On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:05:26PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
On 12/15/2010 4:47 PM, Adam Rothschild wrote:
Folk in content/hosting should find this all more than a little bit scary.
So you don't think the money content providers will pay Comcast won't reflect on other eyeball networks who aren't important/large enough to request financing? ie, Comcast could run lower rates and offer better service by charging the content provider, while competitive eyeball networks won't get the option to receive compensation from content providers and have to charge appropriate rates to their customers.
And if you saw someone getting mugged on the street, you could argue that you're now less likely to be robbed because the guy already has someone else's money... If Comcast wanted to grow its revenue by offering a better, faster, cheaper, etc, wholesale transit service to content networks, I don't think anyone here would object in the slightest. The problem is that rather than compete on any kind of financial or technical merit, they've decided to hold their cable customers hostage and FORCE content networks to buy from them. Rest assured nobody WANTS to buy transit from a network with a 109ms rtt between New York and San Jose (it boggles the mind how one could even manage to assemble that fiber path, let alone try to charge money for it :P), congestion on every port, etc. If Comcast gets away with this, what's to stop every other monopoly/duopoly eyeball network from doing the same thing? And yes maybe if Comcast forces Netflix to pay them to reach you (either directly or indirectly via Level 3), your cable modem bill might go down, but all that means is that your Netflix bill is going to go up. At the end of the day you're probably better off betting on lower costs from the technical innovation of the networks who DON'T pay $50k for a 10GE port. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)