I think you are right on George, Everyone thinks the net and it's peering is absolutely free. Unfortunately, this is a fallacy, propagated by the net-newt idiots. Main thing to look at is where would comcast like the prices to rise? the end user requesting the video or to level3 being a CDN? Plus they could go back to akamai and keep them and level 3 would be screwed out of the deal. Level 3 shot them a rock bottom price thinking comcast would have been an idiot & just accepted it. They lost!
As a customer where is my $100 I give Comcast going? say if I am paying for 100 mbps download speed then why am I getting 10mbps when i need it? If I am paying comcast to down load why is it charging level 3, does that mean they are charging both sides?
The internet is all connected, at some point your going to leave Comcast network and data will need routed across another providers network. Often it will be a tier 1 ISP who is basically the backbone. Anyway these ISPs charge for that access. It's one of many fees. Anyway, the dispute is that if Netflix wants to push all this content they should be fronting some of the cost as it's more efficient to have a private peering network to avoid the open internet and all the congestion that stems from it. Where your money goes? Well it goes to you getting service. There are other things that are going to effect your speed. If your running a speed test and getting your speed than Comcast did its job. Comcast can't control the route your packets of information need to go to get to where they need to be as the internet is only going to be as fast as the weakest link in the chain.
There is a lot of information here I haven't seen anywhere else, some of it in opposition to what I heard. You have a lot of exclusive information or some of it is wrong. No one else says Comcast buys transit from Level 3. No one else says they picked up another 60 gigs to Level 3 during the dispute. No one else says they added 200 gigs. No one else says Netflix bought 3,000 gigs from Level 3. Comcast shouldn't be charging the carriers. They should be paying the carriers for that access.
No, transit and peering are inseparable, two sides of the same coin. If you put a plug in the wall, that is "peering" (connecting two disparate objects) and the electricity that flows through the wire is "transit" (mixing, spillover, exchange, et cetra). If I was the ceo of level 3, I would have advocated for the immediate disconnect of comcast. And then said, ok, now you pay to connect. But I guess they thought of doing so, and somebody said, what about our duty to netflix? So, they called netflix people and they said, no, we do not want to upset our subscribers. And so netflix "chickened out". That's probably how it went down. th-cam.com/video/Q9g7sBVUFMs/w-d-xo.html
I don't get it. If level 3 is sending more data to comcast than comcast to level 3, should not comcast be paying for that extra "desireable" data? .. But really, neither should be paying the other, because it is the same beam of light, or electrical current upon which ever increasing amounts of data flow, (thisa way, or thata way) until maximum capacity is reached and a new wire, or optic fibre is needed. Where to get the money to upgrade? Well, how were the railroads built? By issuing more shares to a hopeful but ignorant buying public? Railroad debt was the way to go, because when a bankruptcy happened, bond holders were first in line to get their money back. I think consumers and giant media companies should pay for the upgrades, but the "oligarchs" will attempt to get American taxpayers to pay. Is a government work project in the wings? Telecom is one of the worst places to try to make money as an ordinary passive minority investor, or OPMI. That said, a verse : No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. - Ma 6 : 24, kjv. .. is it to serve mammon, or to serve God, when one tells others about "the games they play" ?
Doubling data flow does not necessarily mean the current or light, the medium through which the data propagates, need be doubled. It is like when you are on the phone, and you turn up the radio to say to a friend, "Eh Marty, you know that new sound you've been looking for? Listen to this.." ( Creative artists, they get their inspiration from many sources, and so not everybody "gets the credit". ) In particular, the theoretical data capacity for a given wavelength of light can be surmised, by assuming that two wavelengths represent a one, and one wavelenth represents a zero. .. Am self taught, not an electrical engineer by training, so guessing. But noting how visible light has a shorter wavelength than radio waves, in theory, you can send more data with a blinking lightbulb than a radio antenna. But there would be much interference in daytime because of both daylight and sunlight. And no, daylight and sunlight are not the same, for it is written that the day was created before the sun was.
very insightful. thank you for posting
I think you are right on George, Everyone thinks the net and it's peering is absolutely free. Unfortunately, this is a fallacy, propagated by the net-newt idiots. Main thing to look at is where would comcast like the prices to rise? the end user requesting the video or to level3 being a CDN? Plus they could go back to akamai and keep them and level 3 would be screwed out of the deal. Level 3 shot them a rock bottom price thinking comcast would have been an idiot & just accepted it. They lost!
I agree level3 shouldn't cash in on someone else's network. Look how well it works for the CLECs in this country.
As a customer where is my $100 I give Comcast going? say if I am paying for 100 mbps download speed then why am I getting 10mbps when i need it? If I am paying comcast to down load why is it charging level 3, does that mean they are charging both sides?
The internet is all connected, at some point your going to leave Comcast network and data will need routed across another providers network. Often it will be a tier 1 ISP who is basically the backbone. Anyway these ISPs charge for that access. It's one of many fees. Anyway, the dispute is that if Netflix wants to push all this content they should be fronting some of the cost as it's more efficient to have a private peering network to avoid the open internet and all the congestion that stems from it.
Where your money goes? Well it goes to you getting service. There are other things that are going to effect your speed. If your running a speed test and getting your speed than Comcast did its job. Comcast can't control the route your packets of information need to go to get to where they need to be as the internet is only going to be as fast as the weakest link in the chain.
@DigitalSocietyOrg I am not privy to all of the details, but I wouldn't put it past them.
There is a lot of information here I haven't seen anywhere else, some of it in opposition to what I heard. You have a lot of exclusive information or some of it is wrong.
No one else says Comcast buys transit from Level 3.
No one else says they picked up another 60 gigs to Level 3 during the dispute.
No one else says they added 200 gigs.
No one else says Netflix bought 3,000 gigs from Level 3.
Comcast shouldn't be charging the carriers. They should be paying the carriers for that access.
Mike Hammett thanks man , iam also thinking that
Nice perspective of the other side of the coin.
But, put... the... mouse... down.
No, transit and peering are inseparable, two sides of the same coin. If you put a plug in the wall, that is "peering" (connecting two disparate objects) and the electricity that flows through the wire is "transit" (mixing, spillover, exchange, et cetra). If I was the ceo of level 3, I would have advocated for the immediate disconnect of comcast. And then said, ok, now you pay to connect. But I guess they thought of doing so, and somebody said, what about our duty to netflix? So, they called netflix people and they said, no, we do not want to upset our subscribers. And so netflix "chickened out". That's probably how it went down. th-cam.com/video/Q9g7sBVUFMs/w-d-xo.html
I don't get it. If level 3 is sending more data to comcast than comcast to level 3, should not comcast be paying for that extra "desireable" data? .. But really, neither should be paying the other, because it is the same beam of light, or electrical current upon which ever increasing amounts of data flow, (thisa way, or thata way) until maximum capacity is reached and a new wire, or optic fibre is needed.
Where to get the money to upgrade? Well, how were the railroads built? By issuing more shares to a hopeful but ignorant buying public? Railroad debt was the way to go, because when a bankruptcy happened, bond holders were first in line to get their money back.
I think consumers and giant media companies should pay for the upgrades, but the "oligarchs" will attempt to get American taxpayers to pay. Is a government work project in the wings?
Telecom is one of the worst places to try to make money as an ordinary passive minority investor, or OPMI.
That said, a verse :
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. - Ma 6 : 24, kjv.
.. is it to serve mammon, or to serve God, when one tells others about "the games they play" ?
Doubling data flow does not necessarily
mean the current or light, the medium
through which the data propagates, need be doubled.
It is like when you are on the phone, and
you turn up the radio to say to a friend, "Eh
Marty, you know that new sound you've
been looking for? Listen to this.."
( Creative artists, they get their inspiration from many sources,
and so not everybody "gets the credit". )
In particular, the theoretical data capacity for a given wavelength of
light can be surmised, by assuming that two wavelengths represent a one,
and one wavelenth represents a zero. .. Am self taught, not an electrical
engineer by training, so guessing. But noting how visible light has a shorter
wavelength than radio waves, in theory, you can send more data with a
blinking lightbulb than a radio antenna. But there would be much interference
in daytime because of both daylight and sunlight. And no, daylight and
sunlight are not the same, for it is written that the day was created before the
sun was.
Transit-Peering is the best $-Shit ever!