> Heck, if I were Level3, I might even drop the level of traffic in my > own network bound for Comcast and have a note on the site that Comcast > users can expect poor performance. Something like "Comcast is too poor > to upgrade their network and has attempted to extort payment from us > under threat of disconnection from their internet users. Though we > have refused to pay the "eyeball ransom", we have decided to help > Comcast out anyway by bandwidth limiting traffic to their poor wittle > network. As a result, Comcast users might experience reduced > performance." >
Note that was tongue in cheek. I actually support the notion of making it more expensive to deploy more bandwidth intensive applications as it *does* place an unfair burden on the delivery network. The problem I have in this case is the conflict of interest when the delivery network is also a content provider and discriminates against content competitors.
