On 15/12/10 2:47 PM, Adam Rothschild wrote:
On 2010-12-15-12:15:47, Kevin Neal<ke...@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
