----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <[email protected]> ----- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:55:44 -0500 From: Dave Farber <[email protected]> Subject: [IP] Re Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast Reply-To: [email protected] To: ip <[email protected]>
Begin forwarded message: > From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]> > Date: November 29, 2010 8:16:40 PM EST > To: [email protected] > Cc: ip <[email protected]> > 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 -----
