Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality
Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com
Thu May 15 18:22:34 UTC 2014
I said I would step away, but trying to keep some level of emotion out of this... We all need "rational actor" behavior in the ecosystem. We need our policies and agree to live up to those policies between players. Random and inconsistent behavior does not build a well functioning market and is the root of most disputes
We can argue about what the policy should be, the impacts, etc and that is a fair discussion.
On May 15, 2014, at 2:11 PM, "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com<mailto:Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com>> wrote:
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