Comcast Hints at Plan for Paid Fast Lanes after Net Neutrality Repeal

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Comcast says it won't block or throttle Internet content but has dropped its promise about not instituting paid prioritization. Instead, Comcast now vaguely says it won't "discriminate against lawful content" or impose "anti-competitive paid prioritization." The change in wording suggests that Comcast may offer paid fast lanes to websites or other online services.

At the moment, Comcast is restricted from offering such a service by two things: its purchase agreement with NBC Universal, and the current net neutrality rules. The former is expiring next year, and the other is teetering on the brink of total obliteration. See, for all the ISPs’ insistence that of course they won’t engage in anti-consumer practices such as paid prioritization, the fact that they could should the rules change has always been the proverbial Sword of Damocles hanging over the whole debate.
 
So the fact that they didn't say they wouldn't, means they will?

Plus, is "fast lanes" such a bad idea? Situation - all Internet traffic is considered equal, you get the same bandwidth for all content. You also share the same "lane" of traffic with hundreds, thousands, or maybe even millions of other customers. So you are offered a priority "lane" bypassing all the traffic congestion for a premium price. Not sure that the concept itself is so bad.

I know what people are thinking - "If they offer priority lanes, that means they will be intentionally throttling the normal lanes." I personally do not believe the sky is falling, or will fall.
 
The reason why paid fast lanes are such a problem is because it essentially forces competing services such as Netflix, etc. to pay for them, which in turn forces Netflix to pass those costs onto the consumer. Allowing an ISP to pick and choose what traffic gets priority is simply stupid. Comcast, (NBC universal) will simply extort other streaming, i.e. competition, into paying. This will only further mega mergers where soon every ISP will own or be owned by a major network, who've all merged into one massive media conglomerate, thereby reducing the number of choices the consumer has. Cutting the cord won't be any cheaper than having, {insert provider here}, latest bundled offer. This is simply a move by the largest corporations to remain viable and relevant without having to innovate. Bravo, big corporations, bravo.
 
jardows said:
So the fact that they didn't say they wouldn't, means they will?

Plus, is "fast lanes" such a bad idea? Situation - all Internet traffic is considered equal, you get the same bandwidth for all content. You also share the same "lane" of traffic with hundreds, thousands, or maybe even millions of other customers. So you are offered a priority "lane" bypassing all the traffic congestion for a premium price. Not sure that the concept itself is so bad.

I know what people are thinking - "If they offer priority lanes, that means they will be intentionally throttling the normal lanes." I personally do not believe the sky is falling, or will fall.
Click to expand...

While I agree some arguments are a bit over the top... aka plans for individual products or services $1 to access facebook etc.... Comcast has and most likely will perform subtle things to mess with customers which have limited choice in a provider.

They already have been busted in neglecting to upgrade/add connections to providers Neflix used causing service from Netflix to degrade, until Netflix started to pay them (Netflix had a local caching system they offer free to ISPs which Comcast apparently declined to use).

A fast lane ultimately means a slow lane and also encourages behavior to make the slow lane slow... Who would pay for a fast lane if it didn't really matter?

The concept of fast lane for all traffic of their consumers is one thing, the issue is for the content providers and competition. If Netflix has a fast lane paid for, how can a start up compete without being in the fast lane as well? By being the Spirit Airlines of streaming? Hey 50% cost, but we only give you 50% of the frames?

Comcast I believe is already using metering to give an edge on their services. Comcast streaming doesn't go against caps, where as everyone else does...
 
jardows said:
So the fact that they didn't say they wouldn't, means they will?

Plus, is "fast lanes" such a bad idea? Situation - all Internet traffic is considered equal, you get the same bandwidth for all content. You also share the same "lane" of traffic with hundreds, thousands, or maybe even millions of other customers. So you are offered a priority "lane" bypassing all the traffic congestion for a premium price. Not sure that the concept itself is so bad.

I know what people are thinking - "If they offer priority lanes, that means they will be intentionally throttling the normal lanes." I personally do not believe the sky is falling, or will fall.
Click to expand...

There isn't a bandwidth problem.
Priority lanes are just like new toll stations on roads that didn't have tolls before.
You already paid for the roads with your tax dollars, now you are going to be forced to pay to drive on them (with all the proceeds going to very rich men).
This is bad news for everyone who doesn't own an ISP.
We are fighting tooth and nail in Canada to maintain net neutrality, luckily I think what's about to happen in America over the next few years will be a text book example of lobbying and exploitation of the people.
(And as a result, more of our ignorant societal underbelly will understand how important net neutrality is.)
 
Last edited:
jardows said:
So the fact that they didn't say they wouldn't, means they will?

Plus, is "fast lanes" such a bad idea? Situation - all Internet traffic is considered equal, you get the same bandwidth for all content. You also share the same "lane" of traffic with hundreds, thousands, or maybe even millions of other customers. So you are offered a priority "lane" bypassing all the traffic congestion for a premium price. Not sure that the concept itself is so bad.

I know what people are thinking - "If they offer priority lanes, that means they will be intentionally throttling the normal lanes." I personally do not believe the sky is falling, or will fall.
Click to expand...
Have you ever showed up to Disney World with a wheelchair?
 
Paid prioritization is the same as throttling because bandwidth does not appear out of thin air. More lawyer talk more bullshit
 
Netflix is already paying protection money, how long I told companies like Comcast bury them and only offer their own anticompetative selections
 
jardows said:
So the fact that they didn't say they wouldn't, means they will?

Plus, is "fast lanes" such a bad idea? Situation - all Internet traffic is considered equal, you get the same bandwidth for all content. You also share the same "lane" of traffic with hundreds, thousands, or maybe even millions of other customers. So you are offered a priority "lane" bypassing all the traffic congestion for a premium price. Not sure that the concept itself is so bad.

I know what people are thinking - "If they offer priority lanes, that means they will be intentionally throttling the normal lanes." I personally do not believe the sky is falling, or will fall.
Click to expand...

Come to Miami and see our "express lanes" for yourself. I think you need to understand that greed and money are at the top of the food chain in corporate America.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Paid prioritization is the same as throttling because bandwidth does not appear out of thin air. More lawyer talk more bullshit
Click to expand...

Throttling = slowing down traffic. The net result is some traffic moves faster than others.

Paid prioritization = paying to go faster. The net result is some traffic moves faster than others.

The only way this is different is if you specify a floor for the basic service. So if I pay for 20/5 and everything can get to me at 20/5, but service X can get to me at 60/20 rates, that's not bad for the consumer. That's good.

But that isn't what is being offered.
 
raz-0 said:
Throttling = slowing down traffic. The net result is some traffic moves faster than others.

Paid prioritization = paying to go faster. The net result is some traffic moves faster than others.

The only way this is different is if you specify a floor for the basic service. So if I pay for 20/5 and everything can get to me at 20/5, but service X can get to me at 60/20 rates, that's not bad for the consumer. That's good.

But that isn't what is being offered.
Click to expand...
Of course it isn't what is being offered. Because there isn't anything being offered right now!
 
jardows said:
So the fact that they didn't say they wouldn't, means they will?

Plus, is "fast lanes" such a bad idea? Situation - all Internet traffic is considered equal, you get the same bandwidth for all content. You also share the same "lane" of traffic with hundreds, thousands, or maybe even millions of other customers. So you are offered a priority "lane" bypassing all the traffic congestion for a premium price. Not sure that the concept itself is so bad.

I know what people are thinking - "If they offer priority lanes, that means they will be intentionally throttling the normal lanes." I personally do not believe the sky is falling, or will fall.
Click to expand...

Yes it's a bad idea because as you admit it automatically means de-prioritizing any data on "lane" that isn't "fast." I'm already paying more for a higher bandwidth connection and having that virtually capped because I'm not paying an extra extortion toll or the site / host / server I'm connected isn't ALSO paying a similar extortion fee. This is unconscionable for what should be a utility.

How pissed would you be if your phone provider started charging you a surcharge for each vowel sound you made while talking on the phone or purposefully introducing a 10 second lag per sentence if the other party wasn't on an approved list and/or during your conversations you did not stick to talking solely about phone company approved, endorsed, and sponsored content.
 
So they won't throttle, but they may allow paid prioritization. So isn't that the same as throttling? Think of going to an amusement park, and the park says "we do not purposefully slow down the lines for any rides" BUT "you can buy a premium pass that lets you go into an "express line" for rides, guess what happens to those who didn't pay they will wait longer times. Now if ONE person pays for priority on the network it isn't going to do anything sure, but what happens when 1 turns into 1000, or 10000, all of these "i paid so I don't have to wait in line" people will slow down everyone who didn't pay.
 
If Comcast was just an ISP I wouldn't have an issue with this. However, since they are also a content provider, I can see where they would favor their own content over the competitors - which would of course be unfair.
 
raz-0 said:
Throttling = slowing down traffic. The net result is some traffic moves faster than others.
Paid prioritization = paying to go faster. The net result is some traffic moves faster than others.
The only way this is different is if you specify a floor for the basic service. So if I pay for 20/5 and everything can get to me at 20/5, but service X can get to me at 60/20 rates, that's not bad for the consumer. That's good.
But that isn't what is being offered.
Click to expand...

That is bunch of bs to me , lets say out of the internet the connection local to everyone in a town is limited towards 255 people on physical network and everyone is paying for priority where is the bandwidth going to come from ?

It is a never ending bullshit argument because when everyone is paying the limit which the ISP local router (1st hop) is going to be met sooner rather then later and you are not getting comcast or anyone for that matter make a new local hub no matter what you are paying them.

I would honestly start crying uncontrollably about the mb/s rates if that would ever happen here. I can't even recall how long ago since we had 20/5 it must be over 10 years now....
 
dvsman said:
If Comcast was just an ISP I wouldn't have an issue with this. However, since they are also a content provider, I can see where they would favor their own content over the competitors - which would of course be unfair.
Click to expand...

And perfectly legal under new rules.
 
dandirk said:
They already have been busted in neglecting to upgrade/add connections to providers Neflix used causing service from Netflix to degrade, until Netflix started to pay them (Netflix had a local caching system they offer free to ISPs which Comcast apparently declined to use).
Click to expand...

That was Cogent, who, along with Netflix, blamed Comcast even though the problem was that Netflix bought bottom-dollar service from Cogent to save a buck.

Also, the only person OpenConnect is "free" for is Netflix. OpenConnect is a Netflix machine colocated in someone else's datacenter. Last I checked, when you colo you pay for space. Netflix is trying to make it sound like they're giving shit away when nobody would be paying for it anyway.

The whole thing is a reputation arbitrage scam.
 
sfsuphysics said:
So they won't throttle, but they may allow paid prioritization. So isn't that the same as throttling? Think of going to an amusement park, and the park says "we do not purposefully slow down the lines for any rides" BUT "you can buy a premium pass that lets you go into an "express line" for rides, guess what happens to those who didn't pay they will wait longer times. Now if ONE person pays for priority on the network it isn't going to do anything sure, but what happens when 1 turns into 1000, or 10000, all of these "i paid so I don't have to wait in line" people will slow down everyone who didn't pay.
Click to expand...

Technically, it's not slowing down anything as much as some services becoming faster while others remain "slower". Though I would not expect Comcast to stick with just this if NN goes away.
 
c_porter said:
That was Cogent, who, along with Netflix, blamed Comcast even though the problem was that Netflix bought bottom-dollar service from Cogent to save a buck.

Also, the only person OpenConnect is "free" for is Netflix. OpenConnect is a Netflix machine colocated in someone else's datacenter. Last I checked, when you colo you pay for space. Netflix is trying to make it sound like they're giving shit away when nobody would be paying for it anyway.

The whole thing is a reputation arbitrage scam.
Click to expand...

Except that, without any upgrades, once Netflix paid the fee all of a sudden their traffic was flowing freely again. Nobody needed to upgrade anything; they just wanted their pound of flesh. But, yes, the debate was between Cogent and Comcast. Netflix paid Cogent for its internet access. Users paid Comcast for their access. If Netflix wasn't paying enough then Cogent would have throttled them and the issue would have affected more than just Comcast users. Comcast wanted someone to pay for the fact that their users were actually using their data as Netflix became more popular. Netflix just happened to be one of those services that even normal users (by Comcast's definition) would use a lot of. Until streaming video became popular most users weren't using a whole lot of data and only folks downloading a lot of movies, games, and so forth were really using the data they paid for. Everyone else was just sipping on the huge cup they had bought. Once more people started chugging from the big cup they bought the ISP's started moaning about "abuse" of the system.
 
Before the initial NN debate heated up (the original), we had not yet hit peak interest in doing this "paid lane" approach (or charging as a middle man to specific sites). Although the possibility was there, the market wasn't ready for it. It was part of the discussion anyways.

Back then, there were still a ton of cable subscribers. Many ISPs didn't seem to want to test the water on such a movie.

Now, many ISPs have consolidated their power. They've acquired additional assets. They're losing TV subs and want to replace that revenue. Plus, the market is all but expecting them to pull these tactics once NN is gone.
 
People should really be writing their representatives and senators about this. Sitting in the forums and bitching is fine and all, but doesn't do much.
 
Unfortunately the mass is lazy sheep whom doesn't know how to stand up for what's right anymore. I hope it changes and one day everyone is so fed up with what's happening we force change.
 
Ididar said:
Except that, without any upgrades, once Netflix paid the fee all of a sudden their traffic was flowing freely again. Nobody needed to upgrade anything;
Click to expand...

You're talking nonsense. First, Cogent admitted it so pretending that isn't what happened is just goofy. But beyond that, you clearly have no understanding of what agreement Netflix and Comcast made. Netflix started paying Comcast *instead of Cogent*. They didn't keep paying Cogent what they always were and then start also paying Comcast to stop twirling their mustaches and open up pipes to Cogent. They bought a direct interconnect instead of going through 3rd party transit.

Cogent has been having disputes with ISPs and other transit providers for years and years. They are garbage tier service that Netflix made a business decision to use to save a buck. Cogent couldn't deliver the service they sold to Netflix (no surprise there) and then the pair of them played, largely successfully, reputation arbitrage to try to get the government to force ISPs to make up for Cogent's garbage service so that Netflix didn't have to pay any more but still got non-garbage service.

Netflix used to use other transit providers that are more expensive and had 0 quality problems. Even during the period involved they had no quality problems *to Comcast*...as long as it went through quality transit.
 
c_porter said:
Netflix used to use other transit providers that are more expensive and had 0 quality problems. Even during the period involved they had no quality problems *to Comcast*...as long as it went through quality transit.
Click to expand...

Netflix was using CDN's first but when Comcast wanted to start charging user fees to CDN's they shifted to transit providers like Cogent. Cogent and Comcast had direct connections between each other for years prior and Comcast had no issues serving Cogent's customers up until the Netflix shift. Once Netflix traffic hit Cogent's network they stopped increasing capacity. To offset that, Netflix also used other transit providers in addition to Cogent to increase how many routes it had into Comcast's network. Comcast kept all of those routes limited. At one point Netflix was using six different transit providers (including Cogent) to access Comcast's network. And, again, this was only with Comcast's users, not every user. If the problem was on Netflix's side then why were only Comcast customer's affected and not every other US ISP? Comcast wanted Netflix using third-party CDN's where it was charging fees or make a deal directly with Comcast. If it was just Cogent's network then the addition of using other transit providers would have solved the problem. It didn't because Comcast kept those throttled as well for Netflix traffic.
 
So, short term, this is going to be a pain in the ass. Know why Comcast is talking about paid premium lanes?

Because Comcast and companies like it have to pay for bandwidth, and with Net Neutrality, they could force other companies to share the burden of what they themselves use.

Now they will be forced to pay for what they use themselves, and can't force other companies to share that cost.


In the short term, they are going to try to make back that revenue with "fast lanes".

Long term, this is going to open up things for more competition - what happens when a smaller start up can offer their own fast lanes without the premium price?

This is going to be the beginning of long overdue competition in the ISP area, which is exactly why comcast didn't want this to happen.
 
I've realized in reading these threads that some of you simply don't understand how fast lanes work. You have this idea that everything will remain the same and the fast lanes are only faster. There is also this assumption that the ISPs will outright throttle certain traffic which while it may be true, I doubt they would do something so obviously blatant. However that doesn't mean your experience won't get worse as there are ways to deprioritize traffic and make it appear like the ISP isn't at fault. I will reference the recent TWC lawsuit in NY where TW is currently being sued for throttling certain types of game traffic because certain companies wouldn't pay. The reality is this is a badly reported scenario of what really happened as what really happened is what is the most likely to happen as it is far easier for them to shift blame and look innocent. The reality is they weren't directly throttling traffic, they were deprioitizing it and making it run through sub optimal routes. What this meant was that even though I was less than 100 miles from the games servers, I would have a completely unplayable ping and frequent disconnects. That was using the "Direct" route that went through a bunch of bad hops with terrible packet loss. However if I used a route manager like battle ping and routed my connection through florida (literally the opposite direction), I would double or even triple the number of hops but I would instantly drop to a much more playable 80-90 ms ping. Still not great due to distance, but far better than 250ms average with frequent disconnects. So under non NN rules, ISPs can legally do that instead of getting sued for it. The idea that if they are selling services to "improve performance" they won't take steps to push people into that is deluded at best. They might not directly throttle things that aren't bittorrent, but they can certainly deprioritize things and then play dumb with the average consumer claiming it isn't their router so it isn't their fault. This is absolutely the kind of crap that will be pulled and absolutely the reason why repeal of NN screws over consumers. Frankly if you can't see that then you are either obtuse, being intentionally obtuse or shilling.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
So, short term, this is going to be a pain in the ass. Know why Comcast is talking about paid premium lanes?

Because Comcast and companies like it have to pay for bandwidth, and with Net Neutrality, they could force other companies to share the burden of what they themselves use.

Now they will be forced to pay for what they use themselves, and can't force other companies to share that cost.


In the short term, they are going to try to make back that revenue with "fast lanes".

Long term, this is going to open up things for more competition - what happens when a smaller start up can offer their own fast lanes without the premium price?

This is going to be the beginning of long overdue competition in the ISP area, which is exactly why comcast didn't want this to happen.
Click to expand...
Lol what? How is some new start up going to connect to your home in order to give this awesome option?
 
Ididar said:
Netflix was using CDN's first but when Comcast wanted to start charging user fees to CDN's they shifted to transit providers like Cogent. Cogent and Comcast had direct connections between each other for years prior and Comcast had no issues serving Cogent's customers up until the Netflix shift. Once Netflix traffic hit Cogent's network they stopped increasing capacity. To offset that, Netflix also used other transit providers in addition to Cogent to increase how many routes it had into Comcast's network. Comcast kept all of those routes limited. At one point Netflix was using six different transit providers (including Cogent) to access Comcast's network. And, again, this was only with Comcast's users, not every user. If the problem was on Netflix's side then why were only Comcast customer's affected and not every other US ISP? Comcast wanted Netflix using third-party CDN's where it was charging fees or make a deal directly with Comcast. If it was just Cogent's network then the addition of using other transit providers would have solved the problem. It didn't because Comcast kept those throttled as well for Netflix traffic.
Click to expand...

Cogent already admitted the problem was their own doing, because they gave lower priority to wholesale traffic. The party you're saying didn't do it stood up and said "yeah, we did that, but didn't tell anybody about it." years ago. I get that Comcast sucks, but come on man....

It's not true that Netflix had delivery problems across all transit to Comcast. Netflix traffic to AppleTVs owned by Comcast customers, for example, was never delivered through Cogent and worked just fine. Other routes that didn't involve Cogent also worked just fine. It is also not true that this only impacted Comcast users:

saupload_36F74188-CE96-4A91-899F-AD8E14F61624.png
 
c_porter said:
Cogent already admitted the problem was their own doing, because they gave lower priority to wholesale traffic. The party you're saying didn't do it stood up and said "yeah, we did that, but didn't tell anybody about it." years ago. I get that Comcast sucks, but come on man....

It's not true that Netflix had delivery problems across all transit to Comcast. Netflix traffic to AppleTVs owned by Comcast customers, for example, was never delivered through Cogent and worked just fine. Other routes that didn't involve Cogent also worked just fine. It is also not true that this only impacted Comcast users:
Click to expand...

Yet Cogent denies that they "admitted" anything even though you're claiming they did. Some people claim Cogent admitted to it by interpreting the data one way. Netflix switched to Cogent, and eventually added other similar companies to their routes into Comcast's network. Comcast and others, right at that time, refused to upgrade their connections to Cogent. It didn't matter a bit what Cogent was and wasn't doing at the time because Comcast publicly admitted they weren't going to allow the Netflix data into their network at normal speeds without some deal in place. You don't have an issue saying Cogent admitted something but you seem to have blinkers on when Comcast admitted they weren't upgrading their connection with Cogent. They wanted Netflix to pay and they weren't going to upgrade that connection no matter what Cogent did or didn't do on their network. Cogent was trying to cope with a limited connection into Comcast's network because Comcast was looking for a payday. Cogent's network could have had 400 times the capacity necessary for Netflix traffic and the choke point into Comcast's network would still have existed.
 
Kalabalana said:
There isn't a bandwidth problem.
Priority lanes are just like new toll stations on roads that didn't have tolls before.
You already paid for the roads with your tax dollars, now you are going to be forced to pay to drive on them (with all the proceeds going to very rich men).
This is bad news for everyone who doesn't own an ISP.
We are fighting tooth and nail in Canada to maintain net neutrality, luckily I think what's about to happen in America over the next few years will be a text book example of lobbying and exploitation of the people.
(And as a result, more of our ignorant societal underbelly will understand how important net neutrality is.)
Click to expand...

Unless they expand their infrastructure to handle it (which we know they won't), creating "fast lanes" are like reassigning existing lanes for use as express pass lanes. There ends up being 6 lanes of traffic going through the 4 remaining toll stations while those who paid more can use the now empty, but more expensive, express pass lanes.
 
Do you want your gaming connection to run the same as grandma's e-mail or mom's online shopping?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top