[183131] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Aug 15 12:45:05 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <3579403fd04b4a5bbcbc6c232afae0ba@pur-vm-exch13n1.ox.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 09:44:57 -0700
To: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This issue isn=92t limited to Cogent.
There is this bizarre belief by the larger eyeball networks (and CC, VZ, =
and TW are the worst offenders, pretty much in that order) that they are =
entitled to be paid by both the content provider _AND_ the eyeball user =
for carrying bits between the two.
In a healthy market, the eyeball providers would face competition and =
the content providers would simply ignore these demands and the eyeballs =
would buy from other eyeball providers.
Unfortunately, especially in the US, we don=92t have a healthy market. =
In the best of circumstances, we have oligopolies and in the worst =
places, we have effective (or even actual) monopolies.
For example, in the area where I live, the claim you will hear is that =
there is competition. With my usage patterns, that=92s a choice between =
Comcast (up to 30/7 $100/mo), AT&T DSL (1.5M/384k $40/mo+) and wireless =
(Up to 30/15 $500+/month).
I=92m not in some rural backwater or even some second-tier metro. I=92m =
within 10 miles of the former MAE West and also within 10 miles of =
Equinix SV1 (11 Great Oaks). There=92s major fiber bundles within 2 =
miles of my house. I=92m near US101 and Capitol Expressway in San Jose.
The reason that things are this way, IMHO, is because we have allowed =
=93facilities based carriers=94 to leverage the monopoly on physical =
infrastructure into a monopoly for services over that infrastructure.
The most viable solution, IMHO, is to require a separation between =
physical infrastructure providers and those that provide services over =
that infrastructure. Breaking the tight coupling between the two and =
requiring physical infrastructure providers to lease facilities to =
operators on an equal footing for all operators will reduce the barriers =
to competition in the operator space. It will also make limited =
competition in the facilities space possible, though unlikely.
This model exists to some extent in a few areas that have municipal =
residential fiber services, and in most of those localities, it is =
working well.
That=92s one of the reasons that the incumbent facilities based carriers =
have lobbied so hard to get laws in states where a city has done this =
that prevent other cities from following suit.
Fortunately, one of the big gains in recent FCC rulings is that these =
laws are likely to be rendered null and void.
Unfortunately, there is so much vested interest in the status quo that =
achieving this sort of separation is unlikely without a really strong =
grass roots movement. Sadly, the average sound-bite oriented citizen =
doesn=92t know (or want to learn) enough to facilitate such a =
grass-roots movement, so if we want to build such a future, we have a =
long slog of public education and recruitment ahead of us.
In the mean time, we=92ll get to continue to watch companies like CC, =
VZ, TW screw over their customers and the content providers their =
customers want to reach for the sake of extorting extra money from both =
sides of the transaction.
Owen
> On Aug 15, 2015, at 06:40 , Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
>=20
> It's only partially about net neutrality. Cogent provides cheap =
bandwidth for content providers, and sends a lot of traffic to eyeball =
networks. In the past, peering partners expected symmetrical load =
sharing. Cogent feels that eyeball networks should be happy to carry =
their traffic since the customers want their services, the eyeball =
networks want Cogent to pay them extra. When there is congestion, =
neither side wants to upgrade their peeing until this is resolved, so =
they haven't. This has been going on for at least 5 years, and happens =
all over the cogent peering map.
>=20
> Depending on what protocol you are using, it can be an issue or not. =
Our end users on eyeball networks had difficulty maintaining VPN =
connections. We had to drop our Cogent upstream and work with our =
remaining upstream provides to traffic engineer around Cogent. YMMV.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----
> Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
> Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577
> OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039
> aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jordan =
Hamilton
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 5:31 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and =
Cogent in Dallas=20
>=20
> I have several customers that are having packet loss issues, the =
packet loss appears to be associated with a Cogent router interface of =
38.104.86.222. My upstream provider is telling me that the packet loss =
is being caused by a net neutrality peering dispute between =
CenturyTel/Quest and Cogent in Dallas. I did some quick googling to see =
if I could come up with any articles or something like that I could =
provide to my customers and did not see anything. Anyone know any =
details?
>=20
> Thanks
>=20
> Jordan Hamilton
> Senior Telecommunications Engineer
>=20
> Empire District Electric Co.
> 720 Schifferdecker
> PO Box 127
> Joplin, MO 64802
>=20
> Ph: 417-625-4223
> Cell: 417-388-3351
>=20
>=20
> --
> Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent =
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your =
e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
>=20
> --
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of THE =
EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY, are confidential, and are intended =
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email is =
addressed. If you are not one of the named recipients or otherwise have =
reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please =
delete this message immediately from your computer and contact the =
sender by telephone at (417)-625-5100.
> Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing or =
copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
