I said I would step away, but trying to keep some level of emotion out of
this... We all need "rational actor" behavior in the ecosystem. We need our
policies and agree to live up to those policies between players. Random and
inconsistent behavior does not build a well functioning market and is the root
of most disputes
We can argue about what the policy should be, the impacts, etc and that is a
fair discussion.
- Kevin
215-313-1083
On May 15, 2014, at 2:11 PM, "Livingood, Jason"
<jason_living...@cable.comcast.com<mailto:jason_living...@cable.comcast.com>>
wrote:
So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain balanced you
can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where does it
end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?
To use an analogy, if you and I agree to buy a car together and agree to switch
off who uses it every other day, can I just say "forget our agreement – I’m
just going to drive the car myself every single day – its all mine”?
And as you say, “interestingly enough only Comcast and Verizon are having this
problem” someone else might say “interestingly enough one content distributor
is at the center of all of these issues.” I’m frankly surprised that no one is
stepping back to try to understand what was and is driving those changes.
Jason
On 5/15/14, 1:43 PM, "Nick B" <n...@pelagiris.org<mailto:n...@pelagiris.org>>
wrote:
Yes, throttling an entire ISP by refusing to upgrade peering is clearly a way
to avoid technically throttling. Interestingly enough only Comcast and Verizon
are having this problem, though I'm sure now that you have set an example
others will follow.
Nick
