dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
5916

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00 to cramer

Member

to cramer

Re: VZ vs. Cogent: When will it end?

said by cramer:

Show me the contracts

Obviously you think I'm an insider. I don't have access to contracts. And if I did they'd be confidential and I wouldn't share them.
said by cramer:

back up that "10x the going [price]"

»lmgtfy.com/?q=verizon+co ··· times%22

Top hit. Already posted in this thread.

By all means, list a few of ISPs that Netflix can use that can handle the traffic. I haven't seen a response to that question yet.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

1 recommendation

cramer

Premium Member

said by nothing00:

Obviously you think I'm an insider. I don't have access to contracts. And if I did they'd be confidential and I wouldn't share them.

Not at all, but you and many others talk as if you have inside information and know what Verizon, AT&T, etc. charge their customers (btw, it's not a set price) and how much they've quoted Cogent and Netflix for current and additional bandwidth.

All we have to go on is a quote from the whining bitch'sCogent's CEO, that isn't entirely clear what is "ten times" what. 10x the bandwidth (to Verizon at least) will be 10x the cost. Cogent's a "Tier 1" in their own words, so why would the word transit even be uttered? Are the costs compared to Cogent's pricing, Verizon's, someone else's? There is no "market rate", because every ("large" by various measures) bandwidth deal is an independently negotiated contract -- hell I've received different rates simply by asking different people, at the same company, on the same day.

Netflix isn't saying anything.

You and a lot of other nuts keep throwing out the "who can" card. Obviously, Netflix has enough bandwidth with Cogent -- the traffic isn't being dropped at the link between them, or within Cogent's network. Cogent simply doesn't have enough, or large enough, links to Verizon (and others), and aren't going to pay anything to improve it. ("We're a Tier 1, dammit, our bandwidth is Free!" Or as their CEO puts it, "bill and keep") Netflix is free to to do what every other CDN does... peer directly with the ISPs moving the most traffic.
serge87
join:2009-11-29
New York

1 edit

serge87

Member

said by cramer:

said by nothing00:

Obviously you think I'm an insider. I don't have access to contracts. And if I did they'd be confidential and I wouldn't share them.

Not at all, but you and many others talk as if you have inside information and know what Verizon, AT&T, etc. charge their customers (btw, it's not a set price) and how much they've quoted Cogent and Netflix for current and additional bandwidth.

All we have to go on is a quote from the whining bitch'sCogent's CEO, that isn't entirely clear what is "ten times" what. 10x the bandwidth (to Verizon at least) will be 10x the cost. Cogent's a "Tier 1" in their own words, so why would the word transit even be uttered? Are the costs compared to Cogent's pricing, Verizon's, someone else's? There is no "market rate", because every ("large" by various measures) bandwidth deal is an independently negotiated contract -- hell I've received different rates simply by asking different people, at the same company, on the same day.

Netflix isn't saying anything.

You and a lot of other nuts keep throwing out the "who can" card. Obviously, Netflix has enough bandwidth with Cogent -- the traffic isn't being dropped at the link between them, or within Cogent's network. Cogent simply doesn't have enough, or large enough, links to Verizon (and others), and aren't going to pay anything to improve it. ("We're a Tier 1, dammit, our bandwidth is Free!" Or as their CEO puts it, "bill and keep") Netflix is free to to do what every other CDN does... peer directly with the ISPs moving the most traffic.

Ditto. If Netflix was happily paying Cogent tens of millions to move their videos, why do they suddenly demand free peering with Verizon? You gotta PAY to PLAY. If people want to get their panties in a twist, it should be about Verizon charging "10 times" the rate, not the laughably ridiculous idea that Verizon should pay for everything AND peer for free with Netflix as the cherry on top. Some people wouldn't last too long in the business world...

EduardaCC
@nos-oignons.net

EduardaCC to gcarverpn

Anon

to gcarverpn
The problem here is that Comcast is not selling in a competitive marketplace. You can buy IP from most providers in an Equinix, and you still won't have a good route to them, because they run their network extremely congested. Netflix had no choice here, and so "caved" is an accurate word choice.

The problem with techpolicydaily.com is that all of their articles are written by lobbyists (just have a look at the titles) so you're going to see some bias. This particuar author didn't even understand the networks involved well enough to spell Akamai correctly. I'd look to the Internap blog article (I think someone linked to it here) for better unbiased reporting.
said by gcarverpn:

KrK, you make it sound like this is new. Netflix and every other content provider has been paying for network, space and power since the commercialization of the Internet. Also there have been peering disputes since peering started (with some like Cogent consistently at the center of disputes)

Netflix didn't "cave" they expanded their options around who they use for transit vs flooding a few (like Cogent) and blaming everyone except themselves.

Every other CDN and major content provider already operates this way to make sure their customers have good performance.

»www.techpolicydaily.com/ ··· usiness/

The CEO of Netflix, Reed Hastings, made a bit of a news splash when he posted his lament that Netflix voluntarily decided to pay Comcast directly for some Internet transit. He shouldn’t be gnashing his teeth but should be celebrating his new status as one of the “big boys.” The truth is that large successful Internet companies like Google, Amazon and Microsoft have long paid for transit either directly to a consumer access provider like Comcast or Verizon or to a middleman like Akami

What Netflix is feeling is the cost of success. Once you, as a single company, constitute the bulk of all US Internet traffic with the most aggressive use of bandwidth (streaming video), it begins to take a toll on a network. As you grow, you may need to upgrade your equipment or increase your supply chain – it’s, again, just the cost of business. -


birdfeedr
MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI

1 recommendation

birdfeedr to nothing00

MVM

to nothing00
said by nothing00:

said by gcarverpn:

KrK, you make it sound like this is new.

He's 100% correct. This is new. Why you're suggesting this is an age old practice is highly questionable. Residential ISPs have never charged for access to customers before. That's new. (In case you're wondering, they've made their money by charging residential customers for access.)

You're making a mistake if you think Verizon the residential ISP = Verizon the transit provider.

Verizon has multiple entities that can operate at cross-purposes. Now, if you're making a case for corporate schizophrenia, maybe you have a point. VZ's right hand doesn't always know what the left hand is doing.
birdfeedr

birdfeedr to nothing00

MVM

to nothing00
said by nothing00:

said by gcarverpn:

KrK, you make it sound like this is new.

He's 100% correct. This is new. Why you're suggesting this is an age old practice is highly questionable. Residential ISPs have never charged for access to customers before. That's new. (In case you're wondering, they've made their money by charging residential customers for access.)

You're making a mistake if you think Verizon the residential ISP = Verizon the transit provider.

Verizon has multiple entities that can operate at cross-purposes. Now, if you're making a case for corporate schizophrenia, maybe you have a point. VZ's right hand doesn't always know what the left hand is doing.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

1 recommendation

KrK to birdfeedr

Premium Member

to birdfeedr
It's like the old shell game. Watch the peanut. When Verizon creates a separate "Transit" provider, that, on one end they connect to their ISP, and then on the other end they connect to other transit providers, and then demand compensation because the traffic coming from their ISP is massively asymmetrical, (They consume far more then they generate) they are in effect demanding tolls for the transit providers serving up the data THEIR OWN ISP customers demand. It's a huge scam, really.

"I demand you pay us to upgrade our network to support OUR customers."

birdfeedr
MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI

1 recommendation

birdfeedr

MVM

said by KrK:

It's like the old shell game. Watch the peanut. .... It's a huge scam, really.

Yes, there are lots of things these days that are over rated.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00 to funky

Member

to funky
said by cramer:

that isn't entirely clear what is "ten times" what

Maybe it isn't entirely clear but it the most likely interpretation is 10x for equivalent bandwidth of popular providers. Calling Cogent's CEO a whining bitch is just attempting to devalue a solid point.
said by cramer:

There is no "market rate"

Sure there is. While every contract is different and quotes vary the type of bandwidth we're talking about don't see prices with a range of several orders of magnitude. The rates tend to be fairly close because there's... competition. When was the last time you got a quote (where both parties properly understood one another) that was 100x more than you anticipated? If you did get one, did you have the word "sucker" written on your forehead that day?
said by cramer:

You and a lot of other nuts keep throwing out the "who can" card.

If it's nuts to expect that an ISP provide adequate capacity to their subscribers, or that an ISP like Cogent should be able to connect to Verizon's network to provide the data that their customer's requested without getting raked over the coals... yeah, I'm nuts.
said by serge87:

why do they suddenly demand free peering with Verizon

Well, it's not Netflix that was demanding free peering and I have no problem with them requesting it either. Netflix was paying Cogent for transit, residential ISPs do not deliver transit.
said by serge87:

the laughably ridiculous idea that Verizon should pay for everything

Who is suggesting that Verizon pays for all of the Internet? Maybe just pay for their OWN infrastructure to handle the requests of their OWN customers?
said by serge87:

it should be about Verizon charging "10 times" the rate

Absolutely agree. It's an egregious abuse of their gatekeeper status.
said by birdfeedr:

You're making a mistake if you think Verizon the residential ISP = Verizon the transit provider.

Not really making the mistake. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong I'm sure. But I'm betting the only way to access the Comcast/AT&T/Verizon residential ISP business unit is to transit their "business" side ISP services. This is such a clearly BS way of trying to game the system it's laughable.

1. Hide residential ISP behind transit ISP.
2. Watch all of the bits flow into the transit ISP - OMG! Unbalanced xfer!
3. ?
4. Profit.

For #3 they're trying extortion to get to #4. While we're at it, let's keep our business service ISP rates high so no one really uses us, maintain a huge traffic imbalance and we can collect a toll from everyone else that touches our network. (This here is the obfuscation everyone seems to be falling for. When in reality it's about charging for access to customers.)

I believe KrK got to this one before me.

It's such a bare-faced manipulation it's hard to believe anyone wants to try and debate things on the 'technical merits'. At the very top it's clearly a bunch of bull. The very comments from the executive teams of these companies should be all of the evidence required.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

1 recommendation

cramer

Premium Member

said by nothing00:

Calling Cogent's CEO a whining bitch is just attempting to devalue a solid point.

I'm calling the whole company a whiny bitch. It appears to be one of their key business methods.

While every contract is different and quotes vary the type of bandwidth we're talking about don't see prices with a range of several orders of magnitude.

When looked at per bit, sure, but in total, a 1/10/100G line ("port cost") PLUS bandwidth does vary far and wide between operators. There is no "market price" because there's no open market where bits are traded like power, gas, rice, pork bellies, etc. Every provider values their network differently from any other provider -- and they justify the differences in various "marketing" ways. Generally speaking ISP A has very little clue what ISP B charges; neither advertise a fixed rate table, and customers don't publish their private contracts.

When was the last time you got a quote (where both parties properly understood one another) that was 100x more than you anticipated?

Actually, a little over a year ago, and again less than 5 months ago. "100x" more than I expected, no, but still what everyone but the ISP agrees is "insane". For example (without naming anyone), a 100M ethernet port (just a link) from provider A: 300$, B: 1600$ -- for exactly the same thing, entirely on respective ISP's network. Which of those ISPs thinks their shit don't stink? Which one grew up in an era of tariff inflated pricing?

And that's before "internet" is added in... (100M flat) A: 1300$, B: didn't bother getting that far, C: 180$ (w/300$ in SIP riding on it.)

(Note: "C" doesn't have hardware here, they quoted 1300$ for gig over a 3rd party)

For the record, none of those numbers are Verizon (aka, UUNet.) Anyone who's ever done business with VZB/UUnet, **EVER**, knows they're the most insanely expensive holes on the internet, and they. do. not. care. And that's 99% of the mindset everyone is running into today.

The "nutty" part is believing Cogent should get a free ride to push an insanely unbalanced amount of traffic -- entirely due to a single customer -- into various other networks, entirely for free. They're being paid plenty by that one customer to cover the inequity in traffic, but flat out, publicly, refuse to part with any of their income.

... residential ISPs do not deliver transit.

But they're owned by those that do... FiOS doesn't "buy" transit from anyone but their parent company, the Tier 1 monster formed from many other operations.

it should be about Verizon charging "10 times" the rate

Absolutely agree. It's an egregious abuse of their gatekeeper status.

I've covered this repeatedly. This is not remotely new behavior from VZB -- they're expensive - period.
gcarverpn
join:2014-03-01

gcarverpn to EduardaCC

Member

to EduardaCC
said by EduardaCC :

The problem here is that Comcast is not selling in a competitive marketplace. You can buy IP from most providers in an Equinix, and you still won't have a good route to them, because they run their network extremely congested. Netflix had no choice here, and so "caved" is an accurate word choice.

This is exactly what Netflix and very small number of bottom-feeder transit ISPs want you to believe and they will anonymously post to forums repeating that same statement to make people think it is true. Then they will change the statement depending on which ISP is the topic.

Cogent even had a canned form letter that they modified per customer complaint blaming every one of their congestion issues on the peer of the moment.

Truth is, there are, has been, and will always be some low cost/low quality transit out there and if your application is using it, they got what they paid for. Most ISPs have thousands of paths to reach them and anyone that claims they are all congested is probably referring to their own network app poor decisions.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

1 edit

nothing00 to cramer

Member

to cramer
said by cramer:

There is no "market price" because there's no open market where bits are traded like power, gas, rice, pork bellies, etc.

What you've described in your quest for connectivity is a functioning market. Bandwidth doesn't have to be traded on the stock exchange as a commodity for there to be a market. You also have a price range that you consider acceptable for a certain product. It certainly sounds like you're using a "market rate" yourself when evaluating providers.

In fact, in the example given, a rate ($1600) not even 6x higher than the lowest ($300) you and others agree is "insane". You definitely know what range is acceptable in your space. Regardless of what you think of Cogent and Cogent's CEO he definitely knows what the rates are in his market. And if you called 6x insane why is it unreasonable for him to say that about Verizon's 10x asking price?
said by cramer:

FiOS doesn't "buy" transit from anyone but their parent company, the Tier 1 monster formed from many other operations.

Yes, and that was the point at the bottom of my earlier post.
said by cramer:

I've covered this repeatedly. This is not remotely new behavior from VZB -- they're expensive - period.

Okay. When you search for providers you found several that were willing to give you quotes. And you can probably use any of them successfully. What we're talking about with Verizon is having no choice. Because they hid their residential services behind their "Tier 1" network there is no other provider. No options. That is not a working market!

They've erected a toll road between their residential ISP and the world. And it's the only road.

However far ranging Verizon's Tier 1 network they're going to have the bandwidth characteristics of their residential ISP. And because of that everyone should pay them? It's wacky.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

1 recommendation

cramer

Premium Member

You have no understanding of the economic term "market price". There cannot be a "market price" in a closed market, where nobody knows what anyone else is charging -- and in fact, where no one has a set rate schedule. When you go to the local farmers market, everything is out in the open; everybody -- customers, vendors, everyone -- can see what everybody else is charging. Everyone can see the quality and quantity of everyone's goods. The ISP market is a a nondescript office building with no directory, no logos, no names... just numbers on doors. Every sale is privately negotiated in whispers behind locked doors.

We said 1600 was insane because we're not going to pay that. Even if that's the number from a hundred quotes, we're not going to pay that. If all your available residential providers said 30/5 would be 500-600$, you'd call them crazy; even 'tho they're all saying the same thing, it has nothing to do with the "market price", "insane" is based on what the customer is willing to pay.

Again, we have only a "10x" factor with nothing else from which to evaluate it. 10x what Cogent charges for transit? Cogent is a Tier 1, so what the f*** would they know about anyone else's transit pricing -- esp. Verizon's??? (they don't buy transit.) Until I see otherwise, I'm going to dismiss the internet's most whiny bitches... yes, a 10G connection will cost ~10x what a 1G one does. AGAIN, ESP. when dealing with Verizon (aka. UUnet.)

You seem to be hung up on the idea that to talk to a FiOS user, you must connect to Verizon. That is not correct, and never has been. I share packets with FiOS users (and many other ISPs) every day, and I'm not connected to any of those ISPs. If I want to ensure a specific level of performance to FiOS, then yes, I'll need to peer with Verizon, but I most certainly don't have to do that to get traffic to/from there at all. (Cogent isn't along my path, so the deluge of netflix traffic isn't effecting me.)

Why is it Verizon's (or Comcast, TWC, AT&T, ...) problem when Cogent sold Netflix an abundance of bandwidth they know they cannot deliver? If I sell you a 100G link and then piss your traffic out through 1G links to various networks, why is it a surprise when you flood many of those links? (i.e. I sold more bw into my network than I have out) Why is it the 1G peer's problem to fix *my* mistake?

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00

Member

You're participating in a market. Get over it.

To talk to a FiOS user you must connect to Verizon. True.

I'm not hung up on it. It's simply a fact. You'll have to connect either directly or indirectly but you must connect to Verizon. Either way you end up paying the troll toll. Or at least, that's where it's heading - with Netflix as exhibit (A).

And that's the problem.
PJL
join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA

1 edit

PJL

Member

Does anyone have any experience with using Carbonite? They use Cogent too so would Carbonite users experience the same type of slowdowns as Netflix?
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC

1 recommendation

cramer

Premium Member

If netflix traffic is saturating the link, everyone suffers.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00

Member

said by cramer:

If netflix traffic is saturating the link, everyone suffers.

Yeah, like just maybe Verizon should spent some of those subscriber dollars to upgrade capacity?
PJL
join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA

PJL to cramer

Member

to cramer
said by cramer:

If netflix traffic is saturating the link, everyone suffers.

That's the way it should be, but I wanted to confirm this to be the case. If it isn't, then something else is going on.
serge87
join:2009-11-29
New York

serge87 to nothing00

Member

to nothing00
said by nothing00:

said by cramer:

If netflix traffic is saturating the link, everyone suffers.

Yeah, like just maybe Verizon should spent some of those subscriber dollars to upgrade capacity?

Or you could put your money where your mouth is: switch ISPs. That will get Verizon's attention. The other option would be for companies to STOP buying transit or making peering deals with insane prices, forcing Verizon to negotiate. That's how free-market works.
gcarverpn
join:2014-03-01

2 edits

1 recommendation

gcarverpn

Member

There seems to be a common denominator in this

»mailman.nanog.org/piperm ··· 156.html

Dear Cogent Customer

The latency and/or packet loss that you are experiencing to this destination is due to occasional high traffic with [Verizon]. We have repeatedly requested augments to these congestion points and hope [Verizon] will comply soon. While this has been escalated internally to the CEO level, we encourage you to also contact [Verizon] customer support with your concerns and complaints. Their delay is a major impediment to internet traffic overall and contrary to net neutrality requirements.

Our peering engineers will continue to address this on a daily basis until resolved.

»forums.comcast.com/t5/Ba ··· /1805678

The latency and/or packet loss that you are experiencing to this destination is due to occasional high traffic with [Comcast].

»lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bi ··· &P=10085

The latency and/or packet loss that you are experiencing to this destination is due to occasional high traffic with our peer [TimeWarner] .

»puck.nether.net/pipermai ··· 614.html

The latency and/or packet loss that you are experiencing to this destination is due to high traffic with [Qwest].

»puck.nether.net/pipermai ··· 614.html

The latency and/or packet loss that you are experiencing to this destination is due to occasional high traffic with [ATT].

Maybe ASP's should be more selective for their transit service. There are many alternatives
»www.renesys.com/2013/01/ ··· edition/

birdfeedr
MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI

1 recommendation

birdfeedr

MVM

This link is slightly more current.
»www.renesys.com/2014/01/ ··· edition/

GregoirePaul
@12.130.116.x

GregoirePaul to gcarverpn

Anon

to gcarverpn
said by gcarverpn:

Truth is, there are, has been, and will always be some low cost/low quality transit out there and if your application is using it, they got what they paid for. Most ISPs have thousands of paths to reach them and anyone that claims they are all congested is probably referring to their own network app poor decisions.

I'm not sure this is accurate. Do you know of any providers that are not congested to Cogent? Reading WebHostingTalk and NANOG we know that XO, Telia, NTT, Tata, Cogent, Level 3, Global Crossing all are full. That's a lot of "competitive" options, so who isn't?
GregoirePaul

GregoirePaul

Anon

Of course, I meant to ask, which providers are not congested to Comcast? But my original question is valid too.
said by GregoirePaul :

said by gcarverpn:

Truth is, there are, has been, and will always be some low cost/low quality transit out there and if your application is using it, they got what they paid for. Most ISPs have thousands of paths to reach them and anyone that claims they are all congested is probably referring to their own network app poor decisions.

I'm not sure this is accurate. Do you know of any providers that are not congested to Cogent? Reading WebHostingTalk and NANOG we know that XO, Telia, NTT, Tata, Cogent, Level 3, Global Crossing all are full. That's a lot of "competitive" options, so who isn't?

gcarverpn
join:2014-03-01

3 edits

gcarverpn to GregoirePaul

Member

to GregoirePaul
Yep.. looks like Cogent is difficult for many and you get what you pay for.. As far as Comcast and Verizon, the ones you listed appear to be specific targets either because they are known to heavily oversubscribe their peering capabilities (Cogent) or being used as part of Peering Playbook Tactic #9.

Have you tried, AT&T, Sprint, Centurylink, Verizon, Telecom Italia, Cable and Wireless, Comcast, GTT/Tinet, DTAG, Zayo/Abovenet, Telefonica, Internap, PCCW, Hurricane Electric, TWTelecom, TWC, etc... I think there are still plenty of quality transit choices.
Expand your moderator at work

gsuburban
join:2000-02-29
Glendora, CA

gsuburban to funky

Member

to funky

Re: VZ vs. Cogent: When will it end?

I have to agree...some call it "a toll fee" however, I am not a statistic for Verizon in any way. If they want to use their customer base as if they were admission to a movie for a fee, then I am not in support for that because I pay Vz for unlimited, unsensored data at a given agreed rate per second. Nothing more.
gsuburban

gsuburban to guppy_fish

Member

to guppy_fish
When you say peer to peer is symmetical and has been for years, I have to agree however, the ISP's have set up connections asymmetrical or 50/25 mbps which leaves the peer to peer lopsided and likely since the begining of the internet. Today, they sell what is giving them the alleged problem.
gsuburban

gsuburban to rebus9

Member

to rebus9
I agree 100%

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00 to serge87

Member

to serge87
said by serge87:

Or you could put your money where your mouth is: switch ISPs. That will get Verizon's attention. The other option would be for companies to STOP buying transit or making peering deals with insane prices, forcing Verizon to negotiate. That's how free-market works.

Already did put my money where my mouth is. As posted earlier in this thread I've dropped my internet service by $140 a month.

And I'd encourage everyone to do the same. Drop down to an Internet access speed that Verizon is actually willing to provide. I still don't think I'm there.
serge87
join:2009-11-29
New York

serge87 to gsuburban

Member

to gsuburban
said by gsuburban:

I pay Vz for unlimited

Unlimited has a limit now, although the limit is very high.

Do you know how to combine replies to different users into one post?
said by nothing00:

said by serge87:

Or you could put your money where your mouth is: switch ISPs. That will get Verizon's attention. The other option would be for companies to STOP buying transit or making peering deals with insane prices, forcing Verizon to negotiate. That's how free-market works.

Already did put my money where my mouth is. As posted earlier in this thread I've dropped my internet service by $140 a month.

And I'd encourage everyone to do the same. Drop down to an Internet access speed that Verizon is actually willing to provide. I still don't think I'm there.

That is good to hear