Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com
Thu May 15 16:41:09 UTC 2014
This is a smart group. If if that was true I think every internet site / service one visits from home would be a negatively impacted. That is not the case
As I said before, Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of capacity. Wholesale $$ are very small, highly competitive and only "skin in the game" to promote efficiencies
> On May 15, 2014, at 12:01 PM, "Jared Mauch" <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote:
>> On May 15, 2014, at 11:50 AM, McElearney, Kevin <Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>> There is no gaming on measurements and disputes are isolated and temporary with issues not unique over the history of the internet. I think all the same rhetorical quotes continue to be reused
> in the past most issues were transient for a few months as both sides got complaints, but while at RIPE earlier this week someone commented to me: there's no one provider you can buy access from to get a packet-loss free connection to all their other business partners/customers. This hurts the entire marketplace when there is persistent congestion.
> Some of these issues are related to (as Craig called them) "Hypergiants" (OTT) but others are due to providers having poor capital models so they don't have "budget" for upgrading unless someone pays for that upgrade, vs seeing their existing customer base as that source for the capital.
> As an engineer, I'm hopeful that those responsible for budgeting will do the right thing. As a greedy capitalist, please pay me more $$$. It does feel a bit like tic-tac-toe with zero players in wargames though, the only way to win is to not play [games].
> - Jared
More information about the NANOG