Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs: | Just pay
If you owe money, pay it, you dont pay, you get cut off. It's that simple. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| What do you mean "Still squabbling"?
This is old news and the article reveals nothing new that was said after the agreement by Level3 to reopen the connection.
In fact it goes as far as saying that as of yesterday, Cogent and Level3 have NOT been in communication since peering was restored. That's hardly squabbling.
This is a non-article. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  Gov't can't force peering of private companies
US law can't force 2 private companies to connect their networks. That is a contractual agreement between the parties. If the FCC and/or the politicians see a problem here, then their only solution would be to create a government funded and built backbone network that all ISPs could connect to for a fee.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
RoadWarrior
join:2002-10-22
USA
| Level 3 trying to crush Cogent
This whole "squabble" is really about Level 3 trying to crush a competitor.
quote:
Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer told Light Reading Wednesday that the real reason Level 3 clipped the peering connection last week is because it believes Cogent is pricing its Internet service at “below cost,” making it hard for Level 3 to compete.
As the article states: "In mid-September I got a phone call from a very senior person at Level 3, and in that telephone call they said, 'We’re going to cut you off if you guys don’t either pay us or reconsider your pricing strategy and raise prices,' ” Schaeffer says.
Cogent sells Internet access for around $10 per megabyte, according to the company, while the Level 3 rate is somewhere between $25 and $60 per megabyte.
All this is is one company wanting to crush the other one with no care for the customers of either company. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by RoadWarrior  :This whole "squabble" is really about Level 3 trying to crush a competitor. All this is is one company wanting to crush the other one with no care for the customers of either company. That is Cogent's take on it. But Level 3 and very few others agree with Cogent's assertions.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Gov't can't force peering of private companies
but they CAN enforce long existing contract law! |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to sbrook
Re: What do you mean "Still squabbling"?
Squabbling in the press is still Squabbling.
quote:
Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer told Light Reading Wednesday that the real reason Level 3 clipped the peering connection last week is because it believes Cogent is pricing its Internet service at “below cost,” making it hard for Level 3 to compete.
"In mid-September I got a phone call from a very senior person at Level 3, and in that telephone call they said, 'We’re going to cut you off if you guys don’t either pay us or reconsider your pricing strategy and raise prices,' ” Schaeffer says.
quote:
Level 3’s O’Hara strongly denies Schaeffer’s claim. “I have heard this allegation before and we take it very seriously, and to my knowledge nobody from this organization has made that request of Cogent, and that’s as far as I’m going to go with that,” O’Hara told Light Reading Thursday.
O’Hara says after Cogent didn’t respond to several notifications that de-peering was imminent, his company assumed Cogent had made a comparable peering arrangement elsewhere.
|
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Dagda1175
Re: Gov't can't force peering of private companies
said by Dagda1175 :but they CAN enforce long existing contract law! Level 3 didn't break their contract with Cogent. They had to give 60 days notice and they gave much more than that.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
ATLJ
Go Braves
Premium
join:1999-12-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to Cheese
Re: Just pay
I think the issue is that Level 3 has a nice fat profit margin on their links and they don't want to lower it. Cogent is forcing them to lower it in some major markets so they can compete and L3 is pissed off about it so they figure we will try and force Cogent to raise prices by cutting the peering for a few days.
--
Tron: There are! I say there are so many amendments in the constitution of the United States of Americaaaa! I can only choose one! I can only choose ooooooone! I plead the fif! I plead the fif! FIVE! 1,2,3,4, fiiiif! Anything you say! FIIIF! |
|
The Way Out
join:2003-01-20 | reply to RoadWarrior
Re: Level 3 trying to crush Cogent
That's nice, it looks like you're buying into hype. Everything you're reading is Cogent spin. Read the previous 3 articles on DSLR about this subject and then take a guess at who's the bad guy. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by The Way Out :That's nice, it looks like you're buying into hype. Everything you're reading is Cogent spin. But that's what Cogent wanted now isn't it. As I said previously no one cares who's actually at fault, all they know is level3 did something, now their internet doesn't work as well, therefore level3 is at fault.
If anything someone needs to look into just what Cogent did to prepare and if their lack of preparation was actually the planned response.
--
Note to producers:First person view + movie = bad |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| reply to ATLJ
Re: Just pay
said by ATLJ :I think the issue is that Level 3 has a nice fat profit margin on their links and they don't want to lower it. Cogent is forcing them to lower it in some major markets so they can compete and L3 is pissed off about it so they figure we will try and force Cogent to raise prices by cutting the peering for a few days. How can Congent force them. From what I have read, there was an agreement, it wasn't being kept up from Congent's side, so Level3 cut them off per the contract. Seems like a straight forward case. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | reply to Karl Bode
Re: What do you mean "Still squabbling"?
I did say "nothing new" |
|
JacksGhost
Got Bottle?
join:2002-12-29
Buffalo, NY
| ..
"But there could be a lesson here: Enterprises might want to investigate whether their ISPs have contingency plans in place so that access to the Internet is never put in jeopardy."
WoW! the voice of reason. Always have a backup for your business. |
|
ATLJ
Go Braves
Premium
join:1999-12-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
2 edits | reply to TheGhost
Re: Just pay
said by TheGhost How can Congent force them. From what I have read, there was an agreement, it wasn't being kept up from Congent's side, so Level3 cut them off per the contract. Seems like a straight forward case. I guess force is the wrong word...they are pushing L3 to make a decision on pricing in the markets where they compete. If L3 keeps the same prices Cogent will take a lot of customers from L3 and basically push them to do something ie cut off peering to try and get Cogent to raise prices. If Cogent doesn't raise prices and they keep taking customers from L3 even if Cogent works out something to pay L3 for the peering I would still think Cogent gets the better deal...more customers and more revenue and hopefully for them more profit. Also, there has been no proof from either side what the "agreement" is/was and whether either party broke the agreement in anyway. |
|
dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH | reply to JacksGhost
Re: ..
All I know is if I were hosted with either Cogent or Level3 I'd be finding a new host at this point and screw both of them. |
|
annony name
@Dial1.Tam
| Backfired
I think cogent was dumping a large share of their traffic immediately onto level 3 and then had so much extra bandwidth they couldn't sell it. So they offered free bandwidth for a year to heavy level 3 bandwidth users. They tried to put them out of business and become a tier one provider buying level 3 at bankruptsy. It backfired and now they will have to go to sprint and pay for the bandwidth they were stealing and contractually giving away to level 3 customers. They demand level 3 give them service. Let them buy it somewhere else. |
|
GenBlood
join:2005-04-14
Nashua, NH
| The REAL reason ...
Cogent peering traffic is increasing and Level(3) network
traffic is up. Their is more Cogent traffic then Level(3)s
traffic. The bottom line is Level(3) isn't getting payed for
all this extra traffic. Level(3) thinks they should get payed
for all this extra bandwidth.
I agree, no free rides .... Cogent should pay ... Level(3)
should cut them off... |
|
st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA | so basically people in this thread are saying that its reasonable in this day and age to pay more than $3,000US a month for 100megabits and more than $10,000US a month for 1 gigabit. |
|
the_real_deal
@static85984417.ttnet
| It has nothing to do with Level 3's massive amount of subscribers downloading Cogents traffic, or Cogent providing cheap hosting for good prices to a large amount of websites...
It has to do with Level3 loosing almost 300 million and wanting to charge money for traffic on both ends.
It's easy what a little reading will do... |
|
