NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast
----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> ----- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:55:44 -0500 From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> Subject: [IP] Re Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast Reply-To: dave@farber.net To: ip <ip@listbox.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> > Date: November 29, 2010 8:16:40 PM EST > To: dave@farber.net > Cc: ip <ip@listbox.com> > Subject: Re: [IP] Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast > > Dave, > > This was kind of an odd statement from Level 3 -- the first thing that came to mind when I read it and sent it around the newsroom was "is this really about peering with settlements?" > > It took Comcast a while to get a response up, but here it is from Joe Waz: > http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html > > It does seem to be a peering dispute that Level 3 wants to turn into a Net neutrality/political dispute, especially because Comcast is vulnerable right now before the FCC due to the NBC deal. The proximate cause of the traffic imbalance is that Level 3 recently became Netflix's primary distribution network: > http://www.level3.com/index.cfm?pageID=491&PR=958 > > Unfortunately, the pro-NN folks were happy to help with the politicization. Public Knowledge called the dispute evidence of "anticompetitive harm" committed by Comcast. Here's what Andrew Schwartzman from the Media Access Project said: "Comcast’s request of payment in exchange for content transmission is yet another example of why citizens need strong, effective network neutrality rules that include a ban on such ‘paid prioritization’ practices." > > So now business disputes about settlement-based vs settlement-free peering are going to be ruled on by FCC lawyers? I may be missing something here -- if so, I'm sure the many smart folks on IP will tell me very promptly -- but that seems to be something other than an optimal outcome. > > -Declan > > On 11/29/10 2:24 PM, Dave Farber wrote: > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp > >> Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast’s > >> > >> 2010-11-29 21:38:00.326 GMT > >> > >> Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast’s Actions > >> > >> Business Wire > >> > >> BROOMFIELD, Colo. -- November 29, 2010 > >> > >> Level 3 Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: LVLT) today issued the following > >> > >> statement, which can be attributed to Thomas Stortz, Chief Legal Officer of > >> > >> Level 3: > >> > >> “On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it > >> > >> will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies > >> > >> and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content. By taking > >> > >> this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of > >> > >> its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how > >> > >> much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity > >> > >> delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a > >> > >> clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access > >> > >> markets as the nation’s largest cable provider. > >> > >> “On November 22, after being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment > >> > >> was ‘take it or leave it,’ Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in > >> > >> order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions. > >> > >> “Level 3 operates one of several broadband backbone networks, which are part > >> > >> of the Internet and which independent providers of online content use to > >> > >> transmit movies, sports, games and other entertainment to consumers. When a > >> > >> Comcast customer requests such content, for example an online movie or game, > >> > >> Level 3 transmits the content to Comcast for delivery to consumers. > >> > >> “Level 3 believes Comcast’s current position violates the spirit and letter of > >> > >> the FCC’s proposed Internet Policy principles and other regulations and > >> > >> statutes, as well as Comcast’s previous public statements about favoring an > >> > >> open Internet. > >> > >> “While the network neutrality debate in Washington has focused on what actions > >> > >> a broadband access provider might take to filter, prioritize or manage content > >> > >> requested by its subscribers, Comcast’s decision goes well beyond this. With > >> > >> this action, Comcast is preventing competing content from ever being delivered > >> > >> to Comcast’s subscribers at all, unless Comcast’s unilaterally-determined toll > >> > >> is paid – even though Comcast’s subscribers requested the content. With this > >> > >> action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’ Internet, where a retail > >> > >> broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers > >> > >> interact with content. > >> > >> “It is our hope that Comcast’s senior management, for whom we have great > >> > >> respect, will closely consider their position on this issue and adopt an > >> > >> approach that will better serve Comcast and Comcast’s customers. > >> > >> “While Comcast’s position is regrettable, Level 3 remains open and willing to > >> > >> work through these issues with Comcast. However, Level 3 does not seek any > >> > >> ‘special deals’ or arrangements not generally available to other Internet > >> > >> backbone companies. > >> > >> “Given Comcast’s currently stated position, we are approaching regulators and > >> > >> policy makers and asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open > >> > >> and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by a few > >> > >> institutions with dominant market power that have the means, motive and > >> > >> opportunity to economically discriminate between favored and disfavored > >> > >> content.“ > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message -----