North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, JC Dill wrote: > Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > > Further, the internet has always been a best-effort medium. > > Can someone please explain how Level 3 is making a "best effort" to connect > their customers to Cogent's customers? thats not what alex means as you know. and Level(3)/Cogent are playing a pain game here, its 'no effort' not 'best effort' > Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. from mostly-content > networks to mostly-eyeball networks) is a good reason to not peer. I'd love > to know how it improves Level 3's network to have data from Cogent arrive over > some *other* connection rather than directly from a peering connection. Do perhaps the other connection is already carrying significant outbound so this extra inbound is a small net cost, that would support L3's argument > So why break off peering??? this is about politics not engineering, dont try to confuse them. peering often is. > AFAICT there's only one reason to break off peering, and it's to force > Cogent to pay (anyone) to transit the data. Why does L3 care if Cogent > sends the data for free via peering, or pays someone ELSE to transit the > data? the economics are different for cogent, cogent loses some marketing advantage.. i can think of other reasons > I think this is about a big bully trying to force a smaller player off > of the big guys' playing field (tier 1 peering). From where I sit it cogent isnt a small player, they are a real threat to L(3).. dont feel sorry for them, they're not being bullied! > looks like an anti-competitive move that is not a "best effort" to serve > their customers but a specific effort to put another (smaller) > competitor out of business (of being a transit-free or mostly > transit-free backbone) by forcing them to pay (someone), forcing their really? you mean one company wants to take business from the other company? thats amazing.. and i thought ISPs existed together in harmony never looking at each others customer bases > IMHO all L3 customers have a valid argument that Level 3 is in default of any > service contract that calls for "best effort" or similar on L3's part. can you cite the relevant clause in your Level3 contract that brings you to this conclusion.. hint: you might be looking a long time because it doesnt exist and they're not in breach > I also believe that Cogent has a valid argument that Level 3's behavior is > anti-competitive in a market where the tier 1 networks *collectively* have a > 100% complete monopoly on the business of offering transit-free backbone > internet services. As such, L3's behavior might fall into anti-trust > territory - because if Cogent caves in over this and buys transit for the > traffic destined for L3 then what's to stop the rest of the tier 1 guys from > following suit and forcing Cogent to buy transit to get to *all* tier 1 > networks? Then who will they (TINT) force out next? these are big companies, they can fight their own battles. there is no tier-1 monopoly. in many cases its cheaper to send data via transit than peering so why do you care about transit-free anyway? > What's to stop a big government (like the US) from stepping in and attempting > to regulate peering agreements, using the argument that internet access is too > important to allow individual networks to bully other networks out of the > market - at the expense of customers - and ultimately resulting in less > competition and higher rates? Is this type of regulation good for the > internet? OTOH is market consolidation good for the internet? they're not acting illegally or as a monopoly, and theres no anti-trust so theres no reason to expect any government interventions. Steve
|