Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday May 09 2014, @07:32PM   Printer-friendly
from the an-eldritch-horror-arises dept.

Ars Technica with Comcast is the one who should pay for network connections, Cogent claims Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer made a different argument, saying that Comcast is the one who should be paying for connectivity. He did so while testifying in front of a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Comcast's planned acquisition of Time Warner Cable.

Schaeffer pointed to the fact that Comcast is not considered to be a so-called "Tier 1" network. There are a dozen or so Tier 1 networks that make up the closest thing the Internet has to a backbone. Tier 1 networks can reach every part of the Internet simply by peering with one another. Other networks buy "transit" in order to access the rest of the Internet. Peering is a point-to-point connection only, which doesn't necessarily guarantee passage of traffic to any networks beyond the two involved in the connection.

and

Tom's guide with The Case Against Time Warner-Comcast Just Got Stronger

The broadband ISPs "are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers. They are not allowing us to fulfil [sic] the requests their customers make for content," wrote Mark Taylor, vice president of content and media at Level 3 Communications, in a blog post yesterday (May 5) entitled "Observations of an Internet Middleman."

eldritch Level 3 is perhaps the most important Internet company you've never heard of. It is a top "backbone" provider, ensuring fast, fat connections among the local networks of dozens of other Internet-related companies across the world. Level 3 carries tremendous authority on Internet traffic matters, and for it to accuse consumer-level ISPs of throttling traffic is a bit like God, or at least the federal government, speaking.

I think we know this Frankenstien's monster will be allowed to proceed. Do you have any rage left that I can borrow?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by samwichse on Friday May 09 2014, @08:08PM

    by samwichse (3189) on Friday May 09 2014, @08:08PM (#41376) Journal

    The real question with this merger: Is there a soul in this country that thinks this will be in any way good for the public?

    My guess: Nope, but there are plenty that think this will be good for their own pocketbook at the expense of the public.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Underrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10 2014, @01:32AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10 2014, @01:32AM (#41449)

    I've never dealt with Comcast, but I've had Time-Warner for internet service before. I have to say they were probably one of the best ISP I've dealt with. Granted I was paying almost $140/mo for business class service to my apartment, but I am willing to pay a little more for reliable service. Hopefully, Comcast doesn't ruin them.

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 10 2014, @10:47AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Saturday May 10 2014, @10:47AM (#41550) Journal

    Guess Asia an Europe will use their competitive advantage on this. Guess, how long before this mess affect GDP?