Fist off, pardon my language, but this pisses me off. And everyone who uses the internet should also be pissed off.
http://gizmodo.com/5701746/comcast-is-making-netflix-partners-pay-a-toll-to-deliver-movies
This is just the beginning of the hell that will be isp's controlling, filtering, and censoring content.
Yeah, we are boned on net-neutrality. All the major ISPs have been signing paper work as quietly as possible behind closed doors for a while now. In the very near future, its likely we won't be paying for bandwidth, well be paying for the web like cable. The problem is the most basic package, whether its free or not like with tv, will probably be like 9 or 15 websites and you will be getting your access based on tier-packages, JUST like tv.
Imagine, 'basic' internet will just be something like, free youtube, msn, yahoo, facebook, your banks website and a few other groups who have a lot of market share. Once they go to this system of selling you access to only so many websites, you can forget about a lot of higher speed options available, the focus will go away from speed of an individual connection and to just making sure that "everyone in america can reach the internet" just like everyone can have basic broadcast tv.
As someone who has worked in an enterprise network environment, I want to say there is actually a reason for Comcast to want to charge Level3 for bandwidth they are using on Comcast's network.
The fact is "peering", as we call it in the industry, is a two-way street. Companies peer with each other in order to exchange traffic to benefit customers.
For example, Company A has network routes and bandwidth with providers that are too expensive for Company B to pay transit for. These providers are usually of a higher quality, and/or have specific network routes (eg. overseas to a specific continent). Company B wants to be able to improve connectivity for customers in certain parts of the world (or even just locally) by utilizing the routes Company A has with their network.
For this to happen, one of two things can occur:
1. Company B buys transit from Company A (costs money).
2. Company B peers with Company A because it is beneficially mutual for both companies to do so (free).
Now with peering, it costs both companies money to allow traffic to be exchanged. Company A pays for bandwidth that is used on their network, and Company B does the same for theirs. Though they both pay for the bandwidth utilized on their networks, their peering will benefit their customers and network more than what it would cost them to be peered every month.
However, most peering agreements will include contractual obligations for a minimum and maximum amount of bandwidth, off-peak/peak usage restrictions, and even service level agreements (gauranteed uptime and availability). This would ensure that neither company takes advantage of using the other company's bandwidth without an equal level in return, and prevents one company from utilizing all of the other company's bandwidth and degrading their network.
With regards to Comcast vs. Level3 Communications..
If Netflix (a customers of Level3's) is utilizing a lot of bandwidth, and Level3 is pushing so much bandwidth onto Comcast's network that their network is starting to see a degradation of service, then Comcast has every right to either charge Level3 for the bandwidth (their disputed fee), or prevent Level3 from using their network.
However, because of the way Comcast explained it with it filtering Netflix specificly, it could be grounds for the Net Neutrality argument.
It all comes down to whether or not filtering is being used because it is to deny service from a competitor, or because of costs of bandwidth or network performance.
)
