backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by Integral9.. on Dec 2 at 9:07 AM


Comcast allegedly demanded more money from a high internet video provider, or threatened to disconnect its customers. The move marks a bold assault on net neutrality.  (Source: CFC Oklahoma)
Legislation may stop the "toll booth" practice, though

Comcast 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:

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.
On 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 disruptions.
Level 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.
Level 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.
While 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 content.
It 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 customers.
While 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.
Given 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.

Comcast is America's largest cable internet provider, so if Level 3's claims are indeed legitimate, net neutrality advocates -- including corporations 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.).



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Barriers to Entry and Competition
By Reclaimer77 on 11/30/2010 5:30:27 PM , Rating: 0
quote:
It think it shouldn't really be a partisan issue because even the most fervent Republicans and Teapartyers would agree that government-funded infrastructure has typically been a boon to the American economy and our quality of life.


The road to the government mess we have now is paved by good intentions. I think we have to be VERY careful when we talk about Government muscling its way into sweeping Internet policies. Despite your analogies, this isn't as simple as a highway system.

I think it's hilarious that after everything we've seen especially over the past two years, and living in a country where the Government has bankrupted itself, there are people who still think there are honest men in Washington looking out for them. Bagillions in debt and passing the bill to your children and your grand children, and you still think the men and the system responsible for this are somehow more trustworthy and less greedy than ISP's??

I don't know... I just don't understand this constant hate of the free market and all businesses. What more does the Government have to do to prove to people that it's corrupt, wasteful, and dishonest?


By JediJeb on 11/30/2010 6:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with both sides to some extent. What should have happened was the government put up the poles, cabling tunnels, ect then leased them to anyone wanting to string their wires/fiber through them. That is what keeps competition down now, if Comcast build all the cable runs out and a new company wants to run a competing line into the same town, they have to lease the poles from Comcast because it would be difficult to get permission to run a second set of poles right beside the old ones, or similar circumstances to that if you get my meaning. If the government had set the poles and let everyone who wanted to use them rent space on them for the same price then we would see more competition.

The government did enact something with utilities like this where competing power companies can now service the same area, but how many places are going to allow two sets of power lines to be run through the same neighborhood? It is like where I live AT&T had a falling out with the local power company and now they run the phone lines on a separate set of poles on the opposite side of the road from the electric lines. Looks rather stupid to have them separate now, but apparently it was cheaper for them to set their own poles than to continue to lease them from the power company.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki