Detailed report shows how U.S. Internet access monopolies punish rivals

https://medium.com/backchannel/jammed-e474fc4925e4

by evanh2002 • 12 years ago

219 28 12 years ago

evanh2002• 12 years ago

John Oliver calls it "cable company f*ckery" and we've all suspected it happens. Now on Steven Levy's new Backchannel publication on Medium, Susan Crawford delivers decisive proof, expertly dissecting the Comcast-Netflix network congestion controversy. Her source material is a detailed traffic measurement report released this week by Google-backed M-Lab — the first of its kind — showing severe degradation of service at interconnection points between Comcast, Verizon and other monopoly "eyeball networks" and "transit networks" such as Cogent, which was contracted by Netflix to deliver its bits. The report shows that interconnection points give monopoly ISPs all the leverage they need to discriminate against companies like Netflix, which compete with them in video services, simply by refusing to relieve network congestion caused by external traffic requested by their very own ISP customers. And the effects victimize not only companies targeted but ALL incoming traffic from the affected transit network. The report proves the problem is not technical, but rather a result of business decisions. This is not technically a Net neutrality problem, but it creates the very same headaches for consumers, and unfair business advantages for ISPs. In an accompanying article, Crawford makes a compelling case for FCC intervention.

brokenmusic• 12 years ago

The question people should be asking, how come in Eastern European countries internet access is so cheap and fast, yet barely regulated? It's so easy to argue for more regulation when things go wrong: trying to control businesses always sounds like a more noble idea than settings them free. And yet, in every possible example we see that where there's more freedom of enterprise, the customer always wins. And this is especially obvious with ISPs.

dantheman• 12 years ago

And the answer is simple: The local ISPs in the US are granted a monopoly by the local government, given special privileges, and given free money. These 3 issues make it hard for new competitors to enter the market.

rasz_pl• 12 years ago

In Europe Monopolies are HEAVILY regulated.

arh682• 12 years ago

I don't think it's a mystery to any regulator what's going on. I think it's hard to argue against the notion that this is good for the economy. If the Monopolistic ISPs can extract more wealth out of the content-to-consumer pipeline, doesn't the GDP go up? Everybody wins?

privong• 12 years ago

If the Monopolistic ISPs can extract more wealth out of the content-to-consumer pipeline, doesn't the GDP go up?

Perhaps you are being sarcasic, but I cannot tell. This is a version of the broken window fallacy[0]. The money spent on the ISPs is now unavailable for netflix (as an example) to spend hiring new people, buying rights to new movies, etc. So it is not a given that this increases the GDP, or that it would do so in a healthy or beneficial way.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

arh682• 12 years ago

Yes. (: Definitely being sarcastic, just playing some mild Devil's Advocate. It's how I spend karma. I think you're almost right. It's almost exactly the broken window parable. The only difference I have is that it's not [just] Netflix's money being wasted on broken glass, it's the ISP customers.

Netflix has to pay because they're too lazy to run their own ISP. In a way. Get your own 'last mile' customers, or pay the man. But why are there no other ISPs Netflix can choose from? Certainly a competitor could charge less, or nothing. But the customers all seem to want throttled access! They certainly pay the monthly fees. But why would a rational customer do that?

When would a rational customer pay for cracked windows? Why would Netflix, the stained glass entertainer, deliver their product on cracked glass? When there's only one glassmaker in town, I'd guess.

MaysonL• 12 years ago

Pity you forgot the sarcasm tag, and the downvoters forgot their caffeine. You were being sarcastic, weren't you? I sincerely hope so.

foobarqux• 12 years ago

One of the main criticisms of GDP as a measure of productivity is that it does not necessarily reflect economic utility, as your example shows.

awalton• 12 years ago

Shame we have the data from nearly a hundred million witnesses, and yet the feds still won't put together a racketeering case and go after these mobsters.

goombastic• 12 years ago

That wont happen if the right people have been paid off.

kristopolous• 12 years ago

and just how do you plan to make them accountable to you?

Until you can answer that question, you won't get a seat at the table. Sorry.

ohashi• 12 years ago

An idealist would say November 4.

click170• 12 years ago

I truly appreciate that this is being publicized complete with evidence, but has the author also written a letter to the FCC and other relevant bodies to complain about this behaviour and offer their supporting evidence?

I'm concerned that people will feel placated by writing a blog post, when I think we need to be communicating more directly with the FCC.

thyrsus• 12 years ago

The Network Neutrality comment period is over. How does one make a late comment stand out in the midst of 3.7 million received within the specified period? https://twitter.com/fcc_cio/status/511988876974784512

jonathanwallace• 12 years ago

Did you read whole article? This wasn't the author but to answer your question, yes, people have contacted the FCC.

"“You know, I contacted the FCC. I contacted the [state] utilities commission, just for help because you couldn’t make any ground with Verizon, Cogent, or anyone,”..."

dmckeon• 12 years ago

Can anyone with knowledge of Citrix speak to this:

Because Boegly uses a Citrix application for payroll data, and “Citrix doesn’t like packet loss,” according to Boegly, the process was failing. ... “Any time you have packet loss over a Citrix connection, it’s going to dump you,” says Boegly. “And that’s exactly what’s happening in the middle of the process. It has to then be started all over again and then begin the transfer process to get it to connect.”

If accurate, it sounds less than optimal.

contingencies• 12 years ago

I thought this was going to be about Facebook, Google, Microsoft.

sliverstorm• 12 years ago

They aren't internet access monopolies.

septerr• 12 years ago

I really appreciate the clarity with which this article described the issue. I had read an article by someone from Netflix few months (I think) ago about this and did not get the clear understanding this article provided.

logn• 12 years ago

I'm guessing that the networks with speakeasy.net/speedtest/ and speedtest.net were not slowed or special solutions were put in place to assure fast connection... because TWC's favorite answer is to point me to these.

toyg• 12 years ago

In the UK, it's common knowledge that ISPs "special case" speed-testing websites as soon as they learn of their existence.

jokoon• 12 years ago

youtube is being made completely useless...

painflop• 12 years ago

Was it Enron company? that was in business with electric power and would shutdown power factories from time to time just to make shortage of power and rise the price of electricity? How bad did it end?

Detailed report shows how U.S. Internet access monopolies punish rivals

Related Stories