Re: Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re: Inter-provider relations
Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net> wrote:
Any provider that does not recognize the value of bilateral, no-settlement peering anywhere that its cost-effective for both parties (ie: if you have traffic destined for me, get it on MY network where I'm being paid to carry it and let ME figure the rest out!) deserves what they get.
Zero-settlement peerings open to anyone are demonstrably amount to subsidies from large peers to small.
Absolutely correct: can I direct you to two of our articles on the subject (and a useful graphic): http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/ld4401.html http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/sf0774.html http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/sf1.gif
Zero-settlements work only when peers are of comparable size. Any attempt to extort pressure to force it upon anyone simply causes large folks to flee.
That's true: in a conversation with Phil Lawlor (CEO of AGIS), he told me that one of his customers ISPs, who was also peering with AGIS at the Mae-E, indulged in "bandwidth stealing" by receiving their Usenet news feed across Mae-E rather than as an AGIS customer across the few T-1s they had to AGIS. Surely a hierarchy which implements the rule you outline above works: a pair of small regional ISPs may want to peer regionally for good reason, because they are the same size there isn't much inequity in this relationship. Two large ISPs may wish to do the same. However, a small ISP who wants its traffic carried by a large ISP (i.e. peer with them) may have little choice but to pay for this traffic to be carried: so becomes a customer. That way you have a hierarchy as follows: Bacbkbone providers who may peer with each other Large regional providers who are customers of the backbone providers (so by DS-3s or whatever from BBNplanet, UUnet) and who may peer regionally. While also present at bix exchanges, they are unlikely to peer with the big six/seven/eight but may well peer with foreign ISPs at those exchanges. Azeem Azeem Azhar vx: 0171-830 7133 The Economist fx: 0171-839 2968 25 St James's Street London SW1A 1HG
Zero-settlement peerings open to anyone are demonstrably amount to subsidies from large peers to small.
Absolutely correct: can I direct you to two of our articles on the subject (and a useful graphic): http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/ld4401.html http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/sf0774.html http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/sf1.gif Correct in case if ISP are working in the same country.
But what's about our case (ISP in Russia and ISP in USA)? You understand (I hope) there is no one ISP there having 70 POP's over Russia, and (moreover) in USA. // You can change _Russia_ to any other name, it's not important. Let's be Argentina. --- Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Azeem Azhar wrote:
Any provider that does not recognize the value of bilateral, no-settlement peering anywhere that its cost-effective for both parties (ie: if you have traffic destined for me, get it on MY network where I'm being paid to carry it and let ME figure the rest out!) deserves what they get.
Zero-settlement peerings open to anyone are demonstrably amount to subsidies from large peers to small.
Absolutely correct: can I direct you to two of our articles on the subject (and a useful graphic): http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/ld4401.html http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/sf0774.html http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/sf1.gif
Not at all necessarily correct. We are a UK backbone provider. We carry much of our traffic 6000 miles to California over very expensive Atlantic circuits, where we pass it off to American providers, who use very cheap and much shorter US links. We ship about 5% more traffic to the USA than we get back. So on balance we are subsidizing the US Internet: * we pay more to carry the packets * we give more than we receive The Internet is more complicated than the Economist's model of the Internet.
That's true: in a conversation with Phil Lawlor (CEO of AGIS), he told me that one of his customers ISPs, who was also peering with AGIS at the Mae-E, indulged in "bandwidth stealing" by receiving their Usenet news feed across Mae-E rather than as an AGIS customer across the few T-1s they had to AGIS.
There is some extremely strange logic here. Exactly how is any Agis bandwidth being stolen if a customer chooses to get a newsfeed from a third party over MAE East?
That way you have a hierarchy as follows:
Bacbkbone providers who may peer with each other Large regional providers who are customers of the backbone providers (so by DS-3s or whatever from BBNplanet, UUnet) and who may peer regionally. While also present at bix exchanges, they are unlikely to peer with the big six/seven/eight but may well peer with foreign ISPs at those exchanges.
This is the model of the world preferred by the big US providers -- and by those who don't want the headaches that come from trying to build a more realistic model of the Internet. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 13:44:51 +0100 (BST) From: Jim Dixon <jdd@vbc.net> Not at all necessarily correct. We are a UK backbone provider. We carry much of our traffic 6000 miles to California over very expensive Atlantic circuits, where we pass it off to American providers, who use very cheap and much shorter US links. We ship about 5% more traffic to the USA than we get back. So on balance we are subsidizing the US Internet: * we pay more to carry the packets * we give more than we receive Before you go making statements like that, please answer the following questions: 1) How many US ISP's customers would notice if vbc.net fell off the net? 2) How many of vbc.net's customers would notice if the USA fell off the net? You're welcome to stop subsidizing the US Internet any time you please. And be sure to put a note in your trouble ticket system reminding your customers not to let the doorknob hit them in the ass on the way out the door... If I live more than a mile and a half or so from a central office, installation of a T1 will require a special engineering fee. Unlike you, I'm not cheeky enough to assert that my unfortunate location represents a subsidy to the US Internet. ---Rob
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Not at all necessarily correct. We are a UK backbone provider. We carry much of our traffic 6000 miles to California over very expensive Atlantic circuits, where we pass it off to American providers, who use very cheap and much shorter US links. We ship about 5% more traffic to the USA than we get back. So on balance we are subsidizing the US Internet:
* we pay more to carry the packets * we give more than we receive
Before you go making statements like that, please answer the following questions:
1) How many US ISP's customers would notice if vbc.net fell off the net?
2) How many of vbc.net's customers would notice if the USA fell off the net?
There is a name for this ridiculous style of argument, but I don't remember it ... Let's recast the questions: 1. How many UK ISPs would notice if seastrom.com fell off the Net? 2. How many of seastrom's customers would notice if Europe fell off the Net? Your questions don't address the issues at all. They may make you feel better. A large part of our Atlantic traffic (most, I believe) is US users accessing our customers' (eg the BBC, you may have heard of them) or our customers' customers' Web sites (eg www.bullfrog.co.uk). As I said, US networks pay pennies to carry traffic to us, and we pay at least ten times as much to carry the packets across the Atlantic. We carry our packets, and we carry packets for US networks. We pay at least 90% of the carrying costs. Europe heavily subsidizes the US Internet. It's not just VBCnet: the European Internet community pays something like 90% of the costs of traffic between Europe and North America. The same applies to the rest of the world. If you paid attention to the discussion at hand, you might notice that I was criticizing the Economist's model of the Internet. One of the things wrong with that model was their failure to notice the huge subsidy that the rest of the world pays to the US Internet. There are a lot of other things wrong with the model. Poor models make for poor reasoning, just like talking without listening makes for a poor dialog. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
In message <Pine.BSI.3.91.961025162433.20949C-100000@avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net>, Jim Dixon writes:
A large part of our Atlantic traffic (most, I believe) is US users accessing our customers' (eg the BBC, you may have heard of them) or our customers' customers' Web sites (eg www.bullfrog.co.uk). As I said, US networks pay pennies to carry traffic to us, and we pay at least ten times as much to carry the packets across the Atlantic. We carry our packets, and we carry packets for US networks. We pay at least 90% of the carrying costs.
Europe heavily subsidizes the US Internet. It's not just VBCnet: the European Internet community pays something like 90% of the costs of traffic between Europe and North America. The same applies to the rest of the world.
If you paid attention to the discussion at hand, you might notice that I was criticizing the Economist's model of the Internet. One of the things wrong with that model was their failure to notice the huge subsidy that the rest of the world pays to the US Internet. There are a lot of other things wrong with the model. Poor models make for poor reasoning, just like talking without listening makes for a poor dialog.
The Economist's model is incomplete, however I really doubt it could be argued that Europe subsidizes the US Internet. A large reason the cost of international leased lines are so high is due to protectionist tarrifs in international telecom. I understand it is cheaper to buy a leased line from the us to Europe than the other way around. (This at least has been discussed on nanog before). At any rate the most the costs differences will do is is subsidize US access to Europe. It doesn't effect the cost of US-US internet. Until someone invents a metric that measures Host Value, there will be no easy way to estiablish the relative value of two networks to each other to set up rational economic models between providers. Its one reason I advocate partial transit arragments and "pay for peering". I do not advocate traffic based settlements, as the accounting overhead is unacceptable, and the net results are usually a wash. (Seeing as for any given random customer base, your net flows will be equally distributed, assuming you market to different classes of customers equally, and since bandwidth is usally only bought symetrically it makes sense to market this way...) I'd be happy if I could get techincal BGP peering setup with a large national ISP, and pay based on a ratio of routable IP addresses or some such. There are some details to work out on the costs etc, but if Sprint has 10,000 prefixes out of 40,000, therefore cost of partial transit should be about 25% of full transit. Obivously this isn't the best metric for many number of reasons, but it is a starting point for deteriming the relative value of two networks to each other(i.e. how many customers). There could probably be major changes to the voice network with deregulation on local loops, etc if more rational settlements systems were in place, but Telephone companies like to suck money out of both ends of the pipe (To quote a former(?) FCC Chairman). --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net
A large reason the cost of international leased lines are so high is due to protectionist tarrifs in international telecom. I understand it is cheaper to buy a leased line from the us to Europe than the other way around. (This at least has been discussed on nanog before).
The point isn't which end it's bought, it's who pays. Only a few international lines are paid for by US ISPs, the main exception being the NSF subsidized 1/2 circuits on ICM/icp.net, and, no doubt, those rolling out European transit networks (UU net/PSI) Alex Bligh Xara Networks
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote:
The Economist's model is incomplete, however I really doubt it could be argued that Europe subsidizes the US Internet.
If someone in the UK accesses a US Web site, the European provider pays 90% of the cost involved. If someone in the US accesses a UK Web site, the European provider pays 90% of the cost involved. On our network -- someone with more comprehensive stats might want to step forward at this point -- more Web traffic flows from the UK to the US. That is, there is a small net flow of _benefit_ to the US and a very large net imbalance in _costs_ to the UK. In order to argue that there is no subsidy to the US, you have to argue that US Web sites are somehow 'worth' much more than UK Web sites. Us simple-minded folk just look at the invoices.
A large reason the cost of international leased lines are so high is due to protectionist tarrifs in international telecom.
That's true. But European networks pay the _entire_ cost of moving data across the Atlantic. If x.net is an ISP in San Jose CA and runs a T1 to MAE West for $170 a month and y.net.uk is an ISP in London and runs a T1 to MAE West for $40,000 a month, they are regarded by their would-be peers as on a par -- although the costs of one are 235 times the cost of the other. (These numbers are not imaginary.)
I understand it is cheaper to buy a leased line from the us to Europe than the other way around.
Circuits don't have directions. Or more precisely, we buy them in pairs: a circuit from California to London always comes with a circuit from London to California. To look at it another way: we have an office in San Jose, California, and an office here in the UK. We can and do get quotes from both countries. If there was a difference, we would just go with the cheaper quote.
(This at least has been discussed on nanog before). At any rate the most the costs differences will do is is subsidize US access to Europe.
This argument doesn't make any sense, but in any case you are conceding that Europe subsidizes the US Internet.
It doesn't effect the cost of US-US internet.
It does. If the US Internet paid 50% of the costs of Atlantic traffic, then a large sum of money would be transferred from US providers to UK providers. (Because the costs of one would go down, and the costs of the other would rise.)
Until someone invents a metric that measures Host Value, there will be no easy way to estiablish the relative value of two networks to each other to set up rational economic models between providers.
This seems to be an attempt to introduce the notion that American Web sites are worth ten times as much as any others -- without spelling out a silly idea in full detail. ;-) Having said all this, I will repeat that my main interest is in establishing the point that the Economist's model of the Internet is not valid. I am not crusading for a more equitable sharing of the costs of intercontinental data circuits; that will come naturally as time passes. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
I have to say that Jim makes a fairly convincing case. I guess the only way to force the issue would be for the Europeans to cut the transatlantic links and see who blinks first. Would American NSPs start throwing cables across the pond? I don't know. Nonetheless, there is an argument that American networks benefit greatly from the leverage which being in the US provides, leverage dependent purely on the number of hosts within the States and independent of regulation, tarriffs, etc. I think the argument is undermined by the fact that peering in Europe is in a fairly dismal state. Were there a MAE-{London, Paris, Prague} I somehow think that the big five at least might throw a T3 or two over. Until that happens, nothing will change. Maybe as access points start springing up in Japan, the Phillipines, etc., the roadblocks to such a cooperative project will start to be removed. __ Todd Graham Lewis Linux! Core Engineering Mindspring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.com (800) 719 4664, x2804
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Todd Graham Lewis wrote:
I think the argument is undermined by the fact that peering in Europe is in a fairly dismal state. Were there a MAE-{London, Paris, Prague} I somehow think that the big five at least might throw a T3 or two over.
"MAE London" is called the LINX and the T3s have been thrown over. We peer with 30 other networks at the LINX in London, including GSL (Sprintlink), Pipex (uu.net), and EUnet GB (AKA PSI). If you watch the flow of cash, what happens is that first the UK company pays a fortune to the American company for bandwidth, then the American company buys the European company. Someone more cynical than I might even say that the US company has used the UK company's money to buy the UK company.
Until that happens, nothing will change. Maybe as access points start springing up in Japan, the Phillipines, etc., the roadblocks to such a cooperative project will start to be removed.
Things are changing. It's just going to take a while. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
I think the argument is undermined by the fact that peering in Europe is in a fairly dismal state. Were there a MAE-{London, Paris, Prague} I somehow think that the big five at least might throw a T3 or two over.
"MAE London" is called the LINX and the T3s have been thrown over.
We peer with 30 other networks at the LINX in London, including GSL (Sprintlink), Pipex (uu.net), and EUnet GB (AKA PSI). If you watch the There is interesting question - does SprintLink use this peering for the traffic _from USA_ to _you_, or for it's UK customers only?
We have one example - there is Relcom there, and we are presented on our M9-IX exchange point. New provider (small-small there, XXX Global Networks, the Russian branch) asks us to make peering with them. We asked - if this allow us to get traffic _from_ and _to_ XXX Global via this link - _no, this will be peering with russian branch only_ was the answer. Guess what have we answered? /it's not important what really XXX was/
Someone more cynical than I might even say that the US company has used the UK company's money to buy the UK company.
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
--- Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 alex@relcom.eu.net wrote:
We peer with 30 other networks at the LINX in London, including GSL (Sprintlink), Pipex (uu.net), and EUnet GB (AKA PSI). If you watch the
There is interesting question - does SprintLink use this peering for the traffic _from USA_ to _you_, or for it's UK customers only?
It appears that GSL announces all of their _European_ routes to us, but we don't see any US SprintLink routes. (Or Asian routes, as I recall.)
We have one example - there is Relcom there, and we are presented on our M9-IX exchange point. New provider (small-small there, XXX Global Networks, the Russian branch) asks us to make peering with them. We asked - if this allow us to get traffic _from_ and _to_ XXX Global via this link - _no, this will be peering with russian branch only_ was the answer. Guess what have we answered? /it's not important what really XXX was/
;-) -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
In message <Pine.BSI.3.91.961025213506.22077A-100000@avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net>, Jim Dixon writes:
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 alex@relcom.eu.net wrote:
We peer with 30 other networks at the LINX in London, including GSL (Sprintlink), Pipex (uu.net), and EUnet GB (AKA PSI). If you watch the
There is interesting question - does SprintLink use this peering for the traffic _from USA_ to _you_, or for it's UK customers only?
It appears that GSL announces all of their _European_ routes to us, but we don't see any US SprintLink routes. (Or Asian routes, as I recall.)
Because of the issue of costs of IPLs this is exactly the International version of not peering with you unless you got to multiple exchange points in the US (a la, MCI/Sprint, etc.) Local peering at no charge is almost always to both parties benifit. (assuming the traffic off-loading compares favorably to the cost of setting up the peering.) But I've said this before in many different ways. Also as market share in other localaties (i.e. UK) increases greater % of local traffic stays local, reducing the % cost and need for international private lines, thus working to elimiate the "subsidy". Obivously the whole issue of internaional settlements and peering policy is about where US based NAP/MAE peering was two years ago. With perhaps some benifit of the learning/bloodshed in the US. --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net
Hmm, there is exchange points (M9-IX in Moscow and SPB-IX in StPeterburg, both FDDI-bases) even there, in Russia. The main problem is _relationships_.
I think the argument is undermined by the fact that peering in Europe is in a fairly dismal state. Were there a MAE-{London, Paris, Prague} I
--- Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
I think the argument is undermined by the fact that peering in Europe is in a fairly dismal state. Were there a MAE-{London, Paris, Prague} I somehow think that the big five at least might throw a T3 or two over. Until that happens, nothing will change. Maybe as access points start springing up in Japan, the Phillipines, etc., the roadblocks to such a cooperative project will start to be removed.
This deserves some explanation. Peering in Europe is actually pretty good, with international perring points in places like Stockholm, Amsterdam, Paris, and London.. There are lots of national IX's, further enhancing the standard. So what's the problem? Basically, one organisation, Ebone, which operates a fairly large pan-European net, won't peer with others. This means that European customers connected to non-Ebone connected providers like Global One lack European connectivity without going through the US. Ebone provides great connectivity at cost, but the big US NSPs making presences in Europe naturally don't want to buy bandwidth from someone like Ebone. We'll see what happens. - Jakob Faarvang cybernet.dk
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Todd Graham Lewis wrote:
I think the argument is undermined by the fact that peering in Europe is in a fairly dismal state. Were there a MAE-{London, Paris, Prague} I somehow think that the big five at least might throw a T3 or two over.
Aw, come-on! LINX (London InterNet eXchange http://www.linx.org) has been mentioned several time on this list. And Bill Manning has also several times mentioned http://www.isi.edu/div7/ra/NAPs/ which lists exchange points for both London and Paris and several orther European cities (though not Prague). This is basic knowledge here that everyone should know.
Until that happens, nothing will change. Maybe as access points start springing up in Japan, the Phillipines, etc., the roadblocks to such a cooperative project will start to be removed.
There are a couple of exchanges in Japan and the Phillipines people are working on an exchange but have some political stuff to work through. I suggest you give the above URL at ISI a thorough study. There is a BIG world out there beyond the borders of the USA. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Aw, come-on! LINX (London InterNet eXchange http://www.linx.org) has been mentioned several time on this list. And Bill Manning has also several times mentioned http://www.isi.edu/div7/ra/NAPs/ which lists exchange points for both London and Paris and several orther European cities (though not Prague).
There are a couple of exchanges in Japan and the Phillipines people are working on an exchange but have some political stuff to work through. I suggest you give the above URL at ISI a thorough study. There is a BIG world out there beyond the borders of the USA.
Consider this a plea for more/updated information on peering points around the globe. If there are plans for or existence proof of an exchange in Prauge, I'd like to know. -- --bill
Jim Dixon writes...
[...]
to step forward at this point -- more Web traffic flows from the UK to the US. That is, there is a small net flow of _benefit_ to the US and a very large net imbalance in _costs_ to the UK.
Obviously the costs are different, but how exactly are you measuring "benefit"? What if there are just more net-savvy folks the UK that want to run Web sites, resulting in a higher ratio of servers to browsers than in the US? Don't those people that put up Web servers then want people in the US to see them? -- Matt Ranney - mjr@eit.com This is how I sign all my messages.
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Matt Ranney wrote:
to step forward at this point -- more Web traffic flows from the UK to the US. That is, there is a small net flow of _benefit_ to the US and a very large net imbalance in _costs_ to the UK.
Obviously the costs are different, but how exactly are you measuring "benefit"? What if there are just more net-savvy folks the UK that want to run Web sites, resulting in a higher ratio of servers to browsers than in the US? Don't those people that put up Web servers then want people in the US to see them?
To my way of thinking, content providers are net producers of 'benefit' and say dial-up users are consumers. We adjust our prices to reflect this: if you buy a leased line from us to run a Web server, we charge you less; if you are a dial-up provider, we charge you more. Most end users would agree with this model. They pay their 10 quid / 15 bucks a month so that they can surf the Web. They don't expect the Net to pay them ;-) -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
From: Jim Dixon <jdd@vbc.net> To my way of thinking, content providers are net producers of 'benefit' and say dial-up users are consumers. We adjust our prices to reflect this: if you buy a leased line from us to run a Web server, we charge you less; if you are a dial-up provider, we charge you more. Most end users would agree with this model. They pay their 10 quid / 15 bucks a month so that they can surf the Web. They don't expect the Net to pay them ;-) So basically what you're saying here is that your ISP should be paying you to connect to your web servers, and they will pass the charges on downstream to their customers? ---Rob
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
To my way of thinking, content providers are net producers of 'benefit' and say dial-up users are consumers. We adjust our prices to reflect this: if you buy a leased line from us to run a Web server, we charge you less; if you are a dial-up provider, we charge you more.
Most end users would agree with this model. They pay their 10 quid / 15 bucks a month so that they can surf the Web. They don't expect the Net to pay them ;-)
So basically what you're saying here is that your ISP should be paying you to connect to your web servers, and they will pass the charges on downstream to their customers?
That's not far off from what I am saying, except that you have the roles confused. I am saying that * we (a backbone ISP) * charge customer ISPs whose primary business is dialup * (net consumers of benefit) * more than those whose business is selling Web space or who operate a Web server * (net producers of benefit) We don't do dial-up ourselves; many of our customers do. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Jim Dixon wrote:
I am saying that * we (a backbone ISP) * charge customer ISPs whose primary business is dialup * (net consumers of benefit) * more than those whose business is selling Web space or who operate a Web server * (net producers of benefit)
That is an interesting justification for additional "reseller" charges. I am not convinced it is valid, though. Most of the sites that provide half way decent content these days either charge directly for it, or charge indirectly by making you wade through advertisements. In this manner the sites are being compensated in a much more efficient manner, determined by the market. Do you really think it is our job as network providers to decide who is a net consumer and who is a net producer? I think not, I think it is our job to deliver bits. Let the net consumers and the net producers themselves negotiate the terms of their transaction. Should a bookstore have to pay less in taxes because it provides a service people want? No, the bookstore should incorporate the taxes into its prices, just as a web site should incorporate the costs of connectivity into its prices. -BD
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Bradley Dunn wrote:
* we (a backbone ISP) * charge customer ISPs whose primary business is dialup * (net consumers of benefit) * more than those whose business is selling Web space or who operate a Web server * (net producers of benefit)
That is an interesting justification for additional "reseller" charges. I am not convinced it is valid, though. Most of the sites that provide half way decent content these days either charge directly for it, or charge indirectly by making you wade through advertisements. In this manner the sites are being compensated in a much more efficient manner, determined by the market.
This is not a moral argument, it's simply a description of our policy. And this is just a price differential; you could equally well see it as a discount to those who are net sources of content.
Do you really think it is our job as network providers to decide who is a net consumer and who is a net producer? I think not, I think it is our job to deliver bits. Let the net consumers and the net producers themselves negotiate the terms of their transaction.
You seem to be saying that we should not ourselves negotiate. We look at our pipes and notice that they are relatively full in one direction and relatively empty in the other. We adjust our prices so that usage is more uniform. That's just good business practice. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Jim Dixon wrote:
1) How many US ISP's customers would notice if vbc.net fell off the net?
2) How many of vbc.net's customers would notice if the USA fell off the net?
There is a name for this ridiculous style of argument, but I don't remember it ...
Xenophobia. Look it up.
Europe heavily subsidizes the US Internet. It's not just VBCnet: the European Internet community pays something like 90% of the costs of traffic between Europe and North America. The same applies to the rest of the world.
I would say that if transatlantic lines are mostly ordered and paid for by European companies that you are probably correct. But part of the reason is that European government run PTT's charge horrendously high rates for international circuits. Remember when Europe's economy was subsidized heavily by its colonies? The Internet is a similar colonial economy and it can't last forever. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
I would say that if transatlantic lines are mostly ordered and paid for by European companies that you are probably correct. But part of the reason is that European government run PTT's charge horrendously high rates for international circuits.
Though the US 1/2 circuit is slightly cheaper than (say) the UK or SE one, (neither of which have government owned monopolies) they are the same order of magnitude. European nations with state-owned monopolies charge 30-50% more. Still the same order of magnitude. It has been well argued that all telcos have some form of protectionist pricing on large data circuits (for Internet or anything else) as they have a profitable International voice business to protect. Alex Bligh Xara Networks
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Michael Dillon wrote:
There is a name for this ridiculous style of argument, but I don't remember it ...
Xenophobia. Look it up.
Ah, yes, that's it ;-)
Europe heavily subsidizes the US Internet. It's not just VBCnet: the European Internet community pays something like 90% of the costs of traffic between Europe and North America. The same applies to the rest of the world.
I would say that if transatlantic lines are mostly ordered and paid for by European companies that you are probably correct. But part of the reason is that European government run PTT's charge horrendously high rates for international circuits.
European ISPs routinely put in (very expensive) lines to other European countries and the USA. We have a line to California, and are just now putting in circuits to Stockholm, Amsterdam, and Virginia. This is just normal; we peer with two German networks and one Dutch network in London, where they have run lines over to the UK. On the other hand I have not seen any US regional ISP put in a line to Europe. The few US ISPs (Sprint, UUnet, PSI) that do have lines to Europe use them to sell bandwidth to the States.
Remember when Europe's economy was subsidized heavily by its colonies? The Internet is a similar colonial economy and it can't last forever.
Precisely. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
From: Jim Dixon <jdd@vbc.net> There is a name for this ridiculous style of argument, but I don't remember it ... The names that come immediately to mind are "capitalism", "what's in it for me" and "TANSTAAFL". Also "reality". Let's recast the questions: 1. How many UK ISPs would notice if seastrom.com fell off the Net? That's largely irrelevant -- I'm not asking you to peer with my home network and transport my traffic at no charge. 2. How many of seastrom's customers would notice if Europe fell off the Net? Not many. Europe heavily subsidizes the US Internet. It's not just VBCnet: the European Internet community pays something like 90% of the costs of traffic between Europe and North America. The same applies to the rest of the world. So, what you're saying is that US Internet users should be helping to subsidize your socialist Government-monopoly telephone companies that charge you several times what a line is worth. And we should do this simply because YOU choose to do business in a country that supports a sub-optimal economic model. I'm sorry, but I don't play that game. Have you ever considered that you might have a lot less bandwidth cost to the States if (as Jeremy Porter pointed out) the costs to run a line intra-Europe reflected the REAL COST of doing so instead of being government-sanctioned overcharging. To get the who's-subsidizing-whom argument correct, perhaps you might want to consider that the competitive environment in the US is subsidizing your trans-Eurpoean connectivity. Poor models make for poor reasoning, just like talking without listening makes for a poor dialog. The thing that makes for the worst dialog is when you try to advance an untenable position. There will always be a cost of doing business for your company -- if you feel that the current model is unfair, you can (a) lobby your government to completely privatize the telecom infrastructure and deregulate it opening it up to competition, (b) move your operation to more friendly territory, or (c) go out of business. But don't give us this "Europe is subsidizing US infrastructure" dreck. ---Rob
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
2. How many of seastrom's customers would notice if Europe fell off the Net?
Not many.
Sure sounds like xenophobia.
Europe heavily subsidizes the US Internet. It's not just VBCnet: the European Internet community pays something like 90% of the costs of traffic between Europe and North America. The same applies to the rest of the world.
So, what you're saying is that US Internet users should be helping to subsidize your socialist Government-monopoly telephone companies that charge you several times what a line is worth.
Yep, definitely xenophobia. It would be wise for Americans who wish to comment upon other country's telecom systems to learn something about them first. I'm sure that Mercury in the UK would be surprised to hear that an American considers them to be a socialist Government-monopoly telephone company. And I'm sure that the UK's Conservative Prime Minister John Major, who took over from Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, would be surprised to hear that the UK has a socialist government. Europe may be a few years behind the USA in deregulating telecommunications but they are definitely marching down that road.
Have you ever considered that you might have a lot less bandwidth cost to the States if (as Jeremy Porter pointed out) the costs to run a line intra-Europe reflected the REAL COST of doing so instead of being government-sanctioned overcharging.
Are you so sure that the cost of telecommunications in the USA reflects real costs? Overinflated telecom charges are just as real in the USA as elsewhere.
The thing that makes for the worst dialog is when you try to advance an untenable position. There will always be a cost of doing business for your company -- if you feel that the current model is unfair, you can (a) lobby your government to completely privatize the telecom infrastructure and deregulate it opening it up to competition, (b) move your operation to more friendly territory, or (c) go out of business. But don't give us this "Europe is subsidizing US infrastructure" dreck.
Typical xenophobic ranting. You should hear what xenophobic Europeans have to say about the ugly American. Just because a country has some dirt under its covers doesn't make it right for you to paint all of its citizens with the same brush. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Let's recast the questions:
1. How many UK ISPs would notice if seastrom.com fell off the Net?
That's largely irrelevant -- I'm not asking you to peer with my home network and transport my traffic at no charge.
2. How many of seastrom's customers would notice if Europe fell off the Net?
Not many.
Bad example. But the correct answer is almost the same: 1) In case if INTERNET split into US and EUrope parts withouth interconnection, no too many in USA will notice it, but INTERNET in Europe will die (moreover, computer's world will die too). This explains why we (EUrope) pay for the inter-ocean links. It's reality. And - YES, European's PTT is the worst example of the SOCIALISM. Then it's became unlimited loop - IP in USA cost less because EUrope pay for it; that's why interesting services tends to locate in USA, that's why Europe have to pay for the links, that's why new servers are allocated in USA where the cost of Internet is less, and so on... -:) --- Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 alex@relcom.eu.net wrote:
1) In case if INTERNET split into US and EUrope parts withouth interconnection, no too many in USA will notice it, but INTERNET in Europe will die (moreover, computer's world will die too).
Don't you believe it. Over the last year we have seen a steady downward drift in the percentage of our traffic which goes to the US -- a 20% change over the last year, I think.
This explains why we (EUrope) pay for the inter-ocean links. It's reality.
No, it's inertia more than anything else.
And - YES, European's PTT is the worst example of the SOCIALISM.
Can't disagree with that, though ;-)
Then it's became unlimited loop - IP in USA cost less because EUrope pay for it; that's why interesting services tends to locate in USA, that's why Europe have to pay for the links, that's why new servers are allocated in USA where the cost of Internet is less, and so on... -:)
If you look at the commercial realities, most UK companies putting up Web sites are looking for customers in the UK. We are seeing more and more companies who are actually looking for customers in their own region: Bristol companies looking for Bristol customers, not UK customers, certainly not American customers. This is the way that we see the Net evolving: more and more traffic will be local. I think that you are talking more about Eastern Europe, which is several years behind. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
1) In case if INTERNET split into US and EUrope parts withouth interconnection, no too many in USA will notice it, but INTERNET in Europe will die (moreover, computer's world will die too).
Don't you believe it. Over the last year we have seen a steady downward It was a joke, but unfortunately thete is the piece of the truth in it.
drift in the percentage of our traffic which goes to the US -- a 20% change over the last year, I think. May be, but I have the other examples (there, in Russia, and in some european ISP) - the traffic _from USA is about 200% of the traffic _to USA.
This explains why we (EUrope) pay for the inter-ocean links. It's reality. No, it's inertia more than anything else. It the dreams only while...
Then it's became unlimited loop - IP in USA cost less because EUrope pay for it; that's why interesting services tends to locate in USA, that's why Europe have to pay for the links, that's why new servers are allocated in USA where the cost of Internet is less, and so on... -:)
If you look at the commercial realities, most UK companies putting up Web sites are looking for customers in the UK. We are seeing more and more companies who are actually looking for customers in their own region: Bristol companies looking for Bristol customers, not UK customers, certainly not American customers. This is the way that we see the Net evolving: more and more traffic will be local. Yes, there we have about 2:1 ratio of Local and International traffics, including _news_ etc.
But - what do you search in the WWW network? Weather - local is in your network, world - in USA. CNN - go to USA. CIO (Cisco) Online - USA. And so on... May be UK is some exception due to English language, I do not know.
I think that you are talking more about Eastern Europe, which is several years behind. You are right - everithing discussed there is actual for Eastern Europe more than for you.
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
--- Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 alex@relcom.eu.net wrote:
1) In case if INTERNET split into US and EUrope parts withouth interconnection, no too many in USA will notice it, but INTERNET in Europe will die (moreover, computer's world will die too).
Don't you believe it. Over the last year we have seen a steady downward drift in the percentage of our traffic which goes to the US -- a 20% change over the last year, I think.
Hmmm, I wonder how much of this drop can be attributed to the closure of the Louvre in Paris and the Delft Institute of Technology closing the 17th floor to US sites..... Larry
On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Larry J. Plato wrote:
Don't you believe it. Over the last year we have seen a steady downward drift in the percentage of our traffic which goes to the US -- a 20% change over the last year, I think.
Hmmm,
I wonder how much of this drop can be attributed to the closure of the Louvre in Paris and the Delft Institute of Technology closing the 17th floor to US sites.....
It isn't a drop, it's an increase in the amount of Web traffic flowing from the UK to the US. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Europe heavily subsidizes the US Internet. It's not just VBCnet: the European Internet community pays something like 90% of the costs of traffic between Europe and North America. The same applies to the rest of the world. ... Have you ever considered that you might have a lot less bandwidth cost to the States if (as Jeremy Porter pointed out) the costs to run a line intra-Europe reflected the REAL COST of doing so instead of being government-sanctioned overcharging.
The number of logical hops here is a little large. The costs of doing business in Europe <yawn> do include high telecomms costs between European countries. These are (a) falling and (b) shared more or less equitably among European providers. But costs for circuits across the Atlantic are (a) borne almost entirely by European networks and (b) have nothing much to do with intra-European costs. It doesn't cost much to run fiber across a border but it costs real money to lay several thousand miles of cable. Think about it. I am not on some sort of crusade; this is not a stable arrangement and won't last. Benefits flow both ways; in time the costs will come to more or less match the benefits. Not because I say yes or you say no but because the market will adjust itself.
business. But don't give us this "Europe is subsidizing US infrastructure" dreck.
Oh, lighten up. As I said, my main point was that the Economist's model was seriously flawed. I am an American doing business in both the States and Europe, not a socialism-loving American-flag-burning Limey. ;-) I can see how the system currently works, and I know it's not going to last. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
I am not on some sort of crusade; this is not a stable arrangement and won't last. Benefits flow both ways; in time the costs will come to more or less match the benefits. Not because I say yes or you say no but because the market will adjust itself.
business. But don't give us this "Europe is subsidizing US infrastructure" dreck.
Oh, lighten up.
As I said, my main point was that the Economist's model was seriously flawed.
I am an American doing business in both the States and Europe, not a socialism-loving American-flag-burning Limey. ;-)
I can see how the system currently works, and I know it's not going to last.
Of course, as long as there are more users of the Internet located in the US, and more content sites in the US, and the interesting applications located in the US, there will be a greater value to the non-us IPs to drop lines in, and as our Asian friends have pointed out it is often cheaper to drop lines to the West coast of the US than to drop inter-asia links. If companies like Global Sprintlink, Cable and Wireless, etc, are going into non-US peering locations, then it is already changing. However compared to the amount of Internet bandwidth in the US, compared to elsewhere, I seriously doubt that there is any kind of siginifcant subisidy to US users. (Just because it costs non-US based ISPs more to play the fully connected game, doesn't mean there is a signficant cost difference, just a market imbalance. --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net
On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote:
As I said, my main point was that the Economist's model was seriously flawed. ... Of course, as long as there are more users of the Internet located in the US, and more content sites in the US, and the interesting applications located in the US, there will be a greater value to the non-us IPs to drop lines in, and as our Asian friends have pointed out it is often cheaper to drop lines to the West coast of the US than to drop inter-asia links.
This is just another seriously flawed model.
If companies like Global Sprintlink, Cable and Wireless, etc, are going into non-US peering locations, then it is already changing.
Yes it is already changing. But as far as I can see, Global SprintLink represents the old US-centric model: GSL is the international arm of SprintLink and essentially sells bandwidth into the States. C&W is setting itself up as a global backbone provider.
However compared to the amount of Internet bandwidth in the US, compared to elsewhere, I seriously doubt that there is any kind of siginifcant subisidy to US users.
I know it's hard to think about these things, but a T1 across the Atlantic costs us 235 times as much as a T1 to MAE West. Comparing Mbps is a joke.
(Just because it costs non-US based ISPs more to play the fully connected game, doesn't mean there is a signficant cost difference, just a market imbalance.
Yes 235:1 is a bit of a market imbalance; some might say that it is a significant cost difference. ) -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
Yes it is already changing. But as far as I can see, Global SprintLink represents the old US-centric model: GSL is the international arm of SprintLink and essentially sells bandwidth into the States. C&W is setting itself up as a global backbone provider.
GSL offers both IPL and POP accesses, and participates local-exchange within country/reginal POPs. US-centric model is juct matter of economy and tariff between countries. If someone is willing to pay more to run a DS-3 from Taiwan to Japan instead, I am sure there is no reason for GSL to reject the order. - jian
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Jian Li wrote:
Yes it is already changing. But as far as I can see, Global SprintLink represents the old US-centric model: GSL is the international arm of SprintLink and essentially sells bandwidth into the States. C&W is setting itself up as a global backbone provider.
GSL offers both IPL and POP accesses, and participates local-exchange within country/reginal POPs. US-centric model is juct matter of economy and tariff between countries. If someone is willing to pay more to run a DS-3 from Taiwan to Japan instead, I am sure there is no reason for GSL to reject the order.
The point is that GSL's peering policies are radically different from those of SprintLink, whereas Cable & Wireless seems to have the same policies worldwide. Similarly, I know that GSL's prices for transit used to be much higher than SprintLink's and I suppose still are. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
The point is that GSL's peering policies are radically different from those of SprintLink, whereas Cable & Wireless seems to have the same policies worldwide. Similarly, I know that GSL's prices for transit used to be much higher than SprintLink's and I suppose still are.
As what I know, GSL's peering policies have two parts, international and US domestic. The US domestic part is exactly the copy of SprintLink. International part is based on the idea of traffic localization. -- jian
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Jian Li wrote:
The point is that GSL's peering policies are radically different from those of SprintLink, whereas Cable & Wireless seems to have the same policies worldwide. Similarly, I know that GSL's prices for transit used to be much higher than SprintLink's and I suppose still are.
As what I know, GSL's peering policies have two parts, international and US domestic. The US domestic part is exactly the copy of SprintLink. International part is based on the idea of traffic localization.
Fine. This still leaves Sprint with two very different policies, one for the US and one for the rest of the world, whereas CWIX apparently has one policy for the whole world -- or at least for North America and Europe. I believe that over the next few years this is how things are going to go: peering policies and prices for transit will converge, at least in these two large markets. Americans tend to forget that Europe has a larger population and more money than the US; these basic facts are not going to let the current large imbalances persist. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
participants (14)
-
Alex.Bligh -
alex＠relcom.eu.net -
azeem＠dial.pipex.com -
bmanning＠ISI.EDU -
Bradley Dunn -
jakob＠jubii.dk -
Jeremy Porter -
Jian Li -
Jim Dixon -
Larry J. Plato -
Matt Ranney -
Michael Dillon -
Robert E. Seastrom -
Todd Graham Lewis