It would be pretty interesting to watch the spin machine in action, though. 100% pure PR spin.
L3 is a CDN, Hulu is not. Hulu hires a CDN to get their data out there. CDNs are basically ISPs that provide high bandwidth with low latency by providing a distributed cache. Netflix has gotten in to the CDN business because at their scale none of the CDNs have been able to keep up with demand, or were not willing to pay for peering with last mile ISPs.
> This is asymetrical warfare.
This is one of the more bizarre reading experiences on HN:
I don't think that is the solution. This is asymetrical warfare...The solution to this will be worked out by the free market slowly but surely.
That being said I find the suggestion that the colloquial definition of "asymmetric warfare" is "a fight that's slowly playing out" to be even stranger. Do you think that is the definition of "asymmetric warfare"? I must be reading different works than you because I cannot remember seeing "asymmetric warfare" used--and most certainly not commonly used--as a placeholder for a fight that is slowly playing out.
1. How is the CDN/ISP conflict an example of "asymmetric warfare"?
2. Do you think the definition of "asymmetric warfare" is "a fight
that is slowly playing out"?CDN are in the ISP business.
The Internet would more or less shut down from traffic overload if all of Comcast's customers lost all the shortcuts that Comcast has created for them to content.
We're getting to the root cause of the problem here: lack of competition.
These ISPs already have the lowest customer ratings. If the customers could switch to another ISP they would.
This stunt would amount to kicking a man that's lying down. He's already used to the shitty quality of his Comcast connection, but now he's being punished by CDN providers without being able to do anything about it.
And Time Warner is the second: http://bgr.com/2014/05/20/comcast-twc-customer-satisfaction-...
Nobody likes the cable companies. It would be very easy for someone to capitalize on that hatred to win public support for net neutrality; it's just a matter of crafting the right campaign.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/05/top-isps-threaten-to...
With the national attention this issue is getting, this is a tremendous marketing opportunity to take customers away from the big dogs.
Everyone despises cable companies, most of the angst would go their way. After all, 9/10 people don't know what a CDN is!
Since they've paid the CDN, they don't care what Comcast has done or is doing - they paid the CDN, it's the problem of CDN.
It's a bit of a stretch, but I think that's the analogy they're going for.
If the end users had multiple options they would switch providers if connections were unbearably slow to YouTube or Netflix. But we know they do not so regulation is needed.
If all the channels are blank, the average consumer will blame the cable company.
Similarly, if "the Internet is down", from the customer's perspective, they're going to blame the ISP, not Netflix/Hulu/Amazon.
Even when the problem is the feed (like with CW's networks last month)...or when some dipshit construction company digs where they aren't supposed to.
Luckily I don't work for one of the horrible ISPs that everyone hates, but we're definitely more in the blame-receiving business than is warranted.
Folks don't understand the complexity involved in making a utility service "just work" and if the provider doesn't have hundreds of millions to invest in infrastructure (like my small provider doesn't have) it won't.
The big ISPs have no excuse for not peering properly, but this is a fight they've been having with Level3 since the late 90s. Sadly they're winning.
Forget about the gigundous case for libel Netflix would have against Comcast on millions of counts... those Netflix payments that Comcast just earned are going to stop, and their first high-profile experiment with double-dipping payments will have failed abruptly.
I assure you Comcast does not want that.
They most certainly did; and what's more, the transit provider Netflix was using prior to paying Comcast was, IIRC, Cogent, not Level3.
I think so, but it's only fair to note that it's very difficult to get accurate information about this, since all of the parties have a strong interest in not making all the details public, at least not while they're jockeying for position.
> Level3's wikipedia page still says they deliver Netflix.
No, it says (if you go look at the reference that's footnoted) that Netflix was about to switch to Level3 (from Cogent, although that specific reference doesn't say so) as as transit provider, and Comcast used that to try to extract peering fees from Level3 based on an expected increased level of traffic. When Level3 refused, Comcast went to Netflix and got them to pay for direct connection to Comcast's network, bypassing any transit provider.
The concept of "Tortious interference" [1] comes to mind but I'm certain there are other legal theories that could be employed by Comcast.
Those providers would very quickly get prosecuted via collusion and antitrust laws, and Comcast would gain a moral high ground to stand on, almost certainly making the situation worse.