RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

["Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>]

Makes we wonder if Level3's contract with Netflix has certain performance
requirements that would preclude Level3 sending Netflix traffic to Comcast
the long way around.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/235645-akamai-to-lose-netflix-as-a-customer-
level-3-and-limelight-pick-up-the-business
        If there is one thing Netflix is good at, probably the 
        best in the industry, it's measuring the quality of 
        their streaming. They constantly send out emails 
        asking customers to rank the quality of the video they 
        just watched and they have so much data on what works 
        and what doesn't. So when they choose one provider 
        over another, they really have the data to back it up.

George Ou touches on a similar point at the end of his article:
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/11/level-3-outbid-akamai-on-netflix-by-re
selling-stolen-bandwidth/

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Finnesey [mailto:ryan.finnesey () HarrierInvestments com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:54 AM
To: Thomas Donnelly; Rettke, Brian; Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list; Guerra,
Ruben
Subject: RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning
Comcast'sActions

It may have something to do with that Level3 is now hosting all the
streaming content for Netflixs.
Cheers
Ryan


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Donnelly [mailto:tad1214 () gmail com] 
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:52 PM
To: Rettke, Brian; Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list; Guerra, Ruben
Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning
Comcast'sActions

"On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first
time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet
online movies and other content to Comcast's customers who request such
content."

If the issue is bandwidth, then why not charge for bandwidth? Picking a
specific service says we are trying to squash the competition.


On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:48:06 -0600, Guerra, Ruben
<Ruben.Guerra () arrisi com> wrote:

> I'd have to agree with Brian. There is no simple answer to this one...

> If the ultimate cause is the abuse of bandwidth, I can understand 
> this... BUT if the underlying motive is to squash competition then 
> shame on you!
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rettke, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rettke () cableone biz]
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:41 PM
> To: Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list
> Subject: RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning  
> Comcast's Actions
>
> Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to

> support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming  
> streaming ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast,
and  
> the side of the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as

> the slogans spewed out regarding "Net Neutrality", which has become so

> misused and abused as a term that I don't think it has any credulous  
> value remaining.
>
> I'm hoping that there is an eventual meeting of the minds wherein some

> sort of collaboration takes place. If this gets additional government

> regulations I fear no one will like the result.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Brian A . Rettke
> RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP
> Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick () ianai net]
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:28 PM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's

> Actions
<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statemen
t-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp>
> 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?)
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/