Traditionally, it would be Comcast's expense. Cogent doesn't pay to upgrade their connection to Midwest WiFi. Cogent was willing, Comcast was not.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburg...@linktechs.net> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 5:52:43 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read Furthermore, I don't necessary agree with this. Remember, Netflix is the one paying Cogent and Cogent is selling Netflix on the principle that it can get all of Netflix’s traffic into an ISP like Comcast. As a result, Cogent has to take all the necessary business steps to make sure Cogent has enough capacity to pass Netflix’s traffic on from Cogent’s network to Comcast. But Cogent isn’t doing that. Is that right, Cogent is responsible to upgrade peers with anyone who wishes to get traffic from them and/or pay to transit traffic from cogent? Is not a ISP someone who purchases bandwidth from a upstream, who can get them to the internet? Is that not what Comcast is doing.? Someone educate me? Dennis Burgess www.linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – dmburg...@linktechs.net -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of fiber...@mail.com Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 1:08 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read > https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-is-a-sham.html Nah, it falls down on its face pretty hard. Dan basically posits that it's all the fault of transit providers, completely ignoring the fact that the transit market is a competitive market whereas last mile providers have a termination monopoly. That's just silly. The article is also so full of straw men, it's almost like Dan is stocking up for a Guy Fawkes festival. Jared
