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