Interesting. Here's a related point: http://blogs.globalcrossing.com/?q=content/traffic-balance-not-issue
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:54 PM, James Kaplowitz < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > It is only for Comcast last-mile subscribers, indeed. This is the first > time ever that a major ISP has made and succeeded in a demand for a major > backbone provider to pay in order to fulfilll THE VERY REQUESTS of that > ISP's OWN CUSTOMERS. It's pretty bizarre and, while most peering disputes > are about the use of a provider's network to transit to third-party > networks, this is a new front on the net neutrality battle. > > Also, hello to everyone from the new Fordham Law SFC chapter! We hope to > get involved in Conf11 planning (on the appropriate list of course) as soon > as time permits. It is about to be finals period, so that may not be > immediate. > > - Jimmy Kaplowitz > Fordham Law, JD class of 2014 > [email protected] > > >>> Kevin Donovan 11/30/10 11:29 PM >>> > Here's good coverage: > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/how-comcast-became-a-toll-collecting-hydra-with-a-nuke.ars > > What's the word on this? I haven't followed too closely, but, if in fact, > Level 3 is no longer a 'peer' of Comcast, why should they not have a > contractual relationship? I understand that should be negotiated, but this > is interconnection, not net neutrality, right? Is the difference that it is > only for Comcast last-mile subscribers? What do people think? > > -- > Kevin Donovan > Georgetown '11: SFS > 630.849.8285 > > -- Kevin Donovan Georgetown '11: SFS 630.849.8285
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
