Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

On May 16, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Rick Astley wrote: >> Broadband is too expensive in the US compared to other places > > I have seen this repeated so many times that I assume it's true but I have > never seen anything objective as to why. I can tell you if you look at > population density by countr

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

>What you're missing is that the transit provider is selling full routes. The access network is selling paid peering, which is a tiny fraction of the routes. Considering they charge on a $per/mb basis I don't think its just routes they are selling. It looks a lot like they are selling bits. From

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Hi, On May 15, 2014, at 12:12 PM, arvindersi...@mail2tor.com wrote: > Jason I think it is important to consider that you are operating your AS > 7922 to serve a global Internet. Actually, I suspect Jason is operating 'his' AS to serve Comcast customers and/or shareholders... Regards, -drc si

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Jason I think it is important to consider that you are operating your AS 7922 to serve a global Internet. In US, there is not a lot of choke because all the big Internet property - Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon - pay toll to reach Comcast Broadband customer. If they do not pay u, there is n

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > So, at the end of the week, I *had* been paying $10/mb to >> send traffic through transit to reach the whole rest of the >> internet. Now, I'm paying $5+$4+$4+$5+$2, or $30, and >> I don't have a full set of routes, so I've still got to kee

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Jason, like Kevin, thank you very much for opening up to us. It is not every day that someone so close to the issues posts with insight. >From what we see here in India, it is true only Comcast and Verizon are access networks with peering problems. We are able to reach Cox, RCN, Charter, Sonoma

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Yes Kevin, this is understood - but valid observation from Nick. Can you pls answer my question first? Very curious. Arvinder > Guys, I'm already pretty far off the reservation and will not respond to > trolling. I think most ISPs are starting to avoid participation here for > the same reason.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 07:29:06AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > The result of deregulating the current environment would only be more pain > and cost to the consumer than we currently have with no improvement in > speeds or capabilities and no additional innovation. Indeed. While I certainly under

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

If traffic is unbalanced, what determines who is the payer and who is the payee? Apparently whoever can hold on to their customers better while performance is shit. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote: > I agree, and those peers should be then paid for the bits that your > custo

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

AFAIK Comcast wasn't consuming, "mass amounts of data" from Level 3 (Netflix's transit to them). Are you implying that a retail customer has a similar expectation (or should) as a tier 1 ISP has for peering? I hope not, that would be hyperbole verging on the silly. Retail customer agreement spel

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On May 15, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > On 14-05-15 10:26, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between >> legionnaire’s disease and SARS. > > Twisted pair is certantly "legacy". > > Is there a feeling that coax cable/DOSCIS is

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

I agree, and those peers should be then paid for the bits that your customers are requesting that they send through you if you cannot maintain a balanced peer relationship with them. It's shameful that access networks are attempting to not pay for their leeching of mass amounts of data in clear vio

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

I said I would step away, but trying to keep some level of emotion out of this... We all need "rational actor" behavior in the ecosystem. We need our policies and agree to live up to those policies between players. Random and inconsistent behavior does not build a well functioning market and is

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain balanced you can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where does it end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then? To use an analogy, if you and I agree to buy a car together and agree to switch o

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Yes, throttling an entire ISP by refusing to upgrade peering is clearly a way to avoid technically throttling. Interestingly enough only Comcast and Verizon are having this problem, though I'm sure now that you have set an example others will follow. Nick On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Livingo

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On 5/15/14, 1:28 PM, "Nick B" mailto:n...@pelagiris.org>> wrote: By "categorically untrue" do you mean "FCC's open internet rules allow us to refuse to upgrade full peers"? Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to constrain it to 1G, for example. What if a peer wants t

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

By "categorically untrue" do you mean "FCC's open internet rules allow us to refuse to upgrade full peers"? Nick On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Livingood, Jason < jason_living...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > On 5/15/14, 12:43 PM, "Nick B" wrote: > > > >Yes, you've got "some of the largest Inte

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On 5/15/14, 12:43 PM, "Nick B" wrote: >Yes, you've got "some of the largest Internet companies as customers². >Because you told them "if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you". Then >you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument. >Nick That is categorically untrue, however nice a sound

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On May 15, 2014, at 7:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin wrote: > Upgrades/buildout are happening every day. They are continuous to keep ahead > of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring broadband), > Akamai, Ookla, etc I didn’t say they weren’t doing any upgrades/buildouts. I will

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On 14-05-15 10:26, Owen DeLong wrote: > Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between > legionnaire’s disease and SARS. Twisted pair is certantly "legacy". Is there a feeling that coax cable/DOSCIS is also "legacy" in terms of current capacity/speeds ? Or is that technolog

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

> What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial transit business for 15+ years (with over 8000 commercial fiber customers). Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of capacity, and some of the largest Internet companies as customers. Peers that are balanced o

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

To be fair, I have no evidence that Comcast demanded money in advance. As far as I can tell, Level 3, Cogent and Comcast all agree on the rest though, Comcast's peering filled up. Both Level 3 and Cogent offered/requested to upgrade. Then at least Cogent (IIRC?) offered to upgrade *and pay Comca

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Guys, I'm already pretty far off the reservation and will not respond to trolling. I think most ISPs are starting to avoid participation here for the same reason. I'm going to stop for a while. - Kevin On May 15, 2014, at 12:42 PM, "Nick B" mailto:n...@pelagiris.org>> wrote: Yes, you'v

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Yes, you've got "some of the largest Internet companies as customers". Because you told them "if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you". Then you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument. Nick On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin < kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com> wrot

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Upgrades/buildout are happening every day. They are continuous to keep ahead of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring broadband), Akamai, Ookla, etc What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial transit business for 15+ years (with over 8000 commercia

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Having an actual free market would require having competition. So long as we have monopoly layer 1 providers being allowed to use that monopoly as leverage for higher layer service monopolies, (or oligopolies), an actual free market is virtually impossible. The result of deregulating the curren

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

I don’t disagree. However, given the choice between Comcast and broadband services in NL, Chatanooga, or Seoul, just to name a few, Comcast loses badly. Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between legionnaire’s disease and SARS. Owen On May 14, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Jared

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Oh, please do explicate on how this is inaccurate… Owen On May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin wrote: > Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate "sound bite" > > - Kevin > > 215-313-1083 > >> On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: >> >> Yes, the more accurate state

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

So, at the end of the week, I *had* been paying $10/mb to send traffic through transit to reach the whole rest of the internet. Now, I'm paying $5+$4+$4+$5+$2, or $30, and I don't have a full set of routes, so I've still got to keep paying the transit provider as well at $10. I would like to ag

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 07:01:36PM -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote: > Maybe it is time to try a free market. Can't do that, it would be UnAmerican! - Matt -- I can only guess that the designer of the things had a major Toilet Duck habit and had managed to score a couple of industrial-sized bottles o

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Owen, I've seen a vast difference between Comcast and others in the "marketplace". Right now, if I had the choice between Comcast and a "legacy" telco, I would pick Comcast hands-down for: a) performance b) IPv6 support c) willingness to work on issues - Jared On May 14, 2014, at 5:14 PM, Mc

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On 5/14/2014 4:27 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote: On May 14, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: I'm constantly amazed at how access networks think they can charge 2/3 the price of full transit for just their routes when they represent less than 1/10th of the overall traffic volume. My guess

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate "sound bite" - Kevin 215-313-1083 > On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new > ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in upgrades > or addition

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On May 14, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > > > I'm constantly amazed at how access networks think they can charge 2/3 > the price of full transit for just their routes when they represent less > than 1/10th of the overall traff

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in upgrades or additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary. Owen On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: >> >> So they seek new sources of reve

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

> > So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart >> competition any way they can. >> > No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of > revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets and > aggressively growing over the top services (whic

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

--As of May 14, 2014 9:23:21 AM -0500, char...@thefnf.org is alleged to have said: So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart competition any way they can. No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of revenue, they'd be massively expanding into u

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

On May 14, 2014, at 5:47 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:27:57 AM Roland Dobbins wrote: > >> Are there any real-world models out there for >> revenue-sharing between app/content providers and access >> networks which would eliminate or reduce 'paid peering' >> (an alternat

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote: They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. *They see no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make more profit without it. There is the issue of control over the mar

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:27:57 AM Roland Dobbins wrote: > Are there any real-world models out there for > revenue-sharing between app/content providers and access > networks which would eliminate or reduce 'paid peering' > (an alternate way to think of it is as 'delimited > transit', another

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:11:30 AM Matthew Petach wrote: > I'm constantly amazed at how access networks > think they can charge 2/3 the price of full transit > for just their routes when they represent less than > 1/10th of the overall traffic volume. The math just > doesn't work out. It's n

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

On May 14, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > I'm constantly amazed at how access networks think they can charge 2/3 the > price of full transit for just their routes when they represent less than > 1/10th of the overall traffic volume. My guess is that from the perspective of the acce

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Rick Astley wrote: > [...] > The reality is an increasingly directly peered Internet doesn't sit well if > you are in the business of being the middle man. Now if you will, why do > transit companies themselves charge content companies to deliver bits? How > is it

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 09:04:11 AM Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > The problem with the internet is that while it had > promises of wild growth in the 90s and 00s, once > penetration reaches a certain level, growth stabilizes. That depends on your point-of-view and/or interpretation of "growth

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote: > They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. *They see > no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make more > profit without it. There is the issue of control over the market. But also the pressure from shareholders

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

--As of May 12, 2014 3:02:28 PM +0200, Nick Hilliard is alleged to have said: On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote: imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay person. . my friends in last mile providers disagree.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality)

On 13 May 2014, at 14:17, coy.h...@coyhile.com wrote: > It could be worse! Somebody might have thrown a 'v1' in there, too, Joel! Well - just imagine that network without mask. On public list. Horrible. Thankfully, we have civilization & stuff, so nothing like that couldn’t have had happened.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality)

It could be worse! Somebody might have thrown a 'v1' in there, too, Joel! Sent from my iPhone > On May 13, 2014, at 8:08, Joel M Snyder wrote: > > Shouldn't there be a rule against using "RIP" in the subject line of a > NANOG post? > > Every time I see that, a shudder goes down *my* spine. >

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality)

Shouldn't there be a rule against using "RIP" in the subject line of a NANOG post? Every time I see that, a shudder goes down *my* spine. jms -- Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494 j...@opus1.comhttp://www.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On 05/12/2014 12:48 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote: Also Amazon seems to be experimenting with direct delivery in some areas in order to provide a level of delivery quality they don’t feel they can get via 3rd party Someone wake me up when RFC 1149 gets updated to "IP Datagrams on Drone Carriers

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

jason, thanks for posting from your work address. really appreciated. i wish others employed on one side or t'other would make their affiliations clear, when the subject cuts so close to the pockets of large financial interests. randy

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On 5/12/14, 10:55 AM, "Owen DeLong" mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: Who cares? It’s insensitive from the end-customer perspective. Same as what I pay to Comcast is insensitive to my usage. Amazon hasn’t negotiated insensitive pricing with their shipping companies, just as Comcast hasn’t negotiat

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On May 12, 2014 at 15:02 n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) wrote: > > In the net neutrality debate, the last mile service providers are in a > position where they need to upgrade their access networks, but the end-user > pricing is not necessarily keeping pace. You make a common error: That we

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On May 12, 2014, at 7:41 AM, George, Wes wrote: > > On 5/12/14, 10:07 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> >>> On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote: imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay person.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Even if you are right, which I'm not sure you are about the cost as Google isn't the only FTTH provider, at least one of the major players *HAS ALREADY PEEN PAID TO DO THE WORK*. http://stopthecap.com/2014/03/17/new-jerseys-fiber-ripoff-verizon-walks-away-from-fiber-upgrades-customers-already-paid-

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On May 12, 2014, at 7:30 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 5/12/14, 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> >>> On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote: imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay person.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

That's true for any given network topology up to the limit of capacity. On cable plant, node splitting does incur significant costs. May cable companies who built their fiber optic network with 200-500 customers per RF node are now finding they have to reduce that density. They don't have en

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On 5/12/14, 10:07 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > >On May 12, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >> On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote: >>> imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay >>> person. . my >>> friends

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On 5/12/14, 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On May 12, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >> On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote: >>> imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay >>> person. . my >>> friends in

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On May 12, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote: >> imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay >> person. . my >> friends in last mile providers disagree. i take that as a g

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Actually, I've done a bit of overbuild, and it does "omg cost a lot". We don't know how much Google Fiber has paid to build the network. They're Google, they can do it just because they feel like it. Of course I don't have any proof, but the rest of your points may not be far off the mark.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Google Fiber and various other FTTH services disprove the "omg it costs a lot" theory. This is purely a money grab by a monopoly, sanctioned by the FCC because.. the people doing the money grab own the FCC. It helps to keep in mind that several of the parties involved in this grab *HAVE ALREADY B

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On Mon, 12 May 2014 15:02:28 +0200, Nick Hilliard said: > a small amount of money. Even better, if you chase the the content sources > for cash, you can do this without increasing customer prices which means > you can stay more competitive in the sales market. Thank you, I needed my morning chuc

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

At 09:02 AM 12/05/2014, Nick Hilliard wrote: So from a business perspective it makes lots of sense to deprioritise the large companies that don't pay in favour of the ones that do. Those who pay get better service for their customers; seems fair, right? I think that's where the biggest gulf e

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote: > imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay > person. . my > friends in last mile providers disagree. i take that as a good sign. Vi's analogy is wrong on a subtle but important

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

Possibly interesting: FCC chairman will reportedly revise broadband proposal http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-will-reportedly-revise-broadband-proposal/ or http://tinyurl.com/kfwrogs -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWor

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

On 10/05/14 20:40, Phil Bedard wrote: The UK only does this with BT OpenReach since they were the telco monopoly that originated as a government entity. Virgin Media (well all the people who now form Virgin Media) built and operates their own fiber/HFC access networks, the same as MSOs in the US

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

On May 10, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > > On May 10, 2014 at 22:34 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: >> imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay >> person. . my >> friends in last mile providers disagree

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

On May 10, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Michael Conlen wrote: > If we ignore why and how the few high speed options exist for a moment and > accept that it's "the way it is," then it seems reasonable that the place to > put regulation is on them. At the same time cutting out middlemen is > generally goo

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

On May 10, 2014 at 22:34 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: > imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay > person. . my > friends in last mile providers disagree. i take that as a good sign. Yeah, well, for extra c

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

In these situations, I find it helps to mentally implement structural separation. So you have level3-Transit and Level3-CDN as separate companies. Netflix pays Level3-CDN to make content available locally in many cities. It is up to the ISP to find the most efficient way to connect to the Level3

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

++1 Andrew Fried andrew.fr...@gmail.com On 5/10/14, 2:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Nice discussion about history & motivations. Not completely correct, but it's > always fun to argue over history, and over motivations, since both are open > to intepretation. > > Personally, I am interest

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

If we ignore why and how the few high speed options exist for a moment and accept that it's "the way it is," then it seems reasonable that the place to put regulation is on them. At the same time cutting out middlemen is generally good for everyone but the middlemen. My current opinion then is

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

The pertinent question is what time period Level 3 was looking at / averaging when writing the blog post. Even if Comcast and Level 3 are not congested right at this moment, they were most definitely congested several years following their landmark agreement. A better question would be why that i

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

It is important to consider bias and factual accuracy of the material. George Ou was working for Comcast and AT&T as a lobbyist at the time he produced the Youtube video. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Rick Astley wrote: > That was an interesting read but it's not the wh

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay person. . my friends in last mile providers disagree. i take that as a good sign. randy

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

I agree with your summary. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

The UK only does this with BT OpenReach since they were the telco monopoly that originated as a government entity. Virgin Media (well all the people who now form Virgin Media) built and operates their own fiber/HFC access networks, the same as MSOs in the US, and does not offer wholesale access an

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

Nice discussion about history & motivations. Not completely correct, but it's always fun to argue over history, and over motivations, since both are open to intepretation. Personally, I am interested in the future, and specifically in market-driven solutions to our problems. Call me a capitalis

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

This is a lot of hand waving and self justification to attempt to validate the practice of [Access Network] trying to charge 3rd party entities to deliver the content that [Access Network]'s paying customers have requested over the service they already pay for, instead of [Access Network] having to

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

That was an interesting read but it's not the whole story. Skip to the TL;DR if you'd like but I'll attempt to explain what happened. What he isn't saying is the roles of the companies involved have changed over the last 10 years. Mostly gone are the days that content providers and access networks

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

, right? -- Hugo From: NANOG on behalf of Livingood, Jason Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 5:27 AM To: =JeffH; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here... Hi Jeff – I noticed the question posed here so

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

Hi Jeff – I noticed the question posed here so thought I’d respond, perhaps at risk of stirring up a hornet’s nest given how long the last thread was. ;-) Anyway… there’s no congestion between Comcast and Level 3 connections, and we’re working collaboratively with Level 3. Given these facts, we

Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...

Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/observations-internet-middleman/ See also... Level 3 accuses five unnamed US ISPs of abusing their market power in peering http://gigaom.com/2014/05/05/level-3-accuses-five-unnamed-us-isps-of-abusing-their-