[183141] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Sat Aug 15 13:27:46 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 12:22:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <0A976B46-FF45-4E54-89D1-166DF0AD3491@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I think we're on the same side, just saying it differently substituting gre=
ed for arrogance.=20
Additionally, the last mile providers are acting no differently than a carr=
ier would, getting paid on both sides... only carriers are typically balanc=
ed ratios where as last mile\first mile are not.=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: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>=20
Cc: nanog@nanog.org=20
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 12:18:04 PM=20
Subject: Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and Co=
gent in Dallas=20
Your reply implies that your understanding does not match my intended meani=
ng.=20
(IOW, Perhaps you did not receive what I intended to transmit)=20
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 del=
ivering that same content.=20
It would be like me standing between you and a hotdog stand and demanding t=
hat you give me 1.5x the price of the hotdog and then demanding that the ho=
tdog stand sell me the hotdog to give to you for 0.5x the listed price.=20
In the more functional physical world, you simply walk around me and buy th=
e hotdog for 1x the listed price and the only one who loses is the guy stan=
ding in the middle.=20
In the case of the incumbent facilities based carriers, they=E2=80=99ve man=
aged to build a wall in front of the hot dog stand and a wall in front of y=
ou 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 ext=
ra 50% for the hot dog and the hot dog vendor has no choice but to give the=
m half of the listed price as a =E2=80=9Cdelivery charge=E2=80=9D.=20
Admittedly, the fractions are not as I described, but the basic principle i=
s exactly as I have described it.=20
Owen=20
> On Aug 15, 2015, at 09:59 , Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:=20
>=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 ma=
rket 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
>=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 en=
titled to be paid by both the content provider _AND_ the eyeball user for c=
arrying 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 mark=
et. In the best of circumstances, we have oligopolies and in the worst plac=
es, we have effective (or even actual) monopolies.=20
>=20
> For example, in the area where I live, the claim you will hear is that th=
ere 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 (U=
p 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 J=
ose.=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 physic=
al infrastructure into a monopoly for services over that infrastructure.=20
>=20
> The most viable solution, IMHO, is to require a separation between physic=
al infrastructure providers and those that provide services over that infra=
structure. Breaking the tight coupling between the two and requiring physic=
al infrastructure providers to lease facilities to operators on an equal fo=
oting for all operators will reduce the barriers to competition in the oper=
ator space. It will also make limited competition in the facilities space p=
ossible, though unlikely.=20
>=20
> This model exists to some extent in a few areas that have municipal resid=
ential 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 car=
riers 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 law=
s are likely to be rendered null and void.=20
>=20
> Unfortunately, there is so much vested interest in the status quo that ac=
hieving this sort of separation is unlikely without a really strong grass r=
oots movement. Sadly, the average sound-bite oriented citizen doesn=E2=80=
=99t know (or want to learn) enough to facilitate such a grass-roots moveme=
nt, so if we want to build such a future, we have a long slog of public edu=
cation and recruitment ahead of us.=20
>=20
> In the mean time, we=E2=80=99ll get to continue to watch companies like C=
C, VZ, TW screw over their customers and the content providers their custom=
ers 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 bandwidt=
h 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 cus=
tomers want their services, the eyeball networks want Cogent to pay them ex=
tra. When there is congestion, neither side wants to upgrade their peeing u=
ntil 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 pro=
vides 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 Hamilto=
n=20
>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 5:31 PM=20
>> To: nanog@nanog.org=20
>> Subject: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and Cog=
ent 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 38.104.86.2=
22. 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 artic=
les 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 s=
ending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail se=
curity settings to determine how attachments are handled.=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of THE EM=
PIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY, are confidential, and are intended solely f=
or 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 i=
mmediately 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
