Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 05:49:53PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > > > fair game for reverse billing. ?If it does, it's going to completely > > eliminate "transit" as a commercial offering; instead, we'll > > all be stuck doing settlement

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Matthew Petach wrote: So, one wonders why Level3 didn't just say "look, I'm the vendor, you're the customer; the customer pays the vendor for service, period. There's no wonder here at all. It's not at all hard to imagine the conversation: Level3: I'm the vendor, you'r

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > fair game for reverse billing.  If it does, it's going to completely > eliminate "transit" as a commercial offering; instead, we'll > all be stuck doing settlements in every direction for > traffic...and that's just *way* too much paperwork.

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:28 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote: > [Changed long CC list to BCC] ... > The Ou article makes no sense at all!  It's based on the premise that Level > 3 > and Comcast are peering, and that traffic should be symmetric.  Everywhere > else, > the articles and pundits indicat

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

er 02, 2010 8:28 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions [Changed long CC list to BCC] On 12/2/10 12:49 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: > George Ou touches on a similar point at the end of his article: > http://www.digitalsociety.org

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

I took some time to actually read Comcast's response to the FCC. In hindsight it does not appear to me that Comcast is trying to capitalize on L3's Netflix deal, rather, wants to be compensated for an emergency installation of 270 Gbps of peering that now has them looking more like a transit custom

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

[Changed long CC list to BCC] On 12/2/10 12:49 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: George Ou touches on a similar point at the end of his article: http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/11/level-3-outbid-akamai-on-netflix-by-re selling-stolen-bandwidth/ The Ou article makes no sense at all! It's based on the p

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 12/1/10 8:47 PM, William Herrin wrote: "Dual agency is not legal in all 50 states." Kinda the opposite of the monopoly/duopoly ISP who doesn't seek your permission in dealing with anyone else. Finally, realize that in both cases (real estate agent and apartment broker) you're dealing with a

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

ent: 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 al

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Well, I don't work for the NBN, but I do live here and follow the politics with interest. So far the 'experiment' is on track. The political parties who support the NBN are the majority by a slim margin (2 or 3 seats) and the project seems to be going forward. Most recently legislation passed

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

GigaOm has begin tracking this story: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/30/a-play-by-play-on-the-comcast-and-level-3-spat On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > Having been involved with a few peering spats in the past I know > what is said publically rarely matches the reality behind

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Great detective work and it feels very probable that you are largely correct. The pieces together quite nicely. Love the L3 LG part. I dont think they were out to get Comcast specifically but the whole internet, L3 is a large global player and sell lots of transit bits. More bits to sell and p

Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]

In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:46:27AM -0800, Matthew Petach wrote: > Clearly, to balance out the traffic ratios, content providers should set their > server MTUs to 64 bytes. That way, small HTTP request packets will be > nicely balanced out by small HTTP reply packets. If the

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

A follow on to my post, because it's got me thinking about "Network Neutrality". What we have is old world scenarios not matching the new world order. Let's do some diagrams. The way things used to be, scenario #1: Segment ASegment B Segment C Segment D |

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Does "build it, and they will come" now become a business liability? Yes, a business should stake out appropriate agreements in order to ensure relevant product delivery, but they also shouldn't be punished (for lack of a better word) for not foreseeing the success of said product- perhaps a "shar

Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> My take on this is that settlement free peering only remains free as >> long as it is beneficial to both sides, i.e. equal amounts of traffic >> exchanged. If it becomes wildly lopside

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Sean Donelan wrote: > On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Bret Clark wrote: ... >> Seriously this has nothing to do with L3 but more with Netflix...it's >> clear that the Netflix business model is eating into Comcast VoD business >> and so they are strong arming other providers t

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Maybe I am oversimplifying this a bit, but the way I see this situation is this: 1. L3 is carrying traffic for a popular service 2. Comcast customers want that service. 3. Comcast and L3 peer with each other (i.e. very little cost for either) (So, Comcast is paying very little to get that dat

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Having been involved with a few peering spats in the past I know what is said publically rarely matches the reality behind the scenes. In this particular case my spidy sense tells me there is absolutely something interesting behind the scenes, but the question is what. I'd never really paid atten

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 11/29/10 3:59 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: But this isn't a technology problem, or a ratio problem. Comcast's blog specifically mentions unbalanced ratios as an issue. They're an "eyes network". What do they expect? Look at typical traffic profile

Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]

In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:47:10PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Ratios were an excuse used by GTEi to try and force Exodus, Above.Net, and > Global Center to pay for peering back in 1998. It had a valid, technical > reason behind it - the cost of bit-miles.[*] Unfort

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/30/2010 9:06 AM, William Warren wrote: This whole mess concerns me about the future of the internet. If the traffic can't get to the clients by routing around a depeering..is the internet really working as designed? I don't think so. Peering has become the gateway to the ultimate in netwo

Telstra Breakup (Was Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions)

In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:56:10AM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote: > I've read through the entire thread thus far, and there are several very > interesting points. I'd like to know more about the Australian experiment? For those not watching the news: http://www.ibtimes

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

William, Why be concerned? Operators have pulled this trick several times over the course of history and each time the good guys prevail. It proves that the system works. Jeff On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:06 AM, William Warren wrote: > On 11/30/2010 6:33 AM, Jeff Young wrote: >> >> -BEGIN PGP

Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]

On Nov 30, 2010, at 4:46 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> BTW: The attempt failed. Dave @ Above got Exodus & Global Center to agree >> to pull a Cogent if GTEi pulled a Level 3. GTEi blinked, and the rest is >> history. > > Patrick - > > Y

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/30/2010 6:33 AM, Jeff Young wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 30/11/2010, at 9:28 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: I understand th

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Bret Clark wrote: Or why don't you build a network to places that Comcast peers at; and bypass L3 completely and negotiate a peering relationship directly with Comcast? We tried Comcast wouldn't peer with us because they considered us a compeititor. Seriously this has n

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

I've read through the entire thread thus far, and there are several very interesting points. I'd like to know more about the Australian experiment? But there were a couple of disparate comments that seem highly related, so I'll reply to them jointly here: On 11/30/10 2:59 AM, JC Dill wrote: W

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/30/2010 07:59 AM, Sean Donelan wrote: Or why don't you build a network to places that Comcast peers at; and bypass L3 completely and negotiate a peering relationship directly with Comcast? We tried Comcast wouldn't peer with us because they considered us a compeititor. Seriously thi

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > I will be the first to advocate the government use minimal to no > regulation where there is active competition and consumer choice, > and thus folks can "vote with their dollars". > > Broadband in the US is not in that boat.  Too many consum

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Bret Clark wrote: Okay's let's say L3 gives in to Comcast and pays them. L3 then turns around and charges us (providers) more to cover the additional money they have to pay Comcast now. Why don't you, and other providers, demand L3 give you the same settlement-free peerin

Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]

On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > BTW: The attempt failed. Dave @ Above got Exodus & Global Center to agree to > pull a Cogent if GTEi pulled a Level 3. GTEi blinked, and the rest is > history. Patrick - Your summary is incorrect. To be perfectly clear on the history:

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

* Valdis Kletnieks: > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:11:18 CST, Jack Bates said: >> I agree. This type of maneuver is no different than ESPN3 charging the >> ISP for the ISP customers to access the content. Both are unscalable >> models that threaten the foundation of an open Internet. > > Oddly enough,

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 30/11/2010, at 9:28 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > > I understand that politics is off-topic, but this pol

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 30/11/2010, at 6:17 PM, Kevin Blackham wrote: > On Nov 29, 2010, at 15:57, William Warren > wrote: > >> I think Karl Denninger has this one called right: >> http://market-ticker.org/post=173522 > > I don't think so. Let's do a little math exercise: > > Comcast charges me $75/mo for my pip

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

* Seth Mattinen: > On 11/29/2010 14:49, Aaron Wendel wrote: >> A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands >> more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and >> pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. >> > > But then Comcast might h

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

No matter what, Comcast is the loser. If subscribers can't access content they will be calling Comcast customer service. Only a small fraction of those subscribers will have any clue who L3 is or why that's important and even fewer will be understanding of Comcast's position. They're not in the pos

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 29/11/10 3:45 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: I don't think it's unreasonable to expect customers to bear the cost of their provider doing business. You don't think it's unreasonable (and I don't think it's unreasonable), but most US consumers *do* think it's unreasonable. They would like to get

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Nov 29, 2010, at 15:57, William Warren wrote: > I think Karl Denninger has this one called right: > http://market-ticker.org/post=173522 I don't think so. Let's do a little math exercise: Comcast charges me $75/mo for my pipe, but let's discount that for bundling, promos and lower tier ser

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

> > AFAIC, Comcast really doesn't have a leg to stand on by doing this. > Unfortunately L3 set a very bad precedent by caving into Comcast's pressure. > Actually, by paying but crying foul, I think L3 is doing the best they can with a bad situation and as much as it pains me, I applaud L3 for t

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Bret Clark wrote: > On 11/29/2010 07:55 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  wrote: >> > Okay's let's say L3 gives in to Comcast and pays them. L3 then turns

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:22:34PM -0500, Christopher > Morrow wrote: >> see craig's report from nanog47: >> >> >> not for a

Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]

On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > My take on this is that settlement free peering only remains free as > long as it is beneficial to both sides, i.e. equal amounts of traffic > exchanged. If it becomes wildly lopsided in one direction, then it > becomes more like paying for trans

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

You and I both know that. I'll bet the vast majority of comcast customers don't. Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless -Original message- From: William Warren To: 'NANOG list' Sent: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 01:24:40 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:08:53PM -0500, Joe Provo wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 08:03:27PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: > [snip] > > If the FCC wanted to do something useful they would look at the > > combined ratio of all /customers/ of an ISP, and then require their > > pe

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 08:03:27PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: [snip] > If the FCC wanted to do something useful they would look at the > combined ratio of all /customers/ of an ISP, and then require their > peering policy to allow for around 2x of that. [snip] ...or maybe not get involved in peeri

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:22:34PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: > see craig's report from nanog47: > > > not for a time has Comcast been solely an 'eye-ball' network... or so >

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

OK...as I was driving up and back on I-95 through Connecticut up toward Boston, I noticed that at all the rest/gas-up stops, there was a single restaurant - McDonalds. No Burger Kings, Wendy, etc...just McDonalds. Now I'm relatively certain that McD's had to pony up significant coin to be the rest

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > No one will ever be in ratio compliance with an eyeball dominant > network.  Ever.   Period.  It's not possible via technology and > TOS.  Enforcing it as an eyeball network just forces content providers > to aquire eyeballs, e.g. compete wit

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html says: > "Now, Level 3 proposes to send traffic to Comcast at a 5:1 ratio over > what Comcast sends to Level 3, so Comcast is proposing the same type > of commercial solution endorsed by Level 3." So, Comcast users like other provide

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Leo Bicknell wrote: When you have users and no content how can the traffic be equal? When you have content and no users how can the traffic be equal? Ratio is horribly outdated. Cable and DSL providers enforce out of ratio at the edge with technology and policy. My cable

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Nov 29, 2010, at 9:03 PM, Steven Fischer wrote: > Trying to follow this - so, if I have followed it correctly, L3 hosts > high-bandwitdh services (namely NetFlix) to which an abundance of Comcast > users subscribe? That is my understanding. > And Comcast is crying foul, and claiming a por

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > > I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational > aspects of the 'Ne

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Trying to follow this - so, if I have followed it correctly, L3 hosts high-bandwitdh services (namely NetFlix) to which an abundance of Comcast users subscribe? And Comcast is crying foul, and claiming a portion of L3's revenue is rightfully theirs, for being "last mile" to a significant portion o

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Phil Bedard wrote: > Is L3 hosting content for Netflix? You bet. http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/11/11/level-3-signs-deal-to-be-a-primary-netflix-cdn-shares-rally/ • NOVEMBER 11, 2010, 9:13 AM ET Level 3 Signs Deal To Be A Primary Netflix CDN; Shares

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/29/10 3:59 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > But this isn't a technology problem, or a ratio problem. Comcast's blog specifically mentions unbalanced ratios as an issue. ~Seth

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/29/2010 6:45 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: I think what this really boils down to is an effect of shoddy marketing. Access providers want to offer "unlimited" everything and don't want to have to go back to their customer base and say, "oh, sorry, we didn't really mean unlimited. We didn't th

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

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/com

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 20:02 -0500, Bret Clark wrote: > On 11/29/2010 07:55 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 wrote: > > > > > Okay's let's say L3 gives in to Comcast and pays them. L3

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/29/2010 07:55 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 wrote: Okay's let's say L3 gives in to Comcast and pays them. L3 then turns around and charges us (providers) more to cover the additiona

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:11:18 CST, Jack Bates said: > I agree. This type of maneuver is no different than ESPN3 charging the > ISP for the ISP customers to access the content. Both are unscalable > models that threaten the foundation of an open Internet. Oddly enough, cable channels like ESPN ask

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:34:52 PST, Seth Mattinen said: > My take on this is that settlement free peering only remains free as > long as it is beneficial to both sides, i.e. equal amounts of traffic > exchanged. Equal *value* of traffic exchanged. A network that has a lot of eyeballs may be willin

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Dave CROCKER 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 th

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

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 d

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Now we know what "Xfinity" means :-) Jeff

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/29/2010 5:59 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: No one will ever be in ratio compliance with an eyeball dominant network. Ever. Period. It's not possible via technology and TOS. Enforcing it as an eyeball network just forces content providers to aquire eyeballs, e.g. compete with you. That's ba

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 03:34:52PM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote: > My take on this is that settlement free peering only remains free as > long as it is beneficial to both sides, i.e. equal amounts of traffic > exchanged. If it becomes wildly lopsided in one direction, then it >

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

m] > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:24 PM > To: NANOG list > Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's > Actions > > Is L3 hosting content for Netflix? Netflix has become a large source of > traffic going to end users. L3 likely coul

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

From: Rettke, Brian [mailto:brian.ret...@cableone.biz] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:21 PM To: Jack Bates; Aaron Wendel Cc: 'Patrick W. Gilmore'; 'NANOG list' Subject: RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions On 11/29/2010 4:4

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

It seems that Comcast(AS7922) peers directly with Netflix(AS2906)? -Original Message- From: Phil Bedard [mailto:bedard.p...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:24 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

I'm a hosting provider - and I have to pay for upstream. Perhaps I should setup a rule counting comcast traffic and send them a bill, because their customers download stuff at my site and generate costs? Kind regards, Ingo Flaschberger

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/29/2010 15:24, Phil Bedard wrote: > Is L3 hosting content for Netflix? Netflix has become a large source of > traffic going to end users. L3 likely could have held out on this one if > the content they were hosting is valuable enough to Comcast's customers, > but maybe what Comcast was aski

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/29/2010 4:49 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. I agree. This type of maneuver is no different than ES

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Is L3 hosting content for Netflix? Netflix has become a large source of traffic going to end users. L3 likely could have held out on this one if the content they were hosting is valuable enough to Comcast's customers, but maybe what Comcast was asking for wasn't much in the grand scheme of things

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

t customer a happy and paying customer. Sincerely, Brian A . Rettke RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services -Original Message- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:11 PM To: Aaron Wendel Cc: Rettke, Brian; &#x

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

: Monday, November 29, 2010 6:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions On 11/29/2010 14:40, Rettke, Brian wrote: > Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support the bandwidth requirements of all

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:57 PM, William Warren < hescomins...@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> wrote: > On 11/29/2010 5:46 PM, Mark Wall wrote: > >> Between the lines: Comcast wants to end mutual peering agreements (due to: >> ratios, politics , greed) but we are going to spin it due to net >> neu

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:49:48PM -0600, Aaron Wendel wrote: > A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands > more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and > pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. s/Comcast/Level3/ > I think it s

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/29/2010 14:49, Aaron Wendel wrote: > A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands > more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and > pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. > But then Comcast might have to raise prices on thei

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/29/2010 14:40, 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, bu

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/29/2010 5:46 PM, Mark Wall wrote: Between the lines: Comcast wants to end mutual peering agreements (due to: ratios, politics , greed) but we are going to spin it due to net neutrality making it main stream media and hoping we can get comcast clients to complain... Not the worse angle we

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

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

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Mark Wall wrote: > Between the lines: Comcast wants to end mutual peering agreements (due to: > ratios, politics , greed) but we are going to spin it due to net neutrality > making it main stream media and hoping we can get comcast clients to > complain... > > No

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

lasted with Comcast subscribers asking why they couldn't download their movies? Aaron 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 Comc

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

n.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 the

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Between the lines: Comcast wants to end mutual peering agreements (due to: ratios, politics , greed) but we are going to spin it due to net neutrality making it main stream media and hoping we can get comcast clients to complain... Not the worse angle we've seen > >

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

ubject: 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 operationa

Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

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 hav