jchin
join:2005-10-05
10300 | Level3 / Cogent ... about time! About time! Basically Level3 was holding the Internet hostage until Cogent pays. But what about all of Level3's dialup and DSL users who pay for cheap Internet and blast the Internet with their SPAM. Shouldn't Level3 pay?
Cogent mostly have customers who run servers and hosts. Level3 provides a lot of resellers with Internet access via dialup, DSL and even T1s. If Cogent should pay Level3 for sending content traffic to Level3 customers, then Level3 should pay Cogent for dealing with the massive amounts of SPAM that comes from e-mail blasts which originate from these inexpensive "end-user" connections that ultimately target the Cogent servers (mainly email servers).
10 of this or 10 of that. They should just sit down and hash out a new peering agreement. Not hold a portion of the Internet community as hostage or make a portion of the Internet collateral damage.
Just my 2-cents. |
|
|
|
| said by jchin:Level3's dialup and DSL users Cogent mostly have customers who run servers and hosts. Level3 provides a lot of resellers with Internet access via dialup, DSL and even T1s. Your facts are just straight up WRONG. Cogent is the cheap provider, not Level3. Level3's bandwidth pricing is several times that of Cogent.
Level3 doesn't (and never has) sold DSL.
Level3 no longer sells T1s and has not since the beginning of the year.
Get your facts straight before you spew FUD. |
|
| Level3 does support 5 of the top 6 dial ISP's though, at least they brag of it on their web sites.
Those dail ups are the only reason Cogent sends more data to level3 than they recieve, all those hundreds of thousands of pr0n surfers.
Why should Cogent be responsible for bandwidth routing to those diaups, that is not transit. If Cogent was sending data bound for a third party into Level3's network that they should pay for.
As for Level3 they may have warned Cogent, but they didn't warn me, their own paying customer purchasing 100MB of bandwidth that they were doing this so I could prepare. They simply cut off 15% of my customers access with no warning at all. Irresponsible behavior that has just cost them at least one good customer.
Which is why I called level3 and after their BS spiel told them I was cancelling my contract and leaving Level3 as fast as physically possible. |
|
jnxrox
join:2005-10-07
Las Vegas, NV | said by texas net :
Irresponsible behavior that has just cost them at least one good customer.
Which is why I called level3 and after their BS spiel told them I was cancelling my contract and leaving Level3 as fast as physically possible.
So you are singly connected to Level3? Why not multiple connections to provide better service for your customers? Taking down peering connections happens more than people think. Cogent tried to get away with calling the bluff. It was no bluff. They are exposed as the provider with more to lose and they should make arrangements for their customers before the new deadline.
As for your 100Mb single connection, don't be too sure that Level3 would rather you leave so they can concentrate on their large carrier customers that send them Gigs of traffic. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that they aren't about to start paying for you and their handful of single-homed customers to get to Cogents single-homed customers.
You're voting with your wallet...good for you, that's what you should do. Just keep in mind that in these situations your response has already been calculated in the modeling of this decision. It was going to cost more for them to keep peering with cogent with the imbalanced traffic ratios then to lose a certain % of customers over this. Otherwise the decision would not have been made. |
|
jnxrox
join:2005-10-07
Las Vegas, NV | reply to jchin
said by jchin:About time! Basically Level3 was holding the Internet hostage until Cogent pays. This is a gross exaggeration of the impact of this issue. Also, a mis-understanding of the drivers leading to the decision to dis-continue peering with Cogent. I would bet that Level3 doesn't care whether Cogent gets to them through direct links that cogent pays for, or through their other transit connections that they already have. They just made the decision based on their information that the relationship was no longer mutually beneficial and that they were not going to continue to absorb the costs any longer. It's not black magic and it's not a conspiracy. It's business. |
|
jchin
join:2005-10-05
10300 | reply to The Way Out
said by The Way Out:Level3 doesn't (and never has) sold DSL. Level3 no longer sells T1s and has not since the beginning of the year. Get your facts straight before you spew FUD. Level3 does indeed sell a lot bandwidth to DSL providers, so they indirectly sell DSL. |
|
| said by jchin:Level3 does indeed sell a lot bandwidth to DSL providers, so they indirectly sell DSL. But you referred to them as direct level3 customers as in "But what about all of Level3's dialup and DSL users who pay for cheap Internet and blast the Internet with their SPAM. Shouldn't Level3 pay?" Reality is the policies to control the spam and abuse done by the dialup and DSL users are controlled by the NetZeros, AOLs and comcasts, not Level3. They are the wholesale provider.
_VF |
|
