nanog mailing list archives
Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 08:35:42 -0800
+1 In fact, I feel that at home, I need fast, reliable internet access. I wish I could get that from one provider. Unfortunately, instead, I get fast internet service from Comcast (most of the time) and I get reliable internet service from Raw Bandwidth (DSL, 1.5mbps/768k). Owen (Comcast Business HSI customer) On Dec 17, 2010, at 10:07 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
On 12/18/2010 12:38 AM, Steve Schultze wrote:http://blog.comcast.com/2010/12/comcasts-responds-to-level-3s-fcc-filing.htmlI very much doubt whether my comment on the blog will survive their moderation process, so here it is: === I am a Comcast residential HSI customer, and have many clients who are business HSI Comcast customers. At the same time, I do maintain servers in my own racks at a datacenter. What is not mentioned in this letter, is that Comcast is already being paid - by me, and by every other customer, for access to the content. Note that Comcast has never said that the Level3/Netflix issue is about users exceeding their allotted bandwidth (currently at about 250GB/month for residential); presumably, were a Comcast user to use 249GB of bandwidth downloading cute pictures of cats, Comcast would have no objection. It appears to be the specific issue that Netflix is a possible competitor to Comcast's TV business, that somehow causes Comcast to decide that there is a problem. Understand this: every Netflix video to be streamed, is specifically requested by a Comcast user, operating under the Comcast-advertised "High Speed Internet" service and presumably within the bandwidth caps that Comcast's own contract allows. That Comcast presumes to have the right to limit, modify, or decide for me which pieces of the Internet I can have access to, removes Comcast's common carrier protections, calls into question the truth of your advertisements for the HSI service, and raises the issue of whether Comcast is dealing in bad faith with each and every Comcast HSI subscriber. ==== --Patrick
Current thread:
- RE: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve theComcast - L3 dispute, (continued)
- RE: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve theComcast - L3 dispute david raistrick (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve theComcast - L3 dispute Marshall Eubanks (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Benson Schliesser (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Steve Schultze (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Joly MacFie (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Steve Schultze (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Patrick Giagnocavo (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Richard A Steenbergen (Dec 17)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Joly MacFie (Dec 18)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Dave Temkin (Dec 18)
- Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute Owen DeLong (Dec 18)