[diminoten]

You've got to ask yourself why Level3 is writing blog posts about this in the first place. It'd be like a bread making company calling out the sandwich shop it sells bread to for not having enough stores.

BUT WE'VE MADE ALL THIS BREAD WHY WON'T YOU BUY MORE?! JUST OPEN UP 100 NEW STORES I KNOW YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT!

Level3 invested money in their infrastructure, but Comcast, et. al. have not (yet). Level3 is losing money by having all this additional capacity, are they not? So clearly it's in their best interest to light a fire under the ISP's collective ass to try to get them to upgrade quickly.

Oh hey look, a political issue has appeared that does precisely that. Why wouldn't Level3 latch onto that movement and attempt to use it for financial gain in the form of more favorable peering agreements?

[CocaKoala]

>It'd be like a bread making company calling out the sandwich shop it sells bread to for not having enough stores.

No. It isn't. It's like a bread making company calling out the grocery stores for not having enough shelf space to stock all the bread that customers of the grocery store are asking to buy, saying "People keep on asking us for bread and you can't stock enough of it".

edit to add: You keep on not understanding that the only reason the demand exists is because the customers of the ISPs want it. This isn't a scenario where L3 is just trying to push data at Comcast; it just isn't. You keep on acting like it is, and it isn't, and I can't think of another way to phrase it so that you'll understand. Level3 is not just pushing data at comcast that nobody wants, and whining that comcast can't handle it. Customers of Comcast are asking for the data, Level3 is trying to provide it, and Comcast is blocking that transaction.

edit again: It's also worth noting that in this scenario, people are paying a monthly subscription fee to the grocery store that says they can come in and get certain amounts of bread (or UP TO certain amounts of bread whatever) and yet because there is not enough shelf space customers are going hungry. And yet despite the fact that people are going hungry, the grocery stores are insisting that the bakery provide, in addition to the bread, the shelves on which to store the bread. And you're arguing that since the bakery has already spent money upgrading their ovens, their proofing rooms, and their mixers, they should also upgrade the grocery store's shelves.

[diminoten]

The demand is not for L3, the demand is for Netflix. Level3 is pushing itself on "Comcast" (which is really a stand-in for the 5 ISPs who aren't playing ball with L3, and may not actually be Comcast at all).

Why must these ISPs play ball with L3, and not try to find competitors to do what L3 does? Isn't competition good?

Edit: People aren't going hungry (I know it's an analogy, but come on), people are watching Netflix at 480p instead of 720p/1080p. Let's try to keep things in perspective here.

[CocaKoala]

L3 is not pushing. I cannot stress that enough. L3 is not pushing. L3 does not push. Pushing is not something L3 does. In the Game of Pushing, L3 is not a player. If you navigate to wikipedia.org/things_which_push, L3 is not on that list. If all the entities of the universe were put into two groups, one labeled "pushers" and one labeled "not pushers", L3 would be in the second group.

The ISPs must play ball with L3 because their customers are asking for content that L3 is trying to provide. If the customers ask for different content from somebody else, then somebody else would be providing the data.

And excuse me? Don't blame me for the crappy analogy; you're the one who brought it up. I thought it was a stupid analogy too, but I thought that speaking in your own terms might help you understand the situation.

[diminoten]

Customers are not asking for L3. Customers are asking for content, of which L3 is one of the providers. L3 is pushing L3, even if you say they're not.

[Jtsummers]

L3 is not the provider, Netflix is the provider. Netflix has chosen to contract with L3 so that their customers can receive the content. L3 is also an ISP and so has peering agreements with other ISPs. Netflix has customers who aren't using L3 as an ISP so L3 and these ISPs make use of their peering setup to transmit Netflix's content to the ISPs' customers.

L3 is not pushing, the customers are pulling. The ISPs serving the customers are not able to keep up.

You want pushing? That'd be L3 using (as an example) Comcast to reach customers of TWC. Then L3 would be pushing through Comcast. That's not the (apparent) situation here. The end user is on the other side of this peering divide, not multiple peers away. Customers are pulling data from Netflix which happens to be on L3. Blame the customers and up their rates if that's what's needed to cover the costs. But at $15+ billion a year in profit Comcast can probably afford to use the customers' money to provide them with the promised experience.

[diminoten]

L3 is pushing to maintain its contract with Netflix. L3 is pushing, because L3 isn't the only CDN responsible for Netflix traffic. "Comcast" (it may not actually be Comcast and in fact I doubt it is given Netflix's recent agreement with Comcast) can just use Netflix's other CDNs, and traffic will continue to flow normally.

L3 is not necessary here, and everyone who's actually involved knows it, including L3.

[_ikke_]

Without customers asking for content, L3 wouldn't provide anything to Comcast. It's at the specific request of the customers that L3 relays the replies. The customers initiate the request, and L3 provides the response.

Without the service L3 provides, Comcast wouldn't be able to (as efficiently) provide the service to their customers. In a sense, Comcast should pay L3 for their access to the content.

[diminoten]

But they're not asking for L3, they're asking for Netflix. So maybe Netflix should hire a CDN that can play ball with Comcast, instead of L3, who is apparently being shut out.