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".
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > 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. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> > To: "Matthew Huff" <mh...@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 > > This issue isn’t limited to Cogent. > > 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. > > 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. > > Unfortunately, especially in the US, we don’t have a healthy market. In > the best of circumstances, we have oligopolies and in the worst places, we > have effective (or even actual) monopolies. > > For example, in the area where I live, the claim you will hear is that > there is competition. With my usage patterns, that’s 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). > > I’m not in some rural backwater or even some second-tier metro. I’m within > 10 miles of the former MAE West and also within 10 miles of Equinix SV1 (11 > Great Oaks). There’s major fiber bundles within 2 miles of my house. I’m > near US101 and Capitol Expressway in San Jose. > > The reason that things are this way, IMHO, is because we have allowed > “facilities based carriers” to leverage the monopoly on physical > infrastructure into a monopoly for services over that infrastructure. > > 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. > > 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. > > That’s 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. > > Fortunately, one of the big gains in recent FCC rulings is that these laws > are likely to be rendered null and void. > > 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’t 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. > > In the mean time, we’ll 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. > > Owen > > > On Aug 15, 2015, at 06:40 , Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > ---- > > Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd > > Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 > > OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 > > aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@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 > > > > 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? > > > > Thanks > > > > Jordan Hamilton > > Senior Telecommunications Engineer > > > > Empire District Electric Co. > > 720 Schifferdecker > > PO Box 127 > > Joplin, MO 64802 > > > > Ph: 417-625-4223 > > Cell: 417-388-3351 > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > -- > > 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. > > >