[132601] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rettke, Brian)
Mon Nov 29 18:22:32 2010
From: "Rettke, Brian" <Brian.Rettke@cableone.biz>
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>, Aaron Wendel
<aaron@wholesaleinternet.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:21:00 -0700
In-Reply-To: <4CF43316.9000009@brightok.net>
Cc: 'NANOG list' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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 an=
d
> pass on the costs to the customers demanding it.
I'd change this to "A customer pays for SHARED access to the Internet." Unl=
ess your customer is paying for a direct fiber or internet circuit (~$500 -=
$10,000 per month) they aren't paying for independent and sole access to t=
he internet. It's another term that I think has lost its actual meaning, "U=
nlimited access." I don't have a problem, as a customer or as a Service Pr=
ovider, passing along the bill to the top 5% that are using a disproportion=
ate amount of bandwidth.
I can see the Internet reaching a fair-use model, as opposed to a free-use =
model that is unsustainable, as was previously said.
Here's one specific example I can think of to discuss:
Netflix uses about a third of Internet bandwidth, in some cases going over =
the HTTP traffic use for most customers. Netflix charges customers a fee to=
use their service, but they don't pay the providers required to supply the=
bandwidth for the customer leg. I don't think ISPs charging Netflix is a =
sustainable model either. A mutual endeavor involving shared interconnect c=
osts and intelligent placement of proxies would be something I could think =
of to make the process beneficial for all parties. The end goal would be th=
at the "Shared Media Customer" has no idea what we are doing, but does not =
see performance degradation in their HTTP or Netflix traffic, and that it d=
oes not pass along additional cost to them. After all, to both Netflix and =
the ISP, it is in their best interests to keep that customer a happy and pa=
ying customer.
Sincerely,
Brian A . Rettke
RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP
Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates@brightok.net]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:11 PM
To: Aaron Wendel
Cc: Rettke, Brian; 'Patrick W. Gilmore'; 'NANOG list'
Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's A=
ctions
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 an=
d
> pass on the costs to the customers demanding it.
>
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.
As an ISP, I could care less what is in the packets my customers send
and receive. The exception to this, of course, is malicious packets but
they keep refusing to set the evil bit.
Jack
