RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions

["Ryan Finnesey" <ryan.finnesey () HarrierInvestments com>]

It may have something to do with that Level3 is now hosting all the
streaming content for Netflixs.
Cheers
Ryan


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Donnelly [mailto:tad1214 () gmail com] 
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:52 PM
To: Rettke, Brian; Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list; Guerra, Ruben
Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning
Comcast'sActions

"On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first
time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet
online movies and other content to Comcast's customers who request such
content."

If the issue is bandwidth, then why not charge for bandwidth? Picking a
specific service says we are trying to squash the competition.


On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:48:06 -0600, Guerra, Ruben
<Ruben.Guerra () arrisi com> wrote:

> I'd have to agree with Brian. There is no simple answer to this one...

> If the ultimate cause is the abuse of bandwidth, I can understand 
> this... BUT if the underlying motive is to squash competition then 
> shame on you!
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rettke, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rettke () cableone biz]
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:41 PM
> To: Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list
> Subject: RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning  
> Comcast's Actions
>
> 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'm hoping that there is an eventual meeting of the minds wherein some

> sort of collaboration takes place. If this gets additional government

> regulations I fear no one will like the result.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Brian A . Rettke
> RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP
> Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick () ianai net]
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:28 PM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's

> Actions
<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statemen
t-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp>
> I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects  
> operational aspects of the 'Net.
>
> Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to
pay  
> to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product  
> which has content as well.  I am certain all the content providers on

> this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying

> for settlement free peering tomorrow.  (L3 wouldn't want other
providers  
> to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are

> competing and L3 is putting up a "toll booth" on the Internet, would  
> they?)
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/