Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Thomas Donnelly tad1214 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 29 16:52:23 CST 2010

"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  
<Ruben.Guerra at arrisi.com> 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:Brian.Rettke at cableone.biz]
> 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
> 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
> <http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-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?)
> --
> patrick

Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

More information about the NANOG mailing list