Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

arvindersingh at mail2tor.com arvindersingh at mail2tor.com
Thu May 15 16:51:47 UTC 2014


Yes Kevin, this is understood - but valid observation from Nick.

Can you pls answer my question first?  Very curious.

Arvinder

> Guys, I'm already pretty far off the reservation and will not respond to
> trolling. I think most ISPs are starting to avoid participation here for
> the same reason. I'm going to stop for a while.
>
>       - Kevin
>
>
> On May 15, 2014, at 12:42 PM, "Nick B"
> <nick at pelagiris.org<mailto:nick at pelagiris.org>> wrote:
>
> Yes, you've got "some of the largest Internet companies as customers".
> Because you told them "if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you".  Then you
> throttled them.  I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
> Nick
>
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin
> <Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com<mailto:Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com>>
> wrote:
> Upgrades/buildout are happening every day.  They are continuous to keep
> ahead of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring
> broadband), Akamai, Ookla, etc
>
> What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial
> transit business for 15+ years (with over 8000 commercial fiber
> customers).  Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of
> capacity, and some of the largest Internet companies as customers.
>
>       - Kevin
>
> 215-313-1083<tel:215-313-1083>
>
>> On May 15, 2014, at 10:19 AM, "Owen DeLong"
>> <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Oh, please do explicate on how this is inaccurate

>>
>> Owen
>>
>>> On May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin
>>> <Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com<mailto:Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate "sound bite"
>>>
>>>    - Kevin
>>>
>>> 215-313-1083<tel:215-313-1083>
>>>
>>>> On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, "Owen DeLong"
>>>> <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new
>>>> ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in
>>>> upgrades
>>>> or additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Owen
>>>>
>>>> On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert
>>>> <hugo at slabnet.com<mailto:hugo at slabnet.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
>>>>>>> competition any way they can.
>>>>> No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources
>>>>> of
>>>>>> revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin).
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure they are (seeking new sources of revenue).  They're not
>>>>> necessarily
>>>>> creating new products or services, i.e. actually adding any value,
>>>>> but they
>>>>> are finding ways to extract additional revenue from the same pipes,
>>>>> e.g.
>>>>> through paid peering with content providers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not endorsing this; just pointing out that you two are actually
>>>>> in
>>>>> agreement here.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Hugo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:23 AM,
>>>>>>> <charles at thefnf.org<mailto:charles at thefnf.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They have the money.  They have the ability to get more money.
>>>>>>> *They see
>>>>>>>> no reason to spend money making customers happy.*  They can make
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> profit without it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is the issue of control over the market. But also the
>>>>>>> pressure
>>>>>>> from shareholders for continued growth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. That is true. Except that it's not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do service providers grow? Let's explore that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is growth for a transit provider?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More (new) access network(s) (connections).
>>>>>> More bandwidth across backbone pipes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is growth for access network?
>>>>>> More subscribers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that the incumbent carriers have shown they have no interest
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> providing decent bandwidth to anywhere but the most profitable rate
>>>>>> centers. I'd say about 2/3 of the USA is served with quite terrible
>>>>>> access.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with the internet is that while it had promises of wild
>>>>>>> growth in the 90s and 00s, once penetration reaches a certain
>>>>>>> level,
>>>>>>> growth stabilizes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Penetration is ABYSMAL sir. Huge swaths of underserved americans
>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you combine this with threath to large incumbents's media and
>>>>>>> media
>>>>>>> distribution endeavours by the likes of Netflix (and cat videos on
>>>>>>> Youtube), large incumbents start thinking about how they will be
>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>> continue to grow revenus/profits when customers will shift spending
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> vspecialty channels/cableTV to Netflix and customer growth will not
>>>>>>> compensate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except they aren't. Even in the most profitable rate centers,
>>>>>> they've
>>>>>> declined to really invest in the networks. They aren't a real
>>>>>> business. You
>>>>>> have to remember that. They have regulatory capture, natural/defacto
>>>>>> monopoly etc etc. They don't operate in the real world of
>>>>>> risk/reward/profit/loss/uncertainty like any other real business has
>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
>>>>>>> competition any way they can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin).
>>>>>> They did
>>>>>> a bit of an advertising campaign of "smart home" offerings, but that
>>>>>> seems
>>>>>> to have never grown beyond a pilot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current trend is to "if you can't fight them, jon them" where
>>>>>>> cablecos start to include the Netflix app into their proprietary
>>>>>>> set-top
>>>>>>> boxes. The idea is that you at least make the customer continue to
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> your box and your remote control which makes it easier for them to
>>>>>>> switch between netflix and legacy TV.
>>>>>> True. I don't know why one of the cablecos hasn't licensed roku,
>>>>>> added
>>>>>> cable card and made that available as a "hip/cool" set top box
>>>>>> offering and
>>>>>> charge another 10.00 a month on top of the standard dvr rental.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would be interesting to see if those cable companies that are
>>>>>> agreeing
>>>>>>> to add the Netflix app onto their proprietary STBs also  play
>>>>>>> peering
>>>>>>> capacity games to degrade the service or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how is the content delivered? Is it over the internet? Or is it
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> the cable plant, from cable headends?
>>
>
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list