tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2186388558379514485.post6793477699905514187..comments2024-01-05T03:18:21.071-05:00Comments on The Changing Media Landscape: Net Neutrality QuestionedAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14310355174223077149noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2186388558379514485.post-69976882961921797192010-11-30T21:53:05.223-05:002010-11-30T21:53:05.223-05:00The only flaw in this is that Level 3 tried to do ...The only flaw in this is that Level 3 tried to do the same thing to Cogent as it's claiming Comcast did to it.<br /><br />http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/30/fcc-looking-into-comcast-netflix-blocking-threat-level-3-resp/<br /><br />"For example, Cogent was sending far more traffic to the Level 3 network than Level 3 was sending to Cogent's network. It is important to keep in mind that traffic received by Level 3 in a peering relationship must be moved across Level 3's network at considerable expense. Simply put, this means that, without paying, Cogent was using far more of Level 3's network, far more of the time, than the reverse. Following our review, we decided that it was unfair for us to be subsidizing Cogent's business."Greg Bulmashhttp://www.brainhandles.comnoreply@blogger.com