Verizon Still Says No Caps....Yet > Go Verizon!

Go Verizon!

Well, it's not just about upgrading the backbone. Even though Verizon is a Tier 1 network (meaning they don't pay for transit) and own their own international fiber network, that doesn't mean they won't upset some other Tier 1 network providers. Look at Cogent, they undercut the competition so much they get in peering disputes. What happens when Verizon becomes the provider with the most outgoing network usage because they don't do caps and have really fast fiber connections? AT&T, AOL, and Qwest all have their own Tier 1 networks, and with AT&T and Time Warner Cable having caps, they may feel threatened by Verizon. I wonder if Qwest has talked about caps yet.

Of course, that is all hypothetical, because any company that gets in a peering dispute (for both Verizon and the adversary) is a PR nightmare. Especially when Verizon counters that their competitor is only dropping the connection because they provide more value to their customers.

Something to think about, nonetheless.
--
What happens when you combine common sense and an outspoken personality?

Cogent got in trouble for purposely routing traffic to peers they had a free exchange deal with.

Verizon doesn't have those arrangements , Ivan is a tech who made good , he knows all the little tricks these guys pull.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

reply to BosstonesOwn
No, that isn't why Cogent "got in trouble."

Cogent never purposely routed undesired/unwanted traffic to its settlement free peers. That has actually been done to THEM before.

Cogent has a lot of content, and thus there is an imbalance of traffic to its peers, as some of its larger peers have a ton of customers wanting to reach all that content on their network. So the larger peers get greedy because they want Cogent to pay, since they see the traffic as an imbalance. Even though their customers want that traffic REGARDLESS.

If Cogent lost a settlement free peer, and needed to get to that network, the last thing they'd do is buy transit from the company that depeered them. And these stupid companies don't realize that. Cogent can simply turn around and buy transit from a friendlier company, and get to the former peer that way. Thus screwing the former peer by sending the traffic somewhere else, instead of direct.

Why do people always think that Cogent is magically making traffic that these networks don't want?

Who do you think is requesting this traffic? It's the customers that are already paying them.

It's obvious Cogent is only being depeered because of its pricing schemes. The traffic imbalance is an excuse. Because there are MANY companies that continue to peer with huge traffic imbalances, because they don't compete on price with each other, or don't compete directly at all.

Time Warner Cable doesn't provide any real content, but has millions of customers requesting content, traffic through their backbone to settlement free peers is certainly out of balance, but these companies aren't depeering TWC, because they aren't competing directly for the same customers. ATDN, AOL's backbone, is definitely out of balance, because of the tens of millions of dialup customers they have, but they aren't getting depeered, and they've been in the settlement free peering business for 10+ years now.

Or maybe TWC and the rest don't care about their customers, and want to force some "real content" to abandon Cogent and come under their control?