[132594] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas Donnelly)
Mon Nov 29 17:58:47 2010
To: "Rettke, Brian" <Brian.Rettke@cableone.biz>, "Patrick W. Gilmore"
<patrick@ianai.net>, "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Guerra, Ruben"
<Ruben.Guerra@arrisi.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:52:23 -0600
From: "Thomas Donnelly" <tad1214@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8BC9AA1D1BA4494F83F8205415225CE826161A00D3@CHIEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
"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.Guerra@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.Rettke@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:patrick@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/
