nanog mailing list archives
Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 09:56:36 -1000
Sounds like an extremely short-sighted view of the Net and it's economics. Claiming content providers should be charged for "using" broadband access-pipes is fine and dandy, but coveniently forgetting that without content there probably wouldn't be a great deal of customers wanting broadband in the first place is a bit sloppy, no?
while valid, this argument plays into the power play game. the key point is that the content providers already paid once for transport [0], as did the content users. we may need more gummint support to keep the rbocs from abusing their subsidized monopoly ownership of the last mile. two years ain't enough to get the cartel-minded out of control of the fcc. randy --- [0] - whether to transit upstreams or by deploying a large network themselves (aol)
Current thread:
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now, (continued)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now John Payne (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Brandon Ross (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Brandon Ross (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Florian Weimer (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Deepak Jain (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 01)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Erik Haagsman (Nov 02)
- Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Randy Bush (Nov 02)
- RE: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now Sean Donelan (Nov 04)