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

Observations of an Internet Middleman

blog.level3.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 180 posts

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#131

Post by wil421 »

andruby wrote: post #85
cs702 wrote: post #81

In short: if you're in the US, you're paying your ISP for a certain amount of bandwidth, but your ISP is not giving it to you, because its connections to middlemen like Level 3 are maxed out. Level 3 proposes to split the cost of expanding those connections (as is common), but your ISP refuses unless it gets additional payment from Level 3, Netflix, or someone else. Meanwhile, you don't get the bandwidth you've purch…

For once, I am glad to be living in a densely populated European country. We can easily switch ISP's if one decides to pull these kinds of dirty tricks.

We have choices in most large markets in the US but the one common factor is horrible customer service. You're likely to pay a lot for high performance.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#132

Post by eggnet »

orik wrote: post #100
cs702 wrote: post #81

In short: if you're in the US, you're paying your ISP for a certain amount of bandwidth, but your ISP is not giving it to you, because its connections to middlemen like Level 3 are maxed out. Level 3 proposes to split the cost of expanding those connections (as is common), but your ISP refuses unless it gets additional payment from Level 3, Netflix, or someone else. Meanwhile, you don't get the bandwidth you've purch…

Disclosure: I work at a small ISP. We mostly compete with Frontier DSL and Comcast Business Class. If you're buying residential it's safe to assume you're purchasing a burst-able speed and downloads/uploads aren't going to sustain that for hours on end. Much in the same way that a Utility Company probably isn't gathering enough water for everyone to be maxing their pipes 24/7, residential ISP's don't operate under th…

The congestion in the news is at the interconnection between networks, not the last mile. This is why Netflix's deal with Comcast resulted in immediate relief without a massive rollout to upgrade last mile infrastructure.

Cable providers have a large amount of capacity provisioned to their customers and are paid a fortune by their subscribers and municipalities, using the same network for data and cable services. They just want you to use their services as opposed to a competitor. Not only that they have turned the tables forcing content providers to pay them to deliver bits.

With respect the economics of a small ISP reselling transit aren't comparable to this situation.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#133

Post by zero_intp »

rhizome wrote: post #130
zero_intp wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy to think that Rancid, MRTG, & RRD are all fundamentally underpinning of all of these major carriers.

What's crazy about it?

quote from the author, "rancid is named rancid because it stinks." it covers 80% of what you want it to do, but is indispensable because it is so lightweight and functional.

more developed tools exist but networks are not interested (by in large) in integrating/developing new ones because they fool themselves into thinking these are good enough.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#134

Post by peterwwillis »

pdonis wrote: post #125
peterwwillis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like Level3 is ready and willing to go. To go where? Not to their checkbook. First they mention in the article how "usually" networks agree to upgrade parts of their network to handle additional interconnects, and don't pay service fees to each other. Then they mention saturated ports, not giving any indication as to whether they have even attempted to expand capacity on their side. We are also left to bel…

> not giving any indication as to whether they have even attempted to expand capacity on their side. I guess you missed this part then: "Six of those 12 have a single congested port, and we are both (Level 3 and our peer) in the process of making upgrades – this is business as usual and happens occasionally as traffic swings around the Internet as customers change providers."

Didn't miss it. And it would seem that has nothing to do with Comcast. Just read the paragraph again. They have 6 peers who are using a single 10 Gigabit Ethernet port and somehow (who'da thunk?) it is congested. So they are upgrading their one port that is degrading traffic for six peers.

They're right, it is business as usual, and you do have to change ports as traffic flows change. This has nothing to do with Level3 and Comcast's (apparent?) failure to reach consensus on a peering agreement, or if either of them has invested anything in it.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#135

Post by shkkmo »

rayiner wrote: post #28
jeffasinger wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core issue isn't at the last mile, but in connecting a last mile network to the internet? Maybe we make Cable companies share their last mile networks like we did with DSL?

> Maybe we make Cable companies share their last mile networks like we did with DSL? Which killed investment in DSL. Who wants to spend billions on infrastructure they are forced to lease out at wholesale rates to competitors?

Lots of local community governments would love to do this. Unfortunately Comcast is working very hard to make sure that this is not allowed.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#136

Post by geocar »

estel wrote: post #124
DrJokepu wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, except that the local telco (e.g. BT in the UK) almost certainly has monopoly over the last mile of your connection, regardless of who your ISP is (they rent the last mile from e.g. BT Openreach or maybe TalkTalk) and it's not uncommon for them to refuse to fix congestions at their exchanges (or even admit their presence) for extended periods. So, you know, it's not like it's all utopistic here or something.

Don't Virgin use their own last mile for fibre?

Virgin offer a "cable" service which is available where they have cable television (not a wide distribution area), and that this is what they refer to as their fibre service.

Virgin also resell the same ADSL that everyone else does (complete with BT line rental).

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#137

Post by seszett »

zero_intp wrote: post #96
seszett wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have guessed it was French ISP Proxad/Free, which is notorious for having generally shitty peering to a large part of Internet (like Youtube, Imgur or Github, among others). But though they are a large ISP they are not dominant, and their peering with Level3 is actually quite good... which is why I tunnel most of my connection to my server (the route to which happens to be through Level3) so I can get usable…

Free just doesn't buy enough transit; they are not a tier 1 provider.

The ISPs in question explicitly aren't tier 1 providers.

Free is tier 2, and they are very much behaving like the ISPs the article is talking about, just not with Level 3.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#138

Post by __alexs »

estel wrote: post #124
DrJokepu wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, except that the local telco (e.g. BT in the UK) almost certainly has monopoly over the last mile of your connection, regardless of who your ISP is (they rent the last mile from e.g. BT Openreach or maybe TalkTalk) and it's not uncommon for them to refuse to fix congestions at their exchanges (or even admit their presence) for extended periods. So, you know, it's not like it's all utopistic here or something.

Don't Virgin use their own last mile for fibre?

If by their own you mean one of numerous other cable companies that they purchased then yes. There used to be a plethora of small cable companies in the UK. Now there is only Virgin.

The widespread availability of high quality ADSL does seem to do a good job of keeping them honest though. I've been a pretty satisfied customer of them for many years now.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#139

Post by PeterisP »

wdewind wrote: post #48
notdonspaulding wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a 20:1 disparity in traffic in vs traffic out. Are you talking about on this graph? http://blog.level3.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/route_info... Because all the numbers I see are showing about a 5:1 or 6:1 imbalance. > ...transit providers are starting to see their industry be squeezed by the big ISPs. No. > ...why do transit providers even exist? Because it's untenable (and inefficient) for Comcast to buil…

> To a normal company, that's a tangible benefit to the agreement enough to make it worthwhile. Can you qualify this a bit? What's the actual expect cost to Comcast here to fix the issue? General ballpark?

Upgrading that interconnect mentioned in the original article seems like just plugging in some $10k-$20k standard hardware and connecting a single extra wire. That kind cost doesn't matter really, it seems that they're hurting their interconnects intentionally for political reasons.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#140

Post by mseebach »

pdonis wrote: post #126
rayiner wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, show me the bribery and corruption that's creating these political hurdles. Otherwise, that's a strong accusation to be making without proof. If we're talking about good old fashioned lobbying, however, then the fact is that the internet companies have more than enough money to overwhelm the cable companies' lobbying efforts. Lobbyists are up for the highest bidder, after all. Yes, small companies can't affor…

> Google is more profitable than Comcast and TWV combined Reference, please? When I look up the financials, Google's quarterly gross profits are running about $9B, and Comcast's about $11B.

> gross profits

You said it right there. Look further down the financials. Comcast net income is $1.8B, Google is $3.4B. Time Warner Cable (I assume that's what's meant by TMV, although their ticker is TWC) is $0.4B.

Look for net income:

https://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:GOOG

https://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:CMCSA

https://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NYSE:TWC

Post reply on HN