"It has absolutely nothing to do with content; ... it is part of a (large) IP range temporarily blocked to curb a DoS attack." http://vi.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/sackm/til_comcast_is_act...

wmf8• 14 years ago

There is some ambiguity about where bandwidth accounting should take place: on the last mile link between the customer and Comcast or the transit link(s) between Comcast and the Internet. Comcast claims that anything coming from a server inside Comcast itself (e.g. Xfinity) should not count against the cap because it causes no congestion; this assumes that the cap exists only to prevent congestion on the transit side. I suspect that this is all just post facto justification, though.

simonster• 14 years ago

The obvious next step is for Comcast to start a CDN inside their network and start selling CDN services to other companies, so that material served from the CDN doesn't count against customers' caps. They can claim that this doesn't violate net neutrality principles, but the consequences would be the same: Comcast can use their ISP monopoly to keep their foothold in the content delivery business.

The real danger to the open internet will come when wireless carriers get in on this action. Since nearly all wireless data plans offer tiny amounts of bandwidth as compared to wired broadband, there's a much greater incentive for users to use services that won't count against their caps...

justinsb6• 14 years ago

On the wireless point, I believe that the expensive bit of wireless networks is definitely the spectrum from the tower to the device. So I don't think the analogy holds. (?)

dsr_• 14 years ago

From a customer's viewpoint, it makes no difference where the bits are coming from, until Comcast charges differently.

And that's what's going on here: the bits are cheaper when they don't count against a quota, so Comcast's service is inherently discriminatory.

jerf• 14 years ago

Digital television is just bits, too. If this charging of bits is so offensive, then where was everybody when digital TV, including On Demand, wasn't getting charged against your internet bandwidth?

The Internet still is, ultimately, a collection of networks, not a monolithic thing. There's no Comcast "in" the Internet and another Comcast "out" of the Internet. It really is cheaper for Comcast to move bits in their own network, and this really unpacks to a demand for Comcast to extra specially mark up their own bits for customers, charge far more than they really have to, not a deal for the customers.

Given that, I wouldn't be surprised Comcast ends up rolling right over on this if the fuss gets loud enough. "You really think everyone should pay more for those bits? Well... if you insist...."

I think there are viable counterarguments (simonster's is probably the best), but let's be clear on exactly what those counterarguments are counterarguing and ground them in reality, not on a mythical view of the Internet.

gst• 14 years ago

Does this mean that I can just limit my Bittorrent client to only connect to peers in Comcast's network, if I don't want Bittorrent traffic to count against my quota?

aptwebapps• 14 years ago

Please try it and report back.

zarify2• 14 years ago

This sort of thing has certainly been the case with the quota-free peering agreements here in Australia in the past. Do Comcast provide for unmetered traffic in their accounting tools? If so it should be relatively easy to test.

The OP really doesn't sound that suspicious really, not really worth the title. If a service provider serves popular content locally via their own client to reduce the hit on their external links what's the problem? Is there some commercial advantage they're gaining from it other than not having that bandwidth eaten up?

justinsb6• 14 years ago

Doesn't Netflix use Akamai? If so, there's almost no traffic (when measured on Comcast's scale) from Comcast <-> Netflix, as each movie just needs to be downloaded once, and is then cached on a server living inside Comcast's network.

wmf8• 14 years ago

Netflix now uses Level 3, who has paid peering links to Comcast. http://www.voxel.net/blog/2010/12/peering-disputes-comcast-l...

Also, I'm not sure that Akamai is serving everything from inside other ISPs; I know that was their original model, but things may have changed in 15 years.

mikeryan3• 14 years ago

on the last mile link between the customer and Comcast or the transit link(s) between Comcast and the Internet. Comcast claims that anything coming from a server inside Comcast itself (e.g. Xfinity) should not count against the cap because it causes no congestion;

Can you support Comcast making these claims? The last mile has always been the primary point of congestion on their internet pipes its been this way since @home started doing cable based internet. This justification would be a really tough sell.

I'd have to think that they'd be much more likely to claim its the same TV content and it shouldn't matter if its coming over the IP vs Broadcast network its all pretty much the same infrastructure.

wmf8• 14 years ago

http://stopthecap.com/2012/04/02/comcast-changes-language-ov...

I don't necessarily endorse Stop the Cap's analysis, but they have links to the relevant primary sources.

alecperkins• 14 years ago

From what I understand, Xfinity is delivered from Comcast's own network, so it's not exactly equal to the other sources he describes. Still, this highlights how mixing network providers and content providers gets messy. It opens up the door for ISPs to use their position in an effective monopoly to favor their own content sources over others.

loverobots2• 14 years ago

I understand that there's more to the Comcast /Netflix dispute, but soon or later the "dumb pipes" are going to want a cut, especially for heavy usage.

Until that's solved (lobbyists are rubbing their hands!) speed etc are irrelevant. Who cares that you can download at 50mb/s when the limit is reached after a few minutes /hours of full usage?

philwelch2• 14 years ago

It occurs to me that as we move towards "dumb pipes", they should be treated more or less as a public utility--if even a metered one--just like actual water and sewer pipes.

twoodfin• 14 years ago

But you don't need or want a water pipe that delivers 10x as much water every two or three years. Assuming you want bandwidth to follow that curve, someone needs the incentive to pay for it.

pbreit• 14 years ago

Isn't this a sign of moving _away_ from dumb pipes?

loverobots2• 14 years ago

Metered it is right now (see caps) but if you want 24/7 ESPN and HBO and I just want to email and access CNN.com a few times a day why should I pay for you?

The "internet" has changed, it was pages and images, now it's videos and with Xbox, Hulu and Netflix it's also cable. The net providers have a point, it costs a fortune to lay, expand and maintain the pipes as demand increases. Not sure how it's solved, but Netflix and others have to shell a few bucks, the money they are saving by not mailing DVDs might come in handy

courtneypowell• 14 years ago

We started a petition for Comcast to comply with net neutrality and apply caps equally, or not at all. Please sign if you agree and share: http://pblk.dm/IVLlza

chollida12• 14 years ago

The actual link the above obfuscated link points to:

http://publikdemand.com/d/comcast/stop-violating-net-neutral...

lawnchair_larry2• 14 years ago

It wasn't really obfuscated. pblk.dm is obviously publikdemand.com's own url shorter.

zyce• 14 years ago

Akamai installs their blades directly inside ISPs. This covers Netflix and Hulu. What's up now, Comcast?

justinsb6• 14 years ago

It seems that Netflix stopped using Akamai. The other discussion thread here has some great links: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3845098

jedberg3• 14 years ago

That's not true. Netflix uses all three major CDNs and the client picks the best one.

robwgibbons• 14 years ago

Comcast never followed net neutrality principles.

victorbstan• 14 years ago

It seems the entire world is facing erosion of freedom and equality when it comes to accessing the net in an unobstructed and private manner. Great forces are at play, from politicians to capitalists, who own the wires and the antennae. The facts are clear: the internet is going to be controlled and manipulated for power and profit. What do we do about it? What can we do about it? Can we build an information network that is unbiased, universal and fair? A network of information trasmission that can be resilient in the face of such attacks?

SkyMarshal• 14 years ago

http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan/

http://www.reddit.com/r/darknet

http://www.reddit.com/r/i2p

mwsherman• 14 years ago

“Principles”. Part of the problem is that the definition of neutrality is very ad hoc and untestable. Like pornography, we know it when we see it.

(Side note, obviously Reed is not unbiased from a financial perspective.)

I understand the instinct. But the fact that it took weeks for anyone to call this non-neutral is evidence that after arguing this for x years, we still don’t have a testable definition.

Yes, this move by Comcast is non-neutral. It was non-neutral when Facebook offered something similar over mobile: http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/18/facebook-launches-0-faceboo...

CDNs? Not neutral.

The problem is that caps are reasonable (even if we prefer otherwise). And offering bits for free is hard to argue against, for the consumer.

So if two reasonable acts constitute a violation of net neutrality, what does that say about our definition?

bo1024• 14 years ago

> “Principles”. Part of the problem is that the definition of neutrality is very ad hoc and untestable.

Really? I may be naive here, but I thought it was very clear and straightforward:

1) Packets are not routed differently based on content or source.

2) Packets (or bits) cost the same amount regardless of content or source.

gioele• 14 years ago

Past HN discussions:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3766284 (The new Comcast Xbox Xfinity app is the first nail in net neutrality’s coffin)

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505922 (Free Wikipedia in Africa and Middle East (first step against net neutrality?))

Reed Hastings: Comcast no longer following net neutrality principles

Related Stories