dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Cogent: Reclassify ISPs As Common Carriers Under Title II
by Karl Bode 02:44PM Monday Mar 24 2014
In a bit of a clever public relations dance, Cogent has issued a press release stating that while the company refuses to pay companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast new peering tolls, they will pay the costs incurred by those companies to ensure there's adequate capacity at interconnection points. Cogent has been at the heart of more than a few debates over settlement-free peering, usually when the levels of traffic exchanged aren't equal.

In the release, Cogent again claims that major last-mile ISPs are intentionally letting their peering points saturate in order to kill off the concept of settlement-free peering. As such they've called on the FCC to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II, and like Level 3 and Cogent states they want to see peering relationships tackled under any new net neutrality rules. And here's Cogent's offer to ISPs:
quote:
To be clear, Cogent is not offering to enter into paid peering arrangements with these or any other networks. Rather, Cogent is simply willing, at this time, to incur the capital costs associated with augmenting its interconnections with these networks to address the current level of traffic congestion. Cogent believes that these major telephone and cable companies are attempting to leverage their monopoly on broadband residential Internet connections to increase their profits by imposing tolls on traffic requested by their customers and delivered by other Internet service providers.
The catch? Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer is on record stating that in many instances the equipment to handle this capacity already exists on the ISP end, it simply hasn't been turned on because of ongoing peering disputes:
quote:
In some cases, Verizon has actually purchased and installed the necessary equipment to upgrade ports, but not turned it on, according to Schaeffer. "They actually put it in, so they spent the money, but they just politically have not been willing to turn it on in order to ensure that Netflix will not work as well as Redbox," he said.
As such, Cogent likely feels that since this capacity already exists and simply isn't being used, there won't be much of a bill should carriers take them up on the offer.

view:
topics flat nest 

tito79

join:2010-03-14
Brewster, NY
kudos:1

Middle man is gone

The middle man will be no longer
rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House

2 recommendations

Re: Middle man is gone

said by tito79:

The middle man will be no longer

I sure hope not. Without the middleman, the internet as we know it would be a loose collection of fragmented walled gardens.

That is, unless every content provider, dedicated server provider, colo and datacenter, wants to peer individually with every network on the planet. That would make my $DAYJOB a nightmare. Right now, dealing with 5 transits (carriers) is more than enough to keep up with.

Mr Guy

@charter.com

1 recommendation

if Cogent wasn't

the Dollar Store of ISPs they wouldn't have companies like Netflix look for other peering arrangements. Quit blaming others and asking the government to force companies to use your crappy services and you know FIX you crappy service and maybe you wouldn't lose business.
elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

Re: if Cogent wasn't

What Cogent is asking for is to just turn on the interlinks and not pay for transit. They will happily add their line cards to their side, but expect say Verizon to buy it's own switching hardware and not get transit fees? That's fair? Blast Verizons network and just pay for the connection? Do they think the operators networks don't cost anything to maintain that to the end-user?

As a type I this will never happen. Cogent is going to need to pay for the equipment AND the transit. Netflix is paying them for that. If this gets classified as Title II then it gets regulated and XYZ gets regulated rates which means that Verizon transit costs will need to be the same as Cogent transit costs, essentially leveling the PRICING field.

While this in theory is a good idea, this is junk because any half-a$$ed tier 3 provider can come in and exchange with an inferior network at a lower cost, versus a tier 1 provider putting in the $$$. This is lowest common denominator stuff, and then the FCC will need to start regulating every frickin thing and then you get into the situation in Canada with the TPIA. Maybe that turns out good, but it won't be a smooth ride. The rents in Canada pay much less than the operator with much higher caps, the issue is what Rogers will do to maintain service issues.

ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT

2 recommendations

Re: if Cogent wasn't

The operators networks to the end-user is paid for BY THE END-USER!!!
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp
YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

Re: if Cogent wasn't

Verizon is playing with the fact that they do have a backbone to gain leverage. The fact is that the backbone Verizon uses goes by the name MCI/UUNET so they can write off charges and make more on the Internet as a whole. Greed factor x2 at least.

Now they are clearly operating as an ISP here serving their FIOS customers data which they pay for. We had interconnect agreements where we paid nothing when I did this. We also had paid agreements where we paid the interconnect when we TOOK more data than we sent back. That is called USAGE! Verizon is incurring USAGE, not the other way around.

Verizon should pay to connect to Cogent, not the other way around. If you take more than you use, shouldn't you pay? Verizon should pay. They over charge for everything they sell, and they get richer by the minute while destroying the middle man. The small player is already gone. Once all are gone they are a true monopoly again. Do you really want this people? Or, should I say sheeple!
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

2 recommendations

Re: if Cogent wasn't

In the telco world, it's the other way around... the one terminating the call (traffic in this case) is one paid.

For Cogent, they attract clients by being cheap. With Netflix, that's bit them on the ass because they've sold bandwidth they cannot deliver. Everybody knows this and isn't going to give them a free pass.

I **REALLY** don't want to see the country fall back into the complete insanity that is tariffed pricing -- gov mandated contract rates are what made T1's a thousand dollars.
YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY
Agreed, paid for. I elaborated so the others get it.
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
The end-user pays to access the private network, it does not pay for everything else. If it did, settlement free peering would never be questioned at this time.

ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT

Re: if Cogent wasn't

What part of ISP do you not understand? Here is a tip:

ISP is an acronym that stands for Internet Service Provider. The end-user pays to be provided access to the Internet... not a private network. This isn't AOL/Compuserve/Prodigy days.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
First off, Cogent allows ISP's to be ISP's which by nature are very one sided agreements which is why the ISP pays to connect to them to begin with.

Second, only a very select few ISP's have grown to a size that has allowed them to become a major backbone provider as well and/or CDN providers which levels any of that out and allows for "zero cost peering".

Third, up to that point they relied 100% on companies like Cogent to allow their ISP company to even be a part of the internet period, see point 1.

Now given a choice between whether this middle man and others like it are lying or if the AT&T's and Comcast's are lying - I would go with the ISPs are the ones lying without a doubt. Why? Because they are the ones holding the user's hostage and they are the ones with the most to benefit. Which gives them a huge incentive to do so. One certainly much bigger than Cogent.

Cogent is probably pretty aware of the capacity that Verizon has at their points and how much they are or arent using.
dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
Uh, no. It's not cogent's fault.
TCS

join:2013-03-26
So you'd like a monopoly on long-haul ethernet as well? I can see that ending well for consumers. What could go wrong forcing everyone to buy their bandwidth from Comcast? I'm sure they'll continue to upgrade their networks and lower prices without any competition to speak of.

DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:17

4 edits

Cogent wants everyone to pay more?

Access fees all around! If everyone pays access fees it's not discrimination right? So will it be a flat fee which discriminates against the low end client or a prorated fee that discriminates against the high end client?

Oh wait... you thought Common Carrier meant free access?? Government regulation always includes extra charges.

BTW, PSTN is a regulated Common Carrier. How do those PSTN supported internet connections (DSL) rate on Netflix "speed" chart? Everybody raise their hand who wants those connections over the unregulated, non-common carrier FIOS, Google, fiber, or cable connections. ISPs' network investment will slack off if they're regulated as common carriers, as it has before, while riding the government enforced fee gravytrain. Meanwhile, they'll look for the next unregulated way to service customers....
--
I'll make it work.... hand me that BFR.
TCS

join:2013-03-26

Re: Cogent wants everyone to pay more?

When PSTN was first regulated (and before the government gave cable and "next generation" services a free pass from common carrier), those DSL/PSTN based ISPs consistently and continually provided FAR superior service to the incumbent ISPs. Why do you think there were so many options out there? What on god's green earth makes you think that allowing the company running the pipes to provide the service over it (with 0 competition) will lead to a better experience?

whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast

2 recommendations

Why Don't Large ISPs Participate in Public Open Peering?

While I'm not the greatest fan of Cogent (they've played the peering game too), I really dislike how certain large last mile ISPs have refused to participate in open IXs.

In the EU, none of the major providers have any problem joining AMIS-IX, DE-CIX, or LINX.
AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

Re: Why Don't Large ISPs Participate in Public Open Peering?

Cogent no less has been involved in more than one peering dispute in the EU.

whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast

3 recommendations

Yet Cogent Does the Same

Cry me a river Cogent.

traceroute to www.he.net (2001:470:0:76::2), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets
 1  * *
 8  * *
 9  2001:550:1:312::1 (2001:550:1:312::1)  2.204 ms !N *
 

They even made you a cake.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

As long as Cogent...

is also a common carrier first, agreeing to regulated rates and delivery terms.
Users everywhere will pay far more and Cogent will find tariffs to be extremely restrictive.
ISP's (the actual ISP part of even the big boys networking businesses) are NOT common carriers, they are private service providers.
none of this will be cheaper or better for end users.
AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 recommendation

Settlement Free Peering

Did I miss the part where Cogent is saying they are going to "settlement free" peer with their customers, like NetFlix? I mean, Cogent's "infrastructure" is already paid for...
ipv5

join:2014-03-16
Bryn Mawr, PA

This is just too confusing!

Why don't we classify everything as Title1 service and just build a National government run backbone?

It would also save on all those requests for user data the government asks for, they could just do it themselves.

comcaster

@comcast.net

Re: This is just too confusing!

This guys is a genius! Enough said