Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

[Phil Bedard <bedard.phil () gmail com>]

Is L3 hosting content for Netflix?  Netflix has become a large source of
traffic going to end users.  L3 likely could have held out on this one if
the content they were hosting is valuable enough to Comcast's customers,
but maybe what Comcast was asking for wasn't much in the grand scheme of
things.  

Obviously someone has to pay for the access infrastructure and Comcast
would much rather get the content provider to pay for it versus passing it
along to their customers.  I think they probably just took a stab and L3
complied. 

Phil  



On 11/29/10 5:28 PM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net> 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,
> patrick