Then ignore Ou's post and focus on the point I tried to make: that Level3 has a vested interest in making sure the Comcast users have a good Netflix experience. =)
Frank -----Original Message----- From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:william.allen.simp...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:28 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions [Changed long CC list to BCC] On 12/2/10 12:49 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: > 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/ > The Ou article makes no sense at all! It's based on the premise that Level 3 and Comcast are peering, and that traffic should be symmetric. Everywhere else, the articles and pundits indicate that Comcast is a transit customer of Level 3. All actual network operators know that traffic isn't symmetric! Ou's hit piece reads more like a pseudo-libertarian rant. In fact, other Ou posts listed there have titles that read like an ultra-conservative cum social-conservative rant: * Wrong On The Internet > Another Net Neutrality 'violation' debunked * Why Viacom and others justified in blocking Google TV * Wrong On The Internet > Genachowski pushing ahead with Net Neutrality during lame duck * Google hypocrisy on content blocking * Hijacking the Internet is trivial today You have to consider the source. If Ou doesn't understand contracts, peering, and/or transit, just take his posts with a grain of salt.
