[132621] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ren Provo)
Mon Nov 29 19:58:12 2010
In-Reply-To: <4CF44A7B.7080905@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:55:32 -0500
From: Ren Provo <ren.provo@gmail.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, "Rettke, Brian" <Brian.Rettke@cableone.biz>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/29/2010 2:40 PM, Rettke, Brian wrote:
>
>> 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 find it helpful to distinguish "participant neutrality" from "service
> neutrality". The first says that you and I pay the same rate. The second
> says the my email costs the same as my voip.
>
> As described, it appears that Level3 is being singled out, which makes for
> participant non-neutrality. On the other hand, if Comcast were charging
> itself for xfinity traffic, this might qualify as service non-neutrality
> (assuming there is a plausible meaning to "charging itself"...
>
> d/
>
> --
>
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>
>
