Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Livingood, Jason Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com
Thu May 15 18:11:30 UTC 2014

So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain balanced you can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where does it end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?

To use an analogy, if you and I agree to buy a car together and agree to switch off who uses it every other day, can I just say "forget our agreement – I’m just going to drive the car myself every single day – its all mine”?

And as you say, “interestingly enough only Comcast and Verizon are having this problem” someone else might say “interestingly enough one content distributor is at the center of all of these issues.” I’m frankly surprised that no one is stepping back to try to understand what was and is driving those changes.


On 5/15/14, 1:43 PM, "Nick B" <nick at pelagiris.org<mailto:nick at pelagiris.org>> wrote:

Yes, throttling an entire ISP by refusing to upgrade peering is clearly a way to avoid technically throttling.  Interestingly enough only Comcast and Verizon are having this problem, though I'm sure now that you have set an example others will follow.

More information about the NANOG mailing list