[132841] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Allen Simpson)
Thu Dec 2 09:28:38 2010
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 09:28:18 -0500
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAABc92X87yasRpJgmf5E/txyAQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
[Changed long CC list to BCC]
On 12/2/10 12:49 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> George Ou touches on a similar point at the end of his article:
> http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/11/level-3-outbid-akamai-on-netflix-by-re
> selling-stolen-bandwidth/
>
The Ou article makes no sense at all! It's based on the premise that Level 3
and Comcast are peering, and that traffic should be symmetric. Everywhere else,
the articles and pundits indicate that Comcast is a transit customer of Level 3.
All actual network operators know that traffic isn't symmetric!
Ou's hit piece reads more like a pseudo-libertarian rant. In fact, other Ou
posts listed there have titles that read like an ultra-conservative cum
social-conservative rant:
* Wrong On The Internet »
Another Net Neutrality ‘violation’ debunked
* Why Viacom and others justified in blocking Google TV
* Wrong On The Internet »
Genachowski pushing ahead with Net Neutrality during lame duck
* Google hypocrisy on content blocking
* Hijacking the Internet is trivial today
You have to consider the source. If Ou doesn't understand contracts, peering,
and/or transit, just take his posts with a grain of salt.
