dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
31

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84 to Jerm

Member

to Jerm

Re: Did anyone not see this comming?

Maybe cogent should start hosting high traffic webpages cheaply. That should turn around their deficit.
Kip patterson
Premium Member
join:2000-10-23
Columbus, OH

Kip patterson

Premium Member

Ah, that's the problem now - Cogent needs less web site traffic, not more.

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84

Member

Basically cogent customer's are downloading more from elsewhere then they are uploading. This I guess makes big network providers unhappy because they don't want a leech costing them money. So cogent can either cap download's or get some big sites on their network that will upload all day.
Kip patterson
Premium Member
join:2000-10-23
Columbus, OH

Kip patterson

Premium Member

No, they are not. Cogent's customers are web sites that deliver content, mostly naked ladies. The peering partners do not care if Cogent pulls more data than they deliver - they are concerned when it goes the other way.
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home

smcallah

Member

So basically the other Tier 1's want Cogent to pay for traffic that the other Tier 1's OWN customers are requesting.

Ridiculous.
VirtualLarry
Premium Member
join:2003-08-01

2 recommendations

VirtualLarry to insomniac84

Premium Member

to insomniac84
said by "insomniac84" :
Maybe cogent should start hosting high traffic webpages cheaply. That should turn around their deficit.
Actually, that's a very astute observation. My observation is that there seems to be a fairly direct analog between money (trade) and bandwidth (trade). So in essence, there is a "trade deficit" (of bandwidth) going on here, and the other parties have decided to institute an embargo (of bandwidth, not of trade). In the history of nations, such things have precedent - but it's very interesting to see that analogy extended to major ISPs/carriers and bandwidth. I guess bandwidth is truely the currency of the "new information economy".

If that is true, then in a sense, the US (with poorer home broadband options than say, Korea or Japen) is a "poor" nation compared to other nations which offer higher bandwidth. You could say that the bandwidth-per-capita is higher in those other countries than in ours.

An interesting metric to be sure, but I think it's accurate. Bandwidth allows you to do things, and more bandwidth allows you to do things that you weren't previously capable of doing - just like money.

If you live below the poverty line (1Mbit/sec broadband being roughly that line), then there are certain online activities that you cannot even contemplate using. But if you have mega-bandwidth (think Internet2, the playground of the "bandwidth-rich elite"), then they are able to experience online activities that most of us can only dream of. (Live multi-screen video-wall projection rooms, for distance-learning application, for example. To think nothing of how that could revolutionize "listening" to music videos and MTV.)

It's also interesting to hear about the WiFi free internet (bandwidth) being talked about deployed in SanFran - essentially, it's "bandwidth welfare", of a sort, but information-connectedness is now starting to be an essential and crucial component of modern living. The Internet has replaced both phone and television for many people.

It's time to start understanding bandwidth for what it truely is - the currency in trade of the new information economy. Bandwidth is power.

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84 to smcallah

Member

to smcallah
If that's the case, then I had it backwards which makes no sense.
bmn
? ? ?

join:2001-03-15
hiatus

bmn to smcallah

to smcallah
said by smcallah:

So basically the other Tier 1's want Cogent to pay for traffic that the other Tier 1's OWN customers are requesting.

Ridiculous.
Actually, its not so ridiculous... Peering agreements operate on the concept that the two peers (peer A & peer B) will have roughly the same amount of traffic moving in both directions (A->B & B->A). The cost of having traffic coming from another peer is offset by the cost savings of having a direct path for your data to the other peer.

When one peer, A, transmits more data to the other peer, B, than peer A is receiving, peer A is essentially using peer B as a transit provider without paying for it. Peer B essentially is having to foot the cost of carrying peer A's traffic.

Cogent is essentially doing that with some of their peers... By transmitting massive amounts of information toward their peers, without a matching amount coming back at them, Cogent is using some if its peering connections like transit connections.
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home

smcallah

Member

I know how peering agreements usually work.

But my point is, should Cogent be paying for someone else's customers to view data?

Level(3) wants the best of both worlds? They want the money from their customers that are visiting everyone's sites, including ones off of Cogent.

But they also want the companies providing access to this content to pay?
smcallah

smcallah to insomniac84

Member

to insomniac84
Yes, that is the case.

Cogent is accused of having too much content that paying Level(3) customers want access to.

So in return, Level(3) wants to be paid for all that traffic they're already being paid for.

Sadly, that is how most peering agreements work.
bmn
? ? ?

join:2001-03-15
hiatus

bmn to smcallah

to smcallah
said by smcallah:

But my point is, should Cogent be paying for someone else's customers to view data?

Level(3) wants the best of both worlds? They want the money from their customers that are visiting everyone's sites, including ones off of Cogent.

But they also want the companies providing access to this content to pay?
If they are dumping traffic like they have been, most certainly. They are basically using Level3's like a transit provider because the transfer ratios are severely lopsided. Cogent is getting all the benefits of peering with Level3, but Level3 is not benefitting.

blurpo
@124-70.tampabay.res.

blurpo to smcallah

Anon

to smcallah
But my point is, should Cogent be paying for someone else's customers to view data?
Level(3) wants the best of both worlds? They want the money from their customers that are visiting everyone's sites, including ones off of Cogent.
But they also want the companies providing access to this content to pay?
Great point. As I see it, it's those providing access to end users that are getting the free ride. The Internet is mostly useless without content. Cogent is providing the content, while Level 3 is paid to let users view it. In essense, Level 3 is being subsidized by content providers that are on Cogent's network!
medici
join:2001-02-22
Shohola, PA

medici to bmn

Member

to bmn
Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't see how the argument makes sense. If Level-3 is upset because more traffic is coming in from Cogent than going out, it must be because Cogent has more content to provide. So, if Level-3 cuts off its users from the content they desire, aren't they cutting-off their nose to spite their face?

I don't see the end-game here going to Level-3's favor. For Joe Six-Pack, if the road your on won't take you where you want to go, you get off onto another road. Ditto for businesses. Level-3 loses customer base, whether it be to Cogent or to a neutral 3rd-party.

Looking at their latest 10Q filings, it's hard to understand how Level-3, with $891M gross revenues (excluding their coal mining operations -- coal mining???) for their latest quarter can reasonably argue that Cogent, with only $39M revenues, can be overwhelming them with traffic, even if Cogent is much cheaper.
medici

medici to bmn

Member

to bmn
Yes they are. The Level-3 customers who want to access content hosted by Cogent customers are [were] able to do so. Level-3 hasn't taken away the desire, only the means. These customers will then migrate from Level-3 to another network carrier that will give them access to what they want.

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84 to smcallah

Member

to smcallah
OMG, WTF? Cogent is hosting too much, so bullshit3 decides to cut off their customers from using cogent's content???? WTF? If anything cogent should get paid from L3(bullshit3). Cogent provides too much to L3's customer's and L3 wants money? This is just like the RIAA demanding apple give them a cut of the ipod. You have a product people want and we want a cut just because we help in your business, although you made the business.
insomniac84

insomniac84 to bmn

Member

to bmn
said by bmn:

If they are dumping traffic like they have been, most certainly. They are basically using Level3's like a transit provider because the transfer ratios are severely lopsided. Cogent is getting all the benefits of peering with Level3, but Level3 is not benefitting.
No, Level3's customers get to view cogent's content. That is the benefit. It only makes sense that the provider of the content is going to benefit more from peering. If level3 can't figure out a way to host more worthwhile stuff to even out its transfer ratios, then how do they come off to punish those that do provide content. L3 is basically saying, "we can't provide enough worthwhile content as cogent, so we decided to cut cogent from our network because we aren't going to be responsible for our user's download habits." It makes no sense. L3 should cut rates for hosting and maybe pick up a few big sites to make up for its content faults.
SledZep
join:2005-10-06
Marietta, GA

SledZep to insomniac84

Member

to insomniac84
Why can nobody see the other side of this? Cogent has a smaller customer base, L3's is larger. Cogent has sites charging $$ for their content and want EVERYONE to be able to view it. Why should Cogent get access to L3's customers for free when they are being paid by their customers to provide that access? everyone is saying L3's customers WANT cogents content... Why not say cogents content providers WANT L3's customers?
Any way you slice it, when there is a "free" arrangement between 2 parties someone is almost always benefiting more than the other. When the arrangement is no longer mutually beneficial the one who feels it is unfair changes it.
I think this is just the beginning of a coming trend. Everyday decisions are made to not peer with newer/smaller ISP's by the tier 1 providers because it does not make sense to make someone a peer when they should be a customer. ISP's have been suffering for years and they will clean up the peering sessions that do not make sense. L3 has started it but others will soon follow.
bmn
? ? ?

join:2001-03-15
hiatus

bmn to medici

to medici
said by medici:

Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't see how the argument makes sense. If Level-3 is upset because more traffic is coming in from Cogent than going out, it must be because Cogent has more content to provide.
That's the problem... When it comes to peering, its not about content, its about bandwidth and saving money. Networks peer with each in order to save money by not having to purchase transit service from one provider to get to another provider. They eliminate the middle man, and directly connect with the target provider. But those peering agreements are stipulated that certain rtaio of traffic sent to traffic received is maintained. As I and others have pointed out, Cogent typically is sending far more traffic than they are receiveing.
I don't see the end-game here going to Level-3's favor. For Joe Six-Pack, if the road your on won't take you where you want to go, you get off onto another road.
Joe Six-Pack doesn't actually interface with Level3 on a direct level anyway. Level3 typically is dealing with larger enterprise customers or ISPs.

nicky7
@rr.com

nicky7

Anon

Anyone know how lop-sided the transfer ratio is between cogent and l3?
bmn
? ? ?

join:2001-03-15
hiatus

bmn to insomniac84

to insomniac84
said by insomniac84:

No, Level3's customers get to view cogent's content. That is the benefit. It only makes sense that the provider of the content is going to benefit more from peering.
Which is why Cogent should be purchasing transit service from Level3, not peering... Peering is suppose to be equally beneficial to the two providers in question.
If level3 can't figure out a way to host more worthwhile stuff to even out its transfer ratios, then how do they come off to punish those that do provide content.
Why should Level3 even out the ratios if Cogent is blowing them? Or vice versa... That's not how the internet works.
L3 is basically saying, "we can't provide enough worthwhile content as cogent, so we decided to cut cogent from our network because we aren't going to be responsible for our user's download habits." It makes no sense. L3 should cut rates for hosting and maybe pick up a few big sites to make up for its content faults.
Actually, that's not what's happening here... Level3 is saying to Cogent that they are basically using Level3's network as a transit provider without paying for that service, a service which is more costly than peering. Level3 already has some major websites on its network. The problem is that Cogent does bot have enough clients on its networks downloading from Level3 to balance the traffic sent from its network. Cogent's network mostly hosts large pornography, warez and music trading sites with bandwidth intensive file on them. If anything, what Cogent needs to do is to get more end users on their system if we go along with what you're saying.
ginahoy
join:2003-01-04
Sierra Vista, AZ

ginahoy to smcallah

Member

to smcallah
Another way to look at the peering arrangements is to consider that content providers (nearly always) are the ones who ultimately pay for bandwidth at the wholesale level, either in currency or through peering relationships.

In other words, content providers must expect to pay to _deliver_ content. In this context, it's not unreasonable that Cogent be expected to pay its fair share (in trade or otherwise) to deliver its content beyond its network. It's not a matter of Cogent being asked to pay for someone else's customers to view its content. That's not the way peering relationships work. They are what they are, and they only work when there is reasonable symmetry.

David

Ant3
@Level3.com

Ant3 to smcallah

Anon

to smcallah
Cogent is not a content provider, their customers generally are. As a content provider (website) you are expected to pay for the bandwidth consumed. The viewer of a website is generally expected to not pay. Hence banner ads and selling porn are ways content providers can make a profit.

Cogent charges too little for their bandwidth, so the customers use a lot of it. Cogent peering partners end up subsidising all that by transporting the traffic.
SirJD
join:2005-08-13
Collierville, TN

SirJD to VirtualLarry

Member

to VirtualLarry
I salute your comment
flow1
join:2005-10-08
Charlotte, NC

flow1 to medici

Member

to medici
ok, I dont think anyone is getting the idea...
basically i see people saying lvl 3 wants to get payed by customers and cogent, you have to realize cogent network is overexerting lvl 3 networks with thier customers data. its the host that counts not the client. "level 3 users want the content" it doesnt matter they are pullin itoff cogent hosts. Its the hosting stream that matters. all the host bandwidth that cogent is layin into lvl 3 is lopsided.

Consider a apt with 3 roommates and one uploads crap to his friends all day. leaving the other 2 with no upload bandwidth or the option of having to pay for more...you would only assume they would ask the "uploader" to pay the diffrence or regulate his uploads. in the end it doesnt matter who makes more its who is costing who money. "bandwidth is the new currency" is a load of crap because it is real world cash that pays the bandwidth bills.

mcrowley
@205.247.x.x

mcrowley to Ant3

Anon

to Ant3
Cogent is not a content provider, their customers generally are. As a content provider (website) you are expected to pay for the bandwidth consumed. The viewer of a website is generally expected to not pay. Hence banner ads and selling porn are ways content providers can make a profit.

Cogent charges too little for their bandwidth, so the customers use a lot of it. Cogent peering partners end up subsidising all that by transporting the traffic.
I'll expound on this point. The food chain is this - Content Providers pay ISPs for bandwidth to have people to access their content. They pay for this bandwidth out of the revenue they receive. When the revenue they receive is directly related to the bandwidth (i.e., they're selling what they're hosting), it works out for the Content Provider. ISPs that do hosting generally charge more for hosting services, because they provide uptime guarantees (SLAs), and peering agreements with other Tier 1 ISPs to maintain those uptime guarantees, and make sure their customers (the Content Providers) are happy because any End User can access their site easily and quickly.

End Users pay ISPs for bandwidth to access other Content Providers. End Users generally pay cheaper rates, because, as a rule, we're not getting paid to access Content Providers. That's also why asynchronous rates (1MB download/128k upload) work out for most End Users. Cogent doesn't have any End Users, they are primarily providing service to Content Providers.

So what you have with the Level3/Cogent situation is Cogent's taking away high-value business (Content Provision) from Level3 by charging low prices. Then they're riding high-value networks like Level3 and other ISPs, who are getting left with the low-value business (End Users). So it's not an equitable trade.
Kip patterson
Premium Member
join:2000-10-23
Columbus, OH

Kip patterson

Premium Member

A great explanation!

To add a couple of things -

Cogent does have some end users - all commercial, so far as I know. Their original business concept was to wire buildings and sell high-speed access to law firms, etc, that inhabited the high-rises.

Cogent has grown by acquisition. For example, they bought PSINet. Their earlier troubles, with ATDN or AOL, came about when they used peering connections arranged by companies they purchased. There came to be new traffic at the peering point, with a ratio very unfavorable to their peer. Circuits got taken down.