Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #1869 > unrolled thread

Level 3 would make interconnections a net neutrality issue

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Level 3 would make interconnections a net neutrality issue RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-21 19:40 +0000
    Re: Level 3 would make interconnections a net neutrality issue Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-21 23:28 +0000

#1869 — Level 3 would make interconnections a net neutrality issue

From the «fuck it, going to level 4 then» department:
Title: Here is Level 3′s plan to make interconnection fees a network neutrality issue
Author: Stacey Higginbotham
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:00:49 -0400
Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OmMalik/~3/E3N1H4uANQs/
Podcast Download URL: http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/level3file.jpg

The gloves are coming off in the fight to prevent ISPs from charging content
providers and middle mile transit companies a fee to deliver web content to
the end consumer. Earlier this week Level 3 Communications, a transit
provider wrote a post that claimed interconnection fees[1] should be a
network neutrality issue and then on Thursday Netflix CEO Reed Hastings
posted a blog post[2] and submitted a filing to the FCC that said the same
thing[3].

On Friday Level 3 filed its formal comments to the agency, and both give
examples of what they see as ISPs trying to collect tolls in the middle of
the network.

This is the problem

One way ISPs justify their interconnection fees is to point out that they
will exchange traffic for free — so long as it is between “peers” or networks
of equal size. They use traffic ratios to determine this and publish those
rations online or in a publicly available database. However, Hastings said in
this blog post[2] that when Netflix suggested that it could become a peer to
ISPs by making the upstream and downstream traffic burden it was imposing
equal (and thus meeting the direct peering definition), “there is an
uncomfortable silence.”

Meanwhile, Level 3′s filing claims that the company sought to peer with an
ISP and was rebuffed even though it had offered to split the cost of
connecting the two networks by paying for more ports and servers. It then
showed two charts that illustrate how the single port it had with this
unnamed ISP became congested at the same time every week as the ISP’s end
users demanded more content.

[image 5][4]
Level 3 and Netflix argue that these are tolls placed by the ISP, which
restrict the content providers’ ability to get their traffic to the end user.
They argue that this is the same as discrimination on the last mile network,
even though it is happening further upstream where the middle mile meets the
last mile.

A solution for peering disputes?

So Level 3 has proposed that the FCC should require ISPs to interconnect on
“commercially reasonable terms, without the payment of an access charge.”
Level 3 wants the FCC to say that access charges, where an ISP charges those
it exchanges traffic with for the privilege of reaching its users, are not
commercially reasonable. It then suggests some basics on how the FCC should
think about “commercially reasonable terms.”

Basically, Level 3 wants an ISP to add more capacity at congested areas at no
charge or offer another point of interconnection in the geographic area where
it will provide interconnection without charge. It’s unclear if Level 3′s
definition of no charge, means that Level 3 won’t help offset the cost of the
gear to provide more capacity.

As a way of mitigating the burden such rules would lay on ISPs, Level 3
suggests that ISPs would only have to interconnect with large networks. It
also notes that the FCC could implement this rule without imposing common
carrier rules on ISPs, which the agency is clearly unwilling to do.

Level 3 says in its filing:

This proposed rule would directly target the threat large, last-mile
bottleneck ISPs pose to the free and open Internet when they attempt to
leverage their control over access to their users to generate inefficient
rents and harm their competitors. Yet the proposed policy would not prevent
ISPs from offering services, such as transit services or CDN services, to
those that wish to interconnect with them (whether edge providers or
others), provided that they also offer interconnection on commercially
reasonable terms as described above. The rule would simply prohibit ISPs
from levying tolls for access to customers

Why now and will it work?

Today is the last day to file comments with the FCC on its decision to
address network neutrality in the wake of a court decision that struck down
most of the commission’s 2010 Open Internet Order that made network
neutrality an actual rule in the first place. The courts agreed in principle
that the FCC could ensure that ISPs didn’t discriminate on traffic going
across their networks, but disagreed with how the FCC wrote the rules.

The agency is now trying to address this legal flub, and in doing so,
seemingly opened the door to ensure that interconnection agreements between
ISPs and internet content and transit providers are protected. But for
consumers who are sick of a crappy online video experience[6], the question
isn’t why this is happening now, but whether or not this is a strategy that
will work.

And that’s uncertain. The problem of ISPs choking traffic to extract access
charges is a real one, I’ve no doubt, but the FCC may not see it as a network
neutrality issue. It is an issue, and I think the current FCC Chairman Tom
Wheeler understands the issue based on my interview with him in January, when
he called it a “cousin” of network neutrality.

Harold Feld, an SVP at Public Knowledge, says it is an interconnection issue,
one that should be addressed only when we have that data to understand what’s
going on. I tend to agree that data will be essential here and hope the FCC
asks for it.”If Wheeler wants to get [the data], he knows where to look,”
said Feld, who pointed out that LEvel 3 and Cogent would be happy to give it
up if pressed and that Comcast and Time Warner Cable could be compelled to do
so as part of their merger process.

So the next question here isn’t about pushing network neutrality necessarily,
but about getting the data to understand the problem.
[image 7]

[image 9][8]

Related research and analysis from Gigaom Research:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial[10].

* How consumer media consumption shifted in the second quarter[11]
* What the shift to the cloud means for the future EPG[12]
* What the shift to the cloud means for the future EPG[13]

[image 15][14][image 16]

Links:
[1]: http://gigaom.com/2014/03/18/level-3-gets-the-problems-of-peering-fights-so-right-and-then-so-wrong/ (link)
[2]: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html (link)
[3]: http://gigaom.com/2014/03/20/hey-fcc-netflix-things-peering-should-be-a-net-neutrality-issue-too/ (link)
[4]: http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/level3file.jpg (link)
[5]: http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/level3file.jpg?w=708 (image)
[6]: http://gigaom.com/2014/02/06/theres-something-rotten-in-the-state-of-online-video-streaming-and-the-data-is-starting-to-emerge/ (link)
[7]: http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=gigaom.com&blog=14960843&post=827018&subd=gigaom2&ref=&feed=1 (image)
[8]: http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?iu=/1008864/Gigaom_RSS_300x250&sz=300x250&c=41832 (link)
[9]: http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ad?iu=/1008864/Gigaom_RSS_300x250&sz=300x250&c=41832 (image)
[10]: http://research.gigaom.com/?utm_source=techutm_medium=editorial&utm_campaign=auto3&utm_term=827018+here-is-level-3s-plan-to-make-interconnection-fees-a-network-neutrality-issue&utm_content=shigginbotham (link)
[11]: http://research.gigaom.com/report/connected-consumer-second-quarter-2013-analysis-and-outlook/?utm_source=techutm_medium=editorial&utm_campaign=auto3&utm_term=827018+here-is-level-3s-plan-to-make-interconnection-fees-a-network-neutrality-issue&utm_content=shigginbotham (link)
[12]: http://pro.gigaom.com/2012/10/what-the-shift-to-the-cloud-means-for-the-future-epg/?utm_source=techutm_medium=editorial&utm_campaign=auto3&utm_term=827018+here-is-level-3s-plan-to-make-interconnection-fees-a-network-neutrality-issue&utm_content=shigginbotham (link)
[13]: http://research.gigaom.com/report/what-the-shift-to-the-cloud-means-for-the-future-epg/?utm_source=techutm_medium=editorial&utm_campaign=auto3&utm_term=827018+here-is-level-3s-plan-to-make-interconnection-fees-a-network-neutrality-issue&utm_content=shigginbotham (link)
[14]: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OmMalik?a=E3N1H4uANQs:opeSzWZG9AQ:yIl2AUoC8zA (link)
[15]: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OmMalik?d=yIl2AUoC8zA (image)
[16]: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/OmMalik/~4/E3N1H4uANQs (image)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1874

In article <lgi4jt$p0h$1@solani.org>, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>
wrote:

> From the «fuck it, going to level 4 then» department:
> Title: Here is Level 3?s plan to make interconnection fees a network
> neutrality issue
> Author: Stacey Higginbotham
> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:00:49 -0400
> Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OmMalik/~3/E3N1H4uANQs/
> Podcast Download URL:
> http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/level3file.jpg
> 
> The gloves are coming off in the fight to prevent ISPs from charging content
> providers and middle mile transit companies a fee to deliver web content to
> the end consumer. Earlier this week Level 3 Communications, a transit
> provider wrote a post that claimed interconnection fees[1] should be a
> network neutrality issue and then on Thursday Netflix CEO Reed Hastings
> posted a blog post[2] and submitted a filing to the FCC that said the same
> thing[3].

Note that this paper relates to the US only. It also doesn't seem to
cover the case where a network operates in one country only (such as a
National Research and Education Network (NREN)). And even in the case
where much of the international connectivity between NRENs in a region
is supplied by a related organisation (such as GEANT provides for the
European NRENs), that is still not worldwide coverage, and GEANT or an
NREN would want to contract with the likes of Level3 (or Telia or
Global Crossing) to be their upstream and provide connectivity for them
to other regions. And they'd expect to pay.

-- 
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
 lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores 
 the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
 into it in the first place."                             - Douglas Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web