nanog mailing list archives

RE: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style


From: "Rettke, Brian" <Brian.Rettke () cableone biz>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:49:41 -0700

I'm surprised that no one seems to think that "bandwidth" is really just a series of interconnects. If indeed their 
links are saturated, they are probably either near an upgrade point (if their forecasting was correct) or trying to 
negotiate one (if their forecasting is bad or there is a sudden new leech on bandwidth, like streaming video). It's not 
free, it's never quick and easy. The best thing that can happen is that they are either adding additional links to TATA 
(which requires TATA, any carrier facilities, and any LECs) to reach an agreement to complete the interconnect, or they 
are looking at sending traffic to another link.

Usually, the balance is between the most direct link to a source, or the most efficient use of resources on the 
network. There is a balance to be found. No matter what the agenda, no service provider actively tries to make their 
customers angry - Their job is to be transparent. The problems arise naturally, if I move your bandwidth to provider B 
where I have free bandwidth, your "ping" increases by 20 ms, the path is not as direct, and complaints roll in.

There is no single provider that ever has or ever will be completely ahead of the curve all of the time. It's a 
constant infrastructure build.

As for the Comcast take on content, it's not a new one, not unique to Comcast, but completely foreign to the American 
consumer. I think both require re-education and a new plan.
________________________________________
From: Douglas Otis [dotis () mail-abuse org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:23 PM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

On 12/14/10 2:38 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 03:39:07PM -0600, Aaron Wendel wrote:
 To what end?  And who's calling the shots there these days?  Comcast
 has been nothing but shady for the last couple years.  Spoofing
 resets, The L3 issue, etc.  What's the speculation on the end game?
I believe Comcast has made clear their position that they feel content
providers should be paying them for access to their customers.
The Internet would offer lesser value by allowing access providers to
hold their customers hostage.  Clearly, such providers are not acting in
their customer's interests when inhibiting access to desired and
legitimate content.  What is net neutrality expected to mean?

Providers should charge a fair price for bandwidth offered, not over
sell the bandwidth, and not constrain bandwidth below advertised rates.
Congestion pricing rewards bad practices that leads to the congestion.

-Doug



Current thread: