|Sent on:||Tuesday, November 30, 2010 4:53 PM|
|From what I read, it may not even be an issue of "net neutrality" but just general business agreements between Comcast and Level 3 (who is providing bandwidth for Netflix).|
According to Comcast, they have an agreement now that involves Comcast handing off X amount of traffic to Level 3 in exchange for Level 3 handing off an equal (give or take) amount of traffic to Comcast but Comcast's contention is that Level 3 has sharply increased bandwidth being pumped into Comcast while Comcast has remained at their original rate.
Business-wise, this wouldn't make sense for Comcast as it would mean that they'd be doing more "work" than Level 3 would and the arrangement would be imbalanced and not beneficial to Comcast so they were asking for a fee for the bandwidth used "above and beyond" the original agreement.
I don't know if Level 3 or some tech or media person first threw the "net neutrality" thing into the mix, but IF Comcast is being honest, this is the business equivalent of "buy me a Playstation or I'll tell everyone you touched me in a bad place".
I don't know the full story, but I encourage people to read both sides of the story and consider all the aspects before assuming Comcast is trying to block anything for the sake of giving preference to business and services that will pay extra.
For reference, this is the article I read that mentioned the imbalance of of bandwidth:
"Comcast on Monday rebuffed the notion that the new fees were related to Netflix by saying that the type of traffic distributed by Level 3 was irrelevant. Joe Waz, a senior vice president at Comcast, says it has had a peering agreement with Level 3 to swap traffic fairly evenly. Now Level 3 is sharply increasing its traffic, he said, while resisting a commercial agreement to pay for that."
--- On Tue, 11/30/10, Kevin Grishkot <[address removed]> wrote: