[183134] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Sat Aug 15 13:02:02 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 11:59:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <8868CB3D-E35D-46EE-8434-0B70AD0A4F05@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Arrogance is the only reason I can think of why the incumbents think that w=
ay. I'd be surprised if any competitive providers (regardless of their mark=
et dominance) would expect free peering.=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
Midwest Internet Exchange=20
http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>=20
To: "Matthew Huff" <mhuff@ox.com>=20
Cc: nanog@nanog.org=20
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:44:57 AM=20
Subject: Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and Co=
gent in Dallas=20
This issue isn=E2=80=99t limited to Cogent.=20
There is this bizarre belief by the larger eyeball networks (and CC, VZ, an=
d TW are the worst offenders, pretty much in that order) that they are enti=
tled to be paid by both the content provider _AND_ the eyeball user for car=
rying bits between the two.=20
In a healthy market, the eyeball providers would face competition and the c=
ontent providers would simply ignore these demands and the eyeballs would b=
uy from other eyeball providers.=20
Unfortunately, especially in the US, we don=E2=80=99t have a healthy market=
. In the best of circumstances, we have oligopolies and in the worst places=
, we have effective (or even actual) monopolies.=20
For example, in the area where I live, the claim you will hear is that ther=
e is competition. With my usage patterns, that=E2=80=99s a choice between C=
omcast (up to 30/7 $100/mo), AT&T DSL (1.5M/384k $40/mo+) and wireless (Up =
to 30/15 $500+/month).=20
I=E2=80=99m not in some rural backwater or even some second-tier metro. I=
=E2=80=99m within 10 miles of the former MAE West and also within 10 miles =
of Equinix SV1 (11 Great Oaks). There=E2=80=99s major fiber bundles within =
2 miles of my house. I=E2=80=99m near US101 and Capitol Expressway in San J=
ose.=20
The reason that things are this way, IMHO, is because we have allowed =E2=
=80=9Cfacilities based carriers=E2=80=9D to leverage the monopoly on physic=
al infrastructure into a monopoly for services over that infrastructure.=20
The most viable solution, IMHO, is to require a separation between physical=
infrastructure providers and those that provide services over that infrast=
ructure. Breaking the tight coupling between the two and requiring physical=
infrastructure providers to lease facilities to operators on an equal foot=
ing for all operators will reduce the barriers to competition in the operat=
or space. It will also make limited competition in the facilities space pos=
sible, though unlikely.=20
This model exists to some extent in a few areas that have municipal residen=
tial fiber services, and in most of those localities, it is working well.=
=20
That=E2=80=99s one of the reasons that the incumbent facilities based carri=
ers have lobbied so hard to get laws in states where a city has done this t=
hat prevent other cities from following suit.=20
Fortunately, one of the big gains in recent FCC rulings is that these laws =
are likely to be rendered null and void.=20
Unfortunately, there is so much vested interest in the status quo that achi=
eving this sort of separation is unlikely without a really strong grass roo=
ts movement. Sadly, the average sound-bite oriented citizen doesn=E2=80=99t=
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 educati=
on and recruitment ahead of us.=20
In the mean time, we=E2=80=99ll get to continue to watch companies like CC,=
VZ, TW screw over their customers and the content providers their customer=
s want to reach for the sake of extorting extra money from both sides of th=
e transaction.=20
Owen=20
> On Aug 15, 2015, at 06:40 , Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:=20
>=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 cust=
omers want their services, the eyeball networks want Cogent to pay them ext=
ra. When there is congestion, neither side wants to upgrade their peeing un=
til 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
>=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. W=
e had to drop our Cogent upstream and work with our remaining upstream prov=
ides to traffic engineer around Cogent. YMMV.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----=20
> Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd=20
> Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577=20
> OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039=20
> aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----=20
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Hamilton=
=20
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 5:31 PM=20
> To: nanog@nanog.org=20
> Subject: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and Coge=
nt in Dallas=20
>=20
> I have several customers that are having packet loss issues, the packet l=
oss appears to be associated with a Cogent router interface of 38.104.86.22=
2. 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 articl=
es or something like that I could provide to my customers and did not see a=
nything. Anyone know any details?=20
>=20
> Thanks=20
>=20
> Jordan Hamilton=20
> Senior Telecommunications Engineer=20
>=20
> Empire District Electric Co.=20
> 720 Schifferdecker=20
> PO Box 127=20
> Joplin, MO 64802=20
>=20
> Ph: 417-625-4223=20
> Cell: 417-388-3351=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent se=
nding or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail sec=
urity settings to determine how attachments are handled.=20
>=20
> --=20
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of THE EMP=
IRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY, are confidential, and are intended solely fo=
r the use of the individual or entity to whom this email is addressed. If y=
ou 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 im=
mediately from your computer and contact the sender by telephone at (417)-6=
25-5100.=20
> Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying =
of this email is strictly prohibited.=20
