[132598] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Provo)
Mon Nov 29 18:15:56 2010
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:15:49 -0500
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net>
To: 'NANOG list' <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <02b701cb9017$be2cdd90$3a8698b0$@net>
Reply-To: nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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 sets a very bad precedent that Level3 agreed to their terms. How
> long would it have lasted with Comcast subscribers asking why they couldn't
> download their movies?
Considering L3 was recently skating the border of the pink sheets,
it should be no wonder that it is a very different response than
the one given to Cogent, for example. Then again, who blinked first
there? It is amusing that the once-disruptive L3 is seeking to
defend its position in the so-called "tier 1 " carte^Wcabal by running
to the regulators. I wonder how its fellow members of the club will
like the idea of feds poking into their business when both sides of
the equation are examined...
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
