Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Rettke, Brian Brian.Rettke at cableone.biz
Mon Nov 29 16:40:48 CST 2010

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.


Brian A . Rettke
Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick at ianai.net]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:28 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions


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?)


More information about the NANOG mailing list