Level 3 has accused Comcast
of demanding fees to transfer data from Level 3's backbone to Comcast customers. Level 3 describes this as "Internet online movies and other content," which would mean everything, even though it's calling out movies. Level 3 signed a deal on November 11th to act as one of Netflix's primary network providers. In October, Internet monitoring service Sandvine said Netflix streaming represents 20 percent of all U.S. Internet non-mobile bandwidth use
during prime-time hours.
Far be it from me to defend Comcast's policies, even while I am generally happy with its service. I subscribe to Comcast cable broadband service at home and at work, and it performs quite well in my parts of Seattle. I don't have much choice--Qwest has limited availability of an "up to 20 Mbps" service--so I'm lucky cable performs. And Comcast caps my 15 to 25 Mbps downstream service to 250 GB per month, with no-appeal threats of cutoff after two broken caps in a year.
Nonetheless, this may not be quite what it seems. The Internet is a syndicate of different networks that agree to interconnect on various terms. There are quasi-public meet-me network rooms in which providers all pay to connect in and traffic passes among all those present. Networks can also choose to create peering points between each other when traffic demands it.
My understanding of fee-free peering, however, is that the data transferred must be roughly equivalent, whether in a private peering arrangement or one conducted in meet-me rooms. If the traffic becomes highly asymmetric, the party doing the heavy lifting may complain, because it's bearing the cost of carrying another network's traffic, even though that may be what its users are demanding. It's possible that Level 3 is feeding such an enormous amount of data to Comcast in return for receiving relatively little that Comcast wants to leverage this into Level 3 paying for access to its network.
If that turns out to be the complaint, it's problematic. Network neutrality argues for treating all network traffic from any source the same: no throttling, no filtering, no blocking. Exceptions may be made when a network's performance degrades because of incoming traffic, but that's an infrastructure issue rather than precisely a political one.
Comcast might be taking the tack of complaining about an unequal peering relationship that Level 3's customers should be paying for without highlighting differentiated traffic. That's harder to defend against, because that would require the FCC stating that network and Internet providers cannot establish peering relationships on terms that they choose. In effect, Comcast could filter without basing it on packets.
Comcast hasn't responded at this writing, and I'm curious to see its explanation and the FCC's response. Update:
Comcast told the Washington Post
: "This has nothing to do with Level 3's desire to distribute different types of network traffic. Comcast has long established and mutually acceptable commercial arrangements with Level 3's Content Delivery Network (CDN) competitors in delivering the same types of traffic to our customers." Not particularly clear, but "mutually acceptable commercial arrangements" would seem to indicate peering contracts.
Commenters indicate that a bit of clarification is needed here. I didn't properly distinguish between Comcast's handling of packets that originate from Level 3 and then pass over any path to reach Comcast, and Comcast's direct interchange with Level 3 (which some commenters argue is not properly called a peering point, although I disagree). Comcast cannot be denied to have the business basis to determine with which firms it directly contracts and to which it opens specific point-to-point pipelines for network interchange. That may be the issue at hand. Where network neutrality intrudes is if Comcast is threatening to degrade or block all Level 3 traffic on any Internet route to Comcast. While no laws or regulation specifically prohibit that, that's a different kettle of fish than wanting to collect fees for a direct network connection with Level 3.
Photo by Adrian Sampson used via Creative Commons.
In 2009, President Obama pledged to “restore science to its rightful place.” He said, “We will not just meet, but we will exceed the level achieved at the height of the space race, through policies that invest in basic and applied research, create new incentives for private innovation, promote breakthroughs in energy and medicine, and […]
When I was little, my mother had a 1960s sit-under hair dryer with a huge translucent plastic hood that I’d imagine was a variation on a Star Trek Transporter. But that hulking machine had nothing on these vintage hair dryers from the first part of the 20th century. These would have provided me with years […]
In a new report, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reveals that the “Department of Defense uses 8- inch floppy disks in a legacy system that coordinates the operational functions of the nation’s nuclear forces.” That floppy format was developed in the late 1960s and was obsolete by the 1980s. I wonder if the DoD saves […]
Some truths are universal. For one, your phone will always run out of power when you most need it. For another, the charging cords that come packaged with your Apple device will fray, split, and rip faster than Usain Bolt in a game of tag.Instead, pick up a charging cord that anyone would have a tough […]
Some people say magic tricks are nerdy and best left to your 12-year-old asthmatic cousin. But others see value in perfecting the slight of hand and showmanship associated with a perfectly executed routine. We’re firmly in the latter camp. And now, we’re giving you the ability to put a few parlor tricks up your sleeve with the Penguin […]
Bluetooth speakers may be convenient to use, but many of them just aren’t that powerful. Sure, it may be fine if you’re seated in front of the speaker. But move across the room, and you may strain to hear what’s coming from those tiny drivers.There’s a reason why the G-BOOM Wireless Bluetooth Boombox (now $79.99 in the Boing […]