is no stranger to controversy, with a penchant for aggressive cost
saving measures. It ran afoul of the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission when it began throttling
users' traffic, such as torrents or peer-to-peer connections
(with regard for their legality).Now Comcast appears to have
landed itself in another mess with Level 3 Communications' Chief
Legal Officer, Thomas Stortz, accusing it of demanding money in order
to continue to allow Comcast customers to access Level 3's high speed
video. In essence, if true, that would represent Comcast
spitting in the face of the net
neutrality movement, and making a bold move towards a "toll
booth" web as Level 3 puts it.Mr. Stortz writes:
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.
November 22, after being informed by Comcast that its demand for
payment was ‘take it or leave it,’ Level 3 agreed to the terms,
under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any
3 operates one of several broadband backbone networks, which are part
of the Internet and which independent providers of online content use
to transmit movies, sports, games and other entertainment to
consumers. When a Comcast customer requests such content, for example
an online movie or game, Level 3 transmits the content to Comcast for
delivery to consumers.
3 believes Comcast’s current position violates the spirit and
letter of the FCC’s proposed Internet Policy principles and other
regulations and statutes, as well as Comcast’s previous public
statements about favoring an open Internet.
the network neutrality debate in Washington has focused on what
actions a broadband access provider might take to filter, prioritize
or manage content requested by its subscribers, Comcast’s decision
goes well beyond this. With this action, Comcast is preventing
competing content from ever being delivered to Comcast’s
subscribers at all, unless Comcast’s unilaterally-determined toll
is paid – even though Comcast’s subscribers requested the
content. With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a
‘closed’ Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access
provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with
is our hope that Comcast’s senior management, for whom we have
great respect, will closely consider their position on this issue and
adopt an approach that will better serve Comcast and Comcast’s
Comcast’s position is regrettable, Level 3 remains open and willing
to work through these issues with Comcast. However, Level 3 does not
seek any ‘special deals’ or arrangements not generally available
to other Internet backbone companies.
Comcast’s currently stated position, we are approaching regulators
and policy makers and asking them to take quick action to ensure that
a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network
controlled by a few institutions with dominant market power that have
the means, motive and opportunity to economically discriminate
between favored and disfavored content.
is America's largest cable internet provider, so if Level 3's claims
are indeed legitimate, net neutrality advocates --
like Google -- should be very concerned. After all,
other cable providers will likely follow in Comcast's lead.If
Comcast indeed succeeds in this bid, it would likely mean that the
cost of internet services for users would greatly increase.
Advertising would no longer be enough to sustain sites like YouTube
or Facebook, and they would have to switch to subscription fees.The
U.S. Congress and the FCC are working on legislation to prevent this
kind of "pay to play" practice. The pending
legislation has generally enjoyed bipartisan support, though it has a
few vocal critics, including
Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.).
quote: That said I feel you've more or less made my point for me - no amount of taxation would improve network accessibility as long as it lies solely in the hands of geo-monopolistic private enterprises.
quote: So you believe in the notion that Government is more efficient than Private industry?
quote: It's more a question of accountability. Governments are held accountable by the people they govern, which you perfectly illustrated yourself, while companies are only accountable to their shareholders.
quote: If I wanted to efficiently make money, short-term, I'd definitely turn to private enterprise. If I wanted to assure the quality and accessibility of a particular service or set of goods however, I'd definitely turn to the government.
quote: Private industry have no reason to be more efficient or develop better technologies unless it improves their bottom line. The governments job is to foster a climate, or dictate terms, that prevents monopolies, oligopolies, price-fixing conglomerates or every other trend that would allow the private industry to sit on their asses while increasing prices.
quote: Earlier I mentioned that I found the fear of government regulation both sad and amusing.
quote: The amusing part being that the people who fear government involvement are so willing to believe that the private industry have our best interest at heart.
quote: Seeing as I pay ~$9 a month for my phone, plan and usage total, and ~$10 a month for uncapped 100/100 Ethernet right up to the wall socket something is clearly working.
quote: Personally, though I admit the evidence is purely coincidental, I think you're just having issues with someone of opinions the polar opposite