[132599] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Galbraith)
Mon Nov 29 18:17:49 2010
In-Reply-To: <4CF42FC5.9080401@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:15:48 -0600
From: Brandon Galbraith <brandon.galbraith@gmail.com>
To: William Warren <hescominsoon@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:57 PM, William Warren <
hescominsoon@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
>> neutrality
>> making it main stream media and hoping we can get comcast clients to
>> complain...
>>
>> Not the worse angle we've seen
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think Karl Denninger has this one called right:
> http://market-ticker.org/post=173522
>
>
I'd have to disagree with his viewpoint. If customer is using resource X and
you're not able to remain profitable, than you're not charging customer
enough for the resource in question. This is just a backdoor attempt to
raise the cost to the customer without them seeing it.
If Comcast were to raise the price to the customer directly, I think you'd
see defection to other services (if available in the area, like DSL or
Clearwire).
Doesn't Verizon FIOS provide 50-150Mb/s to the home now for the same cost as
Comcast? Exhorting a carrier of content to your customer can't be a good
business decision.
--
Brandon Galbraith
US Voice: 630.492.0464
