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:[email protected]] 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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > 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:[email protected]] > 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/
