Not to single out Jason, who has demonstrated his worth as one of the “good guys” in the community time after time, however I and somewhat of a skeptic:
That Comcast is in a “pretty good spot” for capacity could be punctuated by any number of shifts in traffic, or new sites/services emerging as the next killer app. Where other access providers would increase capacity, Comcast would see money in its eyes, or cite such dated metrics as traffic ratios as a fairness metric, all the while playing the victim with the press. I don’t think I’m overly alarmist in these views; one need only look to the Tata situation (congested for multiple years), which was a textbook case of poor execution and damage control by all involved, as a recent example. Fool me once... On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Livingood, Jason <jason_living...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > On 7/23/14, 1:18 PM, "Adam Rothschild" <a...@latency.net> wrote: > > >> Comcast¹s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure >> networks who don¹t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and >> China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to >> scale up traffic. >> >> (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood¹s posts to >> broadbandreports, unfortunately I don¹t have a citation handy.) > > I¹m pretty sure I didn¹t say specifically that DT and China Telecom were > options. I probably pointed out the lack of delivery problems prior to > using delivery partners like Cogent (such as via Akamai or Limelight) and > that delivery alternatives existed. But that¹s in the past - we¹re in a > pretty good spot w/Netflix traffic right now, though we continue to add > capacity as you¹d expect. > > Jason >
