Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Mon Nov 29 22:20:42 CST 2010


In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:08:53PM -0500, Joe Provo wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 08:03:27PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> [snip]
> > If the FCC wanted to do something useful they would look at the
> > combined ratio of all /customers/ of an ISP, and then require their
> > peering policy to allow for around 2x of that.
> [snip]
> 
> ...or maybe not get involved in peering policies at all?  DO we 
> really want regulatory oversight here, happily driving traffic away 
> from the US?

I will be the first to advocate the government use minimal to no
regulation where there is active competition and consumer choice,
and thus folks can "vote with their dollars".

Broadband in the US is not in that boat.  Too many consumers have
a "choice" of a single provider.  The vast majority of the rest
have the "choice" of two providers.  We make these monopoly or
duoploies come begging to local government to get approval for rate
increases and channel lineup changes, they appear to be demonstrating
that we need to do the same on the Internet side.

I also fail to see how this drives traffic away from the US, it's
not like Ma Citizen in Des Moines Iowa is going to move to Tokyo
to get Gigabit service for $18.  The only reason it looks like
traffic is going away from the US is the rest of the world is leaving
us behind, more bandwidth for less money.

The current experiment going on in Australia is very interesting to
watch....

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20101129/d3664888/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list