On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dave Temkin <davet1@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree. Even at $1/Mbit and 6Tbit of traffic (they do more), that's still $72M/year in revenue that they weren't recognizing before. Given that that traffic was actually *costing* them money to absorb before, turning the balance and making that kind of money would be very favorably looked upon in
Yeah, because it makes a lot of sense to fuck with a billion dollar a month revenue stream so you can extract a few million dollars more per month from IP carriers. This definitely makes more sense than, say, running the billion dollar a month side a little more efficiently. You need to understand the scale of comcast's expenses and revenue on the access and transport side of their business, in order to have a remotely intelligent opinion about whether or not they are doing anything smart with the peering/transit side, in these conditions. If you really think it's a good idea to attract the attention of government regulators, newspapers, customers, and every major ISP by making a lot of noise over something that might allow you to make 0.5% more money off a product where you could probably save an order of magnitude more money through any number of ignored efficiencies within the organization, I would love for you to post that. I suspect that most folks who are of the opinion that Comcast is motivated by anything but the three things I mentioned have not clearly considered the proportionately small benefit they could gain from selling access to their network at anything approaching a nominal fee. It must be either 1) very high per-Mb price; 2) ego and stupidity; 3) greed of such magnitude that it would make Gordon Gecko proud. -- Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts