On 11/29/2010 4:49 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands > more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and > pass on the costs to the customers demanding it.
I'd change this to "A customer pays for SHARED access to the Internet." Unless your customer is paying for a direct fiber or internet circuit (~$500 - $10,000 per month) they aren't paying for independent and sole access to the internet. It's another term that I think has lost its actual meaning, "Unlimited access." I don't have a problem, as a customer or as a Service Provider, passing along the bill to the top 5% that are using a disproportionate amount of bandwidth. I can see the Internet reaching a fair-use model, as opposed to a free-use model that is unsustainable, as was previously said. Here's one specific example I can think of to discuss: Netflix uses about a third of Internet bandwidth, in some cases going over the HTTP traffic use for most customers. Netflix charges customers a fee to use their service, but they don't pay the providers required to supply the bandwidth for the customer leg. I don't think ISPs charging Netflix is a sustainable model either. A mutual endeavor involving shared interconnect costs and intelligent placement of proxies would be something I could think of to make the process beneficial for all parties. The end goal would be that the "Shared Media Customer" has no idea what we are doing, but does not see performance degradation in their HTTP or Netflix traffic, and that it does not pass along additional cost to them. After all, to both Netflix and the ISP, it is in their best interests to keep that customer a happy and paying customer. Sincerely, Brian A . Rettke RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services -----Original Message----- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:11 PM To: Aaron Wendel Cc: Rettke, Brian; 'Patrick W. Gilmore'; 'NANOG list' Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions On 11/29/2010 4:49 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands > more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and > pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. > I agree. This type of maneuver is no different than ESPN3 charging the ISP for the ISP customers to access the content. Both are unscalable models that threaten the foundation of an open Internet. As an ISP, I could care less what is in the packets my customers send and receive. The exception to this, of course, is malicious packets but they keep refusing to set the evil bit. Jack
