Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

cringely.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 392 posts

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#11

Post by kbar13 »

diminoten wrote: post #9
JoshTriplett wrote: post #3

Somebody has to pay the money to upgrade the equipment and bandwidth available at these exchange points. The very reasonable argument in this article is that the ISPs should pay that cost, which seems reasonable given that their customers are demanding it. It sounds like the ISPs are playing a game of chicken, trying to see if their peers like Level3 will throw money in to pay for the ISP to upgrade its equipment and…

The ISPs aren't dropping the packets, Level3 is. From the article linked to in the blog: "A port that is on average utilised at 90 percent will be saturated, dropping packets, for several hours a day. We have congested ports saturated to those levels with 12 of our 51 peers." "We"in the quote is Level3. They're dropping the packets. Why do the ISPs have to pay for Level3's dropping of packets? Shouldn't the ISPs repl…

AFAICT, the reason why packets are getting dropped is because the ISP's equipment doesn't have the capacity to handle the traffic.

i.e. internet is a series of pipes example. Level3 has a big fat pipe with 10Gbit/s of traffic going through to the peering point, where $ISP has a pipe that goes to their network rated at 1Gbit/s. Since the traffic can't fit into $ISP's pipe, the extra packets get dropped.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#12

Post by kasey_junk »

brokenparser wrote: post #2

This wouldn't happen if those ISPs didn't have local monopolies. Networks should be opened by selling traffic wholesale to other companies so that they can compete for subscribers on those networks. The network owners would have more than enough money for upgrades and if they don't, downlevel ISPs will sue them.

I'm not making a claim about the veracity of the counter argument to this, but it is easy to state. If network providers had to sell traffic wholesale to other companies, they would have less incentive to upgrade them as those networks then become pure commodities. Right now the local monopolies can use their networks to sell high margin services (cable) bundled with low margin services (internet traffic). If they had to compete with other companies, namely bargain ISP offerings, the cost of ownership of the network would be non-profitable.

I've heard some argue that this is precisely why DSL has lagged so far behind cable in upgrades.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#13

Post by signet »

diminoten wrote: post #9
JoshTriplett wrote: post #3

Somebody has to pay the money to upgrade the equipment and bandwidth available at these exchange points. The very reasonable argument in this article is that the ISPs should pay that cost, which seems reasonable given that their customers are demanding it. It sounds like the ISPs are playing a game of chicken, trying to see if their peers like Level3 will throw money in to pay for the ISP to upgrade its equipment and…

The ISPs aren't dropping the packets, Level3 is. From the article linked to in the blog: "A port that is on average utilised at 90 percent will be saturated, dropping packets, for several hours a day. We have congested ports saturated to those levels with 12 of our 51 peers." "We"in the quote is Level3. They're dropping the packets. Why do the ISPs have to pay for Level3's dropping of packets? Shouldn't the ISPs repl…

Level3 is dropping packets because $BIG_CABLE_ISP doesn't want to upgrade their cross-connects at the exchange points. Level3 sounds happy to increase this capacity, they are saying that the cable ISPs aren't negotiating with them to provide more bandwidth at these choke points. It's not Level3's job to pay for $BIG_CABLE_ISP's infrastructure, when it's their own customers who are requesting the traffic over these links.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#14

Post by dtech »

diminoten wrote: post #9
JoshTriplett wrote: post #3

Somebody has to pay the money to upgrade the equipment and bandwidth available at these exchange points. The very reasonable argument in this article is that the ISPs should pay that cost, which seems reasonable given that their customers are demanding it. It sounds like the ISPs are playing a game of chicken, trying to see if their peers like Level3 will throw money in to pay for the ISP to upgrade its equipment and…

The ISPs aren't dropping the packets, Level3 is. From the article linked to in the blog: "A port that is on average utilised at 90 percent will be saturated, dropping packets, for several hours a day. We have congested ports saturated to those levels with 12 of our 51 peers." "We"in the quote is Level3. They're dropping the packets. Why do the ISPs have to pay for Level3's dropping of packets? Shouldn't the ISPs repl…

I'm not very familiar with networks at this level, but it seems logical: Level3 wants to push more traffic through the ISP's pipe than the ISP's pipe can handle (because the ISP's customers want those packets).

The only solution for Level3 is dropping or queueing packets, and I'm assuming queueing is not feasible.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#15

Post by CalRobert »

bsimpson wrote: post #8
JoshTriplett wrote: post #3

Somebody has to pay the money to upgrade the equipment and bandwidth available at these exchange points. The very reasonable argument in this article is that the ISPs should pay that cost, which seems reasonable given that their customers are demanding it. It sounds like the ISPs are playing a game of chicken, trying to see if their peers like Level3 will throw money in to pay for the ISP to upgrade its equipment and…

Google's ability to print money in conjunction with its generally high PR ratings give it the cache to take on a project like fiber. I can't imagine it's cheap or easy to lay fiber if you don't have substantial financial backing as well as a political goal you're trying to achieve. That said, I've used both Sonic.net and MonkeyBrains here in San Francisco. Never had to rely on a major ISP in this town, and I like it…

I was unaware these problems were addressed with a large cache.

It's a good thing Google has sufficient cachet to persuade public officials to work with them, though!

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#16

Post by fooqux »

diminoten wrote: post #9
JoshTriplett wrote: post #3

Somebody has to pay the money to upgrade the equipment and bandwidth available at these exchange points. The very reasonable argument in this article is that the ISPs should pay that cost, which seems reasonable given that their customers are demanding it. It sounds like the ISPs are playing a game of chicken, trying to see if their peers like Level3 will throw money in to pay for the ISP to upgrade its equipment and…

The ISPs aren't dropping the packets, Level3 is. From the article linked to in the blog: "A port that is on average utilised at 90 percent will be saturated, dropping packets, for several hours a day. We have congested ports saturated to those levels with 12 of our 51 peers." "We"in the quote is Level3. They're dropping the packets. Why do the ISPs have to pay for Level3's dropping of packets? Shouldn't the ISPs repl…

>Also, dropped packets isn't the end of the world. In TCP at least, the packets just get resent.

Depends on what the application is, and how many are being dropped.

True, standard HTTP can in theory even still work with 99% drop rate (if you're willing to wait long enough) but Netflix, multiplayer games, and any other application you can think of that demands either high-bandwidth or low-latency aren't going to work. As far as those applications are concerned, it is the end of the world.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#17

Post by spindritf »

Except it’s actually right (not wrong) because those bits are only coming because customers of the ISPs — you and me, the folks who have already paid for every one of those bits — are the ones who want them.

What is the source of the notion that, because you paid for your consumer broadband, all bits are paid for and the charge for carrying them cannot be split with the other side of the connection? Why is it so bizarre that both sides of the connection have to pay for it? Because you're used to your phone working differently?

As an analogy, you know how you used to pay for a subscription to a magazine and there were ads inside which advertisers (the other side of the connection via the magazine in this case) also paid for? The magazine split its fee in two: you paid part of it, and the advertisers paid the other part. It's the same here.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with charging both sides. You may prefer a different fee structure but a better argument than "I already paid for it!" is necessary.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#18

Post by MAGZine »

jfoutz wrote: post #10
diminoten wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ISPs aren't dropping the packets, Level3 is. From the article linked to in the blog: "A port that is on average utilised at 90 percent will be saturated, dropping packets, for several hours a day. We have congested ports saturated to those levels with 12 of our 51 peers." "We"in the quote is Level3. They're dropping the packets. Why do the ISPs have to pay for Level3's dropping of packets? Shouldn't the ISPs repl…

Dropping packets makes load problems worse, because failing users start to send even more traffic.

The opposite, dropped packets are bad because it slows the Internet down. When you need to retransmit a packet because one is dropped, the network assumes congestion and radically throttles speed to prevent the network blowing up.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#19

Post by wging »

spindritf wrote: post #17

Except it’s actually right (not wrong) because those bits are only coming because customers of the ISPs — you and me, the folks who have already paid for every one of those bits — are the ones who want them. What is the source of the notion that, because you paid for your consumer broadband, all bits are paid for and the charge for carrying them cannot be split with the other side of the connection? Why is it so biza…

In this case, the difference is that broadband subscribers are not being sold a magazine which they know will contain ads--they are being sold a full connection to the internet! That's the precedent, that's what we think we're getting for our money.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#20

Post by stevejones »

spindritf wrote: post #17

Except it’s actually right (not wrong) because those bits are only coming because customers of the ISPs — you and me, the folks who have already paid for every one of those bits — are the ones who want them. What is the source of the notion that, because you paid for your consumer broadband, all bits are paid for and the charge for carrying them cannot be split with the other side of the connection? Why is it so biza…

The other side of the connection has paid. ISPs are now wanting the backbone, i.e. the provider that makes the internet go long distances, to pay them.
Post reply on HN