Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com
Tue Nov 30 09:06:09 CST 2010
On 11/30/2010 6:33 AM, Jeff Young wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> On 30/11/2010, at 9:28 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> 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?)
> So in this particular game of chicken, Comcast wins. Shame that L3 agreed to this, sets a bad precedent. I have to imagine that Comcast would have been the worse for wear, their phone lines would have lit up like a Christmas tree -- why can't I access...?
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This whole mess concerns me about the future of the internet. If the
traffic can't get to the clients by routing around a depeering..is the
internet really working as designed? I don't think so. Peering has
become the gateway to the ultimate in network control...while it's the
provider's prerogative who access their network..peering has become a
club for access and has become the instrument of removing the basic
design wins of the internet.
More information about the NANOG