nanog mailing list archives
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
From: William Warren <hescominsoon () emmanuelcomputerconsulting com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:06:09 -0500
On 11/30/2010 6:33 AM, Jeff Young wrote:
This whole mess concerns me about the future of the internet. If the traffic can't get to the clients by routing around a depeering..is the internet really working as designed? I don't think so. Peering has become the gateway to the ultimate in network control...while it's the provider's prerogative who access their network..peering has become a club for access and has become the instrument of removing the basic design wins of the internet.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 30/11/2010, at 9:28 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-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, patrickSo in this particular game of chicken, Comcast wins. Shame that L3 agreed to this, sets a bad precedent. I have to imagine that Comcast would have been the worse for wear, their phone lines would have lit up like a Christmas tree -- why can't I access...? jy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) iF4EAREIAAYFAkz04QkACgkQxvthcni5E2+LwgD+NAie3r+r1dniJNRPMVKAJEj7 BQIympMzCXji7NveWicA/ReSLZgW92LT4cY/yMnsw3EkrD8mL1rkhAzicifOoCwe =GPm+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Current thread:
- RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions, (continued)
- RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions Ryan Finnesey (Nov 30)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions Jared Mauch (Nov 30)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions Seth Mattinen (Nov 29)
- RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions George Bonser (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions William Herrin (Nov 29)
- RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions Ben Butler (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions William Herrin (Nov 29)
- RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions George Bonser (Nov 29)
- RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions George Bonser (Nov 29)
- RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions Ben Butler (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions William Warren (Nov 30)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Jeffrey Lyon (Nov 30)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Jack Bates (Nov 30)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Randy Carpenter (Nov 30)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Leo Bicknell (Nov 30)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Christian (Nov 30)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Peter Bruno (Nov 30)