Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Nov 29 17:54:19 CST 2010


As a Comcast customer, I find it very interesting that they think they have
the right to reject bits from other providers I may request them from.

The first time I encounter Comcast actually blocking bits I want as a
result of this policy, it will result in a technical support call. If the bits
don't start flowing within a reasonable time after that call, you can
bet that I will be pursuing regulatory and judicial relief.

Ordinarily, I would simply vote with my feet and switch to another
broadband provider, but, if you want more than 1.5Mbps/384kbps
in my neighborhood, Comcast is currently the only game in town.

I encourage other Comcast customers to make it clear to Comcast
that this attempt to extort money from other providers at the potential
cost of degraded service to Comcast's own customers is deplorable
and certainly violates the spirit if not the letter of the service agreements
for their high speed internet service products.

Owen

On Nov 29, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Guerra, Ruben wrote:

> 
> It seems that Comcast(AS7922) peers directly with Netflix(AS2906)....?
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Bedard [mailto:bedard.phil at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:24 PM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
> 
> Is L3 hosting content for Netflix?  Netflix has become a large source of
> traffic going to end users.  L3 likely could have held out on this one if
> the content they were hosting is valuable enough to Comcast's customers,
> but maybe what Comcast was asking for wasn't much in the grand scheme of
> things.  
> 
> Obviously someone has to pay for the access infrastructure and Comcast
> would much rather get the content provider to pay for it versus passing it
> along to their customers.  I think they probably just took a stab and L3
> complied. 
> 
> Phil  
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/29/10 5:28 PM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net> wrote:
> 
>> <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?)
>> 
>> -- 
>> TTFN,
>> patrick
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 





More information about the NANOG mailing list