[133647] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Laurent GUERBY)
Wed Dec 15 05:24:05 2010
From: Laurent GUERBY <laurent@guerby.net>
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.vnp2vxzptfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:23:54 +0100
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Rettke,
Brian" <Brian.Rettke@cableone.biz>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 16:20 -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:24:45 -0500, Craig L Uebringer
> <cluebringer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Same crap I've seen on loads of provider networks.
>
> No ISP I've ever worked for or with has ever willingly ran their transit
> (or peering) links at capacity.
>
> (Granted, I've been responsible for saturating links, but I moved user
> traffic off of them first.)
>
> --Ricky
>
> PS: TATA confirmed Comcast's behavior before anyone found any traffic
> graphs. We already knew they were gaming their own customer base.
According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast
"Comcast has 15.930 million high-speed internet customers"
If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
to properly desaturate this particular link.
Did I compute something wrong?
Laurent
