Posted on 11/10/2014 11:38:48 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota
Level 3 Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: LVLT) today [Nov 29, 2010] issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Thomas Stortz, Chief Legal Officer of Level 3:
“On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content. By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation’s largest cable provider.
Loser Proposal from the Loser President......I think its a Loser for the Free Market and the American People.
I can see Obama in my rear view mirror, of my U-Haul rented by a DC Democrat, who lost last week.
They pay for bits delivered only. Which works great when your product is text and static images.
But a Backbone provider must provision sufficient bandwidth to keep video from being choppy or voice from cutting out...if the service is to be commercially viable.
That means their inter-switch trunks (the DWDM...multiple gigabit) cannot be loaded over about 70% utilization.
The backbone provider is in the ENDLESS bandwidth upgrade.
What they propose is technology upgrades that will allow them to charge providers who need the advanced services a higher rate for delivering those bits in a fashion that won't crowd out other bits (text, static images) and allow the backbone provider to use up to 100% of their bandwidth.
Translation:
works for everyone = free for po’ folk
This is an argument for an anti-trust suit against Comcast, not an argument FOR NN.
L3 IS a backbone provider and Comcast is an ACCESS provider that is restricting content because it competes with their core business.
They don't want to control content, just bandwidth. I don't want to lose my service which happens fairly regularly in my rural area, just because some shmuck wants to use a limited resource to stream video. If you want to pay more to give me better pipes so that doesn't happen, then great, I have news for you.
You already pay more to give me better pipes, but the money is wasted. That is because it is a government program doomed to failure as usual. Now, tell me how exactly will there be enough bandwidth for every drivelous streaming video just because the government says it should be so?
There is nothing I can do as a consumer. Comcast has a complete monopoly. My only option is to pay or go without.
Neither of which is relevant because they are not able to deliver broadband.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
What exactly does Comcast censor that you need?
Untrue. They want to be able to throttle sites that do not pay them.
Bullshit. Satellite, DSL, and cellular all deliver broadband. What you want is free unlimited streaming video.
More bullshit. They only want to throttle streaming video because that lets them build a smaller cheaper network.
It's not a matter of censorship. I'm not saying they are going to be selecting which political/religious/other site anyone can go to.
If they have cable in the ground...whether fiber or copper or both, they are regulated.
100% of the time.
And they are not going to get away with blocking content. And, if their service sucks they will lose their franchise.
Satellite, DSL, and cellular all deliver broadband. What you want is free unlimited streaming video.
I don't want free anything. I pay for my internet the same as everyone else. As for DSL and satellite being broadband I guess DSL premium is technically above the line but standard DSL and even "premium" satellite are far below.
Good, at least we agree on that.
That table is outdated. Hughesnet goes to 15 Mb
Most streamed content, for example Netflix, is really incremental download. There can be and is plenty of buffering and caching. It is not as time-critical as live content such as a two-way video or telephone.
Like every company and individual Netflix pays their provider for access. The problem is that Comcast charged Netflix even though Netflix was not connected to Comcast. I submit that Comcast was not experiencing a technology problem since immediately upon Netflix coughing up cash the “problem” went away.
It’s not Netflix who is consuming Comcast’s bandwidth, it is Comcast’s customers.
Suppose another website becomes very popular. Let’s say FR starts a video hosting service that eclipses youtube. Let’s further suppose that this service uses an ISP other than Comcast. Should Comcast charge FR a fee because Comcast customers want to access the FR website?
The demand for bandwidth will not decrease. ISP’s seeking to have the government impose regulation are only attempting to cement their position rather than engage in free market competition.
GoDaddy, Rackspace, etc generate large amounts of traffic. Should Comcast charge those companies because Comcast customers want to access the sites they host.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.