"On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time,
it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online
movies and other content to Comcast's customers who request such content."
If the issue is bandwidth, then why not charge for bandwidth? Picking a
specific service says we are trying to squash the competition.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:48:06 -0600, Guerra, Ruben
<ruben.gue...@arrisi.com> wrote:
I'd have to agree with Brian. There is no simple answer to this one...
If the ultimate cause is the abuse of bandwidth, I can understand
this... BUT if the underlying motive is to squash competition then shame
on you!
-----Original Message-----
From: Rettke, Brian [mailto:brian.ret...@cableone.biz]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:41 PM
To: Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list
Subject: RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning
Comcast's Actions
Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to
support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming
streaming ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and
the side of the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as
the slogans spewed out regarding "Net Neutrality", which has become so
misused and abused as a term that I don't think it has any credulous
value remaining.
I'm hoping that there is an eventual meeting of the minds wherein some
sort of collaboration takes place. If this gets additional government
regulations I fear no one will like the result.
Sincerely,
Brian A . Rettke
RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP
Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:28 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's
Actions
<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp>
I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects
operational aspects of the 'Net.
Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay
to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product
which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on
this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying
for settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers
to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are
competing and L3 is putting up a "toll booth" on the Internet, would
they?)
--
TTFN,
patrick
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/