 Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
kudos:2
1 edit | Did anyone not see this comming? Peering is the very basis of the Internet. Peering works because big ISPs (AT&T, Level3, UUnet, Sprint, etc) have to exchange traffic, and on average they end up trading equal amounts of bandwidth. AT&T takes on traffic from Sprint's network in about the same amount that Sprint takes on traffic from AT&Ts network. Thus everyone's happy.
Cogent has a long history of peering issues. Because Cogent is "cheap" bandwidth, they end up sending a lot more traffic onto other's networks and take less traffic off other's networks. It just the nature of their customers (1000mbit unmetered for just a few grand a month).
So it makes sense that Level3 wants Cogent to pay for the level of bandwidth "mis-match" so to say. But Cogent has all these peering agreements that really screw the other Tier-1 ISPs over. This was bound to happen sooner or later. |
|
| Level 3 is being Greedy! |
|
| reply to Jerm
Maybe cogent should start hosting high traffic webpages cheaply. That should turn around their deficit. |
|
| Ah, that's the problem now - Cogent needs less web site traffic, not more. |
|
| reply to Jerm
Actually, this is the second time - it happened about 18 months ago, but I do not recall the ISP that shut them down. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to packetscan
I think its the other way around... Cogent has been a thorn in the ass for other Tier 1 providers. Their network generates far more traffic than it takes in because they offer 100Mbps and GigE connections for so cheap and warez/porn/etc sites crank out traffic by the truckloads.
--
Tor server operator... Helping the free flow of information daily. |
|
| reply to Jerm
I guess that is why Cableone has been having problems here in MS. We get routed thourgh ATT and then Level3 servers and man the pings were terrible. I think ATT drop them like a lead weight cause when I ping servers I usally vist Level3 does not show in my report. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to Kip patterson
said by Kip patterson:Actually, this is the second time - it happened about 18 months ago, but I do not recall the ISP that shut them down. The last big one that made the news was when AOL had a peering dispute with Cogent.
--
Tor server operator... Helping the free flow of information daily. |
|
| reply to Kip patterson
Basically cogent customer's are downloading more from elsewhere then they are uploading. This I guess makes big network providers unhappy because they don't want a leech costing them money. So cogent can either cap download's or get some big sites on their network that will upload all day. |
|
| No, they are not. Cogent's customers are web sites that deliver content, mostly naked ladies. The peering partners do not care if Cogent pulls more data than they deliver - they are concerned when it goes the other way. |
|
| So basically the other Tier 1's want Cogent to pay for traffic that the other Tier 1's OWN customers are requesting.
Ridiculous. |
|
| reply to bmn
Apparently that peering dispute STILL exists.
Or else RR customers would be able to reach Cogent through ATDN. RR uses ATDN and Level3 for connectivity.
I guess it is time for them to get a 3rd provider. |
|
| reply to insomniac84
said by "insomniac84" :
Maybe cogent should start hosting high traffic webpages cheaply. That should turn around their deficit.
Actually, that's a very astute observation. My observation is that there seems to be a fairly direct analog between money (trade) and bandwidth (trade). So in essence, there is a "trade deficit" (of bandwidth) going on here, and the other parties have decided to institute an embargo (of bandwidth, not of trade). In the history of nations, such things have precedent - but it's very interesting to see that analogy extended to major ISPs/carriers and bandwidth. I guess bandwidth is truely the currency of the "new information economy".
If that is true, then in a sense, the US (with poorer home broadband options than say, Korea or Japen) is a "poor" nation compared to other nations which offer higher bandwidth. You could say that the bandwidth-per-capita is higher in those other countries than in ours.
An interesting metric to be sure, but I think it's accurate. Bandwidth allows you to do things, and more bandwidth allows you to do things that you weren't previously capable of doing - just like money.
If you live below the poverty line (1Mbit/sec broadband being roughly that line), then there are certain online activities that you cannot even contemplate using. But if you have mega-bandwidth (think Internet2, the playground of the "bandwidth-rich elite"), then they are able to experience online activities that most of us can only dream of. (Live multi-screen video-wall projection rooms, for distance-learning application, for example. To think nothing of how that could revolutionize "listening" to music videos and MTV.)
It's also interesting to hear about the WiFi free internet (bandwidth) being talked about deployed in SanFran - essentially, it's "bandwidth welfare", of a sort, but information-connectedness is now starting to be an essential and crucial component of modern living. The Internet has replaced both phone and television for many people.
It's time to start understanding bandwidth for what it truely is - the currency in trade of the new information economy. Bandwidth is power. |
|
| reply to smcallah
If that's the case, then I had it backwards which makes no sense. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to smcallah
said by smcallah:So basically the other Tier 1's want Cogent to pay for traffic that the other Tier 1's OWN customers are requesting. Ridiculous. Actually, its not so ridiculous... Peering agreements operate on the concept that the two peers (peer A & peer B) will have roughly the same amount of traffic moving in both directions (A->B & B->A). The cost of having traffic coming from another peer is offset by the cost savings of having a direct path for your data to the other peer.
When one peer, A, transmits more data to the other peer, B, than peer A is receiving, peer A is essentially using peer B as a transit provider without paying for it. Peer B essentially is having to foot the cost of carrying peer A's traffic.
Cogent is essentially doing that with some of their peers... By transmitting massive amounts of information toward their peers, without a matching amount coming back at them, Cogent is using some if its peering connections like transit connections.
--
Tor server operator... Helping the free flow of information daily. |
|
| I know how peering agreements usually work.
But my point is, should Cogent be paying for someone else's customers to view data?
Level(3) wants the best of both worlds? They want the money from their customers that are visiting everyone's sites, including ones off of Cogent.
But they also want the companies providing access to this content to pay? |
|
| reply to insomniac84
Yes, that is the case.
Cogent is accused of having too much content that paying Level(3) customers want access to.
So in return, Level(3) wants to be paid for all that traffic they're already being paid for.
Sadly, that is how most peering agreements work. |
|
|
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to smcallah
said by smcallah:But my point is, should Cogent be paying for someone else's customers to view data? Level(3) wants the best of both worlds? They want the money from their customers that are visiting everyone's sites, including ones off of Cogent. But they also want the companies providing access to this content to pay? If they are dumping traffic like they have been, most certainly. They are basically using Level3's like a transit provider because the transfer ratios are severely lopsided. Cogent is getting all the benefits of peering with Level3, but Level3 is not benefitting.
--
Tor server operator... Helping the free flow of information daily. |
|
| reply to smcallah
But my point is, should Cogent be paying for someone else's customers to view data?
Level(3) wants the best of both worlds? They want the money from their customers that are visiting everyone's sites, including ones off of Cogent.
But they also want the companies providing access to this content to pay? Great point. As I see it, it's those providing access to end users that are getting the free ride. The Internet is mostly useless without content. Cogent is providing the content, while Level 3 is paid to let users view it. In essense, Level 3 is being subsidized by content providers that are on Cogent's network! |
|
medici
join:2001-02-22
Shohola, PA | reply to bmn
Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't see how the argument makes sense. If Level-3 is upset because more traffic is coming in from Cogent than going out, it must be because Cogent has more content to provide. So, if Level-3 cuts off its users from the content they desire, aren't they cutting-off their nose to spite their face?
I don't see the end-game here going to Level-3's favor. For Joe Six-Pack, if the road your on won't take you where you want to go, you get off onto another road. Ditto for businesses. Level-3 loses customer base, whether it be to Cogent or to a neutral 3rd-party.
Looking at their latest 10Q filings, it's hard to understand how Level-3, with $891M gross revenues (excluding their coal mining operations -- coal mining???) for their latest quarter can reasonably argue that Cogent, with only $39M revenues, can be overwhelming them with traffic, even if Cogent is much cheaper. |
|
