Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

[Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net> wrote:
> * jnanog () gmail com (Rick Astley) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 05:08 CEST]:
> > If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a
> > law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free
>
> Lower it?
>
> Right now broadband providers pay a transit provider who then get paid
> by content providers to carry the bits, generally because broadband
> providers don't want to think about running IP networks because they
>  their skills lie more in the television part of RF networks.

People are never gonna give this thread up, I see.  Easily one of the
longest threads in recent nanog history and I'm starting to see points
rehashed and strawmen trotted out.

Comcast sells wholesale transit -
http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true

And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated
requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.

http://www.comcast.com/peering

> Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and
> Comcast that enables a general balance of inbound versus
> outbound traffic. The network cost burden for carrying traffic
> between networks shall be similar to justify SFI

Now, that big elephant in the room taken into account, where do the
middlemen come in here?

--srs