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

["Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>]

Then ignore Ou's post and focus on the point I tried to make: that Level3
has a vested interest in making sure the Comcast users have a good Netflix
experience. =)

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:william.allen.simpson () gmail com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:28 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's
Actions

[Changed long CC list to BCC]

On 12/2/10 12:49 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> George Ou touches on a similar point at the end of his article:
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/11/level-3-outbid-akamai-on-netflix-by-re
> selling-stolen-bandwidth/
The Ou article makes no sense at all!  It's based on the premise that Level
3
and Comcast are peering, and that traffic should be symmetric.  Everywhere
else,
the articles and pundits indicate that Comcast is a transit customer of
Level 3.

All actual network operators know that traffic isn't symmetric!

Ou's hit piece reads more like a pseudo-libertarian rant.  In fact, other Ou
posts listed there have titles that read like an ultra-conservative cum
social-conservative rant:

  * Wrong On The Internet >
    Another Net Neutrality 'violation' debunked
  * Why Viacom and others justified in blocking Google TV
  * Wrong On The Internet >
    Genachowski pushing ahead with Net Neutrality during lame duck
  * Google hypocrisy on content blocking
  * Hijacking the Internet is trivial today

You have to consider the source.  If Ou doesn't understand contracts,
peering,
and/or transit, just take his posts with a grain of salt.