Netflix pays someone to get access to "the internet" and that someone has some sort of relationship with Comcast, or gets to Comcast through a third party who has that relationship. No one is getting anything for free. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect customers to bear the cost of their provider doing business. If that business calls for the buildout of additional infrastructure to remain competitive then so be it. Comcast customers pay their provider, Netflix pays its provider. I think what this really boils down to is an effect of shoddy marketing. Access providers want to offer "unlimited" everything and don't want to have to go back to their customer base and say, "oh, sorry, we didn't really mean unlimited. We didn't think you'd really use that much." So they are looking for ways of making up for the increased costs without having to look like idiots to their customers. My problem is, what happens if this becomes the new model? What if Comcast comes to me and says, "Oh, we've noticed X Mbits originating from your network coming through ours. Here's the bill of $X per bit." What happens when I counter with, "Ok, and I see X bits originating from your network. Here's my bill, too." Do they agree to an exchange of money for an exchange of bits or do I get an "F you. Pay your bill to us and we're not giving you crap." Aaron From: Rettke, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rettke@cableone.biz] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:21 PM To: Jack Bates; Aaron Wendel Cc: 'Patrick W. Gilmore'; 'NANOG list' Subject: RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions On 11/29/2010 4:49 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and pass on the costs to the customers demanding it.
I'd change this to "A customer pays for SHARED access to the Internet." Unless your customer is paying for a direct fiber or internet circuit (~$500 - $10,000 per month) they aren't paying for independent and sole access to the internet. It's another term that I think has lost its actual meaning, "Unlimited access." I don't have a problem, as a customer or as a Service Provider, passing along the bill to the top 5% that are using a disproportionate amount of bandwidth. I can see the Internet reaching a fair-use model, as opposed to a free-use model that is unsustainable, as was previously said. Here's one specific example I can think of to discuss: Netflix uses about a third of Internet bandwidth, in some cases going over the HTTP traffic use for most customers. Netflix charges customers a fee to use their service, but they don't pay the providers required to supply the bandwidth for the customer leg. I don't think ISPs charging Netflix is a sustainable model either. A mutual endeavor involving shared interconnect costs and intelligent placement of proxies would be something I could think of to make the process beneficial for all parties. The end goal would be that the "Shared Media Customer" has no idea what we are doing, but does not see performance degradation in their HTTP or Netflix traffic, and that it does not pass along additional cost to them. After all, to both Netflix and the ISP, it is in their best interests to keep that customer a happy and paying customer. Sincerely, Brian A . Rettke RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services -----Original Message----- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates@brightok.net] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:11 PM To: Aaron Wendel Cc: Rettke, Brian; 'Patrick W. Gilmore'; 'NANOG list' Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions On 11/29/2010 4:49 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and pass on the costs to the customers demanding it.
I agree. This type of maneuver is no different than ESPN3 charging the ISP for the ISP customers to access the content. Both are unscalable models that threaten the foundation of an open Internet. As an ISP, I could care less what is in the packets my customers send and receive. The exception to this, of course, is malicious packets but they keep refusing to set the evil bit. Jack _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3287 - Release Date: 11/29/10