On 15/12/10 2:47 PM, Adam Rothschild wrote:
On 2010-12-15-12:15:47, Kevin Neal<kevin@safelink.net> wrote:
Also assuming the backbone and distribution upgrades required between their data centers and their customers costs nothing. It's not free to get bandwidth from Point A (port with TATA) to Point B (Customer). I don't see how this point, however valid, should factor into the discussion. Missing from this thread is that Comcast's topology and economics for hauling bits between a neutral collocation facility and broadband subscriber are the _same_ whether they ingest traffic by way of a settlement-free peer, customer, or paid transit connection.
If I drive from SF to LA for business or for personal purposes, my costs for the drive are the same. But the economy of doing it for business depends on what the client is willing to pay me. If they want me to drive to LA but only pay $10, it's not economical (from a business perspective) for me to do it. Right now, Comcast is carrying content to their customers "for free" and they want to be paid by the content providers (thru paid transit connections) to cover the cost of carrying that content traffic across their network to the end customer. Sure, Comcast's customers are also paying Comcast. But Comcast wants to get paid from the content provider. I think they are betting that in the long run it's easier to make money from content providers (and have the content providers charge customers or advertisers as necessary to make a profit) than to make money from the end consumer. And I think they are right about this "easier" part. I think that they will succeed at pressuring big content providers to play by Comcast's rules and shift the cost of running Comcast's network from consumers to content providers. jc