Reed Hastings: Comcast no longer following net neutrality principles | Hacker News Reader

Reed Hastings: Comcast no longer following net neutrality principles

facebook.com

160 pointsdwynings59 comments

There is some ambiguity about where bandwidth accounting should take place: on the last mile link between the customer and Comcast or the transit link(s) between Comcast and the Internet. Comcast claims that anything coming from a server inside Comcast itself (e.g. Xfinity) should not count against the cap because it causes no congestion; this assumes that the cap exists only to prevent congestion on the transit side. I suspect that this is all just post facto justification, though.

Does this mean that I can just limit my Bittorrent client to only connect to peers in Comcast's network, if I don't want Bittorrent traffic to count against my quota?

This sort of thing has certainly been the case with the quota-free peering agreements here in Australia in the past. Do Comcast provide for unmetered traffic in their accounting tools? If so it should be relatively easy to test.

The OP really doesn't sound that suspicious really, not really worth the title. If a service provider serves popular content locally via their own client to reduce the hit on their external links what's the problem? Is there some commercial advantage they're gaining from it other than not having that bandwidth eaten up?

If nothing else, it's fairly easy to circumvent for Comcast: Just say that Xfinity isn't an internet service, it's a ComcastNet® service that just happens to get delivered over the same cable as your internet connection. Figleaf: "You can buy a Xfinity/ComcastNet® subscription without an internet connection.".

Where it gets icky is when Hulu suddenly doesn't count against the cap, but Netflix does, and the deal Hulu got isn't available to Netflix.

A service that doesn't count towards the cap is perceived as "cheaper" and thus more desirable.

If a latency-sensitive service decides to host closer to part of its customer base, does that mean they're not respecting net neutrality too? At what point does something stop becoming more convenient for customers and the company (like locally hosted unmetered traffic) and start becoming a neutrality issue?

Maybe I look at it differently being from a country that has always had caps, where the introduction of peering agreements and ISP hosted content meant you got more value (all downloads being 'paid for' to some of that now being 'free'). I suppose if you look at it from the perspective of going from a culture of unlimited data to capped downloads (all downloads being 'free' to most being 'paid for' and some free as it was before).

It's not like they are artificially prioritizing their own content.

Edit: On reading some of the other comments it sounds like it isn't just the same content via different clients, it's actually buying the same content off Comcast? Is this the case? The OP wasn't exactly a wealth of detail.

Please try it and report back.

The obvious next step is for Comcast to start a CDN inside their network and start selling CDN services to other companies, so that material served from the CDN doesn't count against customers' caps. They can claim that this doesn't violate net neutrality principles, but the consequences would be the same: Comcast can use their ISP monopoly to keep their foothold in the content delivery business.

The real danger to the open internet will come when wireless carriers get in on this action. Since nearly all wireless data plans offer tiny amounts of bandwidth as compared to wired broadband, there's a much greater incentive for users to use services that won't count against their caps...

On the wireless point, I believe that the expensive bit of wireless networks is definitely the spectrum from the tower to the device. So I don't think the analogy holds. (?)

From a customer's viewpoint, it makes no difference where the bits are coming from, until Comcast charges differently.

And that's what's going on here: the bits are cheaper when they don't count against a quota, so Comcast's service is inherently discriminatory.

Digital television is just bits, too. If this charging of bits is so offensive, then where was everybody when digital TV, including On Demand, wasn't getting charged against your internet bandwidth?

The Internet still is, ultimately, a collection of networks, not a monolithic thing. There's no Comcast "in" the Internet and another Comcast "out" of the Internet. It really is cheaper for Comcast to move bits in their own network, and this really unpacks to a demand for Comcast to extra specially mark up their own bits for customers, charge far more than they really have to, not a deal for the customers.

Given that, I wouldn't be surprised Comcast ends up rolling right over on this if the fuss gets loud enough. "You really think everyone should pay more for those bits? Well... if you insist...."

I think there are viable counterarguments (simonster's is probably the best), but let's be clear on exactly what those counterarguments are counterarguing and ground them in reality, not on a mythical view of the Internet.

On Demand & CATV set-top boxes never transmitted data over your HSI connection. Streampix does.

Comcast has CDNs on their networks & their own customers can connect with each other, yet those activities will still count against a customer's cap. What makes Streampix different? Maybe there is a good reason, but I don't think Comcast wants to answer or divulge the true costs of bits flowing over it's network.

Comcast playing fair & people getting a better idea on how the caps affect their usage I think are good things. Comcast basically wants people to live in fear of hitting their cap if they use a competitor but don't want to stress it's own customer's over a problem they created.

On Demand & CATV set-top boxes never transmitted data over your HSI connection.

They can and do in some cases. Most Motorola set tops made in the last 5-7 years have a built-in cable modem. It can be used for streaming IP VOD, multicast video, and most often used for the set top to transmit data (ie VOD control) back to your cable provider. It's not all that commonly used but it definitely blurs the lines. Simply transporting traffic via DOCSIS doesn't make it Internet traffic. For example Comcast's digital voice service has never counted against caps either.

I would be doubtful that any set-top boxes built-in modem uses the same channels or network as the customer's HSI. I don't think the issue is that Comcast might do two-way digital communication, it's more an issue on how Comcast classifies & regulates it's services.

CDV is an interesting thing & is blurring the lines somewhat. However, I think the fact that they require internally separate proprietary hardware that accesses their private VOIP network w/ QoS to avoid interfering with the customer's HSI, makes it less shifty vs Streampix which explicitly uses the customer's HSI because it must if it's to work on a phone or Xbox.

They do. Cable modems are provisioned with multiple service flows much in the same way cable digital phone service works. I've seen this setup in a lab being run from one CMTS. The modem has a service flow for Internet (say 50Mbit/sec) and another for the eSTB (say 30Mbit/sec) which can handle the IP VOD and IP multi-cast video. It is possible to have multiple CMTSs for this however both Cisco and Motorola are investing in VDOC (video-over-DOCSIS) scale solutions that allow you to put all your eggs into one huge basket. One cable modem / gateway will ultimately be feeding every cable service in your home and some portion of it will be provisioned for plain ole' Internet traffic while the rest of it will be allocated for MSO services. From what I can tell this is not how Comcast is delivering IP VOD to the Xbox today. I would expect them to make the transition fairly quickly though. This stuff has been up and running in labs for the last 5+ years. MSOs are just very slow to adopt new technology.

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting.

I think it's technically impossible for Comcast to get video to the Xbox w/o using the IP connection provided by the customer's HSI service. I would say, so long as it's using the same IP the customer would use to get on the Internet with, that it is using HSI and should be subject to whatever limitations they place on HSI.

Your HSI connection is just a channel on a QAM. Your statement "On Demand & CATV set-top boxes never transmitted data over your HSI connection" is just backwards your HSI data is always transmitted over your CATV pipes. The only core differences between the Xbox content and your TV content is the protocol.

CATV & HSI are services that operate on the same coaxial connection. That doesn't mean they are the same thing. You do not need CATV to get HSI or HSI to get CATV. They are independent of each other and Comcast has provisioned their network as such.

Some people have been beating that drum: https://plus.google.com/u/0/114753028665775786510/posts/Z2fE...

One could point out that a CMTS probably costs more than an edge QAM, but nobody wants to understand that.

on the last mile link between the customer and Comcast or the transit link(s) between Comcast and the Internet. Comcast claims that anything coming from a server inside Comcast itself (e.g. Xfinity) should not count against the cap because it causes no congestion;

Can you support Comcast making these claims? The last mile has always been the primary point of congestion on their internet pipes its been this way since @home started doing cable based internet. This justification would be a really tough sell.

I'd have to think that they'd be much more likely to claim its the same TV content and it shouldn't matter if its coming over the IP vs Broadcast network its all pretty much the same infrastructure.

http://stopthecap.com/2012/04/02/comcast-changes-language-ov...

I don't necessarily endorse Stop the Cap's analysis, but they have links to the relevant primary sources.

I'm sorry I must be missing something, that link seems to reinforce Xfinity's position on Xbox streamed content,but I can't find a link where Comcast claims that content originating inside their network shouldn't count because it doesn't cause congestion.

It has noting to do with congestion. Cap's are Comcat's attempt to keep people on cable. They could charge for bandwidth and bundle 250GB with the subscription and then charge 10 cents per GB after that. However, if they did that then watching 2 hours of Hulu a day would be significantly cheaper than basic cable which scares them. So, instead they cancel peoples internet service when they go over the cap.

Doesn't Netflix use Akamai? If so, there's almost no traffic (when measured on Comcast's scale) from Comcast <-> Netflix, as each movie just needs to be downloaded once, and is then cached on a server living inside Comcast's network.

Netflix now uses Level 3, who has paid peering links to Comcast. http://www.voxel.net/blog/2010/12/peering-disputes-comcast-l...

Also, I'm not sure that Akamai is serving everything from inside other ISPs; I know that was their original model, but things may have changed in 15 years.

Netflix uses all three major CDNs. The client choses the best one.

Do you have a source? I'm interested in knowing what "best one" means. If it means "cheapest for Netflix", it wouldn't surprise me if this all combines to mean that Netflix have moved the bulk of their traffic to Level 3, who don't pay anything to Comcast; away from Akamai & Limelight, who do (and are therefore more expensive).

Well, I could point you to the presentations at http://www.slideshare.net/netflix, but the first thing you'd find is my presentation, since I work there. :)

None of this is really secret insider information -- you can get it all by Wiresharking your connection, if you have Netflix.

Price has nothing to do with it actually. The client downloads a small file from all the CDNs, and then picks the one with the best response. If the quality of the connection degrades during playback, it repeats the process. So "best" is actually the one with the fastest performance at that time.

That's a great link, though a little confusing to me. Here's what I understand, with fake dollar amounts:

CDN services need to be priced at $2.

Netflix used to use Akamai; Netflix paid Akamai $3, Akamai paid Comcast $1, and everyone was happy.

Netflix now moved to Level 3, who they pay $1, and Level 3 demand $1 from Comcast (because L3 makes a loss if they don't charge $2). Netflix saved $2, so is happy. Comcast is unhappy, because they're out that same $2.

So now Comcast is crying foul and looking at ways to recoup that $2. Netflix is engaging in a PR battle, but really caused all this by switching from Akamai to Level 3.

Is that accurate?

> and Level 3 demand $1 from Comcast

What?

The closest I've heard is that Level 3 wants Comcast to charge $0 under their pre-existing peering agreement.

Comcast claimed Netflix's traffic isn't covered by the agreement and asked for extra fees. Level 3 complied (under protest).

This new thing Reed Hastings is talking about is different from that issue. AFAIK.

The voxel article says it, but the GigaOM article it links to spells it out: "Akamai and Limelight pay Comcast to deliver their traffic to their end users. Level 3, on the other hand, is paid by Comcast, ostensibly for transit, but now, seemingly, to deliver traffic that Level 3 has already been paid for — by Netflix."

I feel that Netflix is trying to rally the net-neutrality army to come to its aid, but may not be an entirely neutral player here.

These articles were written while the negotiations were going on. I'm pretty sure Level 3 is now paying Comcast.

I thought comcast/level3 was settlement free?

Maybe it was free until Level 3 said "hey Comcast, why don't we expand our peering by 500 Gbps so that it can handle Netflix" and Comcast replied "that's gonna cost you".

Hmm, while what you say may be technically true, it makes it appear as if Comcast would have incurred an expense which they wanted to recoup.

IIRC, Level 3 wanted to simply push more traffic through their existing peering ports. Would that have Comcast more? No, it wouldn't have, AFAIK.

It seems the entire world is facing erosion of freedom and equality when it comes to accessing the net in an unobstructed and private manner. Great forces are at play, from politicians to capitalists, who own the wires and the antennae. The facts are clear: the internet is going to be controlled and manipulated for power and profit. What do we do about it? What can we do about it? Can we build an information network that is unbiased, universal and fair? A network of information trasmission that can be resilient in the face of such attacks?

http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan/

http://www.reddit.com/r/darknet

http://www.reddit.com/r/i2p

“Principles”. Part of the problem is that the definition of neutrality is very ad hoc and untestable. Like pornography, we know it when we see it.

(Side note, obviously Reed is not unbiased from a financial perspective.)

I understand the instinct. But the fact that it took weeks for anyone to call this non-neutral is evidence that after arguing this for x years, we still don’t have a testable definition.

Yes, this move by Comcast is non-neutral. It was non-neutral when Facebook offered something similar over mobile: http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/18/facebook-launches-0-faceboo...

CDNs? Not neutral.

The problem is that caps are reasonable (even if we prefer otherwise). And offering bits for free is hard to argue against, for the consumer.

So if two reasonable acts constitute a violation of net neutrality, what does that say about our definition?

> “Principles”. Part of the problem is that the definition of neutrality is very ad hoc and untestable.

Really? I may be naive here, but I thought it was very clear and straightforward:

1) Packets are not routed differently based on content or source.

2) Packets (or bits) cost the same amount regardless of content or source.

From what I understand, Xfinity is delivered from Comcast's own network, so it's not exactly equal to the other sources he describes. Still, this highlights how mixing network providers and content providers gets messy. It opens up the door for ISPs to use their position in an effective monopoly to favor their own content sources over others.

We started a petition for Comcast to comply with net neutrality and apply caps equally, or not at all. Please sign if you agree and share: http://pblk.dm/IVLlza

The actual link the above obfuscated link points to:

http://publikdemand.com/d/comcast/stop-violating-net-neutral...

It wasn't really obfuscated. pblk.dm is obviously publikdemand.com's own url shorter.

Would you be happy with the term minified, rather than obfuscated?

I agree there isn't one accepted definition for what obfuscated means wrt urls. I use the term to mean any link that is changed to be less readable.

There wasn't any harm or judgement intended:)

Past HN discussions:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3766284 (The new Comcast Xbox Xfinity app is the first nail in net neutrality’s coffin)

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505922 (Free Wikipedia in Africa and Middle East (first step against net neutrality?))

Akamai installs their blades directly inside ISPs. This covers Netflix and Hulu. What's up now, Comcast?

It seems that Netflix stopped using Akamai. The other discussion thread here has some great links: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3845098

That's not true. Netflix uses all three major CDNs and the client picks the best one.

Comcast never followed net neutrality principles.

I understand that there's more to the Comcast /Netflix dispute, but soon or later the "dumb pipes" are going to want a cut, especially for heavy usage.

Until that's solved (lobbyists are rubbing their hands!) speed etc are irrelevant. Who cares that you can download at 50mb/s when the limit is reached after a few minutes /hours of full usage?

It occurs to me that as we move towards "dumb pipes", they should be treated more or less as a public utility--if even a metered one--just like actual water and sewer pipes.

But you don't need or want a water pipe that delivers 10x as much water every two or three years. Assuming you want bandwidth to follow that curve, someone needs the incentive to pay for it.

Those companies are already paid tons by the government to improve their pipes and we are still lagging behind Europe, Japan, and Korea in terms of bandwidth.

Isn't this a sign of moving _away_ from dumb pipes?

Metered it is right now (see caps) but if you want 24/7 ESPN and HBO and I just want to email and access CNN.com a few times a day why should I pay for you?

The "internet" has changed, it was pages and images, now it's videos and with Xbox, Hulu and Netflix it's also cable. The net providers have a point, it costs a fortune to lay, expand and maintain the pipes as demand increases. Not sure how it's solved, but Netflix and others have to shell a few bucks, the money they are saving by not mailing DVDs might come in handy

I would prefer meters to caps. Caps say if you use more than x gallons of water we shut off your tap, but pay us $100/mo regardless. Meters say, hey, use all the water you want, but you're paying for it.

Caps is not exactly "metered"; that'd be more like pay-what-you-use, as in $x per GB.

Making Netflix et all paying is great for raising barriers to entry and reducing competition.

Comcast is currently filtering www.slutload.com [NSFW obviously] as well. I really hate their monopoly.

"It has absolutely nothing to do with content; ... it is part of a (large) IP range temporarily blocked to curb a DoS attack." http://vi.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/sackm/til_comcast_is_act...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com