[171396] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Mon Apr 28 09:26:57 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20140428130524.GK36211@burnout.tpb.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:53:00 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net> wrote:
> * jnanog@gmail.com (Rick Astley) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 05:08 CEST]:
>>
>> If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a
>> law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free
>
> Lower it?
>
> Right now broadband providers pay a transit provider who then get paid
> by content providers to carry the bits, generally because broadband
> providers don't want to think about running IP networks because they
> their skills lie more in the television part of RF networks.
People are never gonna give this thread up, I see. Easily one of the
longest threads in recent nanog history and I'm starting to see points
rehashed and strawmen trotted out.
Comcast sells wholesale transit -
http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true
And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated
requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.
http://www.comcast.com/peering
> Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and
> Comcast that enables a general balance of inbound versus
> outbound traffic. The network cost burden for carrying traffic
> between networks shall be similar to justify SFI
Now, that big elephant in the room taken into account, where do the
middlemen come in here?
--srs
