nanog mailing list archives
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality
From: Nick B <nick () pelagiris org>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 12:43:02 -0400
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 () 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 215-313-1083On May 15, 2014, at 10:19 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com> wrote: Oh, please do explicate on how this is inaccurate… OwenOn May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin <Kevin_McElearney () cable comcast com> wrote:Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate "sound bite" - Kevin 215-313-1083On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com> wrote: Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing inupgradesor additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary. Owen On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com> wrote:So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwartcompetition any way they can.No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sourcesofrevenue, 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 notnecessarilycreating new products or services, i.e. actually adding any value,but theyare 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. -- HugoOn Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:23 AM, <charles () 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 seeno reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can makemoreprofit 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 interestinproviding decent bandwidth to anywhere but the most profitable rate centers. I'd say about 2/3 of the USA is served with quite terribleaccess.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 americansexist.When you combine this with threath to large incumbents's media andmediadistribution endeavours by the likes of Netflix (and cat videos on Youtube), large incumbents start thinking about how they will beable tocontinue to grow revenus/profits when customers will shift spendingtovspecialty 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 realbusiness. Youhave 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 hasto.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 sourcesofrevenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets and aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin).They dida bit of an advertising campaign of "smart home" offerings, but thatseemsto 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 proprietaryset-topboxes. The idea is that you at least make the customer continue touseyour 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,addedcable card and made that available as a "hip/cool" set top boxoffering andcharge another 10.00 a month on top of the standard dvr rental. Would be interesting to see if those cable companies that areagreeingto add the Netflix app onto their proprietary STBs also playpeeringcapacity games to degrade the service or not.So how is the content delivered? Is it over the internet? Or is itoverthe cable plant, from cable headends?
Current thread:
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3), (continued)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) Paul Ferguson (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) Joe Greco (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) Christopher Morrow (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) Scott Helms (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) Christopher Morrow (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) Scott Helms (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) Christopher Morrow (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) Joe Greco (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) Scott Berkman (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) Livingood, Jason (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality Nick B (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality McElearney, Kevin (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality Jerry Dent (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality arvindersingh (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality Nick B (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality Livingood, Jason (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality Nick B (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality Livingood, Jason (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality Nick B (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality Livingood, Jason (May 15)
- Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality McElearney, Kevin (May 15)