[132784] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: TWT - Comcast congestion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A Steenbergen)
Wed Dec 1 12:22:29 2010
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:22:24 -0600
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20101201143139.GA69051@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 06:31:39AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:59:25PM -0600, Richard A =
Steenbergen wrote:
> > I believe that's what I said. To be perfectly clear, what I'm saying is:
> >=20
> > * Comcast acted first by demanding fees
> > * Level 3 went public first by whining about it after they agreed to pay
> > * Comcast was well prepared to win the PR war, and had a large pile of=
=20
> > content that sounds good to the uninformed layperson ready to go.
>=20
> I think I can make this very simple. What I am saying is that
> you're missing a step before your 3 bullet points. Before any of
> the three things you describe, Level 3 demanded fees from Comcast.
> Level 3 is doing a great job of getting folks to ignore that fact.
Do you have any basis for this claim, or are you just making it up=20
as a possible scenario that would explain Comcast's actions? I have=20
it on good authority that Level 3 did not attempt to raise their=20
prices or ask for additonal fees beyond their existing contract,=20
nor was their contract coming to term where they could "renegotiate"=20
for more favorable terms. Comcast simply said, we've decided we don't=20
want to pay you, you should pay us instead, and you're going to bend=20
over and like it if you want to be able to reach our customers.
Obviously the version I've heard and the version you're pitching=20
can't co-exist, so either you have some REALLY interesting inside=20
info that I don't (which I honestly find hard to believe given=20
your knowledge of the facts so far), or you're stating a theory=20
with no possible basis that I can find as a fact. If it's just=20
a theory, please say so, then we don't keep having to argue these=20
positions that can clearly never converge.
> Comcast is a customer of L3, and pays them for service. Brining
> on Netflix will cause Comcast to pay L3 more. More interestingly,
> in this case it's likely Level 3 went to Comcast and said we don't
> think your existing customer ports will handle the additional
> traffic....so...um...you should buy more customer ports.
Comcast is th customer, they have complete and total control of the=20
traffic being exchabged over their transit ports. If they wanted=20
less traffic, they could announce fewer routes, or add more=20
no-export communities. They also have complete control of traffic=20
being sent outbound, and since Level3 is more than capable of=20
handling 300Gbps (the capacity comcast claims they have), if=20
Comcast actually had 300Gbps of outbound traffic to send they=20
could easily have had a 1:1 ratio.
Framing this as a peering ratio debate is absurd, because there=20
two networks were NEVER peers. Any customer could have sent=20
addtional bits to Level3 at any time, and Comcast should be=20
prepared to deal with the TE as a result. That's life on the=20
Internet.
> Does network neutrality work both ways? If it is bad for Comcast
> to hold the users hostage to extort more money from Level 3, is it
> also bad for Level 3 to hold the content hostage to extort more
> money from Comcast?
You know, most people manage to buy sufficient transit capacity to=20
support the volume of traffic that their customers pay them to=20
deliver. Only Comcast seems to feel that it is proper to use their=20
captive customer base hostage to extort content networks into paying=20
for uncongested access. Level 3 is free to sell full transit or CDN=20
to whomever they like, just as Comcast is free to not buy transit=20
=66rom Level 3 when their contract is up. The net neutrality part=20
starts when Level 3 is NOT free to turn off their customer for=20
non-payment just like what would happen to anyone else who suddenly=20
decided they didn't think they should keep paying their bills,=20
because Comcast maintains so little transit capacity that to shut=20
them off would cause mssive disruptions to large portions of the=20
Internet.
--=20
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
