[183152] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Aug 15 16:02:57 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJL_ZMNd1d46d4Pqg70yYadrS6dnO9Vd3j+zyMkayNOTq+c9LA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:01:36 -0700
To: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Let me turn that on its head=E2=80=A6
I don=E2=80=99t think anyone=E2=80=99s eyeballs are special.
I don=E2=80=99t think anyone=E2=80=99s content is special.
I think everyone should get free peering with any network whose =
customers=20
expect to be able to reach that other network=E2=80=99s customers.
Ignoring for a moment the idea of maximizing effective avarice, think =
how
much better it would be for eyeballs and content providers alike if they
could all just peer directly settlement free and/or pay a single layer =
of
transit providers all of whom peered with each other
for free.
Time and time again we have repeatedly proven that increased =
interconnect
density and promiscuous settlement free peering reduce
costs, improve performance, and generally make the internet better for
all concerned.
Now, ask yourself=E2=80=A6 If everyone followed that model, would it =
actually reduce
the viability of any of the businesses in question?
IMHO, there=E2=80=99s only one yes answer here=E2=80=A6 If enough of the =
eyeball/content
providers are able to cooperate and peer with each other directly, you =
might
see a significant impact (reduction in need) on transit providers as =
their entire
business would become largely irrelevant.
That=E2=80=99s called cutting out the middle man. In almost every =
industry that has been
able to do so, it=E2=80=99s been considered a really good thing for =
everyone except the
middle man who rarely gets much sympathy.
Owen
> On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:32 , jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> In my 20+ yrs now of playing this game, "everyone" has had a turn =
thinking
> their content/eyeballs are special and should get free "peering".
>=20
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:59 PM, 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
>> -----
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>=20
>>=20
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>=20
>> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
>> To: "Matthew Huff" <mhuff@ox.com>
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:44:57 AM
>> Subject: Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest =
and
>> Cogent 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,
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> Owen
>>=20
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
