Comment Re:The text in a readable format (Score 2) 434
Comcast claims that a good network maintains a 1:1 with them, but that's simply not possible unless you had Comcast and another broadband access network talking to each other. In the attached graphs you can see the ratio is more along the lines of 5:1, which Comcast was complaining about with Level (3). The reality is that the ratio argument is bogus. Broadband access networks are naturally pull-heavy and it's being used as an excuse to call foul of Level (3) and other content heavy networks. But this shoulnd't surprise anyone, the ratio argument has been used for over a decade by many of the large telephone companies as an excuse to deny peering requests.
I'm suprised the ratio is that good considering most broadband service providers force their customers into highly asymetric connections (8:1?, 10:1?, higher?) and not allow them to run servers. It's disingenious to expect the Level 3 to be a 'good network' and maintain a 1:1 ratio with them while they force their customers into a highly asymmetric traffic pattern. It appears to me that it's in the ISP's financial interest to force high assymetry.
If Comcast want's Level 3 to pay up for traffic ratios higher than 5:1, and Comcast forces their customers into still higher ratios, shouldn't Comcast be paying (refunding) their customers for the 'excess' traffic?