On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Paul Stewart wrote: > >> Pardon my ignorance here but what does Comcast do for the NANOG community? >> I know they attend many conferences and share their experiences with a lot >> of us which is very much appreciated... > > I'm sure the concern is that Comcast signed up to return NANOG (newNOG?) to > philly.
They also were the sponsor for IETF-71 in Philly in 2008. Regards Marshall > > I think they may be overly sensitive to some of the comments, just as if > people were posting similar comments about my employer, I would likely be > sensitive. (Also there are a lot of people who post stuff but don't actually > attend NANOG meetings. There is this overlap but disjoint as well between > the two in my experience. Hope everyone is wearing their teflon pants). > > Aside from the 'public comments', the leaked graphics (which I personally > would believe are accurate, but the motives of the leakers not obvious), I > don't directly have a role here. I understand comcast has a lot of > infrastructure and costs. Likely more fiber than the incumbent telcos, and > they are constrained by a variety of local business conditions from doing > what may be a more optimal solution for themselves. > > All that said, the whole issue of 'local content' is going to continue to > rage on for years to come. Getting the content closer to the end user is > going to be a key to reducing costs for the long-tail providers to homes and > businesses. Should it be incumbent on the CDNs to pay for colo at the > headend? That's a business decision that will entirely be driven by these > ongoing disputes. > > It surely feels like we are slowly going down the road of telco-style > settlement based on call direction. I've observed some trends that point at > this happening when someone has a fortress they wish to defend, monetize or > subsidize further. Will it win out? I'm not entirely sure. > > - Jared >
