| |ieolusSupport The Clecs
Level 3 is correct What do customers pay ISPs for if not to maintain and upgrade their damn network???
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp
Re: Level 3 is correct
said by ieolus:Access to their walled garden, obviously. I know I personally pay for access to Verizon's network so I can have access to Verizon's own network - assuming I don't have to touch an ALTER.NET hop. Anything else is additional and I should be thankful. /s
What do customers pay ISPs for if not to maintain and upgrade their damn network???
I work from home. My work VPN connects to a server in the DFW area that also uses Verizon. It's not uncommon to have packet loss and high latency from PA to TX. Because the issues START at the ALTER.NET hops, which is still Verizon, mind you, they refuse to ever acknowledge the issue.
Re: Level 3 is correct Ah, I see what's happening. If this continues this is what the cable/telcos are after:
Sign up for the Comcast Network today! Includes great services such as:
- Comcastic Email
And enjoy unlimited Internet access with 50GB of data a month!
Sign up for the Verizon Network today! Includes great services such as:
- Redbox Instant
- Verizon Email
And enjoy unlimited Internet access with 75GB of data a month! All at incomparable FiOS speeds up to 500mbps!
Yeah, it's going to hell.
Re: Level 3 is correct
said by shmerl:No, nor is Comcast limited to 50GB a month. They were just future theoretical situations proposed by nothing00.
Is FiOS really limited to 75 GB a month?
In some markets, Comcast has a 300GB cap. FiOS doesn't have a hard cap but will disconnect heavy users.
Re: Level 3 is correct "They've been selling peering"
The pure definition of peering is settlement-free, "bill-and-keep," or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other in association with the exchange of traffic; instead, each derives and retains revenue from its own customers.
Re: I agree with Level 3 but... A merger of TWC and Comcast would make Comcast an even bigger transit provider. A bigger potential threat to Level3. I can't imagine they want this merger to go through.
Change of position? seem opposite of the position Level3 took when negoeating a dispute with Cogent
remember before Cogent, Level3 was Netflix's "discount" CDN and was caught trying to slip CDN traffic in with transit.
Maybe it just depends which end of the stick you are grabbing.
Re: Change of position? I bet the prospect of losing major customers like Netflix to direct peering agreements would be scary for any CDN and transit provider: they built tens if not hundreds of Gbps across their network and CDN nodes at a cost of several million dollars to support streaming media and now large chunks of that revenue stream are going away.
Re: Change of position? Perhaps the CDNs providing transit to end users should've been a little more competitive and they would have less to fear. Both Comcast and Netflix are on the record stating the issue wasn't "Comcast allowing the connection to saturate". So, who's left at fault? I'd wager on the CDNs/ISPs that Netflix chose to do business with. Netflix learned this the hard way and decided to fix it by arranging an interconnection agreement with Comcast; and soon several other major ISPs
Re: The internet still works
said by axus:You assume the Comcast/Netflix deal is "one-sided". Not sure how you can know that given the details aren't public. Add in that service quality improved and well, seems beneficial all around.
The real problem is how much negotiating power Comcast has to make these one-sided deals.
Re: I guess level 3 does have a point... Not every company and over-the-top service provider is large enough to afford the infrastructure necessary to peer directly with ISPs and there are also limits to how small one of those can be before putting them on-net is worth the trouble for ISPs. For all those not-large-enough cases, some sort of middleman to aggregate traffic is necessary.
There will always be a need for middleman networks. What changes is that now traditional transit providers have to get used to the idea that some of their larger clients may end up bypassing them when they become large enough for ISPs to be interested in direct peering with.
In other words, L3 wants to protect their traditional business model against new trends that may significantly alter the balance of power and the way they have to do business. Sounds awfully similar to what the RIAA/MPAA and related entities have been doing for the past 10-15 years. L3 is losing their ability to impose peering terms and they do not like it, just like the *AAs do not like their slipping grips on copyright enforcement, retail markups and independent artists/producers who refuse to become members.
Caught with hand in cookie jar Cognet, L3, XO and a dozen others thought they had it rigged, get Teir one Status, the sign up Netflix, underbid to get the $$ and flood the peering points
Gig is up dudes, and the need for these networks will go back to doing what they did before, which is they get paid for the tiny part of the network they actually are
This is about Level3 protecting their revenue stream. They are pissed that Netflix just cut big chunk of their revenue by bypassing them and going directly to Comcast.
Let's say Netflix is paying Level3 for 100Gb of traffic to the internet and 50Gb of that traffic was headed to Comcast's network. IF they were paying $1000/GB (just an exampe) and 40Gb of that traffic was headed to Comcast then the Comcast/Netflix peering arrangement just took $40k/mo out of Level3's pocket.
This is what they are whining about.
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.
The Internet in the US is becoming a closed network When I ran my dial-up ISP back in the late 90's the business model was to pay for a backbone connection or multiple back bone connections with multiple providers like Level 3. The priority was to provide the possible routing to the customers. Today the large ISP's like Comcast and Verizon are essentially back bone providers themselves. Now priorities have changed from giving the customers the best routing possible to the internet to charging the content providers for the best routing possible to the customer. So what if the peering between Comcast/VZ and Level 3/Cogent/XO became lop sided in one direction its because we the paying subscriber wanted that data (aka Netflix) provided by them. If a peering point becomes saturated in one direction because the ISP's paying customers are wanting that data the ISP should be obligated to free up that congestion not charge the backbone provider more for access to their customers. Its a matter of customer service to apply the best routing possible for your customers. It turns that some users were getting better throughput to netflix by using a VPN that put them straight on to cogent or level 3 bypassing the choke point that says it all. If a customer has to use a VPN to essentially change their own routing to get to the content they desire, this blows me away. As this keeps happening backbone providers like Level 3, XO and Cogent will fade away and all will be left with is Comcast and VZ backbone controlling everything and we will be left with is a closed network.
Re: The Internet in the US is becoming a closed network
said by XeenFalcon: That isn't going to happen.
As this keeps happening backbone providers like Level 3, XO and Cogent will fade away
Traffic is multiplying at an increasingly rapid pace, and there is plenty for everyone.
In fact Level3 and Cogent still carry Netflix to the caches just outside Comcast network entry points in the new agreements.
·Time Warner Cable
None of it makes any difference Until ISPs are compelled (forced) to prove that they're NOT intentionally letting their peering points become oversaturated, speculation that Level3 is the bad guy here and Comcast is the good guy is stupid. Give me proof, show me some numbers to back up these ridiculous claims. When people on this site go to bat for Comcast with NO SOLID EVIDENCE of anything they've done (back room deals and vague PR statements about how "robust" their network is don't count), it makes me wonder how many Comcast employees and shareholders we really have here.