[192466] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mel Beckman)
Fri Oct 28 20:32:27 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
To: Jared Geiger <jared@compuwizz.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 00:32:18 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAHuchRBwaED8sY3Z9E1GxMamwPMWdHxvXeL8Q+AbCPe2FYnmdw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
It's funny you should mention that. I just learned that our CL traffic ride=
s on a single lambda is a Level3 fiber. Oddly, though, the cost to buy that=
same circuit directly from Level3 is twice as high.
Which bodes ill for circuit pricing in the reduced-competition environment =
following the merger. A similar thing happened to us when L3 bought TWT. In=
both cases L3 says "but you're getting such a better network!" Alas, that =
turned out to be not the case with the TWT acquisition, as merger mishaps c=
aused numerous outages.=20
-mel
> On Oct 28, 2016, at 7:25 PM, Jared Geiger <jared@compuwizz.net> wrote:
>=20
> Savvis 3561 still exists on Centurylink's side too. 6 networks down to 1
> ... How much of that fiber for each network was running in the same condu=
it
> to begin with anyway?
>=20
> Centurylink
> Qwest
> Savvis
>=20
> Level3
> Global Crossing
> TWTC
>=20
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:24 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> On 10/28/16 12:18 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>>> Level3 hasn't even finished migrating its TWTelecom customers to the L3
>> AS yes, and it's been years. So I don't think you can expect any faster
>> transition for CL.
>> 3549 still exists...
>>> -mel beckman
>>>=20
>>>> On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Timothy Lister <incudie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> So if this went through, how would it happen? Does 3356 (L3) absorb
>> 209's
>>>> (CL) infrastructure and slowly make customers change their peering
>> config
>>>> to hit 3356 instead?
>>>>=20
>>>> You make a good point, I have at least a couple clients that peer to
>> both
>>>> providers for redundancy. One of which just recently signed an agreeme=
nt
>>>> with CenturyLink for the sole purpose of fail over.
>>>>=20
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications=
-
>>>> Interweb is doomed
>>>> From: Jima <nanog@jima.us>
>>>> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
>>>>>>> On 10/27/2016 12:36, Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG wrote:
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>> http://www.wsj.com/articles/centurylink-in-advanced-talks-
>> to-merge-with-level-3-communications-1477589011
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> This is great! Except for all of their mutual customers who had circui=
ts
>>>> from both for redundancy. (See also: Level 3's and TWTC's mutual
>>>> customers, and probably a long list of other M&A I'm not thinking of
>>>> off-hand.)
>>>>=20
>>>> OK, I lied about it being great anyway.
>>>>=20
>>>> Jima
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications=
-
>>>> Interweb is doomed
>>>> From: Jima <nanog@jima.us>
>>>> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
