Re: Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re: Inter-provider relations
Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net> wrote:
Zero-settlement peerings open to anyone are demonstrably amount to subsidies from large peers to small.
No they're not. The load which the small provider presents to you (in the form of traffic to your CUSTOMERS) is miniscule by comparison.
Small providers outnumber large providers by quite a lot. In fact, most traffic is generated by customers of small ISPs.
Finally, and FAR more importantly, the REASON you're having the traffic dumped to you is that *YOUR CUSTOMER IS PAYING YOU TO GET IT TO THEM*.
The customers are paying for connectivity to other customers, not for connectivity to ISPs. They don't care less if their peer is connected to a small or a large ISP.
If you refuse to perform that job, then your customer should find someone who will actually live up to the letter and spirit of what your customer is purchasing from you.
I do not think that leftish political activists and radical idealists are a large segment of market. The rest would simply go to a provider who sells better and cheaper connectivity, without worrying too much about figures on the provider's balance sheet.
That already was beaten to death. However, i repeat the argument:
Big Provider Customer A ---[POP] ------------- 1000 miles -----------[POP] | IXP | Customer B ------[POP]-1 mile-[POP] Small Provider
When customers A and B talk Big Provider pays to get them through 1000 miles. Small Provider pays for 1 mile.
So what? Customer A paid you to get the traffic to him.
Now, if Big Provider competes for customer B it'll have to sell service for cost of 500 miles, whereas Small Provider can sell is for the cost of 1 mile. The situation is the same at Customer A's location (where Small ISP #2 operates). Now, the traffic between Small ISPs #1 and #2 is close to non-existent; so they simply dump 99.9% of traffic to the Big ISP at exchange points and do transit over a cheap low-bandwidth line they buy from the same or other Big ISP. Essentially, they get benefits of global infrastructure without contributing anything to it. Of course, large ISPs then have to pass the costs to customers, placing them at a competitive disadvantage.
It is in your best interest to do it. You got paid to do this. If you can't, Customer A will find Big Provider #2 (or Small Provider #2) who will.
That is not happening now. Sprint tested waters back then with CIX, and the expected negative customer response was zero, nada, nil, zilch. Which only confirms that customers do not care about particular ISP's, they only care about bits getting delivered.
The first time you tell a CUSTOMER as "Big provider" that "the reason you can't reach Customer B, who you think is important, is because they aren't connected to us and their provider won't *pay us to transport YOUR DATA* you are going to find out, quickly, what the Customer's response to that is.
Huh? The small ISP (Mukhosransknet, for example) who can't reach Sprint or UUNET or BBN is bust by definition. The large ISP who can't reach the same small ISP doesn't suffer at all -- chances are that nobody will ever notice. So the small ISP is forced to buy connectivity to the Big ISP, and the problem (from the point of view of the Big ISP's customers) is fixed. That's particularly true because most small ISPs do not provide any popular content, so customers of big ISPs have little reason to worry about unreacheability of small ISPs .
You might find out from their corporate counsel; if not, you'll definitely find out from their purchasing department (or person) -- when they cancel your service and move somewhere else.
How idealistic. Customers terminate service all the time for a million of various reasons. Somehow more customers are subscribing, so those departments just don't care.
Second, if Small Provider who *does* have capacity to that exchange point finds out what you're up to, expect to have that widely used in press materials and marketing efforts.
Just to have it pointed out that this is a free country and that large ISPs have right to make their own business decisions? You cannot make anti-trust case because there _is_ a competition among a number of large ISPs. It's not like one large ISP opressing all others. It's more like reach "oppressing" the poor by refusing to give away their assets to any tramp from a street. Sure, such a press campaighn is possible, and will attract some attention from leftist fringe. The level-headed people would take it to reflect on the respectability and the agenda of the campaighner.
Note that i didn't even talk about less measurabe, but way too more important things like hosting of information suppliers. Say, Big Provider connects 1000 web sites; Small Provider hosts 1 site -- benefit from peering in terms of Web site diversity to the Big Provider's customers is 0.1%. To Small Provider's customers the benefit of peering is 99.9%.
Not if you're a customer of Big Provider and want to get there. Your provider either PROVIDES or you find someone who will.
Find me a person who wants to look at Mukhosransk's city council web page.
You seem to forget the middle letter of ISP is *SERVICE*. You want to talk to someone with a valid IP address on the Internet, your PROVIDER is responsible for seeing that you can get to an exchange point where can be found the network that serves them.
Ah, what a bunch of rhetoric.
BOTH providers have an obligation here, and its not to each other. Its to their CUSTOMERS.
Obligation to whom? To the Supreme Deity of All Networks? Or the ghost of Comrade Lenin? That obligation is certainly not in service contracts.
If the receiving network then refuses to accept the traffic destined for a customer WHO IS PAYING THEM TO TRANSPORT IT, the customer on that end has a very legitimate beef with their provider and IMHO has every right to walk away and possibly even sue, contract or no (the provider just breached their material obligations).
You may want to take a look at a service contract someday. There's not even a remote hint of implicit or explicit obligation to provide universal connectivity. If _you_ sell service with obligation to provide universal connectivity, i (and my lawyer) want to sign up. He (the lawyer) just loves to shake damages from likes of companies which promise Harriers for $100000. Can you statements in this public forum to be construed as an official position of MCSNET?
Anyone short-sighted enough who fails to understand that bilateral, no-settlement PEERING (*NOT* transit) is in everyone's best interest deserves what the market does to them.
Sorry, buddy, i'm not interested in everyone's best interest. I just don't care about everyone. I'm admittedly interested in the bottom line in my account statement. I wouldn't expect large ISPs to do differently. After all, they exist to generate profit. If they would start doing charity and brotherhood of all people stuff instead of business their shareholders will be rightfully upset.
I presume that (1) the people you peer with are clueful and don't do stupid things on a regular basis, (2) they don't try to point default at you, etc. That's a given in these discussions.
I wouldn't trust people who can't comprehend realities of everyday life to have a clue about routing. --vadim
Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net> wrote:
Zero-settlement peerings open to anyone are demonstrably amount to subsidies from large peers to small.
No they're not. The load which the small provider presents to you (in the form of traffic to your CUSTOMERS) is miniscule by comparison.
Small providers outnumber large providers by quite a lot. In fact, most traffic is generated by customers of small ISPs.
Uh, excuse me Vadim, but just where do you think that flow goes if it goes to Sprint or some other national ISP? To someone who hasn't paid a large provider to get it there? I think not. ONE of the ends, axiomatically, has paid each provider in question for the transport. If you wish to argue this, show me the people who are getting transit and not paying for it. Peering by *definition* generates flows that go to or from *customers* on the respective networks.
Finally, and FAR more importantly, the REASON you're having the traffic dumped to you is that *YOUR CUSTOMER IS PAYING YOU TO GET IT TO THEM*.
The customers are paying for connectivity to other customers, not for connectivity to ISPs. They don't care less if their peer is connected to a small or a large ISP.
Oh really? I see. So Sprint, as an example again, is selling connections that are really just there so you can talk to other Sprint customers? I would expect that those providers would be DISCLOSING this, wouldn't you? After all, such a position could otherwise generate some pretty ugly fraud lawsuits (from some damn big corporations who have plenty of money to do so), and even some criminal complaints. In fact, I think that those NSPs who also sell dial access would be facing that exact problem right now -- if this is in fact true. Let's see, MCI sells dial access. Does MCI disclose that they're not selling Internet access, but instead only access to MCI customers? No, and in fact they make it rather clear that they ARE selling access to the Internet as a whole. This is a CRIMINAL offense Vadim. Assuming you're right, of course.
If you refuse to perform that job, then your customer should find someone who will actually live up to the letter and spirit of what your customer is purchasing from you.
I do not think that leftish political activists and radical idealists are a large segment of market. The rest would simply go to a provider who sells better and cheaper connectivity, without worrying too much about figures on the provider's balance sheet.
Uh, they're already doing that Vadim.
So what? Customer A paid you to get the traffic to him.
Now, if Big Provider competes for customer B it'll have to sell service for cost of 500 miles, whereas Small Provider can sell is for the cost of 1 mile.
Yep. And guess what? So what? You got paid to transport it; nobody said it was CONVENIENT in all cases.
Now, the traffic between Small ISPs #1 and #2 is close to non-existent; so they simply dump 99.9% of traffic to the Big ISP at exchange points and do transit over a cheap low-bandwidth line they buy from the same or other Big ISP.
On the contrary. The traffic they dump to Big ISP is going to Big ISPs customers, *WHO PAID BIG ISP TO RECEIVE AND TRANSMIT THAT TRAFFIC*. The first time BIG ISP refuses to do what they contracted to do, or implements a policy that defacto causes that situation, after holding out service to the "Internet" as a whole, they're running afoul of both civil and criminal law. IMHO of course, but I suspect that the Attorney General of most states would see it this way.
Essentially, they get benefits of global infrastructure without contributing anything to it. Of course, large ISPs then have to pass the costs to customers, placing them at a competitive disadvantage.
Well gee, so the greater reach that large ISPs have is supposed to be free or something? I suppose that this means that because we're running DS-3s around to remote sites we're at a disadvantage too. Actually, we are. But in trade we can sell effective in areas that people who DON'T have those lines cannot. Yes, its expensive. Its a trade-off; either you have a reason to do it or you don't.
It is in your best interest to do it. You got paid to do this. If you can't, Customer A will find Big Provider #2 (or Small Provider #2) who will.
That is not happening now. Sprint tested waters back then with CIX, and the expected negative customer response was zero, nada, nil, zilch.
Which only confirms that customers do not care about particular ISP's, they only care about bits getting delivered.
Right. And if you chop off access to ANY site that someone wants to reach, you'll hear about it. Fact is that its not happening right now in any signficiant numbers.
The first time you tell a CUSTOMER as "Big provider" that "the reason you can't reach Customer B, who you think is important, is because they aren't connected to us and their provider won't *pay us to transport YOUR DATA* you are going to find out, quickly, what the Customer's response to that is.
Huh? The small ISP (Mukhosransknet, for example) who can't reach Sprint or UUNET or BBN is bust by definition. The large ISP who can't reach the same small ISP doesn't suffer at all -- chances are that nobody will ever notice.
Oh really? You're wrong Vadim. Very, very wrong.
So the small ISP is forced to buy connectivity to the Big ISP, and the problem (from the point of view of the Big ISP's customers) is fixed.
Gee, that's why we've turned off both Sprint and MCI lines in the last 60 days, right, but we're still here and we can still reach them. And, frankly, if I show up at MAE East, and Sprint refuses to peer, my recourse is simple -- I print it in the Chicago Tribune and Sun Times, lay out the logic, and we'll see what happens to Sprint's Chicago customer base. My guess is that I'd end up with a hell of a lot of it.
That's particularly true because most small ISPs do not provide any popular content, so customers of big ISPs have little reason to worry about unreacheability of small ISPs .
Bawahahahhhaahaha. All it takes is ONE.
How idealistic. Customers terminate service all the time for a million of various reasons. Somehow more customers are subscribing, so those departments just don't care.
That's funny, both MCI and Sprint freaked out when we walked away. Of course, we did it because frankly, in my opinion the service SUCKED. And had sucked, and neither company gave a rat's ass about fixing the problems over a period of more than a YEAR.
Just to have it pointed out that this is a free country and that large ISPs have right to make their own business decisions?
Sure. And you have the right to see those decisions stuffed right up your backside by a smaller competitor out to prove a point. You have a right to see it in print, to see it on the web, and to see it distributed by direct mail to every corporation in a given market area. THAT'S not expensive. But it will RUIN your business in a given market, and THAT is the risk you undertake when you stick your corporate head in dark places. Regardless of what name the company has.
Sure, such a press campaighn is possible, and will attract some attention from leftist fringe. The level-headed people would take it to reflect on the respectability and the agenda of the campaighner.
Hahahahaha..... Uh, I don't think so. Further, where our sales are coming from would indicate otherwise as well. But heh, what do I know? I'm just doing it instead of blustering bullshit like you Vadim.
Not if you're a customer of Big Provider and want to get there. Your provider either PROVIDES or you find someone who will.
Find me a person who wants to look at Mukhosransk's city council web page.
All it takes is *one* who is connected to the Big Provider. Tell him no because you think you should be paid AGAIN for what you already collect money, and watch how fast that customer walks away, telling everyone he or she knows in the process. This is corporate suicide.
BOTH providers have an obligation here, and its not to each other. Its to their CUSTOMERS.
Obligation to whom? To the Supreme Deity of All Networks? Or the ghost of Comrade Lenin? That obligation is certainly not in service contracts.
You are paid to pass packets to and from your direct customers. The very concept of an INTERNET says that you get paid ONCE for that traffic. Attempting to extort a SECOND payment (ie: get paid again for what you already got paid for) reeks to high hell, and honest people will see that once its clearly explained to them how all of this REALLY works.
You may want to take a look at a service contract someday. There's not even a remote hint of implicit or explicit obligation to provide universal connectivity.
Discriminatory behavior will cost you customers at minimum. If you represent that you sell connectivity to the *INTERNET*, then you'd better provide it to the best of your ability. Nobody can reach *everywhere*. However, if you make a BUSINESS DECISION to exclude connectivity to somewhere your customers want to go, you will end up with a lot of ex-customers.
Can you statements in this public forum to be construed as an official position of MCSNET?
What does that mean Vadim? You know where I stand on this and have for a long time. If you don't like it that's just tough.
Sorry, buddy, i'm not interested in everyone's best interest. I just don't care about everyone. I'm admittedly interested in the bottom line in my account statement. I wouldn't expect large ISPs to do differently. After all, they exist to generate profit. If they would start doing charity and brotherhood of all people stuff instead of business their shareholders will be rightfully upset.
The shareholders will be even more upset if their sales figures go through the floor.
I presume that (1) the people you peer with are clueful and don't do stupid things on a regular basis, (2) they don't try to point default at you, etc. That's a given in these discussions.
I wouldn't trust people who can't comprehend realities of everyday life to have a clue about routing.
--vadim
Personal insults will get you nowhere Vadim. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 23 Analog Prefixes, 13 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Now, the traffic between Small ISPs #1 and #2 is close to non-existent; so they simply dump 99.9% of traffic to the Big ISP at exchange points and do transit over a cheap low-bandwidth line they buy from the same or other Big ISP.
That's particularly true because most small ISPs do not provide any popular content, so customers of big ISPs have little reason to worry about unreacheability of small ISPs .
DataXchange is one of the "small" ISPs that Sprint will not peer with. It may interest you to know that about 40% of our traffic is out bound. Most of our customers offer both access and content. I do not think this is about content, interesting destinations, or any such thing. Technical arguments to the contrary, which tend to distract us from the real issues and make the new peering rules look more respectible, this is about power, and using it to one's advantage. The large networks figure the smaller networks can be forced into purchasing connections to them. This is the same technique used by any monopoly, or in this case oligarchy, to exploit their larger size. I except that "reseller" sur-charges will be one of several techniques used to try to squeeze the smaller competition. The smaller networks have only three choices: to accept the competitive disadvantages as they exist now and in the future (my guess is the screws with continue to be tightened as time passes), to join together to create a large enough group that collective action is possible (unlikely given the rancor between providers that appears to exist), or to fight thru legislative or legal means. I am not really optimistic that the balance of power will shift anytime soon. About the only hope is that the big guys will realize that continued use of monopolistic practices may result in legal or legislative action they would perfer less than managing peering session with us unexperienced, routing-flapping, wannbe's. Best Regards, Robert Laughlin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DataXchange sales: 800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net Network Operations Center: 703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Karl Denninger -
Robert Laughlin -
Vadim Antonov