Comcast Blog

Which Comcast says isn't happening. http://blog.comcast.com/2012/05/the-facts-about-xfinity-tv-and-xbox-36…

> they are also going to try to make it a replacement for cable tv. This is something Sony and Microsoft have not tried to do with their consoles, which confuses me. Comcast and Microsoft just announced a deal... http://blog.comcast.com/2011/10/xfinity-on-demand-coming-soon-to-an-xb…

Wow, Comcast voluntarily switched to DNSSEC even though it required them to shut off their DNS-hijacking ad servers? They just went up a few notches in my eyes. (http://blog.comcast.com/2012/01/comcast-domain-helper-shuts-down.html)

I don't know if this qualifies as legitimate, but Comcast has already decided to allocate /128 to customers with "directly connected CPE", which sounds like people who have just a cable modem and didn't pay for a "home gateway device". NAT could be useful if you plug that cable modem into a Linux box. http://blog.comcast.com/2011/11/ipv6-deployment-technology.html

Comcast statement - http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html (also crap IMHO - I am not particularly inclined to believe their claim that Level 3 got same terms as Akamai and other CDNs for non-Netflix content)

Comcast responds, seeming to claim that Level 3 wants CDN peering with a tier-1 peering agreement: http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html

It's funny, I was thinking just yesterday about how much Comcast's new Domain Helper "service" makes me want to strangle them (http://blog.comcast.com/2009/08/domain-helper-national-rollout-begins.…

This mangles two issues - discriminating based on source versus path. Source discrimination is bad. The Internet allows applications and services to run “at the edge” of the network and not centrally; this encourages innovation [1]. Path discrimination is more complicated. Many content providers already pay private networks to transport their traffic on faster than the public internet [2]. There is even a market for traders paying tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for low latency connections [3]. Given that ISPs charge each other for transporting traffic [4] it costs more to broker traffic across others' networks versus its own. It doesn't seem unfair for the ISP to charge less for the latter. This would allow Comcast et al to compete with the Akamais and Level3s that irk them today [5]. Sooner or later they will find it makes more sense to offer the discount for same-network traffic to everyone. Comcast has made shitty statements about net neutrality before [1]. But it's not okay to vilify anything Comcast says by virtue of it being said by Comcast - that's straight up ad hominem. [1] http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/Economides_Net_Neutrality.pdf [2] http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/11/level-3-lands-netflix-streaming-busin… [3] http://www.highfrequencytraders.com/article/682/options-it-optimizes-c… [4] http://blog.teracomtraining.com/how-isps-connect-to-the-internet-peeri… [5]…