In summary: Level3 is crying foul while their CDN competitors have quietly bought into Comcast's racket.
I applaud Level3 for calling attention to this matter. Owen (Speaking strictly for myself) On Nov 29, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Ren Provo wrote: > http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Dave CROCKER <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On 11/29/2010 2:40 PM, Rettke, Brian wrote: >> >>> 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 find it helpful to distinguish "participant neutrality" from "service >> neutrality". The first says that you and I pay the same rate. The second >> says the my email costs the same as my voip. >> >> As described, it appears that Level3 is being singled out, which makes for >> participant non-neutrality. On the other hand, if Comcast were charging >> itself for xfinity traffic, this might qualify as service non-neutrality >> (assuming there is a plausible meaning to "charging itself"... >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> >>