Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

[jcdill.lists at gmail.com (JC Dill)]

  On 15/12/10 2:47 PM, Adam Rothschild wrote:
> On 2010-12-15-12:15:47, Kevin Neal<kevin at safelink.net>  wrote:
>> Also assuming the backbone and distribution upgrades required between
>> their data centers and their customers costs nothing.  It's not free
>> to get bandwidth from Point A (port with TATA) to Point B (Customer).
> I don't see how this point, however valid, should factor into the
> discussion.  Missing from this thread is that Comcast's topology and
> economics for hauling bits between a neutral collocation facility and
> broadband subscriber are the _same_ whether they ingest traffic by way
> of a settlement-free peer, customer, or paid transit connection.


If I drive from SF to LA for business or for personal purposes, my costs 
for the drive are the same.  But the economy of doing it for business 
depends on what the client is willing to pay me.  If they want me to 
drive to LA but only pay $10, it's not economical (from a business 
perspective) for me to do it.  Right now, Comcast is carrying content to 
their customers "for free" and they want to be paid by the content 
providers (thru paid transit connections) to cover the cost of carrying 
that content traffic across their network to the end customer.

Sure, Comcast's customers are also paying Comcast.  But Comcast wants to 
get paid from the content provider.  I think they are betting that in 
the long run it's easier to make money from content providers (and have 
the content providers charge customers or advertisers as necessary to 
make a profit) than to make money from the end consumer.  And I think 
they are right about this "easier" part.  I think that they will succeed 
at pressuring big content providers to play by Comcast's rules and shift 
the cost of running Comcast's network from consumers to content providers.

jc