Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
dooser at gmail.com
Thu Dec 16 09:54:46 CST 2010
But in that scheme, Comcast looses in the long run, when the FCC gets around
to them, but Netflix looses customers immediately.
" I pay Netflix 10$ a month and they wont let me use their service cause I
am on Comcast? I am taking my money to Hulu!"
Sure netflix is "right" but by the time it matters they are out of business.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2010 05:47:09 pm Adam Rothschild wrote:
> > What we have here is Comcast holding its users captive, plain and
> > simple. They have established an ecosystem where, to reach them, one
> > must pay to play, otherwise there's a good chance that packets are
> > discarded.
> > Folk in
> > content/hosting should find this all more than a little bit scary.
> I'm surprised no one here has thought of the obvious thing content
> providers can do to communicate to the customers of the providers who
> artificially throttle traffic from 'freeloading' content providers.
> In the web server configuration, detect what network is accessing the page.
> If it's a provider who is trying to coerce content provider payment, tell
> the eyeball up front that that's the case, and give a pointer to the place
> on the FCC website (or the FCC phone number) where they can lodge a
> complaint. If it gets ugly, simply don't serve content to those eyeballs.
> In other words, a content provider boycott of eyeball networks that want to
> try to play hardball. If you get enough content providers to band together
> to do this, the customers of those eyeball networks will make a difference.
> Hrmph, all you really have to do is get google or facebook to boycott an
> eyeball network.
> IOW, if there's no content to see, there's no need for an 'Internet'
More information about the NANOG