[132768] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Young)
Wed Dec 1 07:10:54 2010
From: Jeff Young <young@jsyoung.net>
In-Reply-To: <4CF5027A.3060603@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 23:10:33 +1100
To: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--Apple-Mail-62--634379149
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Well,
I don't work for the NBN, but I do live here and follow the politics =
with interest.
So far the 'experiment' is on track. The political parties who support =
the NBN
are the majority by a slim margin (2 or 3 seats) and the project seems =
to be=20
going forward. Most recently legislation passed that creates the NBN as =
a=20
corporation among other things.
If you're truly interested:
=
http://australianpolitics.com/downloads/10-11-24_nbn-co-business-case-summ=
ary.pdf
jy
On 01/12/2010, at 12:56 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> I've read through the entire thread thus far, and there are several =
very
> interesting points. I'd like to know more about the Australian =
experiment?
>=20
> But there were a couple of disparate comments that seem highly =
related, so
> I'll reply to them jointly here:
>=20
>=20
> On 11/30/10 2:59 AM, JC Dill wrote:
>> What is happening now between L3 and Comcast also reminds me of the =
dial-tone settlement deals in the 1990s. The big telcos thought they =
could push small telcos out by making it more expensive to place calls =
(paying a fee to the telco that "terminates" the
>> call) and less expensive to receive calls (receiving the termination =
fee). They mistakenly thought the startup telcos would go after =
consumers (who typically place more calls than they receive) and they =
didn't think about startup telcos going after ISP
>> dial-up services (which receive more calls than they place) and then =
being forced to pay those startups settlement fees for all the calls =
their consumer customers made into the startup telco's ISP customer's =
modem banks.
>>=20
> But I remember what happened next. BellSouth refused to pay their =
settlements.
> The CLECs sued and went bankrupt. BellSouth had deeper pockets and =
more lawyers.
>=20
>> We don't have an interstate telephone settlement system or PUC to =
"decide" what the rules will be for settlements between content =
providers and eyeball providers. I believe that in the end it will come =
down to market forces and which group can better
>> marshal customer angst to their side when packets don't flow freely =
between these two types of networks.
>>=20
> Maybe. But I'm hoping the consumer angst gives us a better FCC. The =
"market"
> hasn't worked before, and isn't working in this case. So, maybe there =
isn't a
> "market" after all....
>=20
>=20
> On 11/30/10 2:47 AM, Kevin Blackham wrote:
> > I'm not convinced. Either I'm calculating something wrong, or greed =
is at work.
>=20
> Greed.
>=20
> Reminder: Comcast drastically raised their rates a few years back, =
saying to
> local cable commissions that they needed to "invest" in digital =
infrastructure.
> Instead, they took the massive profits and invested in NBC/Universal.
>=20
> When a cable "node" is an entire neighborhood of 500+ homes, because =
Comcast
> never bothered to split the nodes down to a reasonable networking size =
(as
> opposed to CATV-sized), then it's a Comcast greed problem....
>=20
> A half year ago or so, talking with a Google manager about a certain =
fiber
> project, we ended up arguing about the size of cable nodes. He seemed =
to
> think everywhere was like Mountain View. I was trying not to =
embarrass him;
> just let it stand at -- as you drive, you don't look overhead at the =
cable
> infrastructure much, do you? (He admitted he doesn't.)
>=20
>=20
> On 11/29/10 11:27 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > The issue here is cost of infrastructure. The last mile generally =
is more valuable than the long-distance part. Everyone can build a =
nationwide network for a nominal amount of money. All the carriers can =
provide circuits at the same IXPs where you can public/private peer. =
The question does become, who is in those smaller and mid-markets. Not =
everyone is going to build fiber in Akron, Eugene, nor Madison. It gets =
even more interesting if you look at what happened with Fairpoint in the =
northeast IMHO. Verizon realized they would not make money there and =
sold it off. The promises and costs consumed them and forced =
bankruptcy.
> >
> > I'm not saying that will happen to Comcast, but it may cause them to =
divest the unprofitable parts as well, leaving some parts of the country =
worse-off than we would be today.
> >
> Or in this case, invest in something else more profitable, =
NBC/Universal; and
> then try to leverage their customer base to gouge their CDN =
competitors.
>=20
> I'd like to see Level 3 pull a Disney/ABC or a Murdock/Fox, and =
publicly
> announce that they expect Comcast to share *their* revenue. And be =
willing to
> pull the plug!
>=20
> (Admittedly, I thought Disney/ABC and Murdock/Fox are evil, too. That =
model
> was only reasonable as the CATV channels had no advertising. All we =
have
> left now is Turner Classic Movies. A pox on *all* their houses!)
>=20
> It's really time for some anti-trust legislation/regulation. The last =
mile
> market has failed.
>=20
>=20
--Apple-Mail-62--634379149
content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453;
name=PGP.sig
content-description: This is a digitally signed message part
content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
iF4EAREIAAYFAkz2OzkACgkQxvthcni5E2/YBgD+NH/7V4C5GJNBIrWojGKJOj95
n/cxrfev1ke6hCnkEBYA/RNCHcqr9dYWEr+pVrqdFxeJ/beiPZZGq2zMD+s9jGYs
=2M2f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail-62--634379149--
