On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Dave Temkin <davet1@gmail.com> wrote:
I do. And yes, they are happy to "fuck with a billion dollar a month revenue stream" (that happens to be low margin) in order to set a precedent so that when traffic is 60Tbit instead of 6Tbit, across the *same* customer
We disagree on this point. I do not think anyone knowledgeable at Comcast realistically believes they will be able to charge a business-relevant amount of money for access to their customers. I think regulators would first but the brakes on our whole industry. Cable Internet is far from low-margin; in fact, the cable company in my area, an order of magnitude smaller than Comcast, generates an order of magnitude more profit from IP than from television. What I do think, and what people on this list who engage in peering discussions with Comcast cannot say for fear of reprisal, is that the peering folks at Comcast are driven entirely by ego, and they lack the big picture decision-making capacity of business people making strategy decisions. They have upper management convinced that becoming settlement-free is a golden goose. The peering folks would be wise to reconsider their positions before upper management realizes that their ego-driven staff are risking the golden goose they already have, their captive audience, for little gain. After all, if they can't manage to run their IP and transport network more cost-effectively than they do today, they will never be able to compete as a transit network, and the golden goose they are chasing will never lay any eggs. -- Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts