[183139] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Aug 15 13:20:59 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <598746933.8767.1439658026284.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 10:18:04 -0700
To: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Your reply implies that your understanding does not match my intended =
meaning.
(IOW, Perhaps you did not receive what I intended to transmit)
I=E2=80=99m saying that the incumbents in an act of unreasonable greed =
are demanding money for peering from providers with a lot of content =
providers while also collecting money from their direct customers for =
the sake of delivering that same content.
It would be like me standing between you and a hotdog stand and =
demanding that you give me 1.5x the price of the hotdog and then =
demanding that the hotdog stand sell me the hotdog to give to you for =
0.5x the listed price.
In the more functional physical world, you simply walk around me and buy =
the hotdog for 1x the listed price and the only one who loses is the guy =
standing in the middle.
In the case of the incumbent facilities based carriers, they=E2=80=99ve =
managed to build a wall in front of the hot dog stand and a wall in =
front of you such that your view is limited to the window that they have =
to open and so is the hot dog vendor. Thus, you have no choice but to =
give them the extra 50% for the hot dog and the hot dog vendor has no =
choice but to give them half of the listed price as a =E2=80=9Cdelivery =
charge=E2=80=9D.
Admittedly, the fractions are not as I described, but the basic =
principle is exactly as I have described it.
Owen
> On Aug 15, 2015, at 09:59 , Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>=20
> Arrogance is the only reason I can think of why the incumbents think =
that way. I'd be surprised if any competitive providers (regardless of =
their market dominance) would expect free peering.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Midwest Internet Exchange=20
> http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
>=20
> 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 Cogent in Dallas=20
>=20
> This issue isn=E2=80=99t limited to Cogent.=20
>=20
> 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.=20
>=20
> 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.=20
>=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
>=20
> For example, in the area where I live, the claim you will hear is that =
there is competition. With my usage patterns, that=E2=80=99s 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).=20
>=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 Jose.=20
>=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 =
physical infrastructure into a monopoly for services over that =
infrastructure.=20
>=20
> 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.=20
>=20
> 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.=20
>=20
> That=E2=80=99s 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.=20
>=20
> Fortunately, one of the big gains in recent FCC rulings is that these =
laws are likely to be rendered null and void.=20
>=20
> 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=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 education and recruitment ahead of us.=20
>=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 customers want to reach for the sake of extorting extra money from =
both sides of the transaction.=20
>=20
> Owen=20
>=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 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
>>=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
>>=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 =
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
>>=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 sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check =
your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.=20=
>>=20
>> --=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.=20
>> Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing or =
copying of this email is strictly prohibited.=20
>=20
>=20
