And the "unbalanced" peers / transit? -Blake
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:41 AM, McElearney, Kevin <kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > This is a smart group. If if that was true I think every internet site / > service one visits from home would be a negatively impacted. That is not the > case > > As I said before, Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of > capacity. Wholesale $$ are very small, highly competitive and only "skin in > the game" to promote efficiencies > > - Kevin > > >> On May 15, 2014, at 12:01 PM, "Jared Mauch" <ja...@puck.nether.net> wrote: >> >> >>> On May 15, 2014, at 11:50 AM, McElearney, Kevin >>> <kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: >>> >>> There is no gaming on measurements and disputes are isolated and temporary >>> with issues not unique over the history of the internet. I think all the >>> same rhetorical quotes continue to be reused >> >> Kevin, >> >> in the past most issues were transient for a few months as both sides got >> complaints, but while at RIPE earlier this week someone commented to me: >> there's no one provider you can buy access from to get a packet-loss free >> connection to all their other business partners/customers. This hurts the >> entire marketplace when there is persistent congestion. >> >> Some of these issues are related to (as Craig called them) "Hypergiants" >> (OTT) but others are due to providers having poor capital models so they >> don't have "budget" for upgrading unless someone pays for that upgrade, vs >> seeing their existing customer base as that source for the capital. >> >> As an engineer, I'm hopeful that those responsible for budgeting will do the >> right thing. As a greedy capitalist, please pay me more $$$. It does feel >> a bit like tic-tac-toe with zero players in wargames though, the only way to >> win is to not play [games]. >> >> - Jared >>
